![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
it
I was just reading this sutra today and it reminded me of our discussion here. Buddha explains clearly that what he taught is a path to cessation of suffering and gives a short summary of the four noble truths, in the Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves, SN 56.31.
(pali text collapsed)
Extended content
|
---|
Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā kosambiyaṃ viharati siṃsapāvake. Atha kho bhagavā parittāni siṃsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahetvā bhikkhū āmantesi: “taṃ kiṃ maññatha bhikkhave, katamaṃ nu kho bahutaraṃ yāni vā mayā parittāni siṃsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni yānidaṃ upari siṃsapāye”ti? Appamattakāni bhante, bhagavatā parittāni siṃsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni, atha kho etāneva bahutarāni yadidaṃ upari siṃsapāyeti Evameva kho bhikkhave, etadeva bahutaraṃ yaṃ vo mayā abhiññā anakkhātaṃ. Appamattakaṃ akkhātaṃ. Kasmā cetaṃ bhikkhave, mayā anakkhātaṃ? Na hetaṃ bhikkhave, atthasaṃhitaṃ nādibrahmacariyakaṃ na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya nābhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṃvattati, tasmā taṃ mayā anakkhātaṃ. Kiñca bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṃ: ‘idaṃ dukkhan’ti bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṃ, ‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti mayā akkhātaṃ, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti mayā akkhataṃ, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti mayā akkhātaṃ. Kasmā cetaṃ bhikkhave mayā akkhātaṃ? Etaṃ hi bhikkhave, atthasaṃhitaṃ, etaṃ ādibrahmacariyakaṃ, etaṃ nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhāya upasamāya abhiññāya sambodhāya nibbānāya saṃvattati, tasmā taṃ mayā akkhātaṃ. Tasmātiha bhikkhave, ‘idaṃ dukkhan’ti yogo karaṇīyo, ‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti” yogo karaṇīyo, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti yogo karaṇīyo, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti yogo karaṇīyoti. |
"At one time the Sublime One was abiding at Kosambi in a siṃsapā forest. And there the Sublime One had taken up a few siṃsapā leaves in his hand and addressed the monks: “What do you think monks; which are greater in number, these few siṃsapā leaves in my hand or those that are in the siṃsapā forest above?” “The siṃsapā leaves in the hand of the Sublime One are of smaller amount than those that are in the siṃsapā forest above.”
“Even so monks, it is just this way with those things of perfected knowledge that I have not taught. And why monks, have I not taught these? Monks, indeed because these are not of significance to what is beneficial; neither do they lead to the principles of the renounced life, nor to disillusionment, nor to dispassion, nor to cessation, nor to peacefulness, nor to perfected knowledge, nor to awakening, nor to Nibbāna. It is for this reason that I have not taught these.”
“And what, monks, have I taught? This is dukkha, monks, this I have taught; this is the arising of dukkha, monks, this I have taught; this is the cessation of dukkha, monks, this I have taught; this is the way of progress leading to the extinction of dukkha, monks, this I have taught. And why monks, have I taught these? Monks, indeed because these are of significance to what is beneficial; they lead to the principles of the renounced life, to disillusionment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peacefulness, to perfected knowledge, to awakening, to Nibbāna. It is for this reason that I have taught these. Therefore, monks, the effort to be made is ‘this is dukkha’; the effort to be made is ‘this is the arising of dukkha’; the effort to be made is ‘this is the cessation of dukkha’; the effort to be made is ‘this is the way of progress leading to the cessation of dukkha’."
Where "dukkha" is a word variously translated as suffering, unsatisfactoriness, stress etc. That's the translation here, which I chose because it is parallel text Pali and English. Itallics and bold for the statement of the four noble truths added. Other translations available online here, here, and here - links to other online translations very welcome!
If one accepts what is said in this sutra, that Buddha did choose what he taught and how he taught it carefully, surely one should present the four truths in the same way he did, at least in the lede? Well I'm not going to attempt an RfC on this as I said, no point, when an RfC on a single word doesn't work. But future readers of this page might consider whether this is a question to re-open at some future date. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
These are cites for any future editor who might want to take up the discussion again, mostly from the discussion above. First of all to introduce this: one of the main objections in the discussion was that since on reaching nirvana you are no longer tied to the cycle of rebirth (everyone in the discussion agreed on this), that it makes no difference whether you present it as a path to cessation of suffering or a path to "end this cycle", as it means the same thing. I was arguing that it does matter how you present it.
Buddha set out to find the cause of suffering and a path to freedom from suffering, according to the story of his life in the sutras. And the 4NT invite us to do the same. And though he gives advice about how to do this, he also presents it as a journey of discovery where you have to see things for yourself. If he presented the truths as "you must stop rebirth" then that would present a creed asserting belief in rebirth that Buddhists would have to affirm first, to follow the path.
So, assuming Buddha chose his words with care, it needs to be presented as it is, as an open ended search for the causes of suffering, where the practitioner eventually sees the truth for themselves. I think also that's one of the things that makes the 4NT difficult for some people as they want to be presented with a creed, to understand what Buddhists must believe to follow the path. But the core truth is one that you have to see through open ended discovery, and any cut and dried solution would detract from that. I think this is the main issue with this article, because it turns an open ended path of discovery, which can be recognized by anyone, of any religion or none, a path to end suffering, into a creed. While doing it the other way around, mentioning that it was his last rebirth after statement of the four noble truths, presents it as Buddha himself did and preserves this approach of open discovery. This is the way it is done in all the WP:RS that I've checked including e.g. Harvey, which @ Joshua Jonathan: cites for his approach. Everyone agrees that it was Buddha's last rebirth, but folding that back into the four noble truths as the aim of the practitioner, is highly WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS in my view, since Buddha did not teach the path in this way and since he spoke so strongly against the need to accept any kind of a creed to follow his path.
These
WP:RS cites all present the four noble truths as a path to cessation of suffering.
[1]
Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] This is also how it was stated in this article up to 2014:
Old lede
"The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are regarded as the central doctrine of the Buddhist tradition, and are said to provide a conceptual framework for all of Buddhist thought. These four truths explain the nature of dukkha (Pali; commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "unsatisfactoriness"), its causes, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation.
"The four noble truths are:
For many more cites for this way of presenting the 4NT, from WP:RS in the old lede's footnote b.
In addition note that in some traditions Buddhas don't have to enter paranirvana on death. In Tibetan tranditions, Buddhas can have new rebirths, sequences of incarnations after enlightenment. [8]
On the centrality of the four noble truths, note that Carol Anderson herself asserts this in her entry in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism.. [9] Robert Walker ( talk) 07:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This might seem a small point to non-Buddhists used to the idea that religious folk follow creeds. It may even seem a subtle point of little interest. But it makes a big difference for Buddhist teachings. It goes against the very basis of how Buddha taught to make the four noble truths, central to his teachings, into a kind of a creed requiring belief in rebirth, and in a path to end rebirth, which you can't verify for yourself, only affirm on the authority of another person or being. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Note, the four noble truths are now correctly stated in the new first paragraph of the lede, but the second para still presents it as "a way to end this cycle," which is not how Buddha taught them. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
"The third Noble Truth is that there is emancipation, liberation, freedom from suffering, from the continuity of dukkha. This is called the Noble Truth of the Cessation of dukkha (Dukkhanirodha-ariyasacca), which is Nibbāna, more popularly known in its Sanskrit form of Nirvāṇa...
...
"Elsewhere the Buddha unequivocally uses the word Truth in place of Nibbāna: ‘I will teach you the Truth and the Path leading to the Truth.’[103] Here Truth definitely means Nirvāṇa.
...
"It is incorrect to think that Nirvāṇa is the natural result of the extinction of craving. Nirvāṇa is not the result of anything. If it would be a result, then it would be an effect produced by a cause. It would be saṃkhata ‘produced’ and ‘conditioned’. Nirvāṇa is neither cause nor effect. It is beyond cause and effect. Truth is not a result nor an effect. It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state, such as dhyāna or samādhi. TRUTH IS. NIRVĀṆA IS. The only thing you can do is to see it, to realize it. There is a path leading to the realization of Nirvāṇa. But Nirvāṇa is not the result of this path. You may get to the mountain along a path, but the mountain is not the result, not an effect of the path. You may see a light, but the light not the result of your eyesight...
...
"An Arahant after his death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is over, or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are finished.[111] Here it should be clearly and distinctly understood, without any confusion, that what is compared to a flame or a fire gone out is not Nirvāṇa, but the ‘being’ composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvāṇa. This point has to be emphasized because many people, even some great scholars, have misunderstood and misinterpreted this smile as referring to Nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is never compared to a fire or a lamp gone out...
...
"In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained only after death. But Nirvāṇa can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it
"He who has realized the Truth, Nirvāṇa, is the happiest being in the world. He is free from all ‘complexes’ and obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others. His mental health is perfect. He does not repent the past, nor does he brood over the future. He lives fully in the present.[114] Therefore he appreciates and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections. He is joyful, exultant, enjoying the pure life, his faculties pleased, free from anxiety, serene and peaceful.[115] As he is free from selfish desire, hatred, ignorance, conceit, pride, and all such ‘defilements’, he is pure and gentle, full of universal love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, understanding and tolerance. His service to others is of the purest, for he has no thought of self. He gains nothing, accumulates nothing, not even anything spiritual, because he is free from the illusion of Self, and the ‘thirst’ for becoming..."
The main point here is, it is fine to say anything in commentary on the four noble truths, so long as it is from WP:RS. But it is only fair on the reader to start by stating the truths as they are presented by Buddha, as that's the subject of the article. To fold the commentary into the statement of the truths means the reader never has a clear idea what the commentary is a commentary on. Robert Walker ( talk) 01:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are cites that future editors may find useful in an RfC on the historical section. I'd strongly encourage such an RfC, though I don't think I'm the one to do it myself.
@ Joshua Jonathan: has presented several WP:RS cites for the view that the four noble truths are a later addition to Buddha's teachings. However, note that this is a subject of very extensive discussion. It's not hard to find a few WP:RS cites for any view on the topic. This does not make it an academic consensus. Indeed as for many academic debates, there's a wide range of views on WP:RS. It is equally easy to find cites that say the exact opposite of this.
Compare Historical Development section of this article, which presents only one view, with Origins section of the Pali Canon which presents a wide range of views including Views concerning attribution to the Buddha himself. I suggested some other cites to add to the article on its talk page (including Anderson): Other Views on the origins of the Pali Canon (talk page) though they have not been taken up in the article itself.
Here are a few cites from Peter Harvey [11], Richard Gombrich [12] Alex Wynne [13], Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali [14]. And Prayudh Payutto is a particularly strong supporter of this view on the authenticity of the canon. [15]. These WP:RS all agree that the canon is layered, and all agree that some parts of the Pali Canon post date the Buddha. But they attribute the earliest layers to pre-existing teachings which he referred to and incorporated in his own, and attribute most of the canon to Buddha himself.
Of course the view that most of the teachings are later needs to be presented, and I have not the slightest objection to that :). All I'm saying here is that the other views at the other end of the spectrum, also in WP:RS should also be presented. In my view it violates WP:NPOV to present only one end of this spectrum in the article. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
References
"There are certain scholars who do go down that road and say that we can't really know what the Buddha meant. That is quite fashionable in some circles. I am just the opposite of that. I am saying that there was a person called the Buddha, that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that - that we can learn more about what he meant, and that he was saying some very precise things. I regard deconstructionists as my enemies.".
First, I've no idea what you mean by calling these "primary sources". Think about how many monks and priests have written theological texts that are WP:RS for Christianity. In the same way, when you become ordained as a Buddhist monk, it doesn't disqualify you as a WP:RS or a secondary source. I can't think of any objection to these cites except that some of them are by Bikkhus.
The four noble truths are central to the Buddhist teachings and repeated over and over in the sutras. I haven't come across this idea that most of the teachings in the Pali Canon are by the Buddha, but that the four noble truths, the central point in his teaching, is not. Do you have a cite for that view? And if you read the articles by the cites given here, it is not at all based on faith. The most extensive one is the Sujato one: [1] cite which goes into great detail. He examines for instance, the level of technology as described in the sutras, which corresponds to the technology in India at the time of Buddha and doesn't mention later innovations. That they never mention writing (except in obviously later texts), but describe a pre-literate society. That they don't retroactively "predict" the great Buddhist King Asoka who united India not that long after Buddha's death - which the Mahayana sutras do, that they describe a geographically small region of a few kingdoms accurately in a way that was valid for Buddha's lifetime - but would no longer be valid just a short while after Buddha's death. That they do not mention places in Southern India that would be well known due to political developments soon after he died, and present many other very detailed arguments based on minute examination of the texts. Have you read it?
Your Gombrich cite actually says: "The most important of these changes is the development of the idea that Enlightenment can be attained without meditation, by a process of intellectual analysis (technically known as panna, insight) alone.". So, he says direct experience through meditation leading to enlightenment is the original idea here. And he says quite clearly that he thinks these discrepancies also date from within Buddha's own lifetime. He says "As I have written elsewhere, one likely reason for the discrepancies is that in the course of a preaching career lasting forty-five years, the Buddha formulated things in various ways and perhaps even changed his mind (Gombrich, 1990-9). But another reason I posit for discrepancies is that monks were arguing about these topics and that the texts sometimes preserve more than one side of an argument."
