Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

it

Rebirth, Redeath

@Dharmalion76: Actually, both Buddhist and Hindu traditions were more concerned about suffering (dukkha) associated with redeaths and the journey towards another death. Rebirth, in both traditions (and Jainism), has sometimes been presented as an exceptional opportunity for a human being to live spiritually, thus pursue moksha or nirvana. Life is beautiful, make the most of it, they say. @Joshua Jonathan has used the right words, when he used rebirths and redeaths. Please see Paul Williams's Buddhist Thought Chapter 1, Hermann Oldenberg's The doctrine of the Upanishads, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

This article isn't about Hinduism and "redeath" is very much not a common phrase in Buddhism. Nor is Buddhism concerned with "redeaths and the journey towards another death" but instead rebirths. One source does not make it a common phrase and it is one of the sticking points in the long discussion happening on this page. It isn't a Buddhist term so it is WP:UNDUE to use it. Dharmalion76 (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76: Williams is not the only one mentioning and discussing "rebirth, redeath". Gombrich, Lopez, Anderson, and Harvey publications on Buddhism do too (these are cited above or in the article already, all in the context of 4NT). For more, see Naomi Appleton's Narrating Karma and Rebirth: Buddhist and Jain Multi-Life Stories, page 3; John Makransky's Buddhahood Embodied, page 27, etc. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

And Rita Langer notes that "redeath" is a Brahman concept that isn't Buddhist (Buddhist Rituals of Death and Rebirth: Contemporary Sri Lankan Practice and Its Origins). You are using scholar terms in the context of drawing parallels to other belief systems. "Redeath" is not a Buddhist term and is not a part of 4NT. Besides, as I have noted, it is redundant because one can't have "redeath" without rebirth having happened first and vice versa so let's use that actual Buddhist concept of rebirth and not this other Vedic term with no Buddhist application. Dharmalion76 (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It's being used by Buddhists. 758 hits at Google Books for buddhism "redeath". See especially Buswell & Lopez (2013), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, p.708, "Rebirth":

"An English term that does not have an exact correlate in Buddhist languages, rendeered instead by arange of technical terms, such as the Sanskrit PUNARJANMAN (lit. "birth again") and PUNABHAVAN (lit. "re-becoming"), and, less commonly, the related PUNARMRTYU (lit. "redeath")."

So, less common, but not non-Buddhist. Regarding WP:UNDUE: this is not about a minority view, it's about using Buddhist terminology, mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

It isn't a Buddhist term and it most assuredly is a minority view. Please find three sources for general readers (not a scholarly work looking at the influences on Buddhist etc.) that uses the term "redeath". You will not find that term in anything by Kornfield, Goldstein, Henepola Gunaratana, Thich Nhat Hanh, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Walpola Rahula, etc. It is exceptionally WP:UNDUE to use a term not found in any Buddhist introduction texts, nor was it used in suttas to explain 4NT. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

(ec) @Dharmalion76: Punarbhava (re-becoming) is too. As are punarjanama, purvajanama, punabhava, punarmrityu (oldest layer texts), janam*, jan* or ja* etc. The historical links shouldn't be an issue in an encyclopedic article. Further, only birth implies death in the ancient texts of Indian religions, but death does not necessarily imply rebirth, nor rebirth implies redeath (in some dualistic subtraditions), nor redeath implies rebirth. That is what moksha, jivanmukti, videhamukti, nirvana, kaivalya etc are aiming for – stop the samsara cycle, reach eternal bliss now and forever. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@JJ: Indeed. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Then let's do a WP:RFC and see if you can find a majority of Buddhist editors on here agree that "redeath" is a common term. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76:Just to say, I totally agree. The repeated use of Hindu sources and Hindu ideas, without alerting the reader to the fact that they are Hindu ideas is one of the main issues in the current treatment. It would be fine to compare and contrast Buddhist ideas with Hindu ideas. But to merge them together into a single treatment as if there was no distinction between the two approaches is not fine, in my view. It's been a recurring theme in this discussion that the Buddhist concept of Nirvana and the Hindu concept of Moksha are for all practical purposes identical, just taught differently. I don't think they are. I think the distinction is a valuable one giving practitioners the opportunity to follow different paths, Hindu or Buddhist, depending on their inclinations and understanding and connections. Robert Walker (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, even if Moksha and Nibbana were the same (which for the record, I am in agreement with you) that would be interesting information for an article about the similarities. This is not that article. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I agree. Indeed, I think an article on the similarities between Moksha and Nirvana would be very interesting to read. And on the differences too. I'm sure it would be easy to find many sources saying that there are differences.

There is a very short section on this in the article on Moksha:

"The words moksha, nirvana and kaivalya are sometimes used synonymously, because they all refer to the state that liberates a person from all causes of sorrow and suffering. However, in modern era literature, these concepts have different premises in different religions. Nirvana, a concept common in Buddhism, is the realization that there is no self nor consciousness; while moksha, a concept common in many schools of Hinduism, is acceptance of Self, realization of liberating knowledge, the consciousness of Oneness with all existence and understanding the whole universe as the Self. Nirvana starts with the premise that there is no Self, moksha on the other hand, starts with the premise that everything is the Self; there is no consciousness in the state of nirvana, but everything is One unified consciousness in the state of moksha"

From: Moksha#Moksha.2C_nirvana_and_kaivalya It would be interesting if someone wrote a longer article to expand on that. I'm not sure why they say "there is no consciousness in the state of nirvana" - that seems a strange way of putting it. Is it saying that Buddha didn't have consciousness after he reached enlightenment? Because, surely it's generally agreed that the sutras say he reached nirvana when he became enlightened, not on death. Consciousness here is a modern term and not precise in dharma meaning. But it's a starting point. Robert Walker (talk)

@Dharmalion76: Also, to agree with you again - until I read the latest lede here, I had never heard the word "redeath", in any Buddhist context, until I saw this article. Indeed I wasn't sure even what it meant, and am still not very clear on why they use the word "redeath" here rather than just "death". Nor had I come across the word Moksha either until I encountered Hinduism. I hadn't come across it in any Buddhist writings. Now that I know to search for it, yes, it's used, especially in discussions that draw parallels between Buddhism and Hindusim, but it seems to be rare indeed in the Buddhist literature. While the word Nirvana is used frequently. So I agree with you, these don't seem to be common terms in Buddhist teaching. Robert Walker (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76: You can certainly try RfC, but the likely outcome is no consensus, which will lead us nowhere different than where we are (WP:MOVEON). If you look at the sources on this talk page posted in the last few days, or those already in the article, then look at what Rahula, GOldstein, Kornfield etc are stating, there is nothing significant in Rahula et al state that is not already summarized in the article. If @JJ missed something significant, please identify it. If @JJ did not miss something significant, let us with mettā thank @JJ and editors who have worked on this article since 2014. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: never thanked @Dorje108: for his efforts, just said he was misguided and rewrote articles that he had worked on continuously for over a year, (with no objections from other editors), without even prior discussion about whether they needed to be rewritten. Same also with @ScientificQuest: just reverted all his edits to the Anatta article, even though he was a doctoral student researching into Anatta as his thesis topic. Both editors are not currently actively editing wikipedia, as a result. Yes, it is possible to respond to people with opposing views with meta. You can also thank them for providing this opportunity to develop patience. You can thank them for helping you towards clarity of thought. As Shantideva taught, those who are your adversaries can be your best spiritual friends through helping you to develop patience in the way that nobody else can. But he didn't teach that you have to say they are right and just lie down and let them steamroller over you :).

Meta includes a wish for beings to be free from confusion, and to find happiness in whatever form is appropriate to them, so if you think there is confusion, then your wish is for them to find an end to that confusion and for them to find happiness. So you don't just thank them for being confused and leave it at that, if you think someone else is confused about something. The happiness they get as a result of winning an argument with you and seeing their version of an article preserved is only temporary worldly happiness. I do wish Joshua Jonathan well. But I don't think his version of the lede is correct - as my view and I hope that by saying as part of a dialog, that we can all learn from it. Robert Walker (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The main thing you are missing here, I think, is that what is presented in the article often is a synthesis that is greater than its whole. So asking what has been omitted is missing the point. All the elements of a synthesis can be correctly cited, yet the whole may still not be acceptable in Wikipedia, if that particular synthesis has not been subject to peer review or published in a reputable source. There are omissions later in the article, especially the section on Four_Noble_Truths#Historical_development which is devoted almost exclusively to Anderson's views and doesn't mention the views of Gombrich, Harvey, Wynne, Payutto and many other expert Buddhist scholars who have diametrically opposite views in this scholarly debate. It is a very biased section. But the issues in the lede are mainly ones of synthesis. Robert Walker (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76:. Just to say, I support your suggestion of a WP:RFC to see if we find a majority of Buddhist editors on here agree that "redeath" is a common term, and should be used for the article on the four noble truths.

I think the main reason @Dorje108: and my RfCs before failed was because they were too general leading to endlessly complex discussions like the ones on this page. It seems the best chance of success with an RfC is to keep it focused. And perhaps even an RfC on the current lede of the article is too general as there are so many points that can be discussed, as we see from this conversation. But maybe if we start with an RfC on a single word in the lede, and in the rest of the article, it has some chance of reaching a conclusion?

I am of course totally in agreement with you. In such an RfC, I would vote that the article should not use the word redeath at all unless in the context of discussion of Hinduism, if that was relevant, and that if so it should be clearly labelled as a section about Hindu ideas. Robert Walker (talk) 04:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76: Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on "sources for general readers"; the addition of the term "redeath" is based on reliable sources. WP:UNDUE is about minority views, not "common" or "less common" terms. And Buswell & Lopez, and Paul Williams, are not insignificant autors in this respect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

NB: Langer does not say that punarmtyu is not a Buddhist term. She refers to Bodewitz, who seems to have investigated the use of those term in Vedic texts. I do agree, though, that the term "redeath" seems to have appeared in Vedic milieus. But that does not change the fact that it is also being used in reliable sources on Buddhism. What's more, as far as I know, the Buddhist idea of rebirth can't be seen separate from this wider Indian contexts, and ideas on death and heaven which were circulating at that time. The Buddha, or his movement, did no develop in a vacuum. Read Samuel Anderson, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, for the common background of the Sramana traditions; many Buddhist ideas are not exclusively Buddhist. Read Wynne, for a compelling thesis on how buddhist meditation may have been based for a large part on Vedic meditation practices. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: If we did an RfC you could put this argument in your section of the RfC. We know that you think that redeath is a common term in Buddhist teaching. But others don't think it is. I never saw this term at all in 35 years as a Buddhist, in books, or teachings by teachers on Zen Buddhism, Therevadhan Buddhism, and the Tibetan traditions. So I would say it is a very uncommon term. I can understand that perhaps if you read particular sources you may think it is a common term.

The idea of the RfC is simply to ask the larger community of wikipedians here if they think it is a common term in Buddhist teachings and suitable for use in this article, and see what they say. I think it could be an interesting discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Temporary states and things

After all, this summary of the four truths (the summary, not the introductory sentence preceding it) was the best version: clear and comprehensible. "Temporary states and things" refers to conditioned phenomena, which are ultimately dissatisfying. Clinging to these conditioned phenomena produces karma and leads to rebirth, and renewed dissatisfaction, ad infinitum. But, says the Buddha, here's the way out! So, here we've got it both: dukkha and the end of dukkha, and rebirt and the end of rebirth. And, mind you, this also makes very clear why rebirth is part of the deal: those conditioned phenomena, those temporary states and things, are a priori unsatisfying. To pretend that they can be turned in something satisfying by following the Buddhist path is a betrayal of the Buddhist dharma. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

But that's it, it's not saying that conditioned pheneomena can be made satisfying and made to last forever, of course not. According to the Buddhist teachings, before he reached enlightenment, Buddha himself learnt a meditation from Udaka Ramaputta that could lead his mind to continual unstained meditative states, of neither perception nor non-perception, in this very life, and indeed, through the future, after his death as well, and said that it was not the end of the path to achieve this because eventually it would fade and he'd be still caught up seeking satisfaction in conditioned phenomena.

So the idea that the aim is bliss in this life is obviously wrong :). A Buddha is not looking for satisfaction in conditioned phenomena. From the moment a Buddha realizes Nirvana, he is no longer doing this.

If you are right that what Buddha meant to say is that you have to end rebirth - why then didn't he state the four truths like that in the Sutra.

Why did he say "'This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering': thus, bhikkhus, in regard to things unheard before, there arose in me vision, knowledge, wisdom, true knowledge, and light."

- if what he meant is "This is the noble truth of the way to end rebirth"?

As to what that means, I think that belongs in meta discussion. I've seen different views there. But he said clearly that he reached Nirvana when he became enlightened, not on death.

He did indeed say in the wheel turning sutra ": 'Unshakeable is the liberation of my mind. This is my last birth. Now there is no more re-becoming."

But again, that's open to interpretation, because he didn't say that the way is a way leading to ending rebirth. He said it specifically about himself that this is his last rebirth.

Assuming he chose his words carefully, then we should present it the same way - present the path as a path to cessation of suffering, and say that as a result of the realization then Buddha said that it is his last rebirth.

