Robertinventor (talk | contribs) |
Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 1,202: | Line 1,202: | ||
{{reflist-talk}} |
{{reflist-talk}} |
||
{{collapse bottom}} |
{{collapse bottom}} |
||
===Short summary of the issues with this article=== |
|||
I thought I'd just briefly state the main points again, perhaps I went into too much detail. Check the collapsed sections above for the sources, quotes and details for what I say below and if you have any questions do say. |
|||
I think it can't be denied that Walpola Rahula said that '''''Buddha reached cessation in the sense of the four truths, already in his own lifetime'''''. Also it can't be denied that Walpola Rahula is highly respected by Western and Eastern academics alike as an expert on Therevadha Buddhism and the Pali Canon. And Richard Gombrich also agreed that this is the view of modern Buddhists. I gave cites and quotes that support this without question, in the collapsed section above. |
|||
Then, it's true that Richard Gombrich says that in his view this is the result of later authors rewriting some of the Pali Canon and is inauthentic, not the view of the Buddha himself. He doesn't deny that it is the view of modern sutra tradition Buddhists. He just finds it puzzling and thinks that Buddha's original teachings must have been misunderstood and rewritten. |
|||
'''''On rebirth and redeath''''', then it's true that the sutras use a phrase "coming and going" that can be translated this way. But it is just ordinary death and rebirth within samsara. No evidence at all has been given that Buddhists have the idea of redeath from a heavenly state from Hinduism. Cites to the Vedas can't establish this as the Vedas are not sacred texts for Buddhists. Also the word is not used in the wheel turning sutras. |
|||
'''''On the view of inauthenticity of the Pali canon''''', Anderson's view is at an extreme range of a spectrum. And even she, as a Buddhist herself, agrees that the sutras are the basis for the practices of modern Buddhists, whatever it is that Buddha himself orignally said. |
|||
The Pali canon article here presents the full range of views. That includes the view of authenticity, held by many scholars, that most of the Pali Canon, apart from some obviously later texts, was memorized by the same process used to memorize the Vedas and records nearly word for word what the monks recited together in the first great council after Buddha died, and that they started to memorize his teachings before he died, as recorded in the Pali Canon. All are agreed that Mahayana texts are a later composition, and that some Pali canon texts are too. But for many internal reasons, also supported by archaeology, many scholars are of the view that much of the Pali canon dates back to shortly after the death of the Buddha and records events that happened during his lifetime, the technology of his lifetime, and surely also, the speeches of the Buddha as they were memorized by monks during his lifetime. |
|||
'''''So, given that, then the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream'''''. It presented the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions, as Gombrich himself agrees. It is true that it did not present Richard Gombrich's views or Anderson's views and the views of a few other Western Buddhist scholars. But surely the solution is not to rewrite the article so that it '''''only presents the views of Gombrich and Anderson'''''. The previous article did not discuss the authenticity of the sutras. Again surely the solution, if such a section is needed, is to include the entire range of views on this matter rather than just the views of Gombrich and Anderson. I am sure that Gombrich and Anderson themselves, as good scholars, would not want an article on the Four Noble Truths to present only their views. |
|||
[[User:Robertinventor|Robert Walker]] ([[User talk:Robertinventor|talk]]) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:25, 6 April 2017
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Buddhism B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Religion B‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||
|
RfC: Scholarly sources or Introductory texts?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Proposal: The lead and main article should go beyond introductory texts / websites for general readers on Buddhism, and summarize history, influences and commentary on Four Noble Truths – such as about rebirth, redeath – from scholarly secondary and tertiary references? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support (as initiator of this RfC). Doing so improves the usefulness and relevance of the article, makes it a quality reference, is consistent with wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, and serves the aims of the wikipedia project. The article should summarize the introductory texts, as well as more in depth scholarship on 4NT reflecting the diversity of scholarly views. For additional rationale, see this and this threads above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Impossible to vote This RfC is far too general. I agree, and I think everyone in this discussion agrees the article should go beyond introductory texts. No dispute about WP:RS. How does it even make sense to have an RfC about WP:RS? But I can't vote on this so long as it says "such as about rebirth, redeath". I don't agree that it should use the word redeath and have many other specific issues with the article. That a term is used in WP:RS does not mean that editors can use it wherever and whenever they want - it is a matter of whether it is appropriate to be decided on a per case basis. See Robert McClenon's comment where he says "An RFC will be a good idea if there is really only one issue, the issue in the RFC." The problem with this RfC is doesn't really address any of the issues we've been discussing directly. I have ideas for much more focused RfCs which I will share below, as a draft to discuss. See #Ideas for future RfCs Robert Walker (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - I imagine that there are a number of reference works in the fields of religion and philosophy available at WP:RX and elsewhere which might have substantive articles related to this topic. I tend to think that maybe one of the best ways to determine content for this article would be to see what is covered in the articles on this topic in those reference works and try to as much as possible have our content reflect their own. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Reply - those reference wotks have already been consulted, and used as references. Quotations fron these works have also been provided in the article, and here at the talkpage. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: How does this make any sense, "everyone in this discussion agrees the article should go beyond introductory texts", and "I don't agree that it should use the word redeath"? If we go beyond the introductory texts, and those reference/scholarly works state "redeath", then isn't this WP:Cherrypick to not use the word redeath? FWIW, the wording of this RfC is based on comments of @Dharmalion76 above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is an argument in the same logical form that you just used: "We should go beyond introductory text in the article on Pluto. Some advanced texts that discuss Pluto also mention Ceres. Therefore the article on Pluto has to mention Ceres." Do you see - it doesn't follow. If it is relevant to the article yes. If it is used appropriately yes. But just from the information he gave that there are sources that use this word doesn't prove that the word is appropriate to use anywhere and in whatever fashion the editor chooses to use it, or at all. That conclusion needs further reasoning to support it. Robert Walker (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Supportcomment - this is not a topic for a RfC, it's the standard way of working, to base an article on WP:RS, and that's what we've been doing so far. Scholarly sources go above websites, blogs and popular sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - changed "support" into "comment," for reason given above. No need to give an opportunity to obstruct the development of this article by a RfC on a core Wiki-policy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose I of course agree that the article should cite scholarly sources as well as "introductory texts" and summarize the deeper aspects mentioned in the RFC question. However, the question's implicit assumption that the lead should be written independently of the "main article" and cite sources that are not used in the article (?) is extremely problematic. The article should be written based on external reliable sources, and the lead should summarize the article's contents, and whether it includes inline citations (the same ones as the body!) is a separate matter of little importance. Also problematic is the assumption that "introductory" texts and "scholarly" sources are somehow different. If what is meant by "introductory" is primary and secondary school religious studies textbooks used in English-speaking countries where that's a thing, or the equivalent websites etc., that are loaded with oversimplifications and inaccuracies, then we should not be citing them at all; if what is meant is undergraduate textbooks and general reference guides written/edited by specialists, like Princeton's Dictionary of Buddhism and Routledge's Encyclopedia of Buddhism, then there is no need for a distinction between such works and "scholarly sources". Just my two cents. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment - @Hijiri88: thanks for commenting. The proposal says "The lead and main article"; the lead is summarizing the article, including the part on ending rebirth, which is explicitly mentioned and explained in the article, with the same references that are being used in the lead. "[I]ntroductory texts / websites for general readers" does refer to introductory texts and websites on Buddhism for a lay audience and western lay practitioners, not even to "primary and secondary school religious studies textbooks". And yes, they are "loaded with oversimplifications", only summing-up what a few sutra-texts say, without giving a proper explanation or a wider context. Which gives the impression that the four truths are only about ending this-worldly suffering, not about ending rebirth. And it gives the impression that those four truths have always been regarded as the essence of Buddhist teachings, which is not the case, as explained in the article. In contrast, those scholarly sources do explain the wider context of the four truths as aiming at ending rebirth, the central Buddhist goal, and the historical development of the importance given to those four truths. That's why scholarly soures, including the Princeton Dictionary, are to be used, "go[ing] beyond introductory texts / websites for general readers." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment @Hijiri88: Princeton University Press, Routledge, etc published texts are not introductory, they are references. New age spirituality websites and self published / non-peer reviewed religion books are "introductory". Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Ms Sarah Welch: In that case, the RFC question is even worse on its face than I thought. Of course we should not cite unreliable sources anywhere in the article, lead or no. I was assuming thta no one was in favour of citing unreliable sources, and by "introductory" what was meant was books that might have had "introduction" as part of their titles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Hijiri88:, @Joshua Jonathan: Good points you make. I withdraw this RfC, because we indeed should stick with core wiki policies on sources. Can someone please close it? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths
Extended content
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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) SurveyPlease 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)
DiscussionSorry, 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:)
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)
Vedas not sacred texts for BuddhistsFirst, thanks for explaining your understanding of the term "redeath" above as:
Okay this is surely a Hindu or Vedic idea then?