His views are pretty much diametrically opposite to Andersons, so how can you summarize that as "there is widespread agreement"? There is no consensus here at all, except that there are multiple layers in the Pali Canon which is generally agreed, but easily explained (as Gombrich himself does) by including earlier texts plus development of Buddha's teachings over several decades. See Page 96 of How Buddhism Began by Richard Gombrich. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I like to read all viewpoints on a subject from WP:RS and I think many wikipedia readers are in the same situation. We don't need a wikipedia editor to figure out a unified narrative to present to us. The rough edges and inconsistencies are part of what makes it interesting when you present a subject in a WP:NPOV way. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
References
@Joshua Jonathan:/@John Carter: I reread Carol Anderson, and Gombrich. I fail to see the "pretty much diametrically opposite", alleged by @Robert Walker, which I presume is an allegation with respect to 4NT. The authenticity of Suttas, and for that matter all ancient Indian texts, as well as when they were written, has been an active topic of scholarly discussion for a long time. But that does not make 4NT or Sutta or commentaries on Sutta or last 100 years of scholarship on 4NT to be WP:Fringe or WP:Minority. Is there anything in above sources, such as Anderson, that this article has not already summarized? I don't see it. On page 295, Anderson writes, Buddha knew he had reached Bodhi, that "he had escaped endless cycle of birth and death...". On page 296, she writes again, "he [Buddha] had attained the state in which there is no death or suffering...". She repeats, in her summary of the first truth of 4NT, "birth is suffering, old age is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering..." on page 296. This is what the cited sources state, this is what the current summary of this article states. As far as WP:Technical goes, note Dukkha and Nirvana are WP:Technical terms and essential parts of 4NT. It is these two terms that need proper context and explanation, that is repeated birth and death, along with other sources of Dukkha, as @JJ has already summarized from secondary and tertiary scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 00:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear from Anderson's book that she thinks the Four noble truths themselves were not part of the original Pali Canon. See for instance page 21. Where she is quoting another scholar but makes it clear she accepts his findings:
"Norman's analysis of the grammatical forms in the four noble truths indicate that the teaching was not among the earliest components of the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta"
She's not just talking about how they were understood, but about the actual texts. I don't know when exactly she thinks they were introduced to the canon, perhaps you know? Some time post Buddha's death but in pre-sectarian Buddhism period I think. While according to Gombrich, and others of similar persuasion, the preachings in the Pali Canon go back to Buddha individually.
"There are certain scholars who do go down that road and say that we can't really know what the Buddha meant. That is quite fashionable in some circles. I am just the opposite of that. I am saying that there was a person called the Buddha, that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that - that we can learn more about what he meant, and that he was saying some very precise things. I regard deconstructionists as my enemies.".
Gombrich also says much the same about other scholars as Sujato, when he says " that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that". I never said it is a majority view. I don't know what the majority view is. Perhaps agnosticism?? Somewhere in between Anderson, and some of the scholars she cites etc at one extreme and Sujatto and Payutto at the other.
Just saying that this view of authenticity is a respected view held by some of the top scholars in the field of Early Buddhist studies, such as Gombrich, Wynne, Payutto, etc. As for the details of the discussion - yes of course they mention their opponents case. So also does Anderson. That's part of the normal scholarly dialog. I won't argue the case myself as the aim is not to try to persuade you that they are right in their conclusions :). And this is not the place to engage in critical peer review of the WP:RS. Just that their views should be presented here as part of an ongoing wide ranging scholarly debate on the subject. And that the article shouldn't try to build a consensus view out of extracting comments from the various scholars wherever they say things that are compatible and ignoring all differences in opinion. The reader can make their own decisions and synthesis. As readers we want to be presented with the full range of views in a WP:NPOV way. That's what you expect from an encyclopedia. Robert Walker ( talk) 09:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
"Here and elsewhere, Anderson attributes to Norman the view that "the four truths were probably added after the earliest version of this sutta" (p. 68; cf. p. 20 and p. 149). I do not think this is what he says.
...
"As a result of this and other matters, Norman concludes that the simpler form of the truths, which occurs elsewhere, (ida# dukkha# . . . aya# samudayo, and so forth) must be earlier. He also concludes that the term ariya-sacca- probably did not occur in the earliest versions of the four truths. He does not, however, say that no references to the four truths occurred in the original version of the sutta."
References
Oh, this is a relevant quote from Cousins:
So, the four truths are not so 'usually presented' as you supposed, nor do they strictly refer to dukkha. Read that again; your basic objection crumbles here. Right, Ms Sarah Welch? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
First on Cousin's review, I didn't say he said it was a bad book :). As you rightly say, he said it was a good book. I just said he said that he criticised it and identified what he considered to be misunderstandings in it. And as such his review of it deserves to be cited as a WP:RS pointing out things that he considers to be errors in it.
On Gombrich, the particular passage you mention just now is not accessible to me. But from another cite you gave, from another book by Gombrich, "How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings" it actually says [1]:
"The most important of these changes is the development of the idea that Enlightenment can be attained without meditation, by a process of intellectual analysis (technically known as panna, insight) alone."
So by insight here he is referring to intellectual analysis. And he says direct experience through meditation leading to enlightenment is the original idea here.
And he says quite clearly that he thinks these discrepancies also date from within Buddha's own lifetime. He says [2]
"As I have written elsewhere, one likely reason for the discrepancies is that in the course of a preaching career lasting forty-five years, the Buddha formulated things in various ways and perhaps even changed his mind (Gombrich, 1990-9). But another reason I posit for discrepancies is that monks were arguing about these topics and that the texts sometimes preserve more than one side of an argument."
So you shouldn't use Gombrich to support the idea of a change of this nature after Buddha died. He didn't say that, at least not in this cite. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: Well if he says that, he contradicts himself because in the cite I just gave he says "As I have written elsewhere, one likely reason for the discrepancies is that in the course of a preaching career lasting forty-five years, the Buddha formulated things in various ways and perhaps even changed his mind (Gombrich, 1990-9)" so he says that they could reflect a change of teaching style over a period of 45 years of teaching (that's a quite common theme amongst those who hold to the theory of authenticity of the early Buddhist texts, and I find it plausible as teachers do change their teaching styles and 45 years is a long time. My own main Buddhist teacher made radical changes in his teaching style several times while I was studying with him, of the entire way he taught from newbies all the way through to people who he had been teaching for years, and this is not unusual in Tibetan traditions at least). (For a more famous example, Trungpa Rinpoche made very radical changes in his teaching style, several times in his quite short life, ending with an emphasis on the Shambala tradition for the last few years of his life).
Of course WP:RS by the same author often do contradict themselves. Indeed for similar reasons indeed, because their ideas change or they just present things differently, the first is an actual contradiction, the second is an apparent contradiction that may turn out to not be a contradiction if you look at it more deeply, e.g. due to a change in the meaning of the terms they are using and such like.
If that's the case, then I think - in a detailed article you might trace the changes in his thinking but otherwise, you'd probably go by whichever is the most recent. But it does need care. I find it very implausible that Gombrich would think that the four noble truths were added to the sutras after Buddhas death - it doesn't fit with the trend of his writings at all. So if you find a text that seems to say this, do look carefully! He might be talking about something else. In particular I don't understand at all why you think that development of the idea that it is possible to achieve enlightenment through analytical reasoning, and that it doesn't require direct realization of a truth would suggest the truths are a later addition. They seem to say clearly that the path is towards realizing a truth, which according to Gombrich is the original way the teachings were understood. So surely what he is saying here implies the truths are early, not late, in whatever the chronology, whether the main changes all happened in Buddha's lifetime or not? Robert Walker ( talk) 19:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
"The fit is natural, true and joyous. I am on the right path for me and I love this journey. I take responsibility for my own life. I find peace and joy in every day. Every day is a blessing and I can face death, when it comes, with no regrests. The world is no longer such a frightening and empty place. My perception of life has changed and therefore my reality has changed. Out of the madness and chaos of our time, there is room for amazing kindness and heroic gestures to occur. I am now open to create and accept those kindnesses"
"A major problem with these claims, here exemplified by those of Griffiths [1], is that they often do not distinguish between EBT and non-EBT material... Another problem with Griffith’s proposition is his reliance on a very limited number of texts from the EBTs. His main reference is to the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. However, in establishing any point about the EBTs one needs to consider the literature as a whole.21 It is our contention that the problems identified by Griffiths and others fall away once this is done"
@ Joshua Jonathan:Just had a thought, I wonder if the reason you are so skeptical about Buddhists who claim authenticity is by analogy with fundamentalist Christians who claim that the modern Bible, which is obviously a result of later composition long after Jesus died, is the work of God? Sometimes even the St James edition (no theologian would say this of course, except in the sense of inspired translators or editors).
If so, it is a very different situation, and these are not fundamentalist Buddhists in this sense at all. In India we have the Vedas which everyone agrees were transmitted pretty much word for word for thousands of years. See Vedic schools or recensions. The main reason for skepticism about Buddha's teachings is that it was not memorized and transmitted by a Brahmin priest caste, but by ordinary monks - but some of those would have been Brahmins with the training in memorization of Brahmins, so that's not such a knock down case as one might think. Also it depends on whether you accept the internal evidence of the sutras. Sujato etc give lots of internal reasons for believing them to be contemporary such as that they refer only to technology of Buddha's time, don't mention writing, or king Asoka, except obviously later additions to the canon, same kingdoms even as at Buddha's time, a geography that was no longer valid a short time after he died, and a lot of good internal evidence, which just could not have been invented by later additions as they didn't have the sophistication and understanding of history and archaeology that we have to do such a thing. If you accept that much, that at least it is possible that they are what they claim to be, then internally,they say that the monks started memorizing the sutras before Buddha died as a result of the leader of the Jains dying and his followers arguing about what he said. So that would mean, they memorized his later teachings, towards the end of his life, while he was saying them, and memorized earlier ones based on the memories of monks, and with the opportunity to ask Buddha for clarification - and birth stories of course would be less reliable still. But all that collated while he was still alive. Then rehearsed in the first great assembly.
Jesus disciples never did anything like this. No attempt was made to memorize or write down his teachings at all before he died, as far as we know.
Also, Payutto in his paper gives strong reasons for believing that memorizing is actually more accurate than written text, at least back when writing had to be copied by hand. It is easy for a scribe to make a mistake. You end up with many written texts with variations in them. But if one monk gets a word wrong while they are rehearsing in an assembly of 500, they will all hear instantly and can stop and figure out what is the right word to use there. He also points out that to this day, there are monks who can memorize the entire Pali canon, the Tipitaka, word for word. Even though they don't have to, and even though we no longer have this strong tradition of memorization, yet the task can be achieved today. Mingun Sayādaw was the first in modern times to achieve this, and others have since then.
With that much background now, it can become a possibility that the entire canon was indeed memorized. There are some sutras that are indeed definitely later, apparently. Refer to events after Buddha for instance. But most of them form an internally consistent whole. Those are the "Early Buddha Sutras" that according to the "Theory of Authenticity" record teachings of Buddha himself, or his disciples, given while he was alive, and memorized while he was alive. In this way, if this theory is right, it is well possible that we actually have a much more accurate version of the words of the Buddha, through memorization, than Christians have of the words of Jesus, even though they had writing at the time he was alive and indeed long before.Of course not word for word as in a recording or transcript. They are clearly organized in ways that make them easy to memorize. But organized in that way by monks who had heard Buddha himself give those teachings, and indeed for the later sutras, memorized immediately after the teachings themselves. If this is right, the Pali Canon surely contains actual words of Buddha, memorized and then checked with him to make sure they are correct. In particular the four noble truths, which are repeated so often in the canon, would record the words of the Buddha himself, if this theory is correct. With that background, then if you read the work of Sujato and Wynne and Payutto, maybe you will see careful scholarship, rather than fundamentalist religion? That's what it is. They have well worked out scientific reasons for their views. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in this article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in the lede? Robert Walker ( talk) 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please indicate Support if you support use of this word in the article, and lede, and Oppose if you oppose use of this word in the lede and article. Or just Comment for general observations. Robert Walker ( talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
If you want to comment on any of the other responses here, please do so in the #Discussion section provided, unless your comment is short, and especially, please do this if you wish to argue the opposite case with one of the respondents. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 19:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I just realized, I hadn't put in a separate Survey section and hadn't given it a format. Have just done so. Please vote as support, oppose, or comment. Because if everyone just says "comment" it might not be so easy to see what the final consensus is. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 18:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please use this for extensive discussion of the RfC if necessary, as RfCs can get very confusing if they end up with long comment threads on each response. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 19:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: - I wonder if I can ask a question which may help with this discussion? What is the difference in meaning between death and redeath? I can understand rebirth, it means you are born as a new sentient being. But the idea of redeath, I can't really get my mind around, it seems like becoming a new dead sentient being, but what could that mean?
If I understand it right, in Therevadhan Buddhism there's no bardo, so you are just taken instantly into your next life when you die, so the moment of death is also the moment of your next rebirth (or conception at least). And in the Tibetan Bardo, then you are in an intermediate state, yes, but it's not really another state of being, it's more like a situation where you have lost connection, are in between A and B, not sure where you are or what you are, bright lights, sound louder than thunder, everything is fluid, unless you get stuck there in which case it's rebirth into the "hungry ghosts realm"
Particularly, what does it mean in a Buddhist context? Are there any Buddhist sutras or other texts using the word that explain the distinction between death and redeath? And if so what is the distinction - what decides which term you use? Robert Walker ( talk) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made this next reply into a separate section so I can link to it from my Oppose vote (you haven't yet convinced me). Robert Walker ( talk) 09:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@ John Carter: Okay, others would know more than me but I think the main difference is that Buddhists don't accept the Vedas as sacred texts. They made a clean break with them. Not saying that they were wrong as such, more, that you can't accept their authority just because they are texts handed down and treated as sacred, but have to look into it yourself.
