Talk:Four Noble Truths

What happened to lead

Lead used to be pretty essential before and provided enough content to get idea of whole article that was always huge, it takes like 5 minutes to open on my older PC. So the question is that what happened to the lead? Delibzr (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You will find the answer to your question here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Buddhism#Recent re-writes of key concepts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorje108 (talk • contribs)

I don't think that link (it would be good if whomever provided it would sign the above), answers the concern at all. In fact, having read it I agree with (what I think is) Delibzr's point; the new lead is really quite inferior to the old one. I reckon that a majority of the visitors to a page attend to the lead without proceeding down the article, so as it now stands this article's lead is way too brief (i.e. it doesn't say enough). Also, not only did the old version provide more information, it gave what seems to me a much clearer formulation -- insofar as that can be done at all in discursive language -- of the FNTs. Some things I think could be done to find a middle way (hah) on the lead:

1. The phrases "...is not the place to be" and "get out of it" are too colloquial
2. The phrase, "...behaving decently, not acting on impulses, and practicing mindfulness and meditation" is too ... vague ... or maybe even glib? Reducing the Noble Eightfold Path to that feels like the FNT equivalent of saying that π=4.
3. Why isn't it anywhere mentioned in the lead that some serious scholars (e.g. Lopez -- see his Britannica entry) argue that it's not so much the truths that are noble, but rather the people who gain insight (vipassana) into those truths?
4. The word "start"in the second truth is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean that people start life without Dukkha and then, when they start craving, Dukkha "starts". Maybe "source" would be better. However:
5. Overall, I think the current lead is making the same same mistakes I made several years ago in what I think is a (valiant but nevertheless unsuccessful) attempt to make the FNTs accessible to non-practitioners. As I later concluded, to a large extent, it's simply not possible to do that; they are just not accessible to anyone who has not experienced them.

Thomask0 (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I really liked the comments you made some time ago Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 1#The Fundamental Challenge of this Page. The "colloquial" language was an attempt to phrase the FNT is a more accessible language. Food for thought; I'll think it over. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

1. I took the existing language and updated it, trying to make it very clear and concise in an accessible language without having a colloquial tone of voice to it. Hope this reads a little better to all of you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.235.34 (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Experiential knowledge

I've merged the section on "Experiential knowledge" with the section on "Sacca" (satya); after all, that's what Gethin's quote is about. I've removed Chögyam Trungpa's quote from the notes; another fine piece of original research, in whcih the emphasis was shifted from "conceptual framework" to the modern "religious experience" framework. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, "experiential knowledge" is essential here. The statement "In the Buddhist tradition, the four noble truths, and Buddhist philosophy in general, are understood to be based on the personal experience of the Buddha." is an sich correct (tradition is indeed important in "the" tradition), but the term "noble" does not refer so much to the Buddha, as to the "noble ones" (plural). But the four truths have indeed to be understood personally; not the Buddha's "experience", but one's personal (contradictory term, of course, in this context) matters. So, I've added a short statement on this. The "original research" is in the combination of quotes and statements, and the statement that "noble" refers to the Buddha('s personal experience), instead of "the noble ones." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Presentation in this article

It seems to be presented in a form that is very hard to understand especially for the non-practitioner? Life is suffering, Suffering is cause by desire, by understanding and mastering desire we can alleviate our suffering, the eightfold path is the guide to reducing our suffering. Anyone agree to revise the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:6FC0:10:EC4B:7D73:B7EC:4514 (talk) 05:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Have a scroll through the archives... But if "Life is suffering [...] reducing our suffering" is a proposal: no. Misplaced simplification which misses the meaning if the four truths. Taken literally, they say: "This life/wold is suffering; repeated incarnation (which means prolongation of suffering) is caused by desire; by self-restraint we can stop this reincarnation caused by desire; the eightfold path is the way to selfrestraint." Now, let's find a source for this specific interpretation, and reach concencus on it. No source; and probably also no concencus... Ad infinitum. Some even doubt if the four truths can be understood when you're not a practitioner. Maybe they can't; they look very simple, but they're actually a very terse condensation of a large body of teachings. When you know all those teachings, each piece of information recalls other pieces of info; together, they make sense. But on their own, without background? Difficult... Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Lede is uncited - and doesn't say what the four noble truths are

A reader of this article would surely expect a statement of the four noble truths, followed by explanation of the four truths.

Instead, the lede says

"this worldly existence is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to liberation from repeated worldly existence."

What is the cite for this statement? It's hard to tell what it means but it sounds like either a "multilife suicide" or escape to some other heavenly realm.

In the four noble truths, Buddha taught liberation from dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness), not liberation from worldly existence, whatever that's supposed to mean. Indeed, as often explained in some of the Buddhist schools at least, when you see through ignorance, you see there is nothing that needs to cease to exist.