Details:
The five "unwise reflections" about the future in the Sabbasava-SuttaIndeed 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:
Robert Walker (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Well the word was introduced to this article by you here: [1]. I haven't seen it anywhere else including the articles Dorje edited. Robert Walker (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
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:
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 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.
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)
WP:RS and redeathCommenting here to avoid long threads on RfC responses.
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.
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 [2] and [3]
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 [4] 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.
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:
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) When to close the RfC@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)
Publicising this RfCFor #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! |
A handful of leaves
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
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)
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) Four Noble Truths as a path to cessation of dukkha - citesThese 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 "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) Walpola Rahula quote
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)
WP:RS who assert that the Pali Canon are largely the work of a single teacherHere 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
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:
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.
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)
Lance Selwyn Cousins critical review of "Pain and its Ending"
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 [5]:
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 [6]
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) Reliable sources
@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)
|
Am I Robertinventor's "meat puppet" if I edit this article after discussion with him?
Extended content
|
---|
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)
|
Three things wrong with this article
I hope that this comment will be of interest and value to other editors, whether you agree with what I say here or not. I will only say what I see as wrong with this article, and not present a way forward to solve it, nor will I attempt an RfC at this stage. I think that was one of the things I got wrong before in the long collapsed discussions above. The starting point is to decide if they are issues first.
The ideas in the article are presented in some detail and to explain what I see as wrong with them requires a similarly detailed reply. These points are not easy to follow if split over a thread consisting of many comments, and I see that as one of the other main things that I got wrong in the previous discussions. So, to avoid breaking up and confusing this exposition, please add any comments in the #4. Discussion section below. Your co-operation in this is much appreciated. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong - short summary - Four Truths incorrectly stated, Redeath technical, and POV statements on authenticity
The Four Noble Truths of the old lede have been replaced by four statements which describe a non Buddhist aim to end rebirth back into the "mundane world" of Samsara.
- According to the Pali Canon Buddha, although Buddha went on to grow old, get sick, and die like everyone else, he had already realized cessation of all dukkha as a young man aged 35 - the new statements imply that this can only happen after death. The collapsed sections below go into this in detail as explained by Walpola Rahula, whose book "What the Buddha Taught" is widely regarded as one of the best expositions of the central teachings in the Pali canon by both Eastern and Western scholars alike.
- The idea that the aim is to end rebirth and escape from this "mundane world" is an attempted reconstruction of the original teachings by some academics. It's not based directly on the sutras but rather on what these academics think the teachings were before the sutras were recorded. For modern practitioners who base their understanding on the sutras themselves, it is a path to happiness, which also can be realized in this very lifetime. As Walpola Rahula put it in his exposition of the first truth [9]: "It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”.
- The article has ten uses of the highly WP:TECHNICAL term "redeath". All of these could be replaced without loss of meaning by "death".
The footnotes also make an inaccurate parallel with a non Buddhist idea of preventing Punarmrtyu, or "redeath" from a heavenly state back into Samsara. Therevadhans don't have the concept of an intermediate state between death and rebirth of any sort, heavenly or otherwise. Instead, they say that the next thought moment after your death is the first thought moment of the process of your next rebirth. - The article presents a single WP:POV on authenticity according to which only a few very early teachings in the Pali Canon are by the historical Buddha. This is just one of many attributions according to scholars. The opposite end of the spectrum is the WP:POV according to which the earliest sutras were passed down through memorization, word for word, in a similar way to the Vedas and record the teachings as memorized shortly after Buddha died. There are many intermediate views too.