Then you can go on to say that in some interpretations this means that all Buddhas enter paranirvana at death, and according to other interpretations, that it is possible for Buddhas to manifest as new human bodies after they reach enlightenment. And go on to say that in these other traditions there is a distinction between wheel turning Buddhas that enter paranirvana at death and many other Buddhas that don't enter paranirvana and even continue to manifest and reincarnate as humans for many lifetimes, and sometimes as several different humans at the same time (especially in the Tibetan traditions).

Or whatever, this is not an outline for how to do the article after that, just saying, that if you present the four noble truths as the Buddha taught, then they are far more open to interpretation and then it makes it easier later in the article to present those different interpretations than if you restate the truths to lock them down into one particular intepretation in the lede.

It is a case of being careful in our use of words, just as Buddha was. To present what he taught in the way he taught it, before then going on to discuss what he taught. Robert Walker (talk) 10:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: True. We should be careful in not interpreting the Sutras directly, since they are WP:Primary. A Sutra (Sutta), in the Indian tradition, was always part of a distilled aphoristic genre of texts, meant as a reference and usually memorized, and it always needed commentary to understand the context and meaning. If this article was about a 4NT Sutra, that would be one thing; but this article is about 4NT in Buddhism - which is far far more than the few words of a Sutra, and does need the context from secondary and tertiary scholarly sources. You have done that. You and other wiki editors have obviously put a lot of work in this article, work that is of high quality and driven by a diversity of WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: Just a polite reminder that you review WP:FORUM and WP:TALK, particularly WP:TPNO section. Please end your blog-y and forum-y walls of posts on this article's talk page. While your passion is amazing and could be positive, your behavior on this talk page is not constructive in improving this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Okay, sorry that my last post was too long. The essential point is this sentence:

"Assuming he chose his words carefully, then we should present it the same way - present the path as a path to cessation of suffering, and say that as a result of the realization then Buddha said that it is his last rebirth."

And then to go on to present what various WP:RS sources give as interpretations and consequences of that.

This structure of presenting the truths as Buddha taught them first as a path to cessation of suffering / unsatisfactoriness is how it is normally done in all the sources I've seen and all the sources shared even the ones that JJ presents to back up his case.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ideas for future RfCs

This is supplementary material for my "unable to vote" response to the RfC above

Following @Robert McClenon:'s suggestion that if we do RfCs, they work best if they are very focused, and @Dharmalion76:'s suggestion already of an RfC on the term redeath, here are some draft ideas for future RfCs. Each numbered line here is an idea for a separate RfC focusing on just one particular issue. The idea is to break up this complex discussion into individual points we can hope to resolve, and to do them one at a time, not all at once.

1. is the word redeath commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in this article and in the lede? (suggestion by @Dharmalion76:).

2. Should the historical development section mention the views of scholars at the opposite end of the spectrum of the scholarly debate from Anderson, such as Wynne, Gombrich, Payutto, Harvey etc.(Expressed by Harvey for instance as "While parts of the Pali Canon clearly originated after the time of the Buddha, much must derive from his teaching.")? Or should it only mention the views of Anderson and like minded scholars according to whom most of the Pali Canon is a later development including the four noble truths (as in the current version of the page)? (this would be a multiple choice RfC)

3. Should the lede say that the third noble truth is a path to cessation of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness / suffering) as originally stated by the Buddha, Or should the lede say that the third noble truth is a path to end rebirth and "redeath" as it does at present? (this would be a multiple choice RfC)

We could follow that up with RfCs on the other noble truths, e.g.

4. Is this a good summary of the noble eightfold path: "behaving decently, cultivating discipline, and practicing mindfulness and meditation" (current lede), or is it better just to say "Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration."? (multiple choice again)

I.e. RfCs that are focused on tiny minutae of the article that are nevertheless significant issues.

These are just ideas and am interested to hear if other editors think they would help to focus the debate. And they are examples, maybe others have other ideas of RfCs that would be similarly focused that could help resolve the situation here? I think in such a complex situation as this, we may have to go slowly, one small point at a time. Robert Walker (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: sorry to bother you again, but is it good practice to add a list of possible future RfC's, after posting walls of texts again, instead of focussing on a just opened RfC - something that the editor in question isn't able to do? I find it actually quite WP:DISRUPTIVE, trying to fight with all means against an already established concensus based on multiple reliable sources. What do you think? And is it possible to keep this editor just away from this page, given those walls of texts and fighting against concensus? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:57, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Seconding that. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Add cmt: seriously proposing not to use information based on multiple WP:RS published by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Ptess, et cetera, is a ridiculous proposal, going against the core of Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Thirding that. I support a temporary voluntary/enforced restraint on @Robert Walker, because of repeated WP:TPNO and WP:FORUM behavioral violations on this article talk page. His walls of posts are not constructively contributing in improving this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ms Sarah Welch - Voluntary restraints on talk page postings are a silly idea. That would depend on his mood. If you want to impose enforced restraints, take the advice of Drmies and go to WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Did Robertinventor make 292 talk page edits here since 26 March? 266 since 28 April? OK, such a restriction is possible, but the best place to ask for it is WP:AN. What you don't want is give the appearance of a couple of regulars ganging up on one other editor; taking it to AN for broader discussion is the proper thing to do (not ANI, as far as I'm concerned, since this is not an incident). While you're at it, look at some other article talk pages, and consider pinging Wehwalt, who closed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive869#Disruptive_talkpage_behaviour over a year ago. Robert McClenon and Martijn Hoekstra weighed in there as well, and my pinging them here is justified, I think, by the neutral position they took in that discussion. (I think Martijn has moved on--that would be sad.) Just be clear about what you're asking for. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Glad you responded. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explain this properly. This was meant as supplementary material for my response to the RfC. I don't think it is possible to resolve all the issues raised here using an RfC on WP:RS and suggest that we should instead divide it into manageable sub-units, and this suggestion for future RfCs is one way to do it. I've now labelled it as such.

The reason for the large number of edits is because I get many typos when I write. I also tend to repeat myself and have to edit my comments to remove the repetitions. If you look at this page, then I am sure that Joshua Jonathan has made at least as many separate comments as I have done. There has been no archiving since this discussion started so you can just count my comments and count the comments of other editors. Or indeed do a word count, Joshua Jonathan has done some long posts here as well so if you add them all up, though I may have written more words, I don't think the difference is a large one. Robert Walker (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC suggestion

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.

---

This is not actually an RfC. It is just me presenting a suggestion for an RfC which might help to clarify the main question at hand.

Something like this:

What do you think of these two options?

1. The four noble truths in the lede should be stated as a path with the aim to end the cycle of rebirth as the way to end suffering and unsatisfactoriness (as in the current lede).
2. The four noble truths in the lede should just be stated as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness, and discussion of how cessation is understood in the various Buddhist traditions left to later discussion in the page. (As in the old version of the lede).

From the discussion above, others here don't seem to see think there is anything to discuss.

Does anyone else reading this think that this is a question of substance that can be discussed? Robert Walker (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Walker: Would it be more clear if you restated (1)+(2), for RfC, as "The lead should not mention rebirth, samsara and redeath, only the main article should"? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: No, there's no problem at all with mentioning rebirth and samsara in the lede. For instance a sentence or two of historical context about the Śramaṇa traditions would surely be appropriate if that was the consensus. The problem is only with the presentation of the 4NT rewritten to say that the aim of the practitioner who follows the path of the four noble truths is to end rebirth. Robert Walker (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether it does end any possibility of future rebirth is a separate question, and depends on whether you think that all enlightened beings inevitably enter paranirvana. But to state that as the aim in the statement of the truths themselves is to rewrite the four noble truths, in my view. So such material belongs in meta discussion later in the page. Robert Walker (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Richard Walker: The old version of the lead that you like, never mentioned rebirth, samsara and redeath in the lead. In fact, it did not even discuss it in the main article, just mentioned rebirth and samsara in two places in the passing. Rebirth and samsara have been central, basic to Buddhism, according to all RS scholarship. The old 2014 version was not Buddhism's Four Noble Truths, it was something new and exciting, a reconstruction and reinterpretation. It was not a summary of 4NT from the scholarly literature. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I don't understand why you say the old version was new and exciting. It is just the standard presentation and it cites many sources that present the four noble truths in this way - see the footnote a. It's the lede in the new version which is original - it has no citation to anyone else who has expressed the four noble truths in the same way. It is a non peer reviewed restatement that can only be attributed to wikipedia editors.

But there is no problem at all adding something about rebirth in the lede. Example, you could say something like this (Please don't use these words, it is just for illustration purposes):

"Buddhism arose in the context of the Sramana traditions, and shares many common ideas with other Indian religions of the time, such as Samsara, and the possibility of liberation from the cycle of existence. The core teachings in Buddhism are based on the four noble truths. These truths identify suffering, the source of suffering, present a possibility of cessation of suffering and a path to cessation....."

That would be absolutely fine. The problem comes when you say that the aim is to end rebirth. Indeed liberation from the cycle of existence doesn't logically mean you can't manifest in Samsara. For instance a prisoner who is liberated from a prison is still free to go back to the prison, e.g. to talk to previous inmates that they may have become friends with, or perhaps to visit as a health visitor or chaplain or some such. The difference between the former prisoner and the current prisoners is that the former prisoner is now free to come and go. Similarly, if you are liberated from samsara, it doesn't follow logically that it is impossible to continue to manifest in samsara. So to say that the aim is to end rebirth materially changes the meaning of the 4NT in my view, and is not how they are expressed in the sutras either, for instance in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.

Yes rebirth and samsara are central to all the sutra traditions of Buddhism, as usually understood. But the four noble truths can be stated without mentioning those concepts. They are more like background context. For instance the Zen Buddhist article on the four noble truths which I cited earlier doesn't mention rebirth at all.

It would of course be appropriate to talk about rebirth in meta discussion of the truths. And for that matter to talk about them in the truths themselves. It's just that one particular point - rewriting the truths to say that the aim is to end rebirth that's the issue :).

And I'm not saying the old version of the article was perfect. Indeed Dorje was working away at it when Joshua rewrote it and stopped him in his tracks, and he was collaborating with the other editors as well.

Anyway this is the sort of thing I'd put in my own section if we had an RfC. The main thing here though is, is there a question to be asked here? If nobody else thinks there is even anything to discuss, well how is any progress possible? I think we need fresh eyes on this to have any chance of moving anywhere new. Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I find the wording repeated rebirth and "redeath" awkward but the Four Noble truths have been taught as ultimately leading to liberation/nirvana. For instance, Thanissaro Bhikkhu's study guide for The Four Noble Truths quotes many sutras which state this (see the section on the third truth as well as the fourth) and when discussing the eightfold path, Thanissaro quotes SN 56.11 to say

Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. ("Unbinding" is Thanissaro's chosen translation of "nibbāna")

Buddhanet's study guide on the Four Noble Truths states the same. The Third Truth page says "The second fruit of the end of suffering is what Buddhists call supreme Enlightenment." Barbara O'Brien, who comes from a Zen background, notes the same as well saying "The Buddha said that "the extinction of thirst [craving] is Nirvana." (Or, in Pali, Nibbana.)"

I don't disagree that the Four Noble Truths can be stated without noting that they properly ultimately lead to liberation but what would be the purpose of leaving out the larger view of the teachings? The First Turning of the Wheel was to teach 4NT in Deer Park and if these four didn't encompass the entire path then it wouldn't be considered a turning of the wheel. Dharmalion76 (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76: - the purpose would be because that's how they are stated originally by the Buddha. They are a starting point and encapsulate in brief also Buddha's own search. And when you just present cessation as cessation of suffering and unsastisfactoriness - that's then again something a practitioner can relate to right at the start, and doesn't require theories of the process of rebirth, or discussion of whether or not Buddhas after they are liberated from samsara can manifest again as future newborn humans as it is said in the Mahayana schools. There is no need to get into all those comoplexities - and Buddha didn't when he taught the four noble truths. I think there is a reason that Buddha presented them as a path to cessation of dukkha rather than a path to stop rebirth. And that we should follow that example when presenting them ourselves. Though of course can then discuss them with as elaborate ideas as one likes after one has first presented the original simple statement of the truths for the reader to undertand. Does that make sense? If this was a proper RfC then I'd do a section presenting this in more detail as everyone would in their comments on it. Robert Walker (talk) 18:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

And thanks very much for your contribution to the discussion :). Robert Walker (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

But Buddha did teach it this way. In the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, Buddha states:

And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. (translation by Thannissaro and as noted earlier, "unbinding" is Thanissaro's uniquely chosen translation of "nibbāna")

Buddha states that due to realizing the 4NT he was awakened. Near the end of that sutta, he says "Knowledge & vision arose in me: 'Unprovoked is my release. This is the last birth. There is now no further becoming.'" which makes clear that the cycle of rebirth has ended due to his understanding of the 4NT. Dharmalion76 (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dharmalion. Robert writes: "The core teachings in Buddhism are based on the four noble truths." They're not. The four truths were formulated later. Scholars like Gombrich and Bronkhorst hesitate to formulate or reconstruct "core teachings," with good reasons. Vetter argues that the "core teaching" of early Buddhism was the practice of dhyana, leading to calm of mind. No four truths; as the Wiki-article clearly states, and this is also from multiple reliable sources, those four truths are a later formulation. Even the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta is a largely expanded text which developed later. As mentioned in the previous section, "ending rebirth" is mentioned in a separate section in the Wiki-article, with multiple references. It's the essence (if we are to speak of an essence; I'm contradicting myself here, of course) of Buddhism. If practitioners, or Wiki-editors, can't relate to that, too bad for them; let them find another religion they can relate to. But don't expect to drop the essence of Buddhism when we describe Buddhism, because someone is upset when realizing what Buddhism is about. This is an encyclopedia, based on WP:RS, not a faith manual based on one person's (mis)understanding of Buddhism. The best way to "progress" here is to stop this discussion, and to WP:MOVEON. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76: Yes I agree that Buddha did say that this would be his last rebirth. That's foreseeing his own paranirvana. But I don't think it is right to fold his prediction of his own paranirvana back into the four noble truths and rewrite them to say that the aim of the path in the 4NT is to end rebirth. That he entered paranirvana as a result doesn't mean that paranirvana was his aim, or that he taught this as the aim of the practitioner.