Four of the unanswered questions cover this topic "Does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death? ...or not? ...or both? ...or neither?" He refused to answer the question:

"The Buddha remained silent when asked these fourteen questions. He described them as a net and refused to be drawn into such a net of theories, speculations, and dogmas. He said that it was because he was free of bondage to all theories and dogmas that he had attained liberation. Such speculations, he said, are attended by fever, unease, bewilderment, and suffering, and it is by freeing oneself of them that one achieves liberation." The_unanswered_questions

Also as traditionally explained, Buddha taught for decades after he realized nirvana and cessation. He didn't cease to exist or disappear into some other realm when he reached nirvana. So how could nirvana be "liberation from repeated worldly existence"?

So surely neither paranirvana nor nirvana are to be understood as "liberation from worldly existence"?

The article I see goes on to list four "precepts" in the next section - but if these are meant to be the four noble truths - who else calls them precepts? Buddha taught there is no value in affirming the truths as a creed. You can follow precepts on the path, such as not lying, not stealing, not killing etc as part of the path, and the monastic vows are precepts, but with the four truths - what could it mean? Any citation for this?

Then it talks about "redeath". Again what's the cite for this, who else uses this word in the context of the four noble truths? What does it mean? And then the summary of the "noble eightfold path" in this "precepts" section has few points of resemblance with the eightfold path as usually stated.

This is just to touch on issues with the current lede, not a suggestion for an alternative lede :). Please don't use my words either.

The old version of the article states the four noble truths in the lede, explains what they are, and summarizes the aim of the Buddhist path. And everything in the old lede is cited. Robert Walker (talk) 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Old lede

The original lede was as follows:

"The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are regarded as the central doctrine of the Buddhist tradition, and are said to provide a conceptual framework for all of Buddhist thought. These four truths explain the nature of dukkha (Pali; commonly translated as "suffering", "anxiety", "unsatisfactoriness"), its causes, its cessation, and the path leading to its cessation.

"The four noble truths are:

1. The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness)
2. The truth of the origin of dukkha
3. The truth of the cessation of dukkha
4. The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha

"The first noble truth explains the nature of dukkha. Dukkha is commonly translated as “suffering”, “anxiety”, “unsatisfactoriness”, “unease”, etc., and it is said to have the following three aspects:

• The obvious physical and mental suffering associated with birth, growing old, illness and dying.
• The anxiety or stress of trying to hold on to things that are constantly changing.
• A basic unsatisfactoriness pervading all forms of existence, due to the fact that all forms of life are changing, impermanent and without any inner core or substance. On this level, the term indicates a lack of satisfaction, a sense that things never measure up to our expectations or standards.

... For the rest of the old lede, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Four_Noble_Truths&oldid=629066305

Robert Walker (talk) 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Why depart from the usual way of presenting it?

What was wrong with that?

This used to be an excellent wikipedia article before the rewrite. The lede of a wikipedia article is not supposed to be a "teaser taster".

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or lede paragraph."

See Manual of Style - Lede.

Following that guideline, surely a lede summarizing the most important contents of an article on the four noble truths must list the four truths?

Also, I think you would need compelling reasons, well cited, to depart from the usual way of presenting this, the central teaching of the Buddha.

Thanks!

Robert Walker (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

[edited for brevity and clarity Robert Walker (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)]

I agree that the old lede was better than the current version. The changed appeared to have been made by Ryubyss with no discussion beforehand. Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Glad you agree.

I'd just like to point out though, the version of the lede that he shortened also had the same problem. It says

* "The Truth of the Cessation of Dukkha is that putting an end to this craving and clinging also means that rebirth, dissatisfaction, and redeath can no longer arise;"

The four noble truths are the subject of many books. Many teachers and scholars have worked on the best ways of presenting them in the English language. Do they really need to be rewritten by a wikipedia editor in his or her own words using new concepts?

E.g. "redeath" here as far as I know is a word coined by the editor who wrote that as his version of the third truth. Gives no cite for it. I don't even know what it is supposed to mean. Why not just use one of the many versions of the four truths already available in English? There were similar problems with the expression of the other three truths. The lede from October 2014 is accurate. Robert Walker (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Robert Walker. The article would be much improved by reinstating the lead from October 2014, and working onwards from there. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Edited what I said above for clarity and brevity, added a bit about the truths presented as "precepts" and added a citations needed tag to the lede of the article. Robert Walker (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• I've undone Ryubyss's edits, and added two explanatoy notes, on "redeath" (Paul Williams) and ending the cycle of rebirth (the Buddha himself).
• The lead of october 2014, as wella s the contents of that version of the article, were highly problematic. Those issue have been discussed through and through; see this talkpage and its archives. Re-opening this discussion is clos eto WP:DISRUPTIVE... But, for those who need extensive explanations, let's go through the october 2014 lead again:

• "The Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni) are regarded as the central doctrine of the Buddhist tradition" - they're not; they're regarded as such in modern western Buddhism. They weren;\'t even formulated by the Buddha himself.
• Note b was symptomatic of the kind of WP:QUOTEFARM-overkill from popular sources: not trying to represent the relevant sources, byt trying to find sources for a specific, limited understanding;
• "The first noble truth explains the nature of dukkha" - no; the first truth explains that this earthly existence is dukkha. That's the essence of Buddhism: earthly existence is wrong; we've got to get out of here. It's not a paracetamol to get happy lifes; it's a medicine to stop embodied existence. Hard to swallow for those who are not familiair with the sources, but only with popular Buddhism, which sees Buddhism as a way to promote a happy, healthy life. That was not what was at stake in India, were life-expectations were low, and people wnated to escape from the shit of repeated existence.
• Mentioning those three aspects in the lead is WP:UNDUE.
• "The central importance of dukkha in Buddhist philosophy has caused [etc]"- also WP:UNDUE.
• "The second noble truth [...] to this cessation" - embedded in the present version.
• "According to the Buddhist tradition [...] subsequent teachings" - WP:UNDUE, and needs clarification: the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta developed after his death, and are not his words.
• "The two main traditions [...] the Mahayana path of the bodhisattva" - WP:UNDUE; WP:SYNTHESIS. Incorrect emphasis: the four truths are not differently taught in Mahayana; they hardly play a role there. The four truths play an essential role in popular Buddhism. It is this popular, western Buddhism, which was represented in this old version of the article, which was hardly representative for the scholarly understanding of the four truths.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's one thing to say that when you realize nirvana, you are free from the cycle of birth, old age, sickness and death - Buddha did teach that. But it's a big step from there to say that the aim of the four noble truths is to liberate yourself from repeated worldly existence. He didn't say that as far as I know, and what could it mean? Especially since he clearly continued to exist in the ordinary sense after he realized nirvana, and said it was unproductive to ask "Does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death? ...or not? ...or both? ...or neither?". Does he ever say the aim is to cease to exist in any sense?

He did teach that we can come to see that there is no self there in the sense we think there is - but that's not a matter of something ceasing to exist, because if it isn't there, how can it cease to exist? It's not the self that ceases in the truth of cessation :). It's dukkha and the cause of dukkha that ceases.

I see the main problem as that you have rewritten the four truths in your own words - why not just quote from one of the statements of the truths available in the many translations and scholarly works on the subject? I don't see the need for this. If any scholar did such a novel rewrite in the Buddhist literature it would be bound to be subject to much scrutiny and discussion, while yours is not peer reviewed at all. So it would be no surprise at all if some subtle errors were to creep in. Robert Walker (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

(This is not meant as confrontation and if you don't find what I just said constructive, I will stop right away, leave it to others to comment if they have further thoughts on it). Robert Walker (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2016 (UT)

See Jivanmukti for staying alive while being liberated. Did you read the explanatory note I copie from within the article?

"...cut off is the craving for existence, destroyed is that which leads to renewed becoming, and there is no fresh becoming." [...]

Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,

Long was the weary path from birth to birth.

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

The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth."

From Moksha:

"Moksha is a concept associated with saṃsāra (birth-rebirth cycle). Samsara originated with new religious movements in the first millennium BCE. These new movements such as Buddhism, Jainism and new schools within Hinduism, saw human life as bondage to a repeated process of rebirth. This bondage to repeated rebirth and life, each life subject to injury, disease and aging, was seen as a cycle of suffering. By release from this cycle, the suffering involved in this cycle also ended. This release was called moksha, nirvana, kaivalya, mukti and other terms in various Indian religious traditions."

References

See Rita Langer (2007), Buddhist Rituals of Death and Rebirth: Contemporary Sri Lankan Practice and Its Origins, p.26-28, on "redeath" (punarmrtyu). see also Google Books on buddhism "redeath" and redeath. For example:

"Whatever earlier Tibetan beliefs may have been, the Buddhist conception of redeath,” of death after death striking even the gods, must have been a terrifying discovery." [1]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Moksha is a Hindu concept. Though related - Buddhist never use the word as far as I know - you'd need a cite to say that it is a synonym for Nirvana - I don't think it is. What you say there may well be true of some versions of Hinduism, I don't know. The cite you gave to back up the first sentence in this article is about paranirvana, but the first sentence is presented as a summary of the four noble truths. If your first sentence is an accurate summary of the four noble truths, why can't you find a cite for it which is specifically about the four noble truths rather than having to use a passage about paranirvana to back it up?

And even then the cite does not say he ceases to exist. It's the craving for existence that is gone, and the craving for rebirth. And he did make it clear in his paranirvana that he won't take rebirth again. But he wouldn't answer questions about whether he exists or doesn't exist or neither or both after his death.

And he doesn't say that it is impossible for an enlightened being to take birth again. In some of the traditions of Buddhism they talk about enlightened beings taking birth, or manifesting as emanations, indeed even many different rebirths at once.

And whatever your thoughts about paranirvana - in any case this article is about the four noble truths, and those are about dukkha and the causes of dukkha. Why not just use the statement of the four noble truths as usually presented? Why rewrite it?

If it can be rewritten in a much more easily understood way, I'm sure one or other of the many Buddhist scholars would have done it already - no need for a wikipedia editor to attempt such a radical rewrite. None of the other tertiary encyclopedic articles on four noble truths found a need to rewrite it in this way, they all just present it as traditionally presented, exactly as in the old lede. See for instance, BBC, buddhanet encyclopedia Britannica. It's the new version of the lede that is extraordinary not the old one, seems to me. If you want to present such a radical interpretation - why not publish it as an academic paper or a book first? I hope these thoughts help! Robert Walker (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)