Buddha said many things that were unconventional at the time. For instance what he says in the Kalama Sutta about (I'll collapse most of this to avoid long comments:)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'"
At the time many would have accepted things just because they were said in the Vedic scriptures, for instance.
He also ignored the caste system, treating people with respect whatever their caste, accepting anyone as a monk or nun, and sometimes giving invites from low caste people precedence when invited by a King.
And he taught that sacrifices to Gods or other rituals of that type would not lead you to enlightenment or for that matter, to more fortunate future rebirths.
So I think you could say that Buddhism arose in opposition to the Vedic religion in some ways, while at the same time sharing much of the same background.
It's a bit like Plato and Aristotle, Aristotle has many philosophical ideas that are in opposition to Plato, yet he also has a lot in common too as seen from our modern perspective.
Also another big difference: Buddhism, like Jainism was founded by a single individual (or at least most scholars seem to think so), and so has the characteristics of the teachings of that individual, a bit like a single philosopher. While modern Hinduism I believe is not attributed to any single individual though of course there are many extraordinary teachers and practitioners, it's just that the roots of it go back thousands of years with no individual teacher that can be said to have started it. Robert Walker ( talk) 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
First, thanks for explaining your understanding of the term "redeath" above as:
@ Joshua Jonathan: "From my memory, it's indeed related to, or comes from, the (later) Vedic way of thinking: the idea that by "karma," that is, ritual actions, one can "gain" a life, a rebirth, in heaven. From this developed the idea that one can also die again in heaven: redeath""
Okay this is surely a Hindu or Vedic idea then?
Details:
I have never come across any idea in Buddhism like this, of a heaven that is different from this worldly realm. The "gods" in Buddhist cosmology all die and it is just a life that is far longer than life in a human body, and more pleasant and enjoyable.
I understand that there is something like this in Hindu teaching, a "God realm" of higher Gods that never die, and the idea of a supreme deity above all the other gods, and of oneness of atman with Brahman. But in Buddhist teaching, then the "god realm" is just another realm like the animal realm, or the hell realm, or hungry ghosts etc, one in which the beings have especially long and pleasant lives, but like us, they all die eventually.
So again, it's my understanding that this may be a Hindu idea, that " 'we got to get out of here!'" and that you can do it by accumulating good karma, and even then, perhaps for many Hindus it may be more subtle than that (is oneness with Brahman really "out of here").
With Buddhist teaching, accumulating good karma can lead to potential for temporary stability in Samsara and a pleasant life, sometimes even for kalpas - but all this is temporary and part of conditioned existence.
Rather, all the Buddhist teachings I've read and heard have been about finding a path to cessation of suffering, as a direct experience and realization of a truth, in this very life. Positive karma helps by giving the stability you need to make it easier to realize that truth, and gives you connections with the teachings to help you along the path but doesn't get you all the way.
There is much less emphasis than in Hinduism on particulars of rebirth, and on particulars of how karma works, which you are not expected to be able to understand in detail, is beyond the understanding of ordinary beings. The sutras warn that trying to answer questions about who you are, and what your next life will be leads you astray. And death is just seen as a transition to another life. Birth, old age, death, rebirth is a continual stream, always within Samsara. Robert Walker ( talk) 16:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed in the Sabbasava-Sutta, then the 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self include:
So how could the basic orientation be to "get out of here" in the future? Such an approach, according to Buddhist understanding, would reinforce your attachment to views relating to a self, and trap you in Samsara, even if perhaps it meant you ended up in one of the god realms for many kalpas.
That relates to the current statement of the third truth which I hope can be a subject of a future RfC. But keeping this discussion focused on redeath, from what you've said so far, the word seems to carry too many Hindu associations to be used to rewrite the four truths, if that is how it is understood.
Do you have any Buddhist texts that explain the word "redeath" in detail? Not just Vedic texts, or later commentaries on Buddhist texts by scholars based on comparative studies. In a Buddhist context?
Also, does anyone know, does any word in the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta have this as a translation?
If so, how is the word understood by Buddhists?
If it is a word used only in comparative studies, then surely this belongs later on in the article in sections that discuss other religions and historical origins of Buddhism.
On basis of discussion so far, it seems likely that most Buddhist readers will be like me, won't have heard of the word, and will need an explanation, and that the explanation will involve Hindu ideas that are unfamiliar to Buddhists.
Details:
I think, on the basis of the discussion so far, most Buddhist readers like me, @ Dharmalion76:, and @ AD64:, will have never heard the term before, and would need it explained to us, and it seems this explanation would involve Hindu ideas or ideas from the Vedas which are not sacred texts for Buddhists. And so I'm still not convinced that it is a good word to use, especially in the lede.
Will see how this discussion develops, and hope we get more perspectives on the debate :).
I hope this comment is not too long. I've worked on it for clarity and conciseness, and can't find any more repetition to remove. It is all directly to the point and to do with attempting to assist editors who want to improve this article. So I don't think you can call it a WP:WALLOFTEXT. It is certainly done to help improve rather than impede understanding and dialog as my motivation at least. I've just collapsed part of it to help readers who want to skim.
Robert Walker ( talk) 08:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Well the word was introduced to this article by you here: [4]. I haven't seen it anywhere else including the articles Dorje edited. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan:"But it's surely not only a Hindu idea; Buddhism and Hinduism did not develop separate from each other; they developed in the same area, in the same culture. Many Indian Buddhists were Brahmins. The Buddha was familiair with Brahmanical ways of thinking (and responded to it)."
This is not enough reasoning to make it a Buddhist idea, never mind make it a word to use for the four noble truths.
A few examples (collapsed to help readers who want to skim:
Analytical philosophy was developed at the same time, in the same culture as existentialism and Marxism, and Jungian and Freudian philosophy and many other philosophical and psychological systems. But many of these have specialized words you wouldn't use in any of the other philosophies except for comparative analysis. E.g. if you talk about archai, then that means you are discussing Jungian philosophy or something closely related, and would not use this term for analytical philosophy or Freudian philosophy though doubtless thinkers in these various traditions knew about each others ideas and discussed them and responded to them.
Further back, Plato and Aristotle's philosophies developed in the same culture. But you wouldn't use the Platonic notion of forms when expounding Aristotle's epistemology. That would lead you far astray. Many other examples.
We need to know if the word is used specifically by Buddhists, and if so, in what context and how. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Also collapsed the first part of next comment, I was answering @ Joshua Jonathan:'s puzzle about how Buddha could become enlightened just by seeing a truth, if he needed to practice the noble eightfold path to reach cessation.
The answer to your puzzle about the eightfold path, as I've been taught anyway, is the distinction between relative and absolute truth. The eightfold path is mainly to do with practices that you do to get some stability to practice the dharma. Buddha had done this through numerous previous lives as he affirmed when he did the earth touching mudra when confronted by the assaults of Mara. But the truth itself is something you have to see for yourself, and that's what happened when he became enlightened. Even the noble eightfold path can only point you in that direction, to create a situation where you can see it for yourself.
And it's not the only way, in Zen traditions they use koans, in Mahayana traditions then they use the five paramitas, there are many teachings on paths you can follow that help you and others, both in Samsara, and also towards seeing the truth, relating to the truth of your situation. It's good to read the sutras extensively. But it can often be quite a shortcut to hear teachings from a teacher in one or more of the traditions, to help with understanding of them.
The main message of the third noble truth is that there is a path to cessation of dukkha. As you say, details of that path then follow elsewhere. But some people are able to see the truths directly. Just knowing there is such a path is enough for them. Kondanna did, just on the basis of the minimal teaching Buddha gave.
"This is what the Blessed One said. Being pleased, the bhikkhus of the group of five delighted in the Blessed One's statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in the Venerable Kondanna the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma: "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."
In the sutras there are stories also of people who didn't even need to meet the Buddha, that just heard someone else give the briefest description of the central point, not even the four truths, not the eightfold path, just a single sentence, for instance that "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.", can be enough at times if they are ready, with "little dust on their eyes". Robert Walker ( talk) 13:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Just looked up the story of two people who according to the sutras realized cessation of dukkha just on hearing these words: "Whatever phenomena arise from cause: their cause & their cessation. Such is the teaching of the Tathagata, the Great Contemplative." - Moggallana the wanderer and Sariputta the wanderer, see Upatissa-pasine
So (as I understand it), that is like the four truths in a nutshell, but most people need a lot more than that, so then you get the four noble truths, same idea but in four truths - but most people need a lot more than that also so then you get the long expositions of each of the truths in turn. Anyway we can go into this in the RfC on the third truth when we get to it.
I think this is the reason why many treatments of the 4NT start with a short summary of the four truths, basically in the form that lead Kondanna to see the truth. I feel strongly that we should avoid folding later commentary back into the statement of the four noble truths in the lede, including words like "redeath" if these are anachronistic from a Buddhist point of view. More details below, collapsed to help readers who wish to skim. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that's why many treatments start off with a simple four line statement of the truths, as in the old lede for this article, a statement which according to the sutras can already lead to awakening just by itself for some people. So that's interesting to know. So I think it is important to present these simple statements, which lead Kondanna to realize cessation of dukkha on the spot. Then you go on to talk about it in depth. Not because you expect the reader of the article to become awakened on reading those four lines. But because it is only fair to them to present the truths in that format, as that is how Buddha presented them, so that they know what the article is about. While folding commentary and later comparative religion studies into the four noble truths complicates them and turns them into something that's no longer the simple statement the Buddha taught. Especially in an encyclopedia article. So I think we should avoid all anachronistic later developments especially in the lede so feel strongly we shouldn't use the word redeath unless it is essential and part of the way Buddhists themselves understand the four truths, and indeed, part of how Buddha himself taught them. And I don't think it is, on the basis of the discussion so far. (I know the Vedas are earlier, but as far as the sutras are concerned, use of the word redeath in commentary on the four noble truths is surely a much later development at least based on the evidence so far) Robert Walker ( talk) 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Commenting here to avoid long threads on RfC responses.
"As I wrote earlier, there is no need for 'redeath' in every sentence of the lead. But it should be mentioned in the lead, and it should have a full discussion in the main, because all WP:RS explain/comment on 4NT with those terms. These terms have a very long, sustained history. Ms Sarah Welch"
There is a vast literature on early Buddhist teachings, but these are some works I have read recently in this topic area and none of them mention the term and surely all would count as WP:RS:
These sources have numerous occurrences of the word "death" and never use the word "redeath".
Nor have I seen it in any translation of a Buddhist sutra that I've read, and so far @ Joshua Jonathan: hasn't given a sutra cite for it.
I agree that the word is used occasionally in modern commentaries, as Joshua Jonathan has given some WP:RS cites including by Peter Harvey in Introduction to Buddhism.
However, note that Peter Harvey has 161 occurrences of "death", and only one occurrence of "redeath" in a 552 page book.
Also his presentation of the four truths on page 52 does not use the word.
""The four True Realities for the Spiritually Ennobled form the structural framework for all higher teachings of early Buddhism. They are: (i) dukkha, ‘the painful’, encompassing the various forms of ‘pain’, gross or subtle, physical or mental, that we are all subject to, along with painful things that engender these; (ii) the origination (samudaya, i.e. cause) of dukkha, namely craving (tanhā, Skt trsnā); (iii) the cessation (nirodha) of dukkha by the cessation of craving (this cessation being equivalent to Nirvāna); and (iv) the path (magga, Skt mārga) that leads to this cessation. The first sermon says that the first of the four is ‘to be fully understood’; the second is ‘to be abandoned’; the third is ‘to be personally experienced’; the fourth is ‘to be developed/cultivated’. To ‘believe in’ the ariya-saccas may play a part, but not the most important one.""
His occurrence of the word is on page 72, in his discussion of the twelve nidanas
The aim of the RfC is to get the views of other wikipedia editors on the topic. They may unearth more information. The evidence so far seems to be that is a very uncommon word in commentary on the four noble truths, and one that has been in use recently only.
Robert Walker ( talk) 13:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this it then? SN 12.38. With alternative translations [5] and [6]
I don't see any problem linking to Access to Insight as Bhikkhu Bodhi is a renowned translator, President of the Buddhist Publication Society, and cited by other reputable scholars such as Gombrich. Joshua Jonathan has claimed he is not WP:RS but surely becoming a Buddhist monk does not disqualify you as a translator! See ScientificQuest's response to this claim [7]
As for talking about my own understanding of the word - I'm asking for clarification. What does the word mean in a Buddhist context? None of those translations listed above use the word "redeath" if I have now got the right sutra. And I can't figure out what it could mean in a Buddhist context. Can you not provide some explanation from Buddhist sources. And I think I can also use myself as an example of a reasonably typical Buddhist reader of the article, who is not a Buddhist scholar but has had teachings on Buddhism and read reasonably widely on the subject. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with "death again and again". That's obviously correct in a Buddhist context.
It's specifically the term "redeath" that this RfC is about.
It is a rare word, and most readers won't know what it means. It seems to violate WP:TECHNICAL to use it if it just means the same thing as "death". If it means something different, as Joshua suggested, using the Vedas to expound it, then I think this needs to be explained, and also justified.
You can't expect a reader to work out what it means from the etymology, as often technical terms mean something different from what they seem to mean when you break up the component parts - indeed Joshua explained, that according to his understanding, in the Vedas, it means something more than "death again and again".
If that is all it means to Buddhists, then to accord with WP:TECHNICAL it should be replaced by "death again and again" throughout the article, in my view.