As a Buddhist myself, I don't practice with the aim to enter paranirvana, but with the aim to find a path to cessation of suffering for myself and for all other beings. And with the aim to find that solution irrespective of how that happiness is achieved. To say that it must be achieved via ending the cycle of rebirth also tends to distance you from other religions who also have a similar aim to find happiness for all beings too, through love and compassion. Because it's saying "I know that the only way you can achieve this is by ending rebirth". But I don't know that. I don't know for sure that I will be reborn. This is something I believe to be true, and I have arguments which I think are good for it, but I can't prove it. But I do know that I and others suffer, and I have faith that there is a truth which I and others can come to see which leads to cessation of suffering. So the original teaching of the four noble truths speaks directly to my situation. While if you rephrase it as a search to end the cycle of rebirths, that's much more indirect, and a matter that would depend on affirming an unshakeable belief in rebirth first before you could practice.

It also goes against the Buddha's teachings in the Kalama Sutta by requiring the practitioner to affirm a particular belief which they can't verify (in rebirth and that ceasing rebirth stops suffering) before they can follow the path.

As the sutta says:

• "Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
• nor upon tradition (paramparā),
• nor upon rumor (itikirā),
• nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
• nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
• nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
• nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
• nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
• nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
• nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
• Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'

As a Buddhist following the path, who has taken refuge and practiced for many years, I have never been required to affirm beliefs I can't verify to follow the path.

Faith plays a role, but it's a faith that you are following a path based on truth, which is not a revealed wisdom, but a truth you can come to see for yourself. It's more a framework for future open discovery than a belief system. The current version of the lede, in my view, turns the 4NT into a belief system you'd have to affirm.

And in the Mahayana traditions then Buddhas don't all enter paranirvana. The wheel turning Buddhas do. But other Buddhas continue to teach in Samsara and to help others here in direct ways as actual human beings, as well as in other forms, after they are enlightened.

Do you see what I'm saying here? I'm not asking you to agree. But the others here are saying that there isn't even any question to discuss, and @Ms Sarah Welch: has removed the too few opinions tag from the article on the basis that this discussion is already settled and there is no need for fresh eyes to help take it further. If you think it is something that deserves discussion and new eyes on it, I'd appreciate your support on the matter, even if you agree with her and Joshua Jonathan that it was right to rephrase the four noble truths in this article as a path to end rebirth. Robert Walker (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with you that Buddha was simply foreseeing his own paranirvana completely unconnected with 4NT because it would be an incredibly bizarre non-sequitur to slip into his discussion of realizing the 4NT. While I do think 4NT is linked to awakening (Nibbana), I do think you have been treated quite shabbily in the course of this conversation. Frankly the way some editors just steamroll their chosen views into articles by claiming WP:BOLD justifies anything and if you disagree you are hit with a litany of links (e.g. WP:COMPETENCE, WP:GREENCHEESE WP:DONTGETIT some of which aren't even policy) makes me want to just walk away from the project entirely. I don't like seeing people bullied. Dharmalion76 (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! Please don't walk away, even if it is just occasional remarks in talk page discussions. That's happened so often, that competent Buddhist editors walk away as a result of this bullying. @Dorje108: is an example. He just didn't have the time to work through the elaborate wikipedia processes of conflict resolution which weren't getting anywhere anyway, and with his edits reverted, there was no point in trying to edit the article any more. He used to be very active, editing articles on Buddhism just about every week. But ceased editing them when JJ rewrote this article and the Karma in Buddhism articles which he had been working on continuously for the previous year - and I don't think he has even participated in talk page discussions here for some time. Another example was @ScientificQuest: - a student doing doctoral research into the topic of Anatta who had every single edit he made to the Anatta article reverted by @Joshua Jonathan: - he was a newbie editor and those were his first edits in wikipedia. And he was treated with astonishing arrogance by JJ (lecturing a doctoral student on what counts as WP:RS in his specialized research topic area) and eventually gave up. See 2014 version of the Anatta talk page (for some reason this discussion hasn't got into the archives for this talk page and is only available by going to its history).

I agree that his mention of his paranirvana is not just a non sequitor. It's relevant - it shows that once you have reached cessation, you then no longer have to take rebirth in Samsara. But still, he didn't present the 4NT as a path to this as the goal, and it leaves open the possibility that Buddhas can choose to continue to manifest in Samsara even though they have realized cessation and don't have to. It's like, as a wheel turning Buddha he presents as an example paranirvana showing that he is no longer caught in Samsara. But other Buddhas don't have to do that, in the Mahayana traditions at least. Where, saying that it is a "choice" here is a simplification of course, as it happens in dependence on others also.

In the case of the Buddha then he hinted to Ananda that it was possible for him to remain in Samsara to continue to teach, right until the end of this world system. What that means is not explained, whether it means rebirth, or continuing in the same human body, or in some other fashion. But it seems to suggest that his paranirvana was to some extent optional. When Ananda finally got the hint, and asked him to remain, he said it was now too late, that the processes leading to paranirvana were already underway. I think this also suggests that making parnirvana the aim of the 4NT rather than cessation of dukkha is to seriously warp them. Robert Walker (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: That is just one view amongst Buddhist scholars, that the four noble truths were not in the original teachings of the Buddha. Other scholars agree on the existence of multiple text layers in the sutras, both before and after the texts on the four noble truths, but think that the textually earlier teachings in the sutras before the four noble truths predated the Buddha. And Anderson herself in her book makes it clear that she does not intend it to be used in a revisionist way to change the teachings of Buddhism and in her "Basic Buddhism" book she reinforces that by simply presenting the four noble truths in Therevadhan Buddhism in the usual way, so I'm sure she would not support the idea that her "Pain and its Ending" should be used to revise the Buddhist teachings on the centrality of the four noble truths.

For the range of views on this matter, see Pāli_Canon#Attribution_according_to_scholars and for some more sources with yet more views on the matter see Talk:Pāli_Canon#Other_views_on_the_origins_of_the_Pali_Canon. It's one of the issues with your rewrites of articles on Buddhism that you frequently mention Anderson's book, which is not a particularly major work, with only three cites in Google scholar, and never mention any of these other views on the matter. Compare for instance, [The Oral Transmission of the Early Buddhist Literature]. which has 24 cites and Peter Harvey's book Introduction to Buddhism with 596 cites - he says "While parts of the Pali Canon clearly originated after the time of the Buddha, much must derive from his teaching." which is a good summary of the view of scholars at the opposite end of this spectrum of debate from Anderson.

And for a prominent Buddhist scholar right at the opposite end of the spectrum from Anderson: Richard Gombrich said in an interview

"There are certain scholars who do go down that road and say that we can't really know what the Buddha meant. That is quite fashionable in some circles. I am just the opposite of that. I am saying that there was a person called the Buddha, that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that - that we can learn more about what he meant, and that he was saying some very precise things. I regard deconstructionists as my enemies.".

Her view certainly deserves mention but the way you repeatedly push this view without any balancing views is way out of proportion and I'm sure Anderson herself would not recommend that her book is used in this way as the main source on the matter in an encyclopedia covering Buddhism, without mention of the views at the other end of the scholarly spectrum from her. A good scholar wants a debate, not a monologue. Robert Walker (talk) 23:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dharmalion76: Robert has an extensive history of disruptive editing at talkpages, and of tendentious editing in his representation of my edits; not only at Buddhism-related articles, but also at "Life at Mars" related articles (I was not involved there, though). Check his talkpage, or the archives, for editors who were blowing steam due to Robert's wall of texts and lack of comprehension. Robert McClenon can testify to this. Robert (W.) has been warned for this before, but it's clear that nothing helps here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Since I have been asked both here and at my talk page, I will comment here briefly (and not necessarily on my talk page). It isn't clear whether User:Joshua Jonathan sees this as a content dispute or a conduct dispute. In content disputes, it is important to comment only on content, not on contributors. I have observed in the past that User:Robertinventor has a habit of walls of text. I will again point out that, if posts of one or two paragraphs don't communicate a point, posts of whole pages won't either. I certainly can't provide any substantive assistance on the basic dispute, if, as it appears, it has to do with the Buddhist concept of spiritual truth. I can't help there because I am a Christian, not a Buddhist. Christianity and Buddhism have very similar ethical teachings but completely different spiritual teachings. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I see that a draft RFC has been posted. Draft RFCs can either be productive, if they result in real RFCs that are properly focused. They can however result in endless discussion that goes nowhere. I would suggest that this draft RFC either be formalized or be closed, and that it either be formalized or closed within a day or two, before it just becomes a sink. An RFC will be a good idea if there is really only one issue, the issue in the RFC. If there are multiple content issues, I would suggest formal mediation. Are there any other questions? I will try to help with general advice about Wikipedia dispute resolution, but please bear in mind that I can't help you with questions about truth because I have a different concept of truth. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: - I think the outcome of the debate is probably that this RfC is not focused enough. So I don't expect it to be used in its current form, perhaps I can just declare it closed as an RfC draft? Other editors may perhaps find other ways to state it that are more focused.

@Dharmalion76: has suggested an RfC on whether the word redeath is commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings and is an appropriate word to use in this article and in the lede. I think that's a good suggestion myself as that's about as focused as an RfC can possibly be and could be an interesting discussion.

Another possible RfC could be on whether the historical development section should mention the views of scholars at the opposite end of the spectrum of the scholarly debate such as Wynne, Gombrich, Payutto, Harvey etc. Again that seems quite focused.

On the lede, a better way of phrasing it might be

1. Should the lede say that the third noble truth is a path to cessation of dukkha (unsatisfactoriness / suffering) as originally stated by the Buddha
2. Or should the lede say that the third noble truth is a path to end rebirth and "redeath".

I.e. to focus the RfC right down to the third noble truth, which seems to be the essential point. If we did an RfC on one of the truths at a time, perhaps that might be sufficiently focused for an RfC? The lede when it says "there is a path to end this cycle" is clearly referring to the third truth, so this would apply to the statements of both the third truth itself in the lede and also to the last sentence of the introductory paragraph.

From my previous experience of RfCs here I totally agree, we have to be very very focused. It's the only thing that can work, and if discussion of the RfC draft leads us in numerous directions, that's a clear sign it is not yet focused enough. Thanks for the warning about walls of text, which is clearly still an issue, from comments on this page. I'm doing what I can, but type fast and sometimes get carried away, sorry! Robert Walker (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Redeath & Article structure

Redeath seems to be a redirect to Saṃsāra#Punarmrityu: redeath. I certainly can't see any reason for not using technical terminology of this sort if the terminology is more clearly defined elsewhere on site, and can be linked to, as is the case here. Provided that the technical term is used in the right context, of course. Regarding how to structure the article, the Lindsay Jones/Mircea Eliade Encyclopedia of Religion is a recent, highly regarded reference work which I believe has an article on this topic. The old Hastings Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics might well have an article as well. Both are likely available at WP:RX. Looking at however they structure their articles, and, maybe, more or less following the structure of them both, or at looking those two sources over, seeing what subsections they include, which subsections already have separate stand-alone articles here and which don't, etc., etc., and maybe making a separate thread here, indicating the sections in those araticles and the relative length of those sections, would be a productive way to go forward. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: Yes - that's the issue. No problem using technical terminology. The problem is the context. "Redeath" is mainly a Hindu word and is almost never used by Buddhists. Apparently it expresses a basic orientation towards perfecting death, while Buddhism is more orientated towards rebirth. Also none of the sources provided so far use this word in their statements of the four noble truths and it is not used in translations of the wheel turning Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta sutra, or indeed translations of any Buddhist sutra AFAIK. We wish to do an RfC on whether the article should use this technical term.