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
In detail:
Details
| ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Background - How the Four Noble Truths came to be stated incorrectly in this articleThe previous lede stated the truths correctly as the truths of suffering (or more generally unsatisfactoriness), origin, cessation and path.[1]. This is how most books, articles and online WP:RS sources introduce them, followed by a detailed exposition of each truth in turn [2]
Cite error: A One of the most distinctive features of Buddhism is that Buddha taught that cessation is something you can realize in this very lifetime. This can be challenging for readers who come to it with the background of another religion. Indeed, though we can all directly realize what suffering and dissatisfaction is from our own experience, according to the Pali Canon, only one of Buddha's first disciples, venerable Kondañña, directly realized the truth of what he was saying about cessation right away when he first taught them[9]. Several readers posted to the talk page complaining that they didn't understand the four truths, not surprisingly, and that is why the lede got rewritten. Unfortunately, this rewrite turned them into statements describing a way of escape from "this mundane world" at death. This may indeed make them more familiar to you, and so easier to understand, if you are used to other religions. However, that doesn't make them more correct. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 1. According to the Pali Canon Buddha realized cessation as a young man of 35
Professor Walpola Rahula's book "What the Buddha Taught" is widely regarded as one of the best expositions of the central teachings in the Pali canon by both Eastern and Western scholars alike. By way of example, Richard Gombrich in the preface to his new book "What the Buddha Thought" says "The title of this book is a gesture of homage to the late Ven. Dr Walpola Rahula, who taught me much of what I understand of early Buddhism"[10]. It has 67 citations in google scholar in the last year alone [11]. He was a Pali expert thoroughly familiar with the canon of the Therevadhan sutras. He put it like this in his exposition of the Third Noble Truth[12]:
The four truths are understood in this way in all the main sutra traditions, Zen [13], Tibetan [14], Therevadhan [15], etc. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Buddha did not have to die to reach enlightenmentFar from the Buddha having to die to reach enlightenment, the Pali Canon also states in the Mahaparinibbana Sutta that Buddha didn't have to enter paranirvana either when he did. Ananda could have asked him to remain to the end of this world period, but he didn't get the hint. [16]
Although the historical Buddha entered paranirvana when he died, in the Tibetan traditions at least they also have the idea that other Buddhas can "emanate" after they die and take birth as young babies again over and over [17] (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) No use of the word "rebirth" in the Wheel Turning Sutra which presents the Four Noble TruthsIt's also worth noting that the wheel turning sutra[18] does not include the word "rebirth" in any form. Instead the teachings are based around dukkha. This is makes them far more accessible, as all that is required of the practitioner is to recognize the truth of suffering or unsatisfactoriness, which is a truth easy of access to anyone. After that, all that is needed to follow the path is an open mind, and a dedication to seeing the truth and to recognize clearly what you know and what you don't know. That open mind also applies to what happens when you die. If the truths were based around an aim to end rebirth, then you would need to affirm a belief first, such as "I believe in rebirth", before you could start on the path. This would close your mind to other possibilities. It would be a way of declaring that you are have decided in advance that any other ideas about what happens when you die are wrong. But Buddhists don't have any such creed, even in the Tibetan traditions, which have the strongest emphasis of any on the process of rebirth, including recognition of reborn Tulkus. Instead, you commit to an open mind when you become a Buddhist. See for instance Trungpa Rinpoche's exposition of requirements for taking refuge[19], in the ceremony during which one affirms that one has chosen to follow the Buddhist path. I know that there is a movement amongst some Westerners to try to identify what they take to be the original authentic teachings and to reinterpret the sutras. In the previous discussion then the other editors provided cites which they claimed presented the view that when Buddha became enlightened, all that happened is that he got an intimation that after death he would never be reborn again. But they were cites to densely argued complex technical discussions in the academic literature, and I was not convinced that these discussions were interpreted correctly. Whether or not any WP:RS present such views, this is certainly not how the four truths are presented by most Buddhist scholars or teachers, nor is it how Buddhist practitioners understand them, and nor is it how they are presented in the original wheel turning sutra in the Pali canon. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 2. Punarmrtyu translated as "redeath" doesn't seem to be a Buddhist termNone of the editors in the previous discussion found a Buddhist sutra cite for this word (mentioned in note 1 in the current version). It is used in Hindu and pre Buddhist texts but these texts are not recognized as sutras by Buddhists. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Agatigati is a Buddhist term - but can be translated in a less WP:TECHNICAL way as "rebirth and death"Instead they gave cites to the Pali phrase agatigati, where agati means coming and gati means going. This is translated as
Most Buddhist readers will not be familiar with the term "redeath". If I can take myself as an example reader, I have listened to teachers from many traditions including Therevadhan, Korean Zen and three branches of Tibetan Buddhism (Nyingmapa, Gelugpa and Kagyupa), over a period of 30 years. I have never heard any of them use it. Nor have I ever heard any fellow Buddhists use the word. The word "rebirth" is familiar to most but not the word "redeath". Another Buddhist who responded to the RfC was also not familiar with the term. Perhaps it is only familiar to those who have read many Western scholarly papers on the topic. If one needs a translation of agatigati, what is wrong with "rebirth and death" which avoids need for this technical term at all? The article currently has ten uses of the word "redeath". All of those could be replaced by "death" with no loss of meaning. As evidence that "redeath" is a rare word in English, and therefore WP:TECHNICAL, it's not found in these online dictionaries: (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Punarmrtyu is cited as a pre-Buddhist concept - Buddha made a clean break with the past in the Kalama suttaIn the Pali Canon, in the Kalama sutta, Buddha made a clean break with the past, saying that scriptures and other sources such as the Vedas must not be followed just because they are scriptures but must be tested by "the results it yields when put into practice; and — to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one's understanding of those results — they must further be checked against the experience of people who are wise." (quoting the translator's note). This makes it different from the situation of Christianity or Islam which both treat the Old Testament as sacred. For Buddhists, the Vedas are not sacred in this sense. So, should the article use the the word Punarmrtyu in note 1? That note gives it as an internal link to Saṃsāra#Punarmrityu:_redeath which is pre-Buddhist. Wikipedia describes it as
In more detail it is described here "Buddhist rituals of Death and Rebirth":
This is a historical section called "Some historical roots : time of death". It is not describing Buddhist ideas at this point. The four statements in the new lede seem to be based on this idea. Buddhists don't have this idea of heaven as a state between death and rebirth. The sutras do describe states of bliss that one can enter, in this life or future lives, or rather many such, each more refined than the last. Some are described with "luminous bodies"[23], and some as just pure mind. But all this is a part of the cycle of rebirth. These blissful realms, are treated as another rebirth of the many possible in the cycle of Samsara. They are not thought of as separate from Samsara. The four statements in the new lede seem closely modeled on this idea of PunarmrtyuThe new lede describes a way of escaping Samsara through somehow "stopping karma" so that you no longer have to take rebirth back into this "mundane world". This would seem to have close parallels with this non Buddhist idea of Punarmrtyu or stopping "redeath from heaven":
These four statements do not occur in this form in any Buddhist source. Though that section is heavily cited to the Buddhist literature, it is a WP:SYNTHESIS made up of ideas from many Buddhist sources combined together to make a whole that is no longer Buddhist. Compare the four truths as they were stated in the previous lede:
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) In Therevadhan teachings death is followed in the next thought-moment by the start of the next rebirthTherevadhans don't have the idea of an intermediate state between death and the next rebirth at all. Instead, they say that the next thought-moment after your death is the first thought-moment of your new rebirth. Here is professor Walpola Rahula describing this Therevadhan view on death and rebirth in "THE SECOND NOBLE TRUTH: SAMUDAYA: THE ARISING OF DUKKHA".