Thanks!
Robert Walker ( talk) 14:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
On your other point, I was under the impression that accesstoinsight.org was under the oversight of Bikkhu Boddhi. I realize my mistake now. I'm not a Buddhist scholar. So you are saying that the translations of Thanissaro Bhikkhu are not WP:RS in your view? Because this translation is also in his published books.
I don't trust Joshua Jonathan's views on what counts as WP:RS as he has made some very absurd claims there such as that Bikkhu Boddhi and Walpola Rahula are not WP:RS in the past. But you seem more knowledgeable than him on this matter. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes rebirth is common. Sorry, I don't agree that redeath is common on the basis of the information so far. Neither I, nor Dharmalion76 nor AD64 had heard the word before.
In Peter Harvey's book, which is one of the few WP:RS sources that uses it, I count
I think we would need strong evidence in the opposite direction to establish it as a common word, and so worth using in place of "death again and again". Robert Walker ( talk) 15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
And just to say - this is all that this RfC is about. Whether to use this particular term. It may seem rather minor, but the idea was to start with a focused RfC that should be fairly easy to address.
If it works, then we can go on to do the other RfCs. Though I'd probably take a few weeks of rest from it before going on to the next one!
Perhaps the obvious next one would be the RfC on whether to mention Harvey's and Gombrich's and Wynne's etc views that the Pali Canon are largely the work of the Buddha himself. I've never understood why JJ wants to leave out their views which are clearly WP:RS. And I'd expect most wikipedians with any understanding of the topic to agree with me. I'd be astonished if the vote was that we shouldn't mention them here. So it would be an obvious next choice as perhaps a rather "uncontroversial" RfC. Except that JJ would surely argue vigorously that their views shouldn't be included as he says over and over that it is established by WP:RS sources that the four truths are not the work of the Buddha. I'd be interested to know what his reasons are for that in detail and to see if other editors agree with him. Robert Walker ( talk) 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I found a copy of Harvey's book in pdf format online. If you search for a word in a pdf, it shows how many occurrences there are of that word. Those are the numbers I gave here. As I've explained I don't have access to a library. Even if I did, this would still be the easiest way to count the number of words, which is very hard to do with a physical book. Robert Walker ( talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan:, I'm talking particularly about the section Historical Development. Compare with the section Pāli_Canon#Origins and Talk:Pāli_Canon#Other_views_on_the_origins_of_the_Pali_Canon (where I suggest they include Anderson's views on the origins of the Pali canon as well as a couple of views at the opposite end of the section - nobody has taken up that suggestion in over a year).
Your section does not mention the views of Gombrich, Wynne, Payutto, Harvey, Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali amongst others. It focuses on the views of Anderson primarily with a few mentions of other views of scholars that support parts of her thesis. It would be a focused RfC only on that section of the page. Perhaps we can leave discussing the details to later as that would be a different RfC? Robert Walker ( talk) 21:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch:Good point. There is
I can't find "death again"
It still seems rare compared to rebirth.
This is just basic textual analysis where you find out about the usage of a term in a way agnostic of actual interpretation, such as they use for the first stage of dictionary construction nowadays.
I would see "repeated death" as much preferable as it is using ordinary language rather than "redeath" which is a rare word in English.
Just as a word, I don't see any justification yet for using the word "redeath" especially without any explanation of why it is done this way.
It surely at the least risks confusion with the separate (perhaps connected historically) concept of redeath in the Vedas which Joshua Jonathan explained, for anyone who knows about that, and it doesn't seem to add anything for a reader who has never heard of this word.
I haven't read Harvey, just done this basic textual analysis and read the section on the four noble truths at the beginning of his book.
I found it a very technical book going into intricate details about many concepts, I'd count it as rather advanced reading in this topic area. It may be too hard for me to fully grasp.
The other WP:RS books I have read recently on four noble truths don't use the word redeath, as I said. Advanced doesn't equate to WP:RS - there are many very approachable books that are also WP:RS such as Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught" and others intermediate like the ones I listed above on the origins of the Pali Canon. There are also some very advanced books that are unreliable. And easy books that are unreliable.
So the two are independent of each other. I'm talking generally, in all topic areas it is like this, same in astronomy and in maths.
As a matter of voluntary restraint, I won't comment any more on this discussion until tomorrow, so if you make replies please understand that I won't reply instantly. I also have many other things to do in my own life and am spending far too much time on wikipedia right now. :). Robert Walker ( talk) 21:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: The conduct of @Robert Walker is of concern, because it is disruptive and WP:Forum-y. He has not read Harvey. If he did, he would focus on chapter 3, that starts at page 50, where Harvey discusses 4NT. On page 53, in chapter 3, Harvey uses re-death, explicitly. Contextually, it is there, even more, and is essential to the 4NT discussion. Redeath, as repeated death or re-death or etc, appears more than "2" counts. Redeath is there in Sutta translations by RS. He has not read the RS, despite last 10 days of requests, but we must stick to summarizing the RS. Perhaps, we should ignore @RW? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 11:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes he is talking about the four noble truths,yes. But within that discussion, for several pages, he's discussing the nidhanas, and within that, in discussion of one of the nidhanas he uses the word redeath. It's pretty specialized. While the words death and rebirth occur all through the article.
A better cite is on page 53 with the word re-death where he says "The dukkha of these is compounded by the rebirth perspective of Buddhism, for this involves repeated re-birth, re-ageing, re-sickness and re-death"
If it was presented like that, it would be acceptable, because it is absolutely clear what it means - that "re" is just short for "repeated". Or similarly "repeating birth, old age, sickness and death". That's all standard Buddhist teaching and not remotely controversial.
Though he only uses the word "re-death" once. But the main thing is clarity. I'd have no problem if it was used like that with a dash in between and if it was also used in a sentence that involved birth, sickness and old age as well. Because teachings on dukkha don't single death out as anything special as a form of suffering.
And to avoid confusion with the very different meaning of "redeath" in the Vedas.
@ Joshua Jonathan: wrote above:
"From my memory, it's indeed related to, or comes from, the (later) Vedic way of thinking: the idea that by "karma," that is, ritual actions, one can "gain" a life, a rebirth, in heaven. From this developed the idea that one can also die again in heaven: redeath. The merits (this is not the correct word here, is it?) of this 'ritual karma' do not last forever. Buddhism connected the next dot: rebirth again, on earth, as a human, or an animal or so. And then death againagain. Ad infinitum."
But Buddha made a clean break with the Vedas. He spoke often against the idea that ritual actions gain a life in heaven saying that they don't do anything to improve future rebirths. He also treated the various god realms as just part of Samsara like everything else so he didn't teach in terms of a separate Heaven.
So if redeath here specifically means "redeath in heaven" then that's not a Buddhist idea, surely?
While if it is about a native Buddhist concept it should be understood as it is understood in the Sutras. E.g. birth, old age, sickness and death, over and over again, with no mention of "heaven", and this should be made clear to any reader who may have come across the word in a Hindu context. Or just not use the word.
The difference with Harvey is that
So if we use Harvey's presentation as an example, we would not use this word in the lede.
Do you understand what I'm saying here? Robert Walker ( talk) 08:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: Just to say - above you said you were about to close the RfC, then changed your mind.
Please, however the discussion runs, can you leave closing the discussion until we have some consensus that it is time to do so? If you had done so, I'd have woken this morning to find the RfC closed with no opportunity to engage in the discussion about whether to close it.
I know you were going to close it in favour of not using the word "redeath" but irrespective of the conclusion of the discussion, can we give an opportunity for the full range of views of wikipedia editors on this matter be expressed? To close it too soon could bias it in either direction incorrectly. I'm also aiming for understanding of the situation, not just a "yes / no" answer, to guide editors working on this article, so the more perspectives on this the better.
I hope for more comments from Wikipedia editors for the project. Usually RfCs are closed automatically after 30 days, I understand, unless kept open for longer, or can be closed earlier if all participants are agreed that it is finished, or can be closed by an uninvolved editor.
They can also be closed by the editor who proposed the RfC withdrawing the question, but to do it that way, I think you'd need to ask me to close it, not close it yourself. At least, that's my understanding of how the process works.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
For #RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths
Just to say, that I've mentioned this RfC on the Buddhism project talk page. However many editors don't watch project talk pages, so I've also posted to the talk pages for Buddhism and the separate articles on some of the main branches of Buddhism. Also alerted a couple of editors closely involved with the article or the discussion. Also posted it to the talk page for Pali Canon on the basis that this is a topic that would benefit from eyes of experts in the Pali sutras since it concerns the presentation of the wheel turning sutra. For similar reasons posted to the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta talk page.
If anyone else has any ideas of relevant places to publicise it, please just go ahead and do so, as I think the more eyes we have on this the better. Thanks!
Recently, I glossed the term "redeath" as "punarmrityu" and wikilinked that term to a more detailed explanation in Samsara. I'm not a Buddhist scholar, I don't know if this is exactly correct, but I can't see how it would be wrong, it seemed like an improvement, and I decided to be WP:BOLD about it despite my relative ignorance. Robertinventor, an FB friend who pointed me to this article, and to certain disputes about it, including disputes about "redeath", has since asked me (on FB) to not edit the article, saying that if I make edits after conversing with him about it, that's "meat puppetry". But since I'm actually fine with the term "redeath" (it seems very common in Buddhist scholarship in English, even if it's not as frequent as "rebirth") while he seems uncomfortable with it, I don't see how that's me being his meat puppet. Unless, that is, meat puppets are somehow allowed to rebel against their masters (which, even if it ever happens, would be deeply convoluted wikidrama of no interest to me at all.) If anything, his request seems tantamount to a WP:OWNS vio on his part. Could someone here please straighten him out? I realize that I'm not supposed to reference off-Wikipedia discussions, but ... this is just too weird for me. What's going on here? Yakushima ( talk) 14:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I just added a quote from the Maha-Parinibbana sutra to the thread above, and noted that the Wiki-article said:
I checked the source; in it's introduction, is does not make such a statement; nor does the sutra itself make such a statement. With other words, a piece of WP:OR which was still left. I've corrected it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Elizabeth Harris (2006), Theravada Buddhism and the British Encounter: Religious, Missionary and Colonial Experience in Nineteenth Century Sri Lanka, Routledge, may be a good source on the perception of Theravada Buddhism in the west, and the "colonial project" which co-shaped modern Theravada and it's understanding and presentation of Buddhist teachings. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep, p.72-73. Gogerly 1861:
1. That sorrow is connected with existence in all its forms
2. That its continuance results from a continued desire of existence
Spencer Hardy 1866:
... there is sorrow connected with every mode of existence; that the cause of sorrow is desire
A subtle, but far-reaching difference: from the cause of the continuation of sorrow due to craving, to the cause of sorrow itself due to craving! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
David Chapman, how could I forget? Protestant Buddhism, A new World Religion and Problems with scripture:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
According to Gimello ((2004), as quoted in Taylor (2007), p.361), Rahula's book is an example of this Protestant Budhism, which "was created in an accommodating response to western expectations, and in nearly diametrical opposition to Buddhism as it had actually been practised in traditional Theravada." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Bikkhu Bodhi (2016), The Transformations of Mindfulness. In: Ronald E. Purser, David Forbes, Adam Burke, Handbook of Mindfulness: Culture, Context, and Social Engagement, Springer:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: Is this a blog of some of the edits you make to the article? You've never done this before in any of the articles on my watch list. If it is, I suggest we put all these entries under a new top level talk page header "Recent additions" or some such, as you aren't asking any question of other editors here, or suggesting a change, or doing any of the things that are normally done on talk pages, but just recording the edits you do. This is unusual, I have seen it sometimes in early draft articles, I think, as a way to alert readers to major changes and the reasons for them - but it is not in any of the suggestions for WP:TALK#USE. On the other hand it is surely permitted, at least not listed under WP:TALKNO
So not objecting to you blogging your edits here. You may well feel this helps other editors keep track of what you are doing to the article, and perhaps it does. But I don't think they need to be all separate top level entries. I think it might help the reader of the talk page to group these posts all together under a new heading "recent additions to the article" and to keep them all in that place.
I suggest this would make it easier for the reader to see which entries here are just a list of new additions to the article, and which are actually asking questions, requesting input or making suggestions etc and other things covered under WP:TALK#USE. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 12:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Since Robert's talking points seem to resolve around the issue of rebirth, believing that this is a modern invention, it may be wise to add a short section on western Buddhism and rebirth. Google, as always, is a good friend to find some printed sources on this topic:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@JJ: The section on Western Buddhism should keep the discussion on or about 4NT, avoid sidetracking into rebirth. The generic discussion might fit better in the Rebirth (Buddhism) article. I have added Keown, and clarified Flanagan. Please feel free to improve it further and make it more relevant to the 4NT subject of this article. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 19:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: From history perspective, I wonder if it may be worth mentioning somewhere in this article that it was Eugene Burnoff who first translated and published the Four Noble Truths in Europe in 1844? Burnoff was teaching Sanskrit in Collège de France then, and used a Tibetan manuscript. A methodist missionary in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) named Daniel Gogerly had translated it in 1837 from the local Theravada Suttas, but that version did not reach Europe for many years. The different underlying primary texts led to many versions of 4NT in European languages. Carol Anderson mentions five versions. For the early history of 4NT-related literature in the West, see pages 169-171 of Anderson's book. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 14:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
it
I was just reading this sutra today and it reminded me of our discussion here. Buddha explains clearly that what he taught is a path to cessation of suffering and gives a short summary of the four noble truths, in the Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves, SN 56.31.