See comment by @Dharmalion76:: "It isn't a Buddhist term and it most assuredly is a minority view. Please find three sources for general readers (not a scholarly work looking at the influences on Buddhist etc.) that uses the term "redeath". You will not find that term in anything by Kornfield, Goldstein, Henepola Gunaratana, Thich Nhat Hanh, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, Walpola Rahula, etc. It is exceptionally WP:UNDUE to use a term not found in any Buddhist introduction texts, nor was it used in suttas to explain 4NT"

Robert Walker (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Having not checked the sources I identified, I would think that they, being of a more broadly religious nature than others, and of a definite academic slant, are likely to also to be good indicators regarding what terminology is used in the field, and, on that basis, what terminology would best be used here. If redeath is a, basically, unusual term to use in this context, then, unless the specific content in this article is such that the word is still the optimal one to use in that particular sentence, a very good case could be made that using it here would be suboptimal. If the majority of Buddhists use some other, roughly analogous or synonymous term, and there is content somewhere here indicating the specific meaning of that term, then it would very likely be preferable. John Carter (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay. The roughly analogous term used by Buddhists is simply "Death". Robert Walker (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Lindsay Jones's MacMillan Encyclopedia of Religion: that article is not up-to-date (1987), but the revised biography does recommand Carol Anderson's Pain and its Ending. Buswell and Lopez, who have written the The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, give an extensive overview of the four truths, including the exlicit mention of ending rebirth. See also the Encyclopedi Britannica article of the four truths, written by Lopez. Basically: a short formulaic overview of the four truths, a translation, and an explanation. Just like the Wiki-article.

Regarding "redeath": what Rober writes ("Apparently it expresses a basic orientation towards perfecting death"; "The roughly analogous term used by Buddhists is simply "Death".") are nonsensical guesses ("redeath" is an analogous term for "rebirth," "re-becoming." This has also been explained before... See Talk:Four Noble Truths#Rebirth, Redeath, fifth comment.). The term comes from a reference plus quote by Paul Williams, a respected and notable scholar on Buddhism. See note 3 in the article. There is an additional reference available from Buswell & Lopez's Buddhist encyclopedia, who explain that there are several Sanskrit terms which refer to "rebirth," including punarmrtyu, "redeath." They also note that this is a less common term, but they do mention it in their short list of terms. The term is being used here for the explanation of the second truth, while referring to samsara, the cycle of rebirth. See also my and MSW's responses to Dharmalion76, and my link to the 761 Google Book hits on buddhism "redeath". Wishing away reliable sources is not a productive way forward. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, all the articles in the first edition of the Eliade/Jones encyclopedia were reviewed before publication of the second edition. Several articles, particularly regarding topics of some age, were not revised when the editors of the second edition reviewed the articles in the first edition and determined that their did not exist significant enough changes to merit revision of the article. Lots of articles on such topics as Saint Augustine were similarly left alone on the basis of no internal changes being necessary, although, in some cases like evidently this one, their bibliographies were added to if the editors thought such warranted. Louis de Vallee Poussin's articles on Buddhism in the Hastings encyclopedia have been described in a review of one of the editions of the Eliade/Jones encyclopedia as being the best things ever written on their subjects, so I think it might be reasonable to consult their article, if he wrote it, for indicators of relative structure, proportional weight in the article, etc., etc., etc. Regarding the Princeton Dictionary you mentioned, it is counted as a very good book. You indicate it is mentioned there. If, by that, you indicated, maybe, a single usage of the term, that maybe isn't that strong a indicator for our use here.

The impression I get from what you have said is that, maybe, it is thought that one of the reasons Gautama made his proposals was to avoid "redeath" as the Hindus of his period apparently understand the term. If that is the case, then it might certainly be reasonable to mention that as a reference to the Hindu concept which Gautama may not have himself embraced, but which he was, basically, commenting on. Maybe. Then again, inclusion of a technical term simply because it is used elsewhere may not be always the best idea. Some times academics like to show off too, and, sometimes, they can go a bit overboard in their content, particularly if they see some reason why they have to differentiate the content of their new book from others that might be a bit older in the same field. Further information, one way or another, would be helpful. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: The old Hastings is too old, ~100 years. Mircea Eliade died ~30 years ago. Yes, to the 2005 Macmillan Reference version edited by Lindsay Jones (which was a major rewrite of the 1987 Eliade edition). FWIW, the references @Joshua Jonathan has introduced in this article are high quality WP:RS. Websites, SPS and introductory sources, such as buddhanet, offer 4NT introduction that makes no mention of the words "samsara, (repeated) birth and death, (cycle)", etc. Scholarly references do. Damien Keown's reference source on Buddhism, published in 2003 by Oxford University Press, which is on my deak, has an article on 4NT, and many 4NT related articles. It repeatedly mentions "repeated birth, repeated death" etc in 4NT and 4NT-related articles, such as on pages 71, 96, and many more. We don't have to write redeath in every sentence of this article, but the discussion of "rebirth or repeated birth" and "redeath or repeated death" is appropriate, because that is what is in scholarly references. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The question would seem to be about the specific phrasing to use, and where it should be introduced. Figuring out specifically where (and, possibly, how often) the term should be used, and specifically where it is being considered, would be very useful, and be very likely to get more response in an RfC. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: - where in the wheel turning sutra does it use punarmrityu? If it is not in that sutra, why have you introduced it into your version of the four noble truths? Has any scholar used this in their statement of the four noble truths? I have never heard "redeath" used by any Buddhist teacher or in any book or sutra translation that I've read. And @Dharmalion76: hadn't either. I think if we do an RfC nearly all respondents will say they have never seen it in any Buddhist context, unless they have read those specialist cites you give.

Of course the Buddhist canon is vast, and I've only read a few sutras, but surely it is a very rare term if it does occur in the sutras. Encyclopedia Britannica talks about it as a Hindu term from the Upanishads. This approach of introducing novel terms to your exposition of the four noble truths is surely at the very least WP:SYNTHESIS AND WP:UNDUE unless you can find a cite. And if you do find a scholar that did this, you also have to explain why you chose to use this when all the normal expositions don't use it. And explain to the reader, surely, that you are using an unusual presentation of the four noble truths, and explain why you did this. Do you not think? Shouldn't the reader be alerted to something so unusual? And - why do you do it, what's the basic motivation, that's what I don't get at all, why you wish to rewrite the four noble truths in the novel ways you do in the lede? Robert Walker (talk) 01:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: We already discussed Sutra (Sutta) above. The current article does not have the word punarmrityu. If you need a scholarly cite to justify the wikilink to redeath, wherein there is an explicit link between punarmrtyu and early Buddhist Sutta, see chapter 1 of Jayatilleke's Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, particularly page 31 onwards. Jayatilleke is not alone. Many others have written about this link. See Blackburn and Samuels discussion of Yama in Hinduism and Buddhism, in Approaching the Dhamma. They also explicitly mention punar-mrtyu (redeath), linking the two traditions, with reference to Devaduta Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya. There are others. The Indian religions borrowed a lot of words, concepts and ideas from each other, and their links are part of the 4NT scholarship. On rest, let us avoid WP:CHEESE style recycling of questions and answers. Read the previous rounds of your questions and replies you received. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't get what you are saying, sorry. It has the word "redeath" and Joshua Jonathan just said that's a translation of punarmrtyu. If there is a link that's interesting but surely it belongs later in the page? In a discussion of links between the four noble truths and Hindu ideas? Surely the statement of the four truths should state them as Buddha taught them in the wheel turning sutra. Do any of these cites you mention actually restate the four truths themselves using the word punar-mrtyu? If so what justification do they give for doing this? Whatever justification should at least be given to the reader, I'm sure a scholar who did that would explain why they did it, probably at great length, which could be summarized here. And if the sources do not rewrite the four truths in this way, then why should this article? And it is certainly not usual in statements of the four noble truths. I don't buy this argument that it is because all the statements of four noble truths that most of us have come across are "popular Buddhism" after all many of them are written by pre-eminent Buddhist scholars. And even Anderson's book "Basic Buddhism" by Joshua Jonathan's favourite scholar does not use this word to state the four noble truths. And I don't remember seeing it in Pain and its Ending. Robert Walker (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Nope, searching "Pain and its ending" for redeath] only turns up the word "death". https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OVRUAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA98&dq=%22pain+and+its+ending%22+redeath&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLoJya-rzMAhVFchQKHYqnA9oQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=%22pain%20and%20its%20ending%22%20redeath&f=false

Robert Walker (talk) 03:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: Do you understand @Robert Walker's concern? I don't. Could you please rephrase, and identify with quote or diffs, from this article, what he is referring to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, this is a minor puzzle, but punarmrtyu is Sanskrit, is it not? So how could it be a word from the earliest Pali canon of Buddhism, which is in Pali? It could of course be from the Upanishads as they are in Sanskrit. Robert Walker (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion about "redeath" is indeed off-topic. It relates to "samsara," and that relates to ending rebirth. Which is the topic of Robert's concerns: "The problem is only with the presentation of the 4NT rewritten to say that the aim of the practitioner who follows the path of the four noble truths is to end rebirth." That may not be Robert's intention, but it surely is what Buddhism and the four truths are about, as our 10+ sources indicate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:11, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any objection to an RfC on this topic? To see if other wikipedians agree with your views on use of redeath in the article? My suggestion is to break down the complex discussion which seems to have no chance of resolution into individual small points, following @Robert McClenon:'s suggestion that RfCs work best if very focused. You couldn't get much more focused than a discussion on use of a single word in the lede.

If this proves successful, leading to some kind of resolution, we can then do similarly focused RfCs on other points of contention, such as statement of the third truth in the lede, and tackle the truths one at a time. We can also tackle the issues about your presentation of only one perspective in a complex scholarly debate in the historical development section, again as a separate RfC. And generally if an RfC proves to be too wide in its scope, break it down into smaller components, e.g. could even have an RfC about whether to present the views of individual scholars such as the views of Gombrich, as an RfC, then an RfC about whether to mention the views of Harvey, then Wynne, one at a time, if it was absolutely necessary to get down to such small atomic units of the discussion.

I listed some proposals for very focused RfCs to get us started in the section on #Ideas_for_future_RfCs. The aim is to get more eyes on the article to help resolve these issues and find a way forward. Hope you understand. Robert Walker (talk) 09:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

We already have a Rfc on this topic; await the results, instead of further piling up walls of text. And note that the information you object to is based on multiple reliable sources; WP:RS won't be overrided by a local RfC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

But what do you expect from that RfC? I agree to "should go beyond introductory texts / websites for general readers on Buddhism, and summarize history, influences and commentary on Four Noble Truths". I don't agree to "such as redeath". A conclusion in support of that RfC would not resolve this question of whether specifically the article should use the word "redeath". You provided a WP:RS on Buddhism that uses "redeath" but this is not enough to counter WP:UNDUE or WP:SYNTHESIS, and you haven't provided a WP:RS for a rewrite of the 4NT using this word, nor explained why you want to use it, or answered the question about alerting the reader that this is an unusual formulation of the 4NT and need to explain why.

Nor would that RfC resolve any of the other issues in this debate as it is just far too general and unfocused to do that. I think it could be closed already as it is not likely that anyone would oppose it, as stated. And the proposal for an RfC on redeath was raised long before that RfC which was just done out of the blue, in the middle of a discussion of whether to do an RfC on redeath, with no previous discussion at all of whether or not to hold an RfC on the topic of WP:RS. It just seems likely to delay resolution of these issues, to keep that RfC open. Robert Walker (talk) 10:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Keeping that RfC open could potentially postpone all further debate on this topic for up to 30 days until early June 2016. Robert Walker (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Topic Ban of me proposed by Joshua Jonathan

@Joshua Jonathan: has just proposed that I be banned from posting to wikipedia talk pages on the topic of the Four Noble Truths on the basis of the discussion so far. Please read his reasons for the ban, and also my reasons opposing the ban in my Oppose vote here: See Topic Ban Requested

Robert Walker (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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

**NOTE - THIS SECTION DISCUSSES AN EARLIER VERSION OF THE LEDE**

This section discusses the lede when it said: (see version on 12th April 2016)

"The Four Noble Truths...express the basic orientation of Buddhism: this worldly existence is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to liberation from repeated worldly existence."

Current version (as of writing this) states that:

"The Four Noble Truths...express the basic orientation of Buddhism: repeated rebirth and "redeath" in the realm of samsara is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to end this cycle"

However, it's the same basic idea, the 4NT is presented as a path to end the cycle of repeated reirth and "redeath", rather than just as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness (Dukkha).

This discussion thread is rather long - if you want to jump to the most recent part of it see Main point - lede should alert the reader if it departs from the usual statement of the four noble truths.

More eyes on this would be welcome to help improve the article :). Robert Walker (talk) 09:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

---

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)

References

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 copied 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)

You are giving Hindu cites, and cites about paranirvana here, to support a sentence in the lede that is supposed to be about the four noble truths. And it doesn't support that as an interpretation about paranirvana either - Buddha wouldn't answer any questions about whether he exists or doesn't exist or both or neither after paranirvana. How can you interpret that as support for a summary that the aim is to "cease from worldly existence"?

If you want to present such a radical interpretation as your thesis "That's the essence of Buddhism: earthly existence is wrong; we've got to get out of here" (quoting from you above) - why not publish it as an academic paper or a book? This doesn't seem the right place to publish something like this, especially as a summary of the four noble truths.

Surely what we need to present here is Buddhism as based on the sutras, just as the articles on Christianity present Christianity as based on the Bible. The Sermon on the Mount was written long after Jesus died, yet, that doesn't mean that it has to be rewritten. It's still considered as carrying many of the essential teachings of Christianity even though it's very unlikely that Jesus taught it in exactly the words that got written down. That doesn't make it "popular Christianity" that it's based on the Bible. You can say that Jesus didn't say the words exactly as written, but still the Sermon on the Mount presents core ideas of all the main traditions of modern Christianity, whatever it was he said exactly, which we can never know.