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) The Tibetan intermediate state between death and rebirth is not heavenSome Buddhists do think in terms of an intermediate state between death and the next rebirth, for instance in the Tibetan teachings. However, it is not described as a heavenly state. Rather, it is described for most beings as like being overwhelmed by exceedingly bright lights and loud noises like the loudest thunder, which most beings run away from, terrified, at that point and so take rebirth again. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead (translation by Chogyam Trungpa with Francesca Fremantle)
This could hardly be further from the pre-Buddhist Vedic idea of alternating between this life and a heavenly state with the aim of avoiding redeath in order to remain in the heavenly state. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) In summary - not a Buddhist ideaTibetans do have the idea of a Bardo state between death and rebirth, but the aim is not at all to remain within Bardo which is seen as terrifying and bewildering for most beings, and not a heavenly state at all. Rather the idea in the Tibetan Book of the Dead is to find a way to awaken from the Bardo, to awaken to those bright lights and loud sounds, or failing that, to find your way to a fortunate rebirth where you may be able to awaken as Buddha did during that lifetime. Therevadhans don't have the idea of an intermediate state between death and rebirth. For them your last moment of death is followed immediately by the first moment of the process of rebirth in another lifetime. So, the idea behind Punamrtyu of avoiding "redeath" from an intermediate state between death and rebirth can't even be stated in a Therevadhan context. The note doesn't make it clear that this is a non Buddhist idea. I think this is another reason to avoid the use of the technical word "redeath" in the article in translations of Agatigati. Scholars can be expected to understand "rebirth and redeath" in a Buddhist context as meaning repeated ordinary deaths, with each "redeath" leading to the start of the next rebirth in the next moment of thought (in the Pali canon at least). However, a non scholar reader could easily confuse this with the non Buddhist idea of death leading to heaven and "redeath" leading from heaven back to Samsara. This confusion seems especially likely to happen since the footnote links to a passage in wikipedia describing "redeath" in the non Buddhist sense. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) 3. Authenticity of the Buddhist teachingsThis article presents the view according to which the Four Noble Truths are a later development and were not taught by the historical Buddha. This is a view at one end of a continuum. At the other end of the continuum is the view of Prayudh Payutto and several other scholars according to which the teachings of the Pali canon for the most part consist of the words recorded at the time of the Great Council after Buddha died. The only exceptions are some obviously later texts. This is not a view based on faith but rather on scholarship. In the Pali Canon it's said that after the death of Vardhamana, or as Buddhists refer to him, Nirgrantha, leader of the Jains, Buddha's followers noticed that his followers fell into discussion and dispute about what his teachings were. They didn't want that to happen to Buddha's teachings. At the time Northern India didn't have writing. However, as scholars generally agree, the Brahmins were able to preserve the Vedas word for word through memorization, and many of Buddha's disciples were Brahmins trained to do this. So, the sutras say, they committed his teachings to memory while he was still alive. After he died, then they held a great council during which they agreed on the material in the Pali Canon and recited each sutra in unison. With this internal evidence from within the sutras themselves, it is at least possible that what we have preserved are the teachings as memorized in the first great council, pretty much word for word. After all, it is generally agreed that the Brahmins achieved that with the Vedas. In support of this view they present these main reasons:
For the details of this view, see
Many scholars hold intermediate views. For example: Peter Harvey, "Introduction to Buddhism: teachings, history and practices", says
Richard Gombrich says in an interview [24]
By presenting only one view, and such an extreme view in the debate, the current article is very WP:POV. The wikipedia article on the Pali Canon under: Attribution according to scholars presents the full range of views on this matter, in a WP:NPOV way. Surely the approach used in the Pali Canon article is more in accord with wikipedia guidelines. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC) Update - Gombrich's Views in "What the Buddha Thought"Once again, if anyone reading this objects to this post, please just let me know. I have no wish to post here if my posts are unwelcome, thanks. It's six days since my last post so hopefully this is not seen as excessive. And probably this is all that I have to say at this stage but I felt I should post a bit more after reading Gombrich's book which gave me some more insight into what I think the issue may be here. Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) I've just been reading Gombrich's "What the Buddha Thought"[25] and was surprised to find that he presents an "escape from this mundane world" interpretation. He is a top scholar in the field of Western academic Buddhism, though he admits that he doesn't have Walpola Rahula's depth of understanding of the vast encyclopedia sized Pali Canon - few Westerners do. Richard Gombrich's main thesis (if I understand it right) is that:
He also presents this thesis in short form on his Oxford home page[26]. The basic message according to him is
As I said above, at least for someone approaching this as a Buddhist in the sutra traditions, what he says seems to be inconsistent in almost all respects with the way that Walpola Rahula and other modern Buddhist scholars and teachers in these traditions present it. He seems to be of the view that these interpretations don't quite make sense as is, but that with his humanist reinterpretation they can be transformed into something that does make sense. Please correct me if I have made any mistakes in this summary of his views. His approach can be especialy hard to understand if you are used to the way the four truths are traditionally understood and explained in the main sutra traditions, perhaps just as hard to understand as the traditional approach clearly is for those who approach this in the other direction.. (If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC) |
Conclusions
In summary:
- The four statements in the lede correspond roughly to some views of Western academic Buddhist scholars of what they think the historical Buddha taught
- They are not consistent with the views of typical modern practicing Buddhists including many Buddhist scholars such as Walpola Rahula and leading teachers in all the main traditions of Buddhism.