(pali text collapsed)
Extended content
|
---|
Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā kosambiyaṃ viharati siṃsapāvake. Atha kho bhagavā parittāni siṃsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahetvā bhikkhū āmantesi: “taṃ kiṃ maññatha bhikkhave, katamaṃ nu kho bahutaraṃ yāni vā mayā parittāni siṃsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni yānidaṃ upari siṃsapāye”ti? Appamattakāni bhante, bhagavatā parittāni siṃsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni, atha kho etāneva bahutarāni yadidaṃ upari siṃsapāyeti Evameva kho bhikkhave, etadeva bahutaraṃ yaṃ vo mayā abhiññā anakkhātaṃ. Appamattakaṃ akkhātaṃ. Kasmā cetaṃ bhikkhave, mayā anakkhātaṃ? Na hetaṃ bhikkhave, atthasaṃhitaṃ nādibrahmacariyakaṃ na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya nābhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṃvattati, tasmā taṃ mayā anakkhātaṃ. Kiñca bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṃ: ‘idaṃ dukkhan’ti bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṃ, ‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti mayā akkhātaṃ, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti mayā akkhataṃ, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti mayā akkhātaṃ. Kasmā cetaṃ bhikkhave mayā akkhātaṃ? Etaṃ hi bhikkhave, atthasaṃhitaṃ, etaṃ ādibrahmacariyakaṃ, etaṃ nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhāya upasamāya abhiññāya sambodhāya nibbānāya saṃvattati, tasmā taṃ mayā akkhātaṃ. Tasmātiha bhikkhave, ‘idaṃ dukkhan’ti yogo karaṇīyo, ‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti” yogo karaṇīyo, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti yogo karaṇīyo, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti yogo karaṇīyoti. |
"At one time the Sublime One was abiding at Kosambi in a siṃsapā forest. And there the Sublime One had taken up a few siṃsapā leaves in his hand and addressed the monks: “What do you think monks; which are greater in number, these few siṃsapā leaves in my hand or those that are in the siṃsapā forest above?” “The siṃsapā leaves in the hand of the Sublime One are of smaller amount than those that are in the siṃsapā forest above.”
“Even so monks, it is just this way with those things of perfected knowledge that I have not taught. And why monks, have I not taught these? Monks, indeed because these are not of significance to what is beneficial; neither do they lead to the principles of the renounced life, nor to disillusionment, nor to dispassion, nor to cessation, nor to peacefulness, nor to perfected knowledge, nor to awakening, nor to Nibbāna. It is for this reason that I have not taught these.”
“And what, monks, have I taught? This is dukkha, monks, this I have taught; this is the arising of dukkha, monks, this I have taught; this is the cessation of dukkha, monks, this I have taught; this is the way of progress leading to the extinction of dukkha, monks, this I have taught. And why monks, have I taught these? Monks, indeed because these are of significance to what is beneficial; they lead to the principles of the renounced life, to disillusionment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peacefulness, to perfected knowledge, to awakening, to Nibbāna. It is for this reason that I have taught these. Therefore, monks, the effort to be made is ‘this is dukkha’; the effort to be made is ‘this is the arising of dukkha’; the effort to be made is ‘this is the cessation of dukkha’; the effort to be made is ‘this is the way of progress leading to the cessation of dukkha’."
Where "dukkha" is a word variously translated as suffering, unsatisfactoriness, stress etc. That's the translation here, which I chose because it is parallel text Pali and English. Itallics and bold for the statement of the four noble truths added. Other translations available online here, here, and here - links to other online translations very welcome!
If one accepts what is said in this sutra, that Buddha did choose what he taught and how he taught it carefully, surely one should present the four truths in the same way he did, at least in the lede? Well I'm not going to attempt an RfC on this as I said, no point, when an RfC on a single word doesn't work. But future readers of this page might consider whether this is a question to re-open at some future date. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
These are cites for any future editor who might want to take up the discussion again, mostly from the discussion above. First of all to introduce this: one of the main objections in the discussion was that since on reaching nirvana you are no longer tied to the cycle of rebirth (everyone in the discussion agreed on this), that it makes no difference whether you present it as a path to cessation of suffering or a path to "end this cycle", as it means the same thing. I was arguing that it does matter how you present it.
Buddha set out to find the cause of suffering and a path to freedom from suffering, according to the story of his life in the sutras. And the 4NT invite us to do the same. And though he gives advice about how to do this, he also presents it as a journey of discovery where you have to see things for yourself. If he presented the truths as "you must stop rebirth" then that would present a creed asserting belief in rebirth that Buddhists would have to affirm first, to follow the path.
So, assuming Buddha chose his words with care, it needs to be presented as it is, as an open ended search for the causes of suffering, where the practitioner eventually sees the truth for themselves. I think also that's one of the things that makes the 4NT difficult for some people as they want to be presented with a creed, to understand what Buddhists must believe to follow the path. But the core truth is one that you have to see through open ended discovery, and any cut and dried solution would detract from that. I think this is the main issue with this article, because it turns an open ended path of discovery, which can be recognized by anyone, of any religion or none, a path to end suffering, into a creed. While doing it the other way around, mentioning that it was his last rebirth after statement of the four noble truths, presents it as Buddha himself did and preserves this approach of open discovery. This is the way it is done in all the WP:RS that I've checked including e.g. Harvey, which @ Joshua Jonathan: cites for his approach. Everyone agrees that it was Buddha's last rebirth, but folding that back into the four noble truths as the aim of the practitioner, is highly WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS in my view, since Buddha did not teach the path in this way and since he spoke so strongly against the need to accept any kind of a creed to follow his path.
These
WP:RS cites all present the four noble truths as a path to cessation of suffering.
[1]
Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] This is also how it was stated in this article up to 2014:
Old lede
"The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are regarded as the central doctrine of the Buddhist tradition, and are said to provide a conceptual framework for all of Buddhist thought. These four truths explain the nature of dukkha (Pali; commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "unsatisfactoriness"), its causes, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation.
"The four noble truths are:
For many more cites for this way of presenting the 4NT, from WP:RS in the old lede's footnote b.
In addition note that in some traditions Buddhas don't have to enter paranirvana on death. In Tibetan tranditions, Buddhas can have new rebirths, sequences of incarnations after enlightenment. [8]
On the centrality of the four noble truths, note that Carol Anderson herself asserts this in her entry in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism.. [9] Robert Walker ( talk) 07:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This might seem a small point to non-Buddhists used to the idea that religious folk follow creeds. It may even seem a subtle point of little interest. But it makes a big difference for Buddhist teachings. It goes against the very basis of how Buddha taught to make the four noble truths, central to his teachings, into a kind of a creed requiring belief in rebirth, and in a path to end rebirth, which you can't verify for yourself, only affirm on the authority of another person or being. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Note, the four noble truths are now correctly stated in the new first paragraph of the lede, but the second para still presents it as "a way to end this cycle," which is not how Buddha taught them. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
"The third Noble Truth is that there is emancipation, liberation, freedom from suffering, from the continuity of dukkha. This is called the Noble Truth of the Cessation of dukkha (Dukkhanirodha-ariyasacca), which is Nibbāna, more popularly known in its Sanskrit form of Nirvāṇa...
...
"Elsewhere the Buddha unequivocally uses the word Truth in place of Nibbāna: ‘I will teach you the Truth and the Path leading to the Truth.’[103] Here Truth definitely means Nirvāṇa.
...
"It is incorrect to think that Nirvāṇa is the natural result of the extinction of craving. Nirvāṇa is not the result of anything. If it would be a result, then it would be an effect produced by a cause. It would be saṃkhata ‘produced’ and ‘conditioned’. Nirvāṇa is neither cause nor effect. It is beyond cause and effect. Truth is not a result nor an effect. It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state, such as dhyāna or samādhi. TRUTH IS. NIRVĀṆA IS. The only thing you can do is to see it, to realize it. There is a path leading to the realization of Nirvāṇa. But Nirvāṇa is not the result of this path. You may get to the mountain along a path, but the mountain is not the result, not an effect of the path. You may see a light, but the light not the result of your eyesight...
...
"An Arahant after his death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is over, or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are finished.[111] Here it should be clearly and distinctly understood, without any confusion, that what is compared to a flame or a fire gone out is not Nirvāṇa, but the ‘being’ composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvāṇa. This point has to be emphasized because many people, even some great scholars, have misunderstood and misinterpreted this smile as referring to Nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is never compared to a fire or a lamp gone out...
...
"In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained only after death. But Nirvāṇa can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it
"He who has realized the Truth, Nirvāṇa, is the happiest being in the world. He is free from all ‘complexes’ and obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others. His mental health is perfect. He does not repent the past, nor does he brood over the future. He lives fully in the present.[114] Therefore he appreciates and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections. He is joyful, exultant, enjoying the pure life, his faculties pleased, free from anxiety, serene and peaceful.[115] As he is free from selfish desire, hatred, ignorance, conceit, pride, and all such ‘defilements’, he is pure and gentle, full of universal love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, understanding and tolerance. His service to others is of the purest, for he has no thought of self. He gains nothing, accumulates nothing, not even anything spiritual, because he is free from the illusion of Self, and the ‘thirst’ for becoming..."
The main point here is, it is fine to say anything in commentary on the four noble truths, so long as it is from WP:RS. But it is only fair on the reader to start by stating the truths as they are presented by Buddha, as that's the subject of the article. To fold the commentary into the statement of the truths means the reader never has a clear idea what the commentary is a commentary on. Robert Walker ( talk) 01:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Here are cites that future editors may find useful in an RfC on the historical section. I'd strongly encourage such an RfC, though I don't think I'm the one to do it myself.
@ Joshua Jonathan: has presented several WP:RS cites for the view that the four noble truths are a later addition to Buddha's teachings. However, note that this is a subject of very extensive discussion. It's not hard to find a few WP:RS cites for any view on the topic. This does not make it an academic consensus. Indeed as for many academic debates, there's a wide range of views on WP:RS. It is equally easy to find cites that say the exact opposite of this.
Compare Historical Development section of this article, which presents only one view, with Origins section of the Pali Canon which presents a wide range of views including Views concerning attribution to the Buddha himself. I suggested some other cites to add to the article on its talk page (including Anderson): Other Views on the origins of the Pali Canon (talk page) though they have not been taken up in the article itself.
Here are a few cites from Peter Harvey [11], Richard Gombrich [12] Alex Wynne [13], Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali [14]. And Prayudh Payutto is a particularly strong supporter of this view on the authenticity of the canon. [15]. These WP:RS all agree that the canon is layered, and all agree that some parts of the Pali Canon post date the Buddha. But they attribute the earliest layers to pre-existing teachings which he referred to and incorporated in his own, and attribute most of the canon to Buddha himself.
Of course the view that most of the teachings are later needs to be presented, and I have not the slightest objection to that :). All I'm saying here is that the other views at the other end of the spectrum, also in WP:RS should also be presented. In my view it violates WP:NPOV to present only one end of this spectrum in the article. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
References
"There are certain scholars who do go down that road and say that we can't really know what the Buddha meant. That is quite fashionable in some circles. I am just the opposite of that. I am saying that there was a person called the Buddha, that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that - that we can learn more about what he meant, and that he was saying some very precise things. I regard deconstructionists as my enemies.".
First, I've no idea what you mean by calling these "primary sources". Think about how many monks and priests have written theological texts that are WP:RS for Christianity. In the same way, when you become ordained as a Buddhist monk, it doesn't disqualify you as a WP:RS or a secondary source. I can't think of any objection to these cites except that some of them are by Bikkhus.
The four noble truths are central to the Buddhist teachings and repeated over and over in the sutras. I haven't come across this idea that most of the teachings in the Pali Canon are by the Buddha, but that the four noble truths, the central point in his teaching, is not. Do you have a cite for that view? And if you read the articles by the cites given here, it is not at all based on faith. The most extensive one is the Sujato one: [1] cite which goes into great detail. He examines for instance, the level of technology as described in the sutras, which corresponds to the technology in India at the time of Buddha and doesn't mention later innovations. That they never mention writing (except in obviously later texts), but describe a pre-literate society. That they don't retroactively "predict" the great Buddhist King Asoka who united India not that long after Buddha's death - which the Mahayana sutras do, that they describe a geographically small region of a few kingdoms accurately in a way that was valid for Buddha's lifetime - but would no longer be valid just a short while after Buddha's death. That they do not mention places in Southern India that would be well known due to political developments soon after he died, and present many other very detailed arguments based on minute examination of the texts. Have you read it?
Your Gombrich cite actually says: "The most important of these changes is the development of the idea that Enlightenment can be attained without meditation, by a process of intellectual analysis (technically known as panna, insight) alone.". So, he says direct experience through meditation leading to enlightenment is the original idea here. And he says quite clearly that he thinks these discrepancies also date from within Buddha's own lifetime. He says "As I have written elsewhere, one likely reason for the discrepancies is that in the course of a preaching career lasting forty-five years, the Buddha formulated things in various ways and perhaps even changed his mind (Gombrich, 1990-9). But another reason I posit for discrepancies is that monks were arguing about these topics and that the texts sometimes preserve more than one side of an argument."