In the same way the translations and teachings on the four noble truths present some of the core ideas of all the main traditions of Buddhism, the "sutra traditions". So, if you look up an article on the "four noble truths", then whatever else it might say, you expect it to present the truths in their traditional form, as expressed in the sutras.

To back this up, none of the other tertiary encyclopedic articles on Buddhism find a need to rewrite the four truths in the way you have done here. They all just present it exactly as in the old lede, as about a path to freedom from dukkha, not a path from freedom from "worldly existence" whatever that's supposed to mean here. See for instance, BBC, buddhanet encyclopedia Britannica. None of them say that the aim of the path is to cease to exist in any sense, worldly or otherwise.

I hope these thoughts help! Robert Walker (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I'd better stop at this point, whatever you say next :). Didn't want to get caught up in a long discussion, just wanted to make what seemed a clear and straightforward point, but it obviously isn't for you, and this attempt at clarification probably isn't helping, oh well. You are welcome to have the last word, as I am not writing this to win an argument :). Robert Walker (talk) 18:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

[note, first sentence in lede has been rewritten somewhat - but much of what I say above still applies. The aim of the path is neither to "get out of here" nor to "cease to exist". Those are isolationist sentiments quite alien to the teachings of the Buddha as usually taught] Robert Walker (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Tibetan Buddhism is not Hinduism. You also wrote '"a path to freedom from dukkha, not a path from freedom from "worldly existence". What do you think that dukkha is? Entrapment in this life, repeated re-embodiment. Following the Buddhist path stops this re-embodiment. NB: the line now says "repeated rebirth and "redeath" is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to end this cycle." I've added a quote plus reference from Donald Lopez, and a quote plus reference from Patrick Olivelle, to the note:

• "According to Donald Lopez, "The Buddha stated in his first sermon that when he gained absolute and intuitive knowledge of the four truths, he achieved complete enlightenment and freedom from future rebirth.""
• "See also Patrick Olivelle, Encyclopedia Britannica, on "moksha": "Moksha, also spelled mokṣa, also called mukti, in Indian philosophy and religion, liberation from the cycle of death and rebirth (samsara). Derived from the Sanskrit word muc (“to free”), the term moksha literally means freedom from samsara. This concept of liberation or release is shared by a wide spectrum of religious traditions, including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism.""

References

Your thoughts about the unponderables applies to the question "But what happens when there is no rebirth?!?" Unponderable!

@Ms Sarah Welch: can you explain to Robert about the escape from rebirth as the basic orientation of the sramanic religions? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Indeed, it sure is. It is as basic to sramanic traditions as "Buddhism is spelled with a B, Jainism is spelled with a J". It should be included in this article. @Robert Walker: For source on samsara and its central role to the Four Noble Truths, please see Anderson's first chapter or just the opening pages, and Gombrich's preface and first chapter. I read the old 2014 version @RW linked above, and the current one reflecting recent edits of @JJ and others. The current version is a significant improvement. The article still states "the essence of the Buddhist teachings", but it now is far more encyclopedic, complete and NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

@Ms Sarah Welch: Anderson is presenting only one view in a spectrum of many scholarly views on the nature of the original teachings of the Buddha. It's a bit like theological speculations about the original teachings of Jesus before the Bible was written down - short of invention of a time machine we are unlikely ever to have a scholarly consensus here. She herself says that she doesn't want her book to be used in a revisionist way. She says in her conclusion:

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

That's from page 230 of Pain and its ending

Also she follows her own advice here - in her book [http://www.amazon.com/BASIC-BUDDHISM-Beginners-Origins-Concepts-ebook/dp/B00EWT4ROU "Basic Buddhism"] she presents the four noble truths exactly as they are presented in all the main traditions of Buddhism

"The Four Noble Truths deal specifically with the existence of suffering and they are the root from which all teachings arise. According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths in the very first teaching he gave after he attained enlightenment and he further clarified their meaning in many subsequent teachings throughout his life. These four truths are:

A. Dukkha / Dukha: All life is marked by suffering.

B. Samudaya: Suffering is caused by attachment and desire.

C. Nirodha: Suffering can be stopped.

D: Magga: The way to end suffering is to follow the Noble Eightfold Path"

She then goes on to present each in turn following the usual pattern. So, she just talks about the path to end suffering, as usual in presentations of the four noble truths.

There is no mention there of this idea that the aim of the path is to escape from worldly existence. That I think is much more of a Hindu idea, associated with Moksha. Indeed I don't remember anything about it in "Pain and its Ending" either. Surely citations about Moksha should not be used as source material for articles on Nirvana and the four noble truths?

Also, she doesn't mention her thesis that the four noble truths are a later addition to the original teachings of the Buddha anywhere in this introductory book about Therevadhan Buddhism. So I'm pretty sure she would not support the idea that her thesis should be used to rewrite encyclopedic articles about central ideas Buddhism.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Basically I'm saying that we need compelling reasons to recast the four noble truths into truths about "escape from worldly existence" when they are always presented in terms of dukkha and freedom from dukkha. I don't think it is the place for a wikipedia editor to offer what is essentially a new translation and interpretation of the four noble truths, which has never been subject to peer review. And adding citations based on Hindu concepts such as Moksha to support this new version of them is a synthesis and OR. Robert Walker (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: Where does this article state "the aim of the path is to escape from worldly existence"? where, I presume you mean [path = four noble truths]. On your "I think is much more of a Hindu...", it is inconsistent with most Hindu/Buddhist/Jaina traditions, but you are free to believe in whatever opinion/wisdom/prejudice you have. Samsara is not "worldly existence", it is a basic concept about the cycle of rebirth in Indian traditions. Lets avoid these wall of forum-y posts. For this article, we need to stick to summarizing the various scholarly sources and sides. Is Patrick Olivelle moksha cite the one that is bothering you? But why? Clearly Patrick Olivelle is WP:RS, and in that Encyclopedia Britannica tertiary source is comprehensively reviewing Buddhist/Hindu/Jaina view together. Will you be okay if Joshua Jonathan, I or someone add a second source? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• The lead first said "escape from worldly existence"; I've changed this into "repeated rebirth and "redeath" in the world" (Lopez: "mundane world").
• The full title of "Basic Buddhism" is "Basic Buddhism: A Beginner's Guide." I think that says enough. That she presents the four truths in such a way in this beginner's guide does not change her conclusions in Pain and its ending, nor does it devaluate Lopez and Olivelle as WP:RS.
• Regarding the quote above, from Anderson: the lead is referenced with Lopez and Olivelle, not Anderson. And Anderson is talking about the authority of the tradition versus the factual history. With other words: she repeats that the four truths did not develop as the (Theravada) tradition remembers them, but that this does not alter the authority granted to these truths in the (Theravada) Buddhis tradition.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: the whole lede is highly unusual in its way of presenting the 4NT all the way through. Compare it with the old lede, or with say, BBC, buddhanet.

As Joshua has just said, originally it said "escape from worldly existence". Now it says "repeated rebirth and "redeath" in the world is fundamentally unsatisfactory, but there is a path to end this cycle"' - but this is hardly any better - it is not how it is usually presented and I think this fundamentally changes the meaning of what is said.

Whatever or not you agree that this changes the meaning, the main thing is that this way of stating the 4NT has not ever been published as a statement of the 4NT, nor has it been subject to scholarly criticism or peer review. Same also for the restatements of each of the four noble truths, and equally original restatement of the noble eightfold path.

Just to give one more example, in the "translation" of the first truth, where it says "existence in the realm of rebirth" - in what sense is there a "realm of rebirth"? What other realms are there other than Samsara? It's the same all the way through, nearly every sentence contains highly original rewritings of the material.

I am not writing this to correct what JJ said - no way would I want to help another wikipedia editor to create a new novel treatment of the 4NT here!

The point rather is - why change from the usual presentation of the four truths as a path to cessation of dukkha? And just explain dukkha as suffering, unsatisfactoriness, etc etc as in the usual treatment and the old lede?

Sometimes there's a place for using novel ways of presenting material even in an encyclopedia, to help the reader. But I would suggest for something as fundamental and hard to explain as the four noble truths, and something that has been subject to so many books and teachings and translations, that we don't need a novel way of presenting it here.

Just compare the lede and the statement of the four noble truths with the way it is presented in Anderson's book and in any tertiary source - I gave several examples above. Can you not see that compared to them, this article's lede is highly original in its presentation? Whatever its merits or otherwise, can you not see that it is OR and a synthesis? Robert Walker (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

And scholarly rewritings can go later in the page, but even then I think it's important to present the views of the individual scholars as is, and not to mix and match statements from different scholars to make a new treatment that hasn't been published. And I think balance is also needed. Anderson's views are one of a spectrum. For instance there are many scholars that think the four noble truths were taught by the Buddha. Including the famous Buddhist scholar Richard Gombrich as an example. And at the opposite end of the spectrum, Prayudh Payutto thinks that much of the Pali Canon consists of the words of the Buddha himself, and interprets the earliest textual layers as teachings that predate the Buddha. See Pāli_Canon#Attribution_according_to_scholars and Talk:Pāli_Canon#Other_views_on_the_origins_of_the_Pali_Canon. Robert Walker (talk) 16:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: your issue isn't that @Joshua Jonathan's and other's edits/improvements since 2014 are wrong or noncompliant with wikipedia's content policies, your issue is with the style and the method of the lead presentation, particularly when one compares it to BBC etc version; do I understand you right? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Not quite. I think it is a mistatement of the 4NT that fundamentally changes the meaning. I tried to explain, but I am not skilled at explaining such things and haven't managed to present the issues clearly. But it's much easier to just see that it is stated differently here from the way it is stated in the sutras and other sites like the BBC one.

It introduces new concepts just not mentioned in the usual treatments such as a "realm of rebirth" and "redeath" which he says is used in some little known scholarly work, but is certainly not used in the usual treatments of the 4NT, and it explains dukkha as escape from the cycle of rebirth when it is usually explained as just suffering and unstatisfactoriness with birth, old age, sickness and death as examples of suffering. The other tertiary sources find no need to introduce all these novel concepts to explain the idea which I think complicates it, confuses the reader, and actually changes the meaning as well.

He hasn't even got a cite for this new version, just for individual elements that he has brought together in this synthesis.

Example, first truth as "Dukkha: existence in the realm of rebirth (samsara)[note 2] is characterised by dukkha, "suffering," and unsatisfactory;[note 3][web 1]"

BBC site:

"1. The truth of suffering (Dukkha)"

Buddhanet:

"The Truth of Suffering"

Anderson

"A. Dukkha / Dukha: All life is marked by suffering."

Quote from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta using the translation in this article itself:

"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering."

No mention anywhere of a "realm of rebirth". It's a new element that's been added in. Which makes it OR.

And none of those sites call it a path to end the cycle of rebirth.Also, logically, it doesn't follow at all that it's impossible for an enlightened being to take rebirth from this statement that one enlightened being entered paranirvana. Indeed in many traditions of Buddhism then you have stories of other enlightened beings who don't enter paranirvana when they die. They all agree that Buddha entered paranirvana. Whatever you make of that, to collapse this statement about paranirvana back into the four noble truths and call it the end of the path is also highly original - that's not how the 4NT are usually presented. Hope this helps a bit - is it a bit clearer what I'm saying? It's not just a matter of style and presentation, it's an issue with OR, I would suggest. Robert Walker (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• @Robert Walker:

Quote: "The first truth, suffering (Pali: dukkha; Sanskrit: duhkha), is characteristic of existence in the realm of rebirth, called samsara (literally “wandering”)." – Donald Lopez's Four Noble Truths article in Encyclopedia Britannica.

So, I don't understand your allegation, "No mention anywhere of a "realm of rebirth". It's a new element that's been added in. Which makes it OR." Indeed, "existence in the realm of rebirth" is related to the "first truth", so I am struggling to understand your objections to @JJ/whoever added that. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• More sources for "realm of rebirth" and the first truth of noble ones. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

There's nothing unusual about this presentation, unless you're completely unfamiliair with it. If you only read websites and popular publications, you won't come across better treatments than these short, formualistic presentations. "Realm of rebirth," "samsara," is basic Buddhism, as is the end of rebirth as the goal of the Buddhist path. It's surprising that these basic facts are surprising to someone who wants to discuss this topic. The fact that someone doesn't know these basic facts is not a good reason to omit them. On the contrary. Nor is the fact that someone is not familair with relevant scholarship on a topic a good reason not to use WP:RS, or to restrict ourselves to one, limited POV. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch Oh, I hadn't noticed that. But it reads differently in the Britannica article, to me, the overall impression. The Britannica article is fine. It's written by a Buddhist scholar and he has the expertise needed to write it like this. I'd see no problem with that as the lede. But of course his version can't be copied verbatim because that would be plagiarism, and an attempt at paraphrasing it runs the risk of changing the meaning.

Yes you don't have to stick to the format of a short simple statement of each of the truths, followed by a longer exposition of each one. It's just that it needs a lot more care to run the explanation together with the statement of each truth like this.

I think the thing that changes it here is the bit before the statement of the first truth where the lede says "but there is a path to end this cycle". The Britannica article doesn't say that it is a path to end the cycle of rebirth, it says that "The fourth and final truth is the path (Pali: magga; Sanskrit: marga) to the cessation of suffering, which was described by the Buddha in his first sermon.".