- The WP:POV that the historical Buddha taught the views summarized in these four statements is academically respected, but only one view of many in a wide ranging debate about what Buddha taught. Other scholars like Alex Wynne, Prayudh Sujato etc have an equally carefully reasoned WP:POV that Buddha taught the four truths and other central teachings just as recorded in the Pali Canon.
So first, is this an accurate summary of the present day situation, of what is said in the WP:RS that I summarized?
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
If the conclusions are correct
What should we do if those conclusions about what is said in the WP:RS on this subject are correct? I think we can learn a lot by looking at the articles on Christianity. Most Buddhists don't speak English (over half are Chinese, and the next most common by population are the Thai and Japanese [27]), and there are only 535 million Buddhists world wide compared with 2.2. billion Christians. Also, the majority of English speaking editors of Wikipedia are much more familiar with Christianity than Buddhism. The wikipedia articles on theology are of a high standard.
So, let's take a similarly central article in Christianity: Resurrection of Jesus. In the section on Historicity and origin you learn that there is a wide range of scholarly views about whether this event happened and what the event was. However, the lede relies on the biblical account, and there is no suggestion that the lede be rewritten to mention these views.
In a similar way, the old lede presented the four truths as they are presented in the canon. As with the lede for Resurrection of Jesus, this is not taking a WP:POV on the scholarly debate about what Buddha originally taught, it just gives the teachings as they are presented in the sutras, just as the lede for Resurrection of Jesus gives the teachings as presented in the Bible. Of course Richard Gombrich's views are notable, and interesting, and need to be mentioned. It's a matter of where and how this is done.
Whatever the decision is, as a modern Buddhist reader myself, I feel that it is especially important that the lede does not give the false view that most modern Buddhists aim to escape from this "mundane world" and to prevent rebirth when they die. That is so different from the views and practice of most Buddhist practitioners including many of the most respected Buddhist scholars and teachers like Walpola Rahula as described in many WP:RS. It is as if the lede of Resurrection of Jesus falsely promulgated the idea that most Christians don't believe in the resurrection.
The way it is done at present in the lede for Four Noble Truths is a bit like someone rewriting the lede of Resurrection of Jesus to attempt a coherent "best account" of what "really happened" according to the views of theologians that the wikipedia author of the lede thinks "got it right". That surely can't be the right way to do it, and the way that it is handled in theological articles on wikipedia may show the way to an alternative approach to this issue.
(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
4. Discussion
Please discuss here to avoid breaking up and confusing the exposition above. Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- @JimRenge: - I can understand that you want to collapse part of what I wrote since nobody has commented on it yet. But I think at least the discussion section needs to be left in case anyone wants to comment, and the material in the conclusion is important and not mentioned in the summary as I added it later. Plus I hope you agree that if anyone decides they want to take up the discussion then it would then be appropriate to uncollapse it. I'm going to do some more editing of the uncollapsed sections as they were written on the assumption that the whole lot is visible to the reader. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Joshua Jonathan: I can also understand collapsing the references section as the collapsed section does have rather a large number of cites. Just a remark to anyone reading this - if you want to be able to jump to the citations then please uncollapse the References section as well as the collapsed section above. Robert Walker (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
References
References
|
---|
References
|