His views are pretty much diametrically opposite to Andersons, so how can you summarize that as "there is widespread agreement"? There is no consensus here at all, except that there are multiple layers in the Pali Canon which is generally agreed, but easily explained (as Gombrich himself does) by including earlier texts plus development of Buddha's teachings over several decades. See Page 96 of How Buddhism Began by Richard Gombrich. Robert Walker ( talk) 10:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I like to read all viewpoints on a subject from WP:RS and I think many wikipedia readers are in the same situation. We don't need a wikipedia editor to figure out a unified narrative to present to us. The rough edges and inconsistencies are part of what makes it interesting when you present a subject in a WP:NPOV way. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
References
@Joshua Jonathan:/@John Carter: I reread Carol Anderson, and Gombrich. I fail to see the "pretty much diametrically opposite", alleged by @Robert Walker, which I presume is an allegation with respect to 4NT. The authenticity of Suttas, and for that matter all ancient Indian texts, as well as when they were written, has been an active topic of scholarly discussion for a long time. But that does not make 4NT or Sutta or commentaries on Sutta or last 100 years of scholarship on 4NT to be WP:Fringe or WP:Minority. Is there anything in above sources, such as Anderson, that this article has not already summarized? I don't see it. On page 295, Anderson writes, Buddha knew he had reached Bodhi, that "he had escaped endless cycle of birth and death...". On page 296, she writes again, "he [Buddha] had attained the state in which there is no death or suffering...". She repeats, in her summary of the first truth of 4NT, "birth is suffering, old age is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering..." on page 296. This is what the cited sources state, this is what the current summary of this article states. As far as WP:Technical goes, note Dukkha and Nirvana are WP:Technical terms and essential parts of 4NT. It is these two terms that need proper context and explanation, that is repeated birth and death, along with other sources of Dukkha, as @JJ has already summarized from secondary and tertiary scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 00:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear from Anderson's book that she thinks the Four noble truths themselves were not part of the original Pali Canon. See for instance page 21. Where she is quoting another scholar but makes it clear she accepts his findings:
"Norman's analysis of the grammatical forms in the four noble truths indicate that the teaching was not among the earliest components of the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta"
She's not just talking about how they were understood, but about the actual texts. I don't know when exactly she thinks they were introduced to the canon, perhaps you know? Some time post Buddha's death but in pre-sectarian Buddhism period I think. While according to Gombrich, and others of similar persuasion, the preachings in the Pali Canon go back to Buddha individually.
"There are certain scholars who do go down that road and say that we can't really know what the Buddha meant. That is quite fashionable in some circles. I am just the opposite of that. I am saying that there was a person called the Buddha, that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that - that we can learn more about what he meant, and that he was saying some very precise things. I regard deconstructionists as my enemies.".
Gombrich also says much the same about other scholars as Sujato, when he says " that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that". I never said it is a majority view. I don't know what the majority view is. Perhaps agnosticism?? Somewhere in between Anderson, and some of the scholars she cites etc at one extreme and Sujatto and Payutto at the other.
Just saying that this view of authenticity is a respected view held by some of the top scholars in the field of Early Buddhist studies, such as Gombrich, Wynne, Payutto, etc. As for the details of the discussion - yes of course they mention their opponents case. So also does Anderson. That's part of the normal scholarly dialog. I won't argue the case myself as the aim is not to try to persuade you that they are right in their conclusions :). And this is not the place to engage in critical peer review of the WP:RS. Just that their views should be presented here as part of an ongoing wide ranging scholarly debate on the subject. And that the article shouldn't try to build a consensus view out of extracting comments from the various scholars wherever they say things that are compatible and ignoring all differences in opinion. The reader can make their own decisions and synthesis. As readers we want to be presented with the full range of views in a WP:NPOV way. That's what you expect from an encyclopedia. Robert Walker ( talk) 09:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
"Here and elsewhere, Anderson attributes to Norman the view that "the four truths were probably added after the earliest version of this sutta" (p. 68; cf. p. 20 and p. 149). I do not think this is what he says.
...
"As a result of this and other matters, Norman concludes that the simpler form of the truths, which occurs elsewhere, (ida# dukkha# . . . aya# samudayo, and so forth) must be earlier. He also concludes that the term ariya-sacca- probably did not occur in the earliest versions of the four truths. He does not, however, say that no references to the four truths occurred in the original version of the sutta."
References
Oh, this is a relevant quote from Cousins:
So, the four truths are not so 'usually presented' as you supposed, nor do they strictly refer to dukkha. Read that again; your basic objection crumbles here. Right, Ms Sarah Welch? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
First on Cousin's review, I didn't say he said it was a bad book :). As you rightly say, he said it was a good book. I just said he said that he criticised it and identified what he considered to be misunderstandings in it. And as such his review of it deserves to be cited as a WP:RS pointing out things that he considers to be errors in it.
On Gombrich, the particular passage you mention just now is not accessible to me. But from another cite you gave, from another book by Gombrich, "How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings" it actually says [1]:
"The most important of these changes is the development of the idea that Enlightenment can be attained without meditation, by a process of intellectual analysis (technically known as panna, insight) alone."
So by insight here he is referring to intellectual analysis. And he says direct experience through meditation leading to enlightenment is the original idea here.
And he says quite clearly that he thinks these discrepancies also date from within Buddha's own lifetime. He says [2]
"As I have written elsewhere, one likely reason for the discrepancies is that in the course of a preaching career lasting forty-five years, the Buddha formulated things in various ways and perhaps even changed his mind (Gombrich, 1990-9). But another reason I posit for discrepancies is that monks were arguing about these topics and that the texts sometimes preserve more than one side of an argument."
So you shouldn't use Gombrich to support the idea of a change of this nature after Buddha died. He didn't say that, at least not in this cite. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: Well if he says that, he contradicts himself because in the cite I just gave he says "As I have written elsewhere, one likely reason for the discrepancies is that in the course of a preaching career lasting forty-five years, the Buddha formulated things in various ways and perhaps even changed his mind (Gombrich, 1990-9)" so he says that they could reflect a change of teaching style over a period of 45 years of teaching (that's a quite common theme amongst those who hold to the theory of authenticity of the early Buddhist texts, and I find it plausible as teachers do change their teaching styles and 45 years is a long time. My own main Buddhist teacher made radical changes in his teaching style several times while I was studying with him, of the entire way he taught from newbies all the way through to people who he had been teaching for years, and this is not unusual in Tibetan traditions at least). (For a more famous example, Trungpa Rinpoche made very radical changes in his teaching style, several times in his quite short life, ending with an emphasis on the Shambala tradition for the last few years of his life).
Of course WP:RS by the same author often do contradict themselves. Indeed for similar reasons indeed, because their ideas change or they just present things differently, the first is an actual contradiction, the second is an apparent contradiction that may turn out to not be a contradiction if you look at it more deeply, e.g. due to a change in the meaning of the terms they are using and such like.
If that's the case, then I think - in a detailed article you might trace the changes in his thinking but otherwise, you'd probably go by whichever is the most recent. But it does need care. I find it very implausible that Gombrich would think that the four noble truths were added to the sutras after Buddhas death - it doesn't fit with the trend of his writings at all. So if you find a text that seems to say this, do look carefully! He might be talking about something else. In particular I don't understand at all why you think that development of the idea that it is possible to achieve enlightenment through analytical reasoning, and that it doesn't require direct realization of a truth would suggest the truths are a later addition. They seem to say clearly that the path is towards realizing a truth, which according to Gombrich is the original way the teachings were understood. So surely what he is saying here implies the truths are early, not late, in whatever the chronology, whether the main changes all happened in Buddha's lifetime or not? Robert Walker ( talk) 19:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
"The fit is natural, true and joyous. I am on the right path for me and I love this journey. I take responsibility for my own life. I find peace and joy in every day. Every day is a blessing and I can face death, when it comes, with no regrests. The world is no longer such a frightening and empty place. My perception of life has changed and therefore my reality has changed. Out of the madness and chaos of our time, there is room for amazing kindness and heroic gestures to occur. I am now open to create and accept those kindnesses"
"A major problem with these claims, here exemplified by those of Griffiths [1], is that they often do not distinguish between EBT and non-EBT material... Another problem with Griffith’s proposition is his reliance on a very limited number of texts from the EBTs. His main reference is to the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. However, in establishing any point about the EBTs one needs to consider the literature as a whole.21 It is our contention that the problems identified by Griffiths and others fall away once this is done"
@ Joshua Jonathan:Just had a thought, I wonder if the reason you are so skeptical about Buddhists who claim authenticity is by analogy with fundamentalist Christians who claim that the modern Bible, which is obviously a result of later composition long after Jesus died, is the work of God? Sometimes even the St James edition (no theologian would say this of course, except in the sense of inspired translators or editors).
If so, it is a very different situation, and these are not fundamentalist Buddhists in this sense at all. In India we have the Vedas which everyone agrees were transmitted pretty much word for word for thousands of years. See Vedic schools or recensions. The main reason for skepticism about Buddha's teachings is that it was not memorized and transmitted by a Brahmin priest caste, but by ordinary monks - but some of those would have been Brahmins with the training in memorization of Brahmins, so that's not such a knock down case as one might think. Also it depends on whether you accept the internal evidence of the sutras. Sujato etc give lots of internal reasons for believing them to be contemporary such as that they refer only to technology of Buddha's time, don't mention writing, or king Asoka, except obviously later additions to the canon, same kingdoms even as at Buddha's time, a geography that was no longer valid a short time after he died, and a lot of good internal evidence, which just could not have been invented by later additions as they didn't have the sophistication and understanding of history and archaeology that we have to do such a thing. If you accept that much, that at least it is possible that they are what they claim to be, then internally,they say that the monks started memorizing the sutras before Buddha died as a result of the leader of the Jains dying and his followers arguing about what he said. So that would mean, they memorized his later teachings, towards the end of his life, while he was saying them, and memorized earlier ones based on the memories of monks, and with the opportunity to ask Buddha for clarification - and birth stories of course would be less reliable still. But all that collated while he was still alive. Then rehearsed in the first great assembly.
Jesus disciples never did anything like this. No attempt was made to memorize or write down his teachings at all before he died, as far as we know.
Also, Payutto in his paper gives strong reasons for believing that memorizing is actually more accurate than written text, at least back when writing had to be copied by hand. It is easy for a scribe to make a mistake. You end up with many written texts with variations in them. But if one monk gets a word wrong while they are rehearsing in an assembly of 500, they will all hear instantly and can stop and figure out what is the right word to use there. He also points out that to this day, there are monks who can memorize the entire Pali canon, the Tipitaka, word for word. Even though they don't have to, and even though we no longer have this strong tradition of memorization, yet the task can be achieved today. Mingun Sayādaw was the first in modern times to achieve this, and others have since then.
With that much background now, it can become a possibility that the entire canon was indeed memorized. There are some sutras that are indeed definitely later, apparently. Refer to events after Buddha for instance. But most of them form an internally consistent whole. Those are the "Early Buddha Sutras" that according to the "Theory of Authenticity" record teachings of Buddha himself, or his disciples, given while he was alive, and memorized while he was alive. In this way, if this theory is right, it is well possible that we actually have a much more accurate version of the words of the Buddha, through memorization, than Christians have of the words of Jesus, even though they had writing at the time he was alive and indeed long before.Of course not word for word as in a recording or transcript. They are clearly organized in ways that make them easy to memorize. But organized in that way by monks who had heard Buddha himself give those teachings, and indeed for the later sutras, memorized immediately after the teachings themselves. If this is right, the Pali Canon surely contains actual words of Buddha, memorized and then checked with him to make sure they are correct. In particular the four noble truths, which are repeated so often in the canon, would record the words of the Buddha himself, if this theory is correct. With that background, then if you read the work of Sujato and Wynne and Payutto, maybe you will see careful scholarship, rather than fundamentalist religion? That's what it is. They have well worked out scientific reasons for their views. Robert Walker ( talk) 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in this article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in the lede? Robert Walker ( talk) 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please indicate Support if you support use of this word in the article, and lede, and Oppose if you oppose use of this word in the lede and article. Or just Comment for general observations. Robert Walker ( talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
If you want to comment on any of the other responses here, please do so in the #Discussion section provided, unless your comment is short, and especially, please do this if you wish to argue the opposite case with one of the respondents. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 19:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I just realized, I hadn't put in a separate Survey section and hadn't given it a format. Have just done so. Please vote as support, oppose, or comment. Because if everyone just says "comment" it might not be so easy to see what the final consensus is. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 18:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please use this for extensive discussion of the RfC if necessary, as RfCs can get very confusing if they end up with long comment threads on each response. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 19:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: - I wonder if I can ask a question which may help with this discussion? What is the difference in meaning between death and redeath? I can understand rebirth, it means you are born as a new sentient being. But the idea of redeath, I can't really get my mind around, it seems like becoming a new dead sentient being, but what could that mean?
If I understand it right, in Therevadhan Buddhism there's no bardo, so you are just taken instantly into your next life when you die, so the moment of death is also the moment of your next rebirth (or conception at least). And in the Tibetan Bardo, then you are in an intermediate state, yes, but it's not really another state of being, it's more like a situation where you have lost connection, are in between A and B, not sure where you are or what you are, bright lights, sound louder than thunder, everything is fluid, unless you get stuck there in which case it's rebirth into the "hungry ghosts realm"
Particularly, what does it mean in a Buddhist context? Are there any Buddhist sutras or other texts using the word that explain the distinction between death and redeath? And if so what is the distinction - what decides which term you use? Robert Walker ( talk) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made this next reply into a separate section so I can link to it from my Oppose vote (you haven't yet convinced me). Robert Walker ( talk) 09:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@ John Carter: Okay, others would know more than me but I think the main difference is that Buddhists don't accept the Vedas as sacred texts. They made a clean break with them. Not saying that they were wrong as such, more, that you can't accept their authority just because they are texts handed down and treated as sacred, but have to look into it yourself.