And note that for the third truth it just says "The third truth is the cessation of suffering (Pali and Sanskrit: nirodha), commonly called nibbana (Sanskrit: nirvana)"

Just "cessation of suffering". It doesn't say that "rebirth, dissatisfaction and redeath can no longer occur" and indeed the example of Buddhas who don't pass into paranirvana when they die would seem to give the lie to this idea that birth and death can no longer occur when you realize nirvana. It's rather that they are no longer dukkha, not that they can't happen. There's no cite given for this idea that rebirth is impossible after you realize nirvana. And Buddha did die, so obviously death is possible - and old age too - he got old, he got sick too just before he died. So those are simple examples to show that becoming enlightened and realizing nirvana doesn't mean that these things can't happen to you.

Does this help? The main point is that writing about the four noble truths in your own words is a tricky thing to do. A good scholar who has spent all his life working on such things can do it. But there is an enormous risk of changing the meaning when you do this, and it requires a great deal of skill, more than should be expected of ordinary wikipedia editors. Robert Walker (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

After all Buddha didn't say that he would realize cessation and become enlightened when he died. He said he had already realized this as a young man. So the four noble truths have to be understood in this context, that the third truth, cessation, was something Buddha had already realized. Robert Walker (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: Understood. But this article is not on Buddha, it is on Four Noble Truths. We must indeed write this article in our own words to respect WP:Copyvio and WP:Plag. Any faithful good summary of WP:RS should also include the context (as you say, "not change the meaning", and meaning is the product of the context, not words). @Joshua Jonathan and others, frankly, have done a good job here, something we should appreciate and thank them for. I am a bit disappointed with the harshness with which @JJ has been inadvertently criticized above, when the sources clearly state "realm of rebirth" etc. The current lead and main article provides a summary of diverse sources, the necessary samsara-context to understand the summary, as well as scholarly sources for the more curious. That is along the lines of what an encyclopedic article and reference, to an important article, such as this, ought to do. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Well we don't have to do it like that, to write an original lede such as can be written by a Buddhist scholar. We can quote a translation of the four noble truths for instance. Or just state the four noble truths as usually stated, as in the previous lede.

I see nothing wrong with the previous lede.

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

"The four noble truths are:

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"

What is there about that which needed to be fixed?

It's the simplest and easiest way to do it, to just present the truths as it is normally done. In the lede at least, surely the traditional presentation is what the reader expects?

There's a bit of history behind the discussion here. JJ rewrote that previous lede without first asking other editors and readers of the article if they agreed it needed to be rewritten. See Dorje's comment here: Please discuss proposed changes on talk page before making major edits, attempting a revert, which JJ immediately reverted back to his version. Before then, Dorje was one of the main editors of this article, as you can see in the history - prior to 14th October 2014, most of the edits were by Dorje with assistance of other editors. After that date, then nearly all the edits are by JJ. And the reason for that change is that JJ was not prepared to revert and discuss his edits. So do you see the reason for the harshness? It seems to be the only thing he can understand, though it doesn't work either. Robert Walker (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It should have required at the very least a discussion, a request for comments, with votes and so on, to do such an extensive rewrite. And in my view he hasn't improved it at all. Yes he has undoubtedly worked very hard on it. And he has brought some interesting new material to the article, mainly Anderson's work. But I don't see that he has improved the lede at all.

The other material that he has introduced into the lede, to the extent it is accurate, surely belongs later in the page? Robert Walker (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

@Robert Walker: The old 2014 version's lead lacks the samsara-context, which misleads, and therefore is weak. The old version may be "usually stated", but this article should not try to reinforce opinions, blogs, or "what the reader expects". This article should summarize the diversity of scholarly views from WP:RS. Please check scholarly secondary and tertiary sources. The Encyclopedia Britannica article on this topic starts with samsara, "realm of rebirth" etc, after it clarifies that "noble" does not refer to truths, but refers to "four truths for the nobles". Here are a few more secondary and tertiary WP:RS, all of which pretty much reflect what @Joshua Jonathan and recent editors have revised this article's lead to. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

References

@Ms Sarah Welch Okay, well first, I'd like to make clear, I'm coming to this as a reader. I have never been involved in writing these articles and don't wish to do that.

As a reader, I'm interested to know first, what the sutras say about the four noble truths, especially, what are the core ideas that are accepted by all the sutra traditions.

Then after that, I'm interested to know what Gombrich, or Anderson, or Walpola Rahula, or the Dalai Lama or other notable Buddhist teachers and scholars say about the four noble truths, especially about different ways it is presented in various scholarly traditions, and whether it is understood differently in Therevadhan or Mahayana traditions or in Zen Buddhism etc. I am certainly interested to hear about modern scholarly debates and ideas, both in Western scholarship, and also within and between the various Eastern traditions. And of course also interested in debates about whether they were taught differently originally - so long as the full spectrum of the debate is presented and not just one view on it.

However, I'm not interested at all in reading what some wikipedia editor says about the four noble truths in their own words. I'm not interested at all in any OR or synthesis by the editors themselves.

I do agree that it is useful to give extra context in the lede. What you say about the etymology and how the word Noble is understood is exactly the sort of thing I would find helpful in the lede of an article. So that bit of the lede is fine :). And it could help also to put it into the historical context of the [Śramaṇa] traditions. Again that would be relevant in the lede perhaps. But I think there is also risk of overloading the lede with too much content. One advantage of the old version of the lede is that it focused clearly on the truths themselves. The lede is supposed to summarize the entire article and stand alone as a new article in its own right, so it does make sense to say a bit more than that in the lede, I agree. Anyway that's probably about as much as I can say right now, hope it helps! Robert Walker (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

A question, then. Is this article about a scholarly understanding of the Four Noble Truths? I think a simple general lede is useful and important. At least the first two sentences in the old lede are superior to what is on the article page now. Scholarly perspectives, commentaries, etc, can of course have space in the main body of the article, alone with viewpoints from different traditions/schools, etc. Yet, as I read the old lede, I find it much clearer and more informative than the current lede or any of the proposed ledes. Best, AD64 (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The question "Is this article about a scholarly understanding of the Four Noble Truths?" is rhetorical. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS; the lead reflects reliable sources. And how is incorrect info informative? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "are regarded as the central doctrine of the Buddhist tradition" is factual incorrect; the second sentence contains a lot of interpretation. The phrase "the nature of" alone yet is problematic; "nature" has specific menaings in Buddhist discourse. But, I've re-inserted part of the second sentence, without the interpretations, plus info on "noble ones":

" the truths which are understood by the "worthy ones" who have attained Nirvana. The truths are dukkha, the arising of dukkha, the cessation of dukkha, and the path leading to the cessation of dukkha."

Note that this short list, without interpretations of any kind, is a basic way of presenting them; see Norman (2003). I've also added a break, so that the interpretation comes after the basic list of the four truths. I hope this helps. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Main point - lede should alert the reader if it departs from the usual statement of the four noble truths

@Ms Sarah Welch: Just to summarize the main point here, as I think it's become clearer as a result of our discussion - and thanks for discussing it with me. I think you agree that the way the four noble truths are presented in the lede differs from the way it is usually presented, e.g. in the BBC, buddhanet encyclopedia Britannica, in Anderson's book [http://www.amazon.com/BASIC-BUDDHISM-Beginners-Origins-Concepts-ebook/dp/B00EWT4ROU "Basic Buddhism"], in Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught", in teachings on the four noble truths by the the Dalai Lama, in the teachings of Zen Buddhism, in the Dhammacakkappavattana_Sutta, etc etc, it is easy to find numerous sources for the standard presentation.

It is clearly the standard way of presenting the four noble truths in all the main Buddhist sutra based traditions, in tertiary sources, in most works by Buddhist scholars also, as well as the way it is presented in the sutras themselves. They all present it as a path to cessation of suffering.

So - then the main point is that I think you'd expect an article like this which presents them in a different way to alert the reader and explain the reason for this different treatment. You'd expect it to say something in the lede like

"Normally the four noble truths are presented as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness. But scholars x y z say that actually it should be presented as a path to end the cycle of repeated rebirth and "redeath" "

- with a list of citations to the scholars who favour this way of presenting it. Then you'd expect a bit more also, perhaps a sentence or two explaining the reason for the decision to use this different treatment in an encyclopedia article. And later in the page, you'd expect a long detailed explanation of why it is presented in such a different way here, with a discussion of both ways of presenting it, which if it was a balanced discussion, you'd expect to also give the reasons why most authors present it as a path to cessation of suffering.

If it was presented like that you'd say "oh interesting, I had no idea that there was this alternative presentation" and even if like me you think it is wrong, as surely most Buddhists would if familiar with the more usual way of presenting it - still, you'd read on and find out about this other treatment. You'd at the least be intrigued by it.

But it's not done like that. It is just presented "as is" and the reader is not even alerted to this change in treatment. And no citation is given, not to the suggestion that the 4NT should be presented like this. If I wanted to email a Buddhist friend and tell them about this and they asked who says this, I'd just have to say "Wikipedia says so".

If you see something like that in wikipedia, when every other source you've read presents it as a path to cessation of suffering. you won't think "Oh this is interesting". You'll just think "here is wikipedia getting things wrong again, as it so often does".

The old lede just presents the four noble truths in the standard way similarly to other treatments, and had none of these issues.

Robert Walker (talk) 08:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The info in the lead, and the article, is factual correct, and supported by multiple WP:RS. Your suggestion "Normally [...] redeath" is your personal understanding and WP:OR. It comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And it's not even accurate; your links don't support your statement. [Encyclopedia Britannica supports the presentation in the lead; izauk.org completely departs from your "normal" presentation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Zen article says

• "The First Truth is the truth of ‘dukhka’ – Life is duhkha."

• "The Second Truth is: where does this suffering come from?"

• "The Third Noble Truth of the Buddha is that there is a way beyond this suffering."

• "The Fourth Noble Truth is the Way, which leads us to that experience."

It is still presented as a path to cessation of suffering. And it doesn't even mention rebirth. It's strange that you want to use a Zen Buddhist site to support your interpretation, as of all the traditions, the Zen tradition is perhaps the one with least emphasis on rebirth. Robert Walker (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, the lead follows the same sequence, so there's no problem then. And the fact that this Zen-article does not mention rebirth, does not mean that rebirth is not essential to Buddhism, including the four truths. We can't rely on your WP:OR for writing Wiki-articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

NB: the BBC-site also says "After death an enlightened person is liberated from the cycle of rebirth," Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And this is a quote from the Dalai Lama link (emphasis mine): "If you really want to get rid of all your suffering, all the difficulties you experience in your life, you have to get rid of the fundamental cause that gives rise to the aggregates that are the basis of all suffering." This too is about rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: No, you misunderstood me and the WP:RS I mentioned. It is the blogs-like and other non-RS you keep mentioning, that ignore the mention of samsara. All WP:RS I listed above, plus the Encyclopedia Britannica article and Carol Anderson's book parallel the current article's lead format, thanks to @Joshua Jonathan and other editors. Your point about citing more WP:RS is noted. If there is a particular sentence in lead that seems unsourced or insufficiently sourced, and it is not supported by the main article, please identify. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I hink I get his point (and this matches with your comment above, MSW). All the sources Robert is referring too give a psychological interpretation of the four truths, regarding them to be a recipe for happiness in this life. That's a modern (re)interpretation. But of course, if this is all you know about Buddhism, then reliable info on Buddhism may come as a shock. I'll add a sentence on this. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan using the Dalai Lama as a cite to support this idea that the aim of the four noble truths is to end rebirth is a bit strange as in Tibetan Buddhism you have clear statements that Buddhas can manifest as "emanation bodies" after enlightenment. See Reincarnation.

@Ms Sarah Welch - Articles by Walpola Rahula, Dalai Lama, by the BBC, by Encyclopedia Britannica surely all satisfy WP:RS. I find it astonishing that anyone doubts that the usual way of presenting the four noble truths is as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness. There are many other cites in the old lede - see the footnote a. And it would be easy to find many more.

While as far as I know, Joshua Jonathan hasn't presented any examples of a scholar who has presented the four noble truths as a path to end rebirth and "redeath". Instead he gives cites on Moksha, on Paranirvana etc which he says supports his treatment of the 4NT, but they just say that Buddha himself said he would enter paranirvana, and that enlightened beings are no longer caught up in the cycle of rebirth, which everyone agrees on.

That surely makes it a synthesis.

The "cessation of suffering (dukkha)" approach is how it is presented in the Pali canon, which makes it two thousand years old at least, and many scholars think that it goes right back to Buddha himself.

If this seems to you to be a radical and extraordinary thing for me to say, I don't know what else to do. Perhaps someone else may clarify the situation at some point. Robert Walker (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

(Have just trimmed this comment as a courtesy to any future readers of this discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC) )

@Robert Walker: Please take a break. Give @JJ, others and me a few weeks. Along with adding WP:RS to the lead of this article, in parallel, we need to fix the Samsara article, which this article is related to. @JJ is already working. I have some family things to take care of in early May, so my progress may be slower. But in 3-4 weeks, we should be able to improve this, Samsara, and related articles. Your point on WP:RS in this article is getting repetitive, I suggest you give it a rest, end your WP:WALLS, it is getting unconstructive. We will get this article right, by June, sooner if possible, with everyone's and your help. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Okay for sure. Is there any chance of adding a tag to the article, to the lede particularly, to show that this particular presentation of the 4NT has been questioned and is work in progress? That way also we may get more knowledgeable editors who come to this discussion, realising that this is an article that needs more work. The more eyes on it the better I'd have thought. Robert Walker (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: I will add it. We should remove the tag as soon as all sentences in the lead are sourced to recent secondary/tertiary scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The lead says: "Dukkha niroda, the cessation of dukkha". Donald Lopez, Paul William and Carol Anderson all state that the four truths, c.q. the Buddhist path, aim at liberation from rebirth. What more do you want? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan - your cites don't support this.

"According to Donald Lopez, "The Buddha stated in his first sermon that when he gained absolute and intuitive knowledge of the four truths, he achieved complete enlightenment and freedom from future rebirth."[web 1] See also the Maha-parinibbana Sutta,[web 2] and Carol Anderson, Pain and its Ending, pp.162 with note 38, for context see pages 1-3 ;[1] and Patrick Olivelle, a professor of Sanskrit and Indian Religions, on "moksha" in the Encyclopedia Britannica"

All this says is that the Buddha achieved freedom from future rebirth. Everyone agrees on that. It doesn't say that the 4NT should be presented as a path to end rebirth. And the various Buddhist schools have differing views on whether an enlightened being has to enter paranirvana on death. In some Mahayana schools Buddhas can "emanate" whatever that means, and those emanations can pass through the ordinary processes of birth just like everyone else. And cessation is described as something that Buddha realized already when he became enlightened - if the end of the path was paranirvana, then that would mean cessation can only be reached when you die.

So it's not enough to add cites that say that Buddha achieved freedom from rebirth. You need cites to say that the 4NT should be presented as a path to freedom from rebirth rather than a path to cessation of dukkha. I know this seems a bit repetitive, I've said this before, but we seem to have a lack of communication here and I'm not sure what else to do except repeat myself. Robert Walker (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Cessation of dukkha = cessation of rebirth = nirvana = moksha. Please find us sources that say that ending dukkha and ending rebirth are two different things; or sources that say that the four truths are not a path to end rebirth.

You seem to think that "cessation of dukkha" literally means 'no more pain in this life'. That's not what it means. The Buddhist tradition even has got explanations for suffering arahats and other liberated beings; it's being ascribed to the wokings of past karma. Dogen suffered from depression in his last years, yet he was regarded to be a great enlightened being. Soen Nakagawa idem. The Buddhist path does not end all suffering in this life (though meditation and self-restraint will be helpfull in this respect, of course); it leads to the end of rebirth, and thereby by embodied existence and the roots of dukkha. That's what it is all about. All presentations which skip samsara and rebirth are misleading. You are mislead. Take your chance, and learn something substantial about Buddhism.

@VictoriaGrayson: could you please comment here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with JJ on the broader points. But Tibetan Buddhists don't consider these Japanese masters as Buddhas. Not even first bhumi. But again I agree with JJ on the broader issues.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan - if the four noble truths are a path to ending rebirth, why don't the sutras say so? It would have been very easy to restate the four truths in that format if that is what Buddha intended by them. And why can't you find any other sources that restate them in this form? If an editor of a wikipedia article produces a novel synthesis, I don't think it is up to other editors to prove them wrong and find flaws in their treatment. This isn't peer review. It's up to you to find a cite in a recognized source that presents the four noble truths exactly as you did. Robert Walker (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

On your point about the meaning of cessation, I put this comment above but perhaps you missed it as I inserted it before another comment. Here it is again:

@Joshua Jonathan - just in case this helps - I totally agree that the modern psychological approach of achieving happiness in this life - the "hippy" approach to these things is obviously not what Buddha meant - he was already very happy in the worldly sense when he set off to find enlightenment, and he also achieved meditations that enabled him to enter states of unstained pure bliss, which he also said was not enlightenment either. So that idea is obviously way off the mark. But if you read the cites I gave and the ones from the old lede etc, even the Zen one, none of them present bliss and freedom from pain in this life as the meaning of cessation in the 4NT. Because, if that is what was meant, it would be dependent on conditions which will eventually change. Robert Walker (talk) 17:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan - just another thought, in case it helps. 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 solution and a dogma that Buddhists would have to adhere to to follow the path.

So, whatever the situation might be, whether you think paranirvana is an eventual inevitable consequence of enlightenment or not, 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 an explanation of what they have to believe to be a Buddhist, 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. Robert Walker (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Peter Harvey's 2013 second edition of "An Introduction to Buddhism", page 73 and on talks about rebirth in relation to the 4NT.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes - but the question isn't whether cessation leads inevitably to paranirvana. That's the Therevadhan view I believe, while other traditions consider it differently. The thing here is, should the four noble truths be presented as a path to end rebirth, as the only way to reach cessation - or just simply as a path to cessation with the question of whether this inevitably means no future rebirths left for later discussion. Peter Harvey there is talking about early Buddhist teachings and the Therevadhan approach so it is no surprise that he presents cessation as inevitably meaning no future rebirth. The Mahayana schools have different views there. But he doesn't say that a practitioner has to have ending of rebirth as their aim when they contemplate the four truths.

He also starts with a standard presentation of the four noble truths on page 52 and highlights the need for personal experience of the third truth:

"The four True Realities for the Spiritually Ennobled form the structural framework for all higher teachings of early Buddhism. They are: (i) dukkha, ‘the painful’, encompassing the various forms of ‘pain’, gross or subtle, physical or mental, that we are all subject to, along with painful things that engender these; (ii) the origination (samudaya, i.e. cause) of dukkha, namely craving (tanhā, Skt trsnā); (iii) the cessation (nirodha) of dukkha by the cessation of craving (this cessation being equivalent to Nirvāna); and (iv) the path (magga, Skt mārga) that leads to this cessation. The first sermon says that the first of the four is ‘to be fully understood’; the second is ‘to be abandoned’; the third is ‘to be personally experienced’; the fourth is ‘to be developed/cultivated’. To ‘believe in’ the ariya-saccas may play a part, but not the most important one."

Robert Walker (talk) 19:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

There would be no issue at all with discussion of this Therevadhan view on the nature of cessation later in the page, once the four noble truths are stated clearly first. Along of course with the Mahayana views as well. Robert Walker (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the emanation bodies of Buddhas in Mahayana are considered as birth. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it depends on the tradition? The article on reincarnation on the Dalai Lama's website says:

"The Emanation Body is three-fold: a) the Supreme Emanation Body like Shakyamuni Buddha, the historical Buddha, who manifested the twelve deeds of a Buddha such as being born in the place he chose and so forth; b) the Artistic Emanation Body which serves others by appearing as craftsmen, artists and so on; and c) the Incarnate Emanation Body, according to which Buddhas appear in various forms such as human beings, deities, rivers, bridges, medicinal plants, and trees to help sentient beings. Of these three types of Emanation Body, the reincarnations of spiritual masters recognized and known as ‘Tulkus’ in Tibet come under the third category. Among these Tulkus there may be many who are truly qualified Incarnate Emanation Bodies of the Buddhas, but this does not necessarily apply to all of them. Amongst the Tulkus of Tibet there may be those who are reincarnations of superior Bodhisattvas, Bodhisattvas on the paths of accumulation and preparation, as well as masters who are evidently yet to enter these Bodhisattva paths. Therefore, the title of Tulku is given to reincarnate Lamas either on the grounds of their resembling enlightened beings or through their connection to certain qualities of enlightened beings. "

Relevant sentence emphasized. As to what that means, is a matter that I think they talk about in more detail elsewhere, but whatever it means in detail, I think it's clear that this is about Buddhas who take the form of beings who take birth in Samsara for the benefit of suffering beings after their enlightenment. It also says they can manifest in multiple such emanations at once, and can manifest as newly born humans even when still alive in another body.

So yes, it's not like ordinary rebirth, there are differences surely. I've had it explained that they manifest due to connections with others which developed during their past as ordinary beings, and as a result of that, are then able to take birth in forms that benefit others who were connected with them before. So the manifestation arises out of their own past connections with us, and out of their compassion and wish to help others, and our past connections with them, and they are able to help us as a result of these connections. Something like that. But they aren't visions - those are the samboghakaya bodies, a kind of direct experience of qualities of Buddhahood said to be even more real than anything we experience normally. But these aren't like that. It's clear that they are ordinary beings like ourselves, take birth like us, get old, get sick and die like us, but in these traditions are thought of as emanation bodies of Buddhas. Robert Walker (talk) 20:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Nirmanakayas of Buddhas are merely puppet bodies.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I just don't know about that and this article doesn't explain, maybe others do, maybe there is a diversity of views also, would be no surprise if there was. But whatever it means to be a Tulku who is an emanation body of a Buddha, it's clear from the quote that they are born, grow old and die just like everyone else. So, surely it counts as birth? What else can you call it? The Tibetans call them reincarnations.

That shows that in at least one Mahayana traditions there's a distinction between Buddhas like Shakyamuni who enter paranirvana and other Buddhas that continue to manifest in new human forms after they reach enlightenment. As described here, they are people you could meet and talk to, they have mothers and fathers who look after them as babies, they would have interests and hobbies like anyone else, yet in some sense or other they are emanations of a Buddha, whatever that means. While in the Therevadhan traditions it's much simpler, anyone who reaches enlightenment enters paranirvana when they die (if I understand it right).

Either way - the four noble truths leave all this open. These are all additional ideas on top of the four noble truths, as to what the nature of cessation is and what the implications are. But the truths themselves just present it as a path to practice, and cessation as something you come to realize for yourself.

And since they are always presented in this open way, as a path to cessation of suffering, why then should wikipedia follow its own unique direction and present them as a path to end rebirth as the aim? Not unless you can find a cite that says they should be presented in that way, and then I think you'd also need jolly good reasons for adopting this novel approach to them as the first thing the reader sees in the article.

Does that make sense to you? Robert Walker (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Both Shakyamuni and Garab Dorje are emanations of Vajradhara. Their births are merely a display.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I've come across that view yes, but I think it's a minority view. And - you can also take that much further, and relate to everyone as enlightened already, not only Shakyamuni Buddha. Which might seem absurd given the horrific things some people do in this life - but - everyone has potential to be Buddha in the future, and when you reach enlightenment, then our rigid linear time from past to present to future is also one of the things that you see to be more fluid than realized - I'm talking about the Mahayana traditions here of course.

At any rate for someone who held that view, the lede of this article would be even more problematical, as how could an emanation of Buddha teach cessation as a path with the objective to end any possibility of rebirth? It sounds like a contradiction in terms. And at any rate, the sutras (e.g. the Dhammacakkappavattana_Sutta) don't teach cessation in this way. Robert Walker (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

More sources

One more try: read Thanissaro Bhikkhu, The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice on the fundamental connection between the four truths and rebirth. Two quotes:

• "He also made rebirth an integral part of his explanation of the four noble truths and the understanding of causality — dependent co-arising — on which those truths are based."
• "The Buddha found it more appropriate and fruitful to focus instead on the process of how birth is repeatedly generated by factors immediately present to awareness throughout life, and directly experienced by factors in the present moment. This is because these factors lie enough under your control to turn them toward the ending of repeated rebirth.
  An understanding of the process as process — and in particular, as an example of the process of dependent co-arising — can actually contribute to the end of suffering. It gives guidance in how to apply the tasks appropriate for the four noble truths to the process of birth: i.e., comprehending suffering, abandoning its cause, realizing its cessation, and developing the path to its cessation. When these duties have been completely mastered, they can bring birth to an end by abandoning its causes, thus opening the way to the ultimate happiness that comes when the mind is no longer entangled in the process of birth."

It's all connected: the four truths, rebirth, dependent co-origination, etc. One lement links to other elements; together, the form an interlocked whole. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I've just checked Spiro, Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes, p.42. He does indeed explicitly state that the four truths are connected to rebirth, and the ending of rebirth:

"...it is only within the framework of rebirth that the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism assume their full soteriologocal significance."

He further states:

"The Buddhis message then, as I have said, is not simply a psychological message, i.e. that desire is the cause of suffering because unsatisfied desire produces frustration. It does contain such a message to be sure; but more importantly it is an eschatological message. Desire is the cause of suffering because desire is the cause of rebirth; and the extinction of desire leads to deliverance from suffering because it signals release from the Wheel of Rebirth."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

More sources:

• Geoffrey Samuel (2008), [[The Origins of Yoga and Tantra, p.136: "the Four Noble Truths [...] describe the knowledge needed to set out on the path to liberation from rebirth."
• Graham Harvey (2016), Religions in focus:

• "Siddhartha Gautama found an end to rebirth in this world of suffering. His teachings, known as the dharma in Buddhism, can be summarized in the Four Noble truths."
• "The Third Noble Truth is nirvana. The Buddha tells us that an end to suffering is possible, and it is nirvana. Nirvana is a "blowing out," just as a candle flame is wxtinguished in the wind, from our lives in samsara. It connotes an end to rebirth".