Buddha said many things that were unconventional at the time. For instance what he says in the Kalama Sutta about (I'll collapse most of this to avoid long comments:)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'"
At the time many would have accepted things just because they were said in the Vedic scriptures, for instance.
He also ignored the caste system, treating people with respect whatever their caste, accepting anyone as a monk or nun, and sometimes giving invites from low caste people precedence when invited by a King.
And he taught that sacrifices to Gods or other rituals of that type would not lead you to enlightenment or for that matter, to more fortunate future rebirths.
So I think you could say that Buddhism arose in opposition to the Vedic religion in some ways, while at the same time sharing much of the same background.
It's a bit like Plato and Aristotle, Aristotle has many philosophical ideas that are in opposition to Plato, yet he also has a lot in common too as seen from our modern perspective.
Also another big difference: Buddhism, like Jainism was founded by a single individual (or at least most scholars seem to think so), and so has the characteristics of the teachings of that individual, a bit like a single philosopher. While modern Hinduism I believe is not attributed to any single individual though of course there are many extraordinary teachers and practitioners, it's just that the roots of it go back thousands of years with no individual teacher that can be said to have started it. Robert Walker ( talk) 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
First, thanks for explaining your understanding of the term "redeath" above as:
@ Joshua Jonathan: "From my memory, it's indeed related to, or comes from, the (later) Vedic way of thinking: the idea that by "karma," that is, ritual actions, one can "gain" a life, a rebirth, in heaven. From this developed the idea that one can also die again in heaven: redeath""
Okay this is surely a Hindu or Vedic idea then?
Details:
I have never come across any idea in Buddhism like this, of a heaven that is different from this worldly realm. The "gods" in Buddhist cosmology all die and it is just a life that is far longer than life in a human body, and more pleasant and enjoyable.
I understand that there is something like this in Hindu teaching, a "God realm" of higher Gods that never die, and the idea of a supreme deity above all the other gods, and of oneness of atman with Brahman. But in Buddhist teaching, then the "god realm" is just another realm like the animal realm, or the hell realm, or hungry ghosts etc, one in which the beings have especially long and pleasant lives, but like us, they all die eventually.
So again, it's my understanding that this may be a Hindu idea, that " 'we got to get out of here!'" and that you can do it by accumulating good karma, and even then, perhaps for many Hindus it may be more subtle than that (is oneness with Brahman really "out of here").
With Buddhist teaching, accumulating good karma can lead to potential for temporary stability in Samsara and a pleasant life, sometimes even for kalpas - but all this is temporary and part of conditioned existence.
Rather, all the Buddhist teachings I've read and heard have been about finding a path to cessation of suffering, as a direct experience and realization of a truth, in this very life. Positive karma helps by giving the stability you need to make it easier to realize that truth, and gives you connections with the teachings to help you along the path but doesn't get you all the way.
There is much less emphasis than in Hinduism on particulars of rebirth, and on particulars of how karma works, which you are not expected to be able to understand in detail, is beyond the understanding of ordinary beings. The sutras warn that trying to answer questions about who you are, and what your next life will be leads you astray. And death is just seen as a transition to another life. Birth, old age, death, rebirth is a continual stream, always within Samsara. Robert Walker ( talk) 16:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Indeed in the Sabbasava-Sutta, then the 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self include:
So how could the basic orientation be to "get out of here" in the future? Such an approach, according to Buddhist understanding, would reinforce your attachment to views relating to a self, and trap you in Samsara, even if perhaps it meant you ended up in one of the god realms for many kalpas.
That relates to the current statement of the third truth which I hope can be a subject of a future RfC. But keeping this discussion focused on redeath, from what you've said so far, the word seems to carry too many Hindu associations to be used to rewrite the four truths, if that is how it is understood.
Do you have any Buddhist texts that explain the word "redeath" in detail? Not just Vedic texts, or later commentaries on Buddhist texts by scholars based on comparative studies. In a Buddhist context?
Also, does anyone know, does any word in the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta have this as a translation?
If so, how is the word understood by Buddhists?
If it is a word used only in comparative studies, then surely this belongs later on in the article in sections that discuss other religions and historical origins of Buddhism.
On basis of discussion so far, it seems likely that most Buddhist readers will be like me, won't have heard of the word, and will need an explanation, and that the explanation will involve Hindu ideas that are unfamiliar to Buddhists.
Details:
I think, on the basis of the discussion so far, most Buddhist readers like me, @ Dharmalion76:, and @ AD64:, will have never heard the term before, and would need it explained to us, and it seems this explanation would involve Hindu ideas or ideas from the Vedas which are not sacred texts for Buddhists. And so I'm still not convinced that it is a good word to use, especially in the lede.
Will see how this discussion develops, and hope we get more perspectives on the debate :).
I hope this comment is not too long. I've worked on it for clarity and conciseness, and can't find any more repetition to remove. It is all directly to the point and to do with attempting to assist editors who want to improve this article. So I don't think you can call it a WP:WALLOFTEXT. It is certainly done to help improve rather than impede understanding and dialog as my motivation at least. I've just collapsed part of it to help readers who want to skim.
Robert Walker ( talk) 08:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Well the word was introduced to this article by you here: [4]. I haven't seen it anywhere else including the articles Dorje edited. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan:"But it's surely not only a Hindu idea; Buddhism and Hinduism did not develop separate from each other; they developed in the same area, in the same culture. Many Indian Buddhists were Brahmins. The Buddha was familiair with Brahmanical ways of thinking (and responded to it)."
This is not enough reasoning to make it a Buddhist idea, never mind make it a word to use for the four noble truths.
A few examples (collapsed to help readers who want to skim:
Analytical philosophy was developed at the same time, in the same culture as existentialism and Marxism, and Jungian and Freudian philosophy and many other philosophical and psychological systems. But many of these have specialized words you wouldn't use in any of the other philosophies except for comparative analysis. E.g. if you talk about archai, then that means you are discussing Jungian philosophy or something closely related, and would not use this term for analytical philosophy or Freudian philosophy though doubtless thinkers in these various traditions knew about each others ideas and discussed them and responded to them.
Further back, Plato and Aristotle's philosophies developed in the same culture. But you wouldn't use the Platonic notion of forms when expounding Aristotle's epistemology. That would lead you far astray. Many other examples.
We need to know if the word is used specifically by Buddhists, and if so, in what context and how. Robert Walker ( talk) 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Also collapsed the first part of next comment, I was answering @ Joshua Jonathan:'s puzzle about how Buddha could become enlightened just by seeing a truth, if he needed to practice the noble eightfold path to reach cessation.
The answer to your puzzle about the eightfold path, as I've been taught anyway, is the distinction between relative and absolute truth. The eightfold path is mainly to do with practices that you do to get some stability to practice the dharma. Buddha had done this through numerous previous lives as he affirmed when he did the earth touching mudra when confronted by the assaults of Mara. But the truth itself is something you have to see for yourself, and that's what happened when he became enlightened. Even the noble eightfold path can only point you in that direction, to create a situation where you can see it for yourself.
And it's not the only way, in Zen traditions they use koans, in Mahayana traditions then they use the five paramitas, there are many teachings on paths you can follow that help you and others, both in Samsara, and also towards seeing the truth, relating to the truth of your situation. It's good to read the sutras extensively. But it can often be quite a shortcut to hear teachings from a teacher in one or more of the traditions, to help with understanding of them.
The main message of the third noble truth is that there is a path to cessation of dukkha. As you say, details of that path then follow elsewhere. But some people are able to see the truths directly. Just knowing there is such a path is enough for them. Kondanna did, just on the basis of the minimal teaching Buddha gave.
"This is what the Blessed One said. Being pleased, the bhikkhus of the group of five delighted in the Blessed One's statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in the Venerable Kondanna the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma: "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."
In the sutras there are stories also of people who didn't even need to meet the Buddha, that just heard someone else give the briefest description of the central point, not even the four truths, not the eightfold path, just a single sentence, for instance that "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.", can be enough at times if they are ready, with "little dust on their eyes". Robert Walker ( talk) 13:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Just looked up the story of two people who according to the sutras realized cessation of dukkha just on hearing these words: "Whatever phenomena arise from cause: their cause & their cessation. Such is the teaching of the Tathagata, the Great Contemplative." - Moggallana the wanderer and Sariputta the wanderer, see Upatissa-pasine
So (as I understand it), that is like the four truths in a nutshell, but most people need a lot more than that, so then you get the four noble truths, same idea but in four truths - but most people need a lot more than that also so then you get the long expositions of each of the truths in turn. Anyway we can go into this in the RfC on the third truth when we get to it.
I think this is the reason why many treatments of the 4NT start with a short summary of the four truths, basically in the form that lead Kondanna to see the truth. I feel strongly that we should avoid folding later commentary back into the statement of the four noble truths in the lede, including words like "redeath" if these are anachronistic from a Buddhist point of view. More details below, collapsed to help readers who wish to skim. Robert Walker ( talk) 15:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that's why many treatments start off with a simple four line statement of the truths, as in the old lede for this article, a statement which according to the sutras can already lead to awakening just by itself for some people. So that's interesting to know. So I think it is important to present these simple statements, which lead Kondanna to realize cessation of dukkha on the spot. Then you go on to talk about it in depth. Not because you expect the reader of the article to become awakened on reading those four lines. But because it is only fair to them to present the truths in that format, as that is how Buddha presented them, so that they know what the article is about. While folding commentary and later comparative religion studies into the four noble truths complicates them and turns them into something that's no longer the simple statement the Buddha taught. Especially in an encyclopedia article. So I think we should avoid all anachronistic later developments especially in the lede so feel strongly we shouldn't use the word redeath unless it is essential and part of the way Buddhists themselves understand the four truths, and indeed, part of how Buddha himself taught them. And I don't think it is, on the basis of the discussion so far. (I know the Vedas are earlier, but as far as the sutras are concerned, use of the word redeath in commentary on the four noble truths is surely a much later development at least based on the evidence so far) Robert Walker ( talk) 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Commenting here to avoid long threads on RfC responses.
"As I wrote earlier, there is no need for 'redeath' in every sentence of the lead. But it should be mentioned in the lead, and it should have a full discussion in the main, because all WP:RS explain/comment on 4NT with those terms. These terms have a very long, sustained history. Ms Sarah Welch"
There is a vast literature on early Buddhist teachings, but these are some works I have read recently in this topic area and none of them mention the term and surely all would count as WP:RS:
These sources have numerous occurrences of the word "death" and never use the word "redeath".
Nor have I seen it in any translation of a Buddhist sutra that I've read, and so far @ Joshua Jonathan: hasn't given a sutra cite for it.
I agree that the word is used occasionally in modern commentaries, as Joshua Jonathan has given some WP:RS cites including by Peter Harvey in Introduction to Buddhism.
However, note that Peter Harvey has 161 occurrences of "death", and only one occurrence of "redeath" in a 552 page book.
Also his presentation of the four truths on page 52 does not use the word.
""The four True Realities for the Spiritually Ennobled form the structural framework for all higher teachings of early Buddhism. They are: (i) dukkha, ‘the painful’, encompassing the various forms of ‘pain’, gross or subtle, physical or mental, that we are all subject to, along with painful things that engender these; (ii) the origination (samudaya, i.e. cause) of dukkha, namely craving (tanhā, Skt trsnā); (iii) the cessation (nirodha) of dukkha by the cessation of craving (this cessation being equivalent to Nirvāna); and (iv) the path (magga, Skt mārga) that leads to this cessation. The first sermon says that the first of the four is ‘to be fully understood’; the second is ‘to be abandoned’; the third is ‘to be personally experienced’; the fourth is ‘to be developed/cultivated’. To ‘believe in’ the ariya-saccas may play a part, but not the most important one.""
His occurrence of the word is on page 72, in his discussion of the twelve nidanas
The aim of the RfC is to get the views of other wikipedia editors on the topic. They may unearth more information. The evidence so far seems to be that is a very uncommon word in commentary on the four noble truths, and one that has been in use recently only.
Robert Walker ( talk) 13:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this it then? SN 12.38. With alternative translations [5] and [6]
I don't see any problem linking to Access to Insight as Bhikkhu Bodhi is a renowned translator, President of the Buddhist Publication Society, and cited by other reputable scholars such as Gombrich. Joshua Jonathan has claimed he is not WP:RS but surely becoming a Buddhist monk does not disqualify you as a translator! See ScientificQuest's response to this claim [7]
As for talking about my own understanding of the word - I'm asking for clarification. What does the word mean in a Buddhist context? None of those translations listed above use the word "redeath" if I have now got the right sutra. And I can't figure out what it could mean in a Buddhist context. Can you not provide some explanation from Buddhist sources. And I think I can also use myself as an example of a reasonably typical Buddhist reader of the article, who is not a Buddhist scholar but has had teachings on Buddhism and read reasonably widely on the subject. Robert Walker ( talk) 12:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no problem at all with "death again and again". That's obviously correct in a Buddhist context.
It's specifically the term "redeath" that this RfC is about.
It is a rare word, and most readers won't know what it means. It seems to violate WP:TECHNICAL to use it if it just means the same thing as "death". If it means something different, as Joshua suggested, using the Vedas to expound it, then I think this needs to be explained, and also justified.
You can't expect a reader to work out what it means from the etymology, as often technical terms mean something different from what they seem to mean when you break up the component parts - indeed Joshua explained, that according to his understanding, in the Vedas, it means something more than "death again and again".
If that is all it means to Buddhists, then to accord with WP:TECHNICAL it should be replaced by "death again and again" throughout the article, in my view.
Thanks!
Robert Walker ( talk) 14:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
On your other point, I was under the impression that accesstoinsight.org was under the oversight of Bikkhu Boddhi. I realize my mistake now. I'm not a Buddhist scholar. So you are saying that the translations of Thanissaro Bhikkhu are not WP:RS in your view? Because this translation is also in his published books.
I don't trust Joshua Jonathan's views on what counts as WP:RS as he has made some very absurd claims there such as that Bikkhu Boddhi and Walpola Rahula are not WP:RS in the past. But you seem more knowledgeable than him on this matter. Robert Walker ( talk) 14:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes rebirth is common. Sorry, I don't agree that redeath is common on the basis of the information so far. Neither I, nor Dharmalion76 nor AD64 had heard the word before.
In Peter Harvey's book, which is one of the few WP:RS sources that uses it, I count
I think we would need strong evidence in the opposite direction to establish it as a common word, and so worth using in place of "death again and again". Robert Walker ( talk) 15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
And just to say - this is all that this RfC is about. Whether to use this particular term. It may seem rather minor, but the idea was to start with a focused RfC that should be fairly easy to address.
If it works, then we can go on to do the other RfCs. Though I'd probably take a few weeks of rest from it before going on to the next one!
Perhaps the obvious next one would be the RfC on whether to mention Harvey's and Gombrich's and Wynne's etc views that the Pali Canon are largely the work of the Buddha himself. I've never understood why JJ wants to leave out their views which are clearly WP:RS. And I'd expect most wikipedians with any understanding of the topic to agree with me. I'd be astonished if the vote was that we shouldn't mention them here. So it would be an obvious next choice as perhaps a rather "uncontroversial" RfC. Except that JJ would surely argue vigorously that their views shouldn't be included as he says over and over that it is established by WP:RS sources that the four truths are not the work of the Buddha. I'd be interested to know what his reasons are for that in detail and to see if other editors agree with him. Robert Walker ( talk) 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I found a copy of Harvey's book in pdf format online. If you search for a word in a pdf, it shows how many occurrences there are of that word. Those are the numbers I gave here. As I've explained I don't have access to a library. Even if I did, this would still be the easiest way to count the number of words, which is very hard to do with a physical book. Robert Walker ( talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan:, I'm talking particularly about the section Historical Development. Compare with the section Pāli_Canon#Origins and Talk:Pāli_Canon#Other_views_on_the_origins_of_the_Pali_Canon (where I suggest they include Anderson's views on the origins of the Pali canon as well as a couple of views at the opposite end of the section - nobody has taken up that suggestion in over a year).
Your section does not mention the views of Gombrich, Wynne, Payutto, Harvey, Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali amongst others. It focuses on the views of Anderson primarily with a few mentions of other views of scholars that support parts of her thesis. It would be a focused RfC only on that section of the page. Perhaps we can leave discussing the details to later as that would be a different RfC? Robert Walker ( talk) 21:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Ms Sarah Welch:Good point. There is
I can't find "death again"
It still seems rare compared to rebirth.
This is just basic textual analysis where you find out about the usage of a term in a way agnostic of actual interpretation, such as they use for the first stage of dictionary construction nowadays.
I would see "repeated death" as much preferable as it is using ordinary language rather than "redeath" which is a rare word in English.
Just as a word, I don't see any justification yet for using the word "redeath" especially without any explanation of why it is done this way.
It surely at the least risks confusion with the separate (perhaps connected historically) concept of redeath in the Vedas which Joshua Jonathan explained, for anyone who knows about that, and it doesn't seem to add anything for a reader who has never heard of this word.
I haven't read Harvey, just done this basic textual analysis and read the section on the four noble truths at the beginning of his book.
I found it a very technical book going into intricate details about many concepts, I'd count it as rather advanced reading in this topic area. It may be too hard for me to fully grasp.
The other WP:RS books I have read recently on four noble truths don't use the word redeath, as I said. Advanced doesn't equate to WP:RS - there are many very approachable books that are also WP:RS such as Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught" and others intermediate like the ones I listed above on the origins of the Pali Canon. There are also some very advanced books that are unreliable. And easy books that are unreliable.
So the two are independent of each other. I'm talking generally, in all topic areas it is like this, same in astronomy and in maths.
As a matter of voluntary restraint, I won't comment any more on this discussion until tomorrow, so if you make replies please understand that I won't reply instantly. I also have many other things to do in my own life and am spending far too much time on wikipedia right now. :). Robert Walker ( talk) 21:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
@Joshua Jonathan: The conduct of @Robert Walker is of concern, because it is disruptive and WP:Forum-y. He has not read Harvey. If he did, he would focus on chapter 3, that starts at page 50, where Harvey discusses 4NT. On page 53, in chapter 3, Harvey uses re-death, explicitly. Contextually, it is there, even more, and is essential to the 4NT discussion. Redeath, as repeated death or re-death or etc, appears more than "2" counts. Redeath is there in Sutta translations by RS. He has not read the RS, despite last 10 days of requests, but we must stick to summarizing the RS. Perhaps, we should ignore @RW? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 11:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes he is talking about the four noble truths,yes. But within that discussion, for several pages, he's discussing the nidhanas, and within that, in discussion of one of the nidhanas he uses the word redeath. It's pretty specialized. While the words death and rebirth occur all through the article.
A better cite is on page 53 with the word re-death where he says "The dukkha of these is compounded by the rebirth perspective of Buddhism, for this involves repeated re-birth, re-ageing, re-sickness and re-death"
If it was presented like that, it would be acceptable, because it is absolutely clear what it means - that "re" is just short for "repeated". Or similarly "repeating birth, old age, sickness and death". That's all standard Buddhist teaching and not remotely controversial.
Though he only uses the word "re-death" once. But the main thing is clarity. I'd have no problem if it was used like that with a dash in between and if it was also used in a sentence that involved birth, sickness and old age as well. Because teachings on dukkha don't single death out as anything special as a form of suffering.
And to avoid confusion with the very different meaning of "redeath" in the Vedas.
@ Joshua Jonathan: wrote above:
"From my memory, it's indeed related to, or comes from, the (later) Vedic way of thinking: the idea that by "karma," that is, ritual actions, one can "gain" a life, a rebirth, in heaven. From this developed the idea that one can also die again in heaven: redeath. The merits (this is not the correct word here, is it?) of this 'ritual karma' do not last forever. Buddhism connected the next dot: rebirth again, on earth, as a human, or an animal or so. And then death againagain. Ad infinitum."
But Buddha made a clean break with the Vedas. He spoke often against the idea that ritual actions gain a life in heaven saying that they don't do anything to improve future rebirths. He also treated the various god realms as just part of Samsara like everything else so he didn't teach in terms of a separate Heaven.
So if redeath here specifically means "redeath in heaven" then that's not a Buddhist idea, surely?
While if it is about a native Buddhist concept it should be understood as it is understood in the Sutras. E.g. birth, old age, sickness and death, over and over again, with no mention of "heaven", and this should be made clear to any reader who may have come across the word in a Hindu context. Or just not use the word.
The difference with Harvey is that
So if we use Harvey's presentation as an example, we would not use this word in the lede.
Do you understand what I'm saying here? Robert Walker ( talk) 08:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: Just to say - above you said you were about to close the RfC, then changed your mind.
Please, however the discussion runs, can you leave closing the discussion until we have some consensus that it is time to do so? If you had done so, I'd have woken this morning to find the RfC closed with no opportunity to engage in the discussion about whether to close it.
I know you were going to close it in favour of not using the word "redeath" but irrespective of the conclusion of the discussion, can we give an opportunity for the full range of views of wikipedia editors on this matter be expressed? To close it too soon could bias it in either direction incorrectly. I'm also aiming for understanding of the situation, not just a "yes / no" answer, to guide editors working on this article, so the more perspectives on this the better.
I hope for more comments from Wikipedia editors for the project. Usually RfCs are closed automatically after 30 days, I understand, unless kept open for longer, or can be closed earlier if all participants are agreed that it is finished, or can be closed by an uninvolved editor.
They can also be closed by the editor who proposed the RfC withdrawing the question, but to do it that way, I think you'd need to ask me to close it, not close it yourself. At least, that's my understanding of how the process works.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Robert Walker ( talk) 08:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
For #RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths
Just to say, that I've mentioned this RfC on the Buddhism project talk page. However many editors don't watch project talk pages, so I've also posted to the talk pages for Buddhism and the separate articles on some of the main branches of Buddhism. Also alerted a couple of editors closely involved with the article or the discussion. Also posted it to the talk page for Pali Canon on the basis that this is a topic that would benefit from eyes of experts in the Pali sutras since it concerns the presentation of the wheel turning sutra. For similar reasons posted to the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta talk page.
If anyone else has any ideas of relevant places to publicise it, please just go ahead and do so, as I think the more eyes we have on this the better. Thanks!
Recently, I glossed the term "redeath" as "punarmrityu" and wikilinked that term to a more detailed explanation in Samsara. I'm not a Buddhist scholar, I don't know if this is exactly correct, but I can't see how it would be wrong, it seemed like an improvement, and I decided to be WP:BOLD about it despite my relative ignorance. Robertinventor, an FB friend who pointed me to this article, and to certain disputes about it, including disputes about "redeath", has since asked me (on FB) to not edit the article, saying that if I make edits after conversing with him about it, that's "meat puppetry". But since I'm actually fine with the term "redeath" (it seems very common in Buddhist scholarship in English, even if it's not as frequent as "rebirth") while he seems uncomfortable with it, I don't see how that's me being his meat puppet. Unless, that is, meat puppets are somehow allowed to rebel against their masters (which, even if it ever happens, would be deeply convoluted wikidrama of no interest to me at all.) If anything, his request seems tantamount to a WP:OWNS vio on his part. Could someone here please straighten him out? I realize that I'm not supposed to reference off-Wikipedia discussions, but ... this is just too weird for me. What's going on here? Yakushima ( talk) 14:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I just added a quote from the Maha-Parinibbana sutra to the thread above, and noted that the Wiki-article said:
I checked the source; in it's introduction, is does not make such a statement; nor does the sutra itself make such a statement. With other words, a piece of WP:OR which was still left. I've corrected it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Elizabeth Harris (2006), Theravada Buddhism and the British Encounter: Religious, Missionary and Colonial Experience in Nineteenth Century Sri Lanka, Routledge, may be a good source on the perception of Theravada Buddhism in the west, and the "colonial project" which co-shaped modern Theravada and it's understanding and presentation of Buddhist teachings. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Yep, p.72-73. Gogerly 1861:
1. That sorrow is connected with existence in all its forms
2. That its continuance results from a continued desire of existence
Spencer Hardy 1866:
... there is sorrow connected with every mode of existence; that the cause of sorrow is desire
A subtle, but far-reaching difference: from the cause of the continuation of sorrow due to craving, to the cause of sorrow itself due to craving! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
David Chapman, how could I forget? Protestant Buddhism, A new World Religion and Problems with scripture:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
According to Gimello ((2004), as quoted in Taylor (2007), p.361), Rahula's book is an example of this Protestant Budhism, which "was created in an accommodating response to western expectations, and in nearly diametrical opposition to Buddhism as it had actually been practised in traditional Theravada." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Bikkhu Bodhi (2016), The Transformations of Mindfulness. In: Ronald E. Purser, David Forbes, Adam Burke, Handbook of Mindfulness: Culture, Context, and Social Engagement, Springer:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: Is this a blog of some of the edits you make to the article? You've never done this before in any of the articles on my watch list. If it is, I suggest we put all these entries under a new top level talk page header "Recent additions" or some such, as you aren't asking any question of other editors here, or suggesting a change, or doing any of the things that are normally done on talk pages, but just recording the edits you do. This is unusual, I have seen it sometimes in early draft articles, I think, as a way to alert readers to major changes and the reasons for them - but it is not in any of the suggestions for WP:TALK#USE. On the other hand it is surely permitted, at least not listed under WP:TALKNO
So not objecting to you blogging your edits here. You may well feel this helps other editors keep track of what you are doing to the article, and perhaps it does. But I don't think they need to be all separate top level entries. I think it might help the reader of the talk page to group these posts all together under a new heading "recent additions to the article" and to keep them all in that place.
I suggest this would make it easier for the reader to see which entries here are just a list of new additions to the article, and which are actually asking questions, requesting input or making suggestions etc and other things covered under WP:TALK#USE. Thanks! Robert Walker ( talk) 12:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Since Robert's talking points seem to resolve around the issue of rebirth, believing that this is a modern invention, it may be wise to add a short section on western Buddhism and rebirth. Google, as always, is a good friend to find some printed sources on this topic:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@JJ: The section on Western Buddhism should keep the discussion on or about 4NT, avoid sidetracking into rebirth. The generic discussion might fit better in the Rebirth (Buddhism) article. I have added Keown, and clarified Flanagan. Please feel free to improve it further and make it more relevant to the 4NT subject of this article. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 19:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Joshua Jonathan: From history perspective, I wonder if it may be worth mentioning somewhere in this article that it was Eugene Burnoff who first translated and published the Four Noble Truths in Europe in 1844? Burnoff was teaching Sanskrit in Collège de France then, and used a Tibetan manuscript. A methodist missionary in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) named Daniel Gogerly had translated it in 1837 from the local Theravada Suttas, but that version did not reach Europe for many years. The different underlying primary texts led to many versions of 4NT in European languages. Carol Anderson mentions five versions. For the early history of 4NT-related literature in the West, see pages 169-171 of Anderson's book. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 14:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)