How many sources have we got now for this? Spiro, Lopez (2009), Lopez (Enc. Br.), Buswell & Lopez, Anderson, Samuel, Gombrich, Keown, Harvey, Williams & Tribe & Wynne (2012). Apart from the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta and the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, and the BBC which also mentions the end of rebirth. Enough, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• @Joshua Jonathan: More than enough. Indeed. Perhaps, we should add a source for the last paragraph. @Richard Walker: which significant viewpoint is not included in the lead or the main article? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• W.L. Idema (2004), Boeddha, Hemel en Hel. Boeddhistische verhalen uit (Buddha, Heaven and Hell. Buddhist stories from Dunhuang"), p.17:

"Alle levende wezens zijn door hun daden (karma) onderworpen aan het eindeloze proces van samsara: wedergeboorte en retributie [...] wanneer we ons niet meer hechten aan de wereld, eindigt de werking van karma en gaat men in tot het nirvana ('uitdoving'). Dit inzicht is samengevat in de 'vier edele waarheden'." (All living beings are, by their actions, subdued to the endless proces of samsara: rebirth and retribution [...] when we are no longer attached to the world, the workings of karma end and one goes into nirbana ('cessation'). This insight is summarized in the 'four noble truths'.).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• John J. Makransky (1997), Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet, SUNY, pp.27-28: "The third noble truth, cessation (nirodha) or nirvana, represented the ultimate aim of Buddhist practice in the Abhidharma traditions: the state free from the conditions that ceated samsara. Nirvana was the ultimate and final state attained when the supramundane yogic path had been completed. It represented salvation from samsara precisely because it was understood to comprise a state of complete freedom from the chain of samsaric causes and conditions, i.e., precisely because it was unconditioned (asamskrta)."
• Walpola Rahula, What the Buddha Taught, commenting on the third truth: "Let us consider a few definitions and descriptions of Nirvana as found in the original Pali texts [...] 'It is the complete cessation of that very thirst (tanha), giving it up, renouncing it, emancipation from it, detachment from it.' [...] 'The abandoning and destruction of craving for these Five Aggregates of Attachment: that is the cessation of dukkha. [...] 'The Cessation of Continuity and becoming (Bhavanirodha) is Nibbana.'"

"Discussion"

Extended content

}} @Ms Sarah Welch: First, thanks for adding the tag to the article. I've added a link to the discussion of the latest version to the start of the first section for readers who want to jump ahead. I agree that Joshua Jonathan has now found an academic source that presents the idea that the aim of the Buddhist path is to end the cycle of rebirth. For the full account in context, see Page 42. That's interesting to know and I agree that his cite is clear on the matter. However, this cite does not say that the four noble truths should be restated. In my view, to make such a radical restatement of the truths themselves, he needs a cite that actually says clearly that they need to be rephrased to say that the aim is to end the cycle of rebirth. And in my view again, he would need to alert the reader, and explain that this is not how they are usually expressed, and give the reason for rewriting them. Repeating my links from above to the usual way of expressing them: e.g. in the BBC, buddhanet encyclopedia Britannica, in Anderson's book [http://www.amazon.com/BASIC-BUDDHISM-Beginners-Origins-Concepts-ebook/dp/B00EWT4ROU "Basic Buddhism"], in Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught", in teachings on the four noble truths by the the Dalai Lama, in the teachings of Zen Buddhism, in the Dhammacakkappavattana_Sutta, etc etc, it is easy to find numerous sources for the standard presentation, many more cites in old lede - see the footnote a It is one thing, in a meta discussion, to say that this is the implicit aim in the four noble truths. That is something that would be interesting for later in the page now that he has a cite for this view. Along of course with any other views on the matter. As an academic book, it's common for different books to present different views on such matters. And it's another thing altogether though, to use this meta discussion to rewrite the four truths themselves, and present the aim as to end the cycle of rebirth. Because that's just not how they are stated in the sutras, or how they are understood by Buddhists generally, or how they are presented in other secondary and tertiary sources. Joshua Jonathan is yet to provide a cite for anyone who has rephrased the four noble truths in any form resembling his statement of the 4NT in the lede. This means that this statement of the 4NT in the lede has not been subject to any peer review. A discussion on the talk page of an article by wikipedia editors does not constitute peer review. Repeating one of my comments from above, which I think is the essential point here: 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 solution and a dogma that Buddhists would have to adhere to to follow the path. : So, whatever the situation might be, whether you think paranirvana is an eventual inevitable consequence of enlightenment or not, 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 an explanation of what they have to believe to be a Buddhist, 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 in the lede especially it needs to be presented in this open way. Robert Walker (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: Are you saying Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC website, and Anderson's book do not mention "cycle of rebirth"? We must ignore buddhanet and other non-WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: - of course they do. I don't quite get your point here. Yes, nearly all Buddhists do believe in this concept of a cycle of rebirths (though there are some modern Buddhists who are trying to follow the teachings with an agnostic position towards death, see Stephen Batchelor's account here). I'm just saying the sources don't present the four noble truths as a path to end the cycle of rebirth. Whether following this path does inevitably end rebirth or not is another matter, on which one can have various views including just saying you don't know. It's how they are presented that's important. Do you see the distinction? Though most Buddhists believe in rebirth, it's not a creed and you don't have to say that you believe in rebirth to become a Buddhist. Similarly you don't have to say that you think the way to end suffering is to end rebirth to follow the path of the four noble truths. Whether the outcome will be an end to any possibility of future rebirths is a separate matter on which there are various views, including the idea in some Mahayana schools that it is possible for some Buddhas not to enter paranirvana but instead to emanate as new nirmanakaya human beings who are born as babies, grow up and get old like everyone else. Whatever that means, it's clearly a different view from the Therevadhan ideas. All that is for later discussion on the page I would say, and that there is no justification for rewriting the four noble truths themselves. Does that make more sense? I'm sorry if this is repetitive, but I am not very skilled at presenting this, obviously, as I've tried many times and still can't seem to get the basic idea across. Maybe if some other reader comes to this discussion who agrees with me, they may find a better way to express this? Robert Walker (talk) @Ms Sarah Welch: Just trying a silly analogy which may perhaps help. Suppose you see someone driving around in a bright red modern sports car. You could deduce from that that this was their aim in life, to have a car like that, that it is their pride and joy etc etc. But later you may find that they just borrowed it from their wife or husband or a friend and have no interest in cars at all, except as a way to get from a to b. So in the same way, that Buddha entered paranirvana doesn't mean that his aim when he followed the path to cessation of dukkha was to enter paranirvana. It could just be that this is something that happened as a result, and that his original aim was to find a path to the cessation of dukkha for himself and all beings, rather than to enter paranirvana. You can't say, just from the knowledge that he entered paranirvana, that his original aim was to enter paranirvana, or that this should be the aim of anyone on the path. And he doesn't present this as the aim in his statement of the four noble truths. And indeed the sutras present entering paranirvana as a choice, that he could have remained here until the end of the world period, and continued to teach, if Ananda had asked him in time. Whatever that means, it rather suggests that paranirvana is not the end goal of the path. Robert Walker (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: Thanks. Let us keep our focus to improving this article. We now agree that not only numerous scholarly secondary texts mention rebirth while discussing 4NT, even tertiary sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica and BBC do too. Is there something significant that Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC or Anderson's book mention that this article does not include? Please check. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: Sorry I just don't know what to say next. I've tried very hard. I don't know what the problem is and why I can't explain it properly. I can't think of anything to say now except to repeat things I've said already - and this question is one I already answered previously too. The only other thought I have is a Request for Comments. Some time back @Dorje108: (the previous most frequent editor of this article before Joshua Jonathan took over) and I floated the idea of a request for comments. It never happened, because of other events at the time. Our original idea was an RfC about whether to revert to the way the four noble truths are presented in the old lede, and then merge in improvements such as the material on the etymology of the word Noble. An alternative, based on this recent discussion, might be an RfC about whether the 4NT in the lede should be stated as a path with the aim to end the cycle of rebirth, or as a path to cessation of suffering and unsatisfactoriness. But I found that writing an RfC is a matter of much skill, from a previous RfC that we had on what counts as WP:RS in Buddhism. I'm not sure I'm up to it. So, this is just a thought which other editors might be interested to consider. At any rate, I think that one way or another, probably this discussion needs new eyes to take us any further. Robert Walker (talk) 11:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: I asked, "Is there something significant that Encyclopedia Britannica, BBC or Anderson's book mention that this article does not include?" You didn't identify anything. So I am removing the tag I added yesterday, per WP:DETAG. RfC for other matters, is your choice and privilege. I feel this is an important wikipedia article, one which needs care, both in what we say and how we say it, while relying on WP:RS. The article does this, reasonably well. @Joshua Jonathan: There is the discussion by Richard Gombrich, and others, on 4NT history, on what is common and what is different from the Jaina Sutras / Upanishads, that could improve this article. I mentioned Gombrich above; another RS on 4NT history is Robert Bellah, Religion in Human Evolution, Harvard University Press, pages 530-534. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: Sorry to hear you've removed the tag as this discussion could really do with new eyes on it I think. The problem is what it includes more than what it leaves out! It doesn't give any source at all for its statement of the four noble truths as a path where the aim of the practitioner is to end rebirth as the only way to stop suffering. That is the main point at issue. I can understand that for some reason you don't see this distinction here. Its summary of the noble eightfold path is also eccentric, well so it seems to me. I don't understand how " behaving decently, cultivating discipline, and practicing mindfulness and meditation" is supposed to relate to " Right view, Right intention, Right speech, Right action, Right livelihood, Right effort, Right meditation, and Right contemplation". It is at the least an original way of stating the noble eightfold path that has not been subject to peer review either. So the problem is WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS in my view. And it is not our place to act as peer reviewers for Joshua Jonathan's ideas on how to restate the four noble truths. Robert Walker (talk) 13:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: You write, "the four noble truths as a path where the aim of the practitioner is to end rebirth as the only way to stop suffering." I don't see the word "only" in the lead anywhere. Or that claim in the main article either. Consider taking a break, @RW, from this talk page. Let us meditate on what wikipedia is, should be, what scholars are saying on 4NT, and revisit this article in a few weeks. Shall we? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch:. Okay, good point, I should say "the four noble truths as a path where the aim of the practitioner is to end rebirth as the way to stop suffering." It does say that. Just leave out the word Only. That's a fair criticism of what I said, thanks. Another attempt at this: the old lede gives numerous cites that present the four noble truths in exactly the same way, almost word for word, and it is easy to find many more examples of that way of presenting it, as I did above. The new lede doesn't give cites to any source which presents the four noble truths in the same way. Not necessarily word for word the same, but similar enough so that the statement in the lede could be considered a close paraphrase. Does that not make it WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS? Robert Walker (talk) 13:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: No, that does not make it OR or OR-synthesis. The new lede includes everything the old lede did, and then "more". Your frustration is with the "more". Your frustration is with "rebirth, samsara, redeath, etc". Yet, that is what 4NT's foundation is, that is what all RS scholarship states, that is why this article must include it. Consider taking a break, @RW, from this talk page, as I suggested above, and let us all meditate on all this for a few weeks. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: The thing is that this "more" is meta discussion of what the nature of cessation is. The WP:SYNTHESIS bit about it is not the inclusion of this More, it would be fine in a separate discussion. What's novel (in my view) is the use of this material to rewrite the four noble truths themselves with no citation to anyone else who has stated them in this form. If that is how they should be presented, why didn't Buddha present it in the same way that Joshua Jonathan did? Why doesn't Buddha himself say that the aim is to end rebirth, if that is what he meant? And why don't any of the scholarly sources restate them in this way? We don't yet have even one cite to a similar restatement anywhere else except in wikipedia. Does this not mean anything to you at all, what I just said? Not even a tiny possibility that I may be saying something meaningful here? Robert Walker (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: Did Buddha teach rebirth? Better read Francis Story's Rebirth as Doctrine and Experience: Essays and Case Studies, pages 80-81. See the cites above by Gombrich, Williams, Harvey, Anderson or any other scholar on 4NT. Scholarly sources explain 4NT in the way @Joshua Jonathan has summarized in his own words. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: Sorry, you've lost me completely here. What is the relevance of those pages? I just said that Buddha presents the four noble truths as a path to cessation of suffering. If he meant to present them as a path to end rebirth it would have been easy to say so, and he didn't. Of course he mentions rebirth frequently, e.g. when he says that he will not take rebirth again after entering paranirvana, and when talking about previous incarnations, and in many other cases (at least if you take the sutras as canaon) and like the author of that paper I don't understand how that can be a question. I feel there must be some fundamental thing that we are missing here, something that either I'm omitting to say or that you are, or something that one or other of us is not understanding, or something - there must be something that could lead to shared understanding, because I just don't understand what is going on in this discussion. Robert Walker (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC) You said that these cites support JJ's interpretation. If so - can you find a cite that states the four noble truths in the same way he presents it in the lede? Not in meta discussion, but as the actual statement of the four noble truths which they are discussing? Robert Walker (talk) 16:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC) We write articles by paraphrasing sources, not by quoting sources verbatim, unless for short pieces, as per WP:QUOTEFARM. The lead summarizes the article; the article clearly mentions that ending rebirth is the basic orientation of the fourt truths; this is referenced by at least five sources, and ten or more at this talkpage, most from notable scholars published by Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, et cetera. To state that no references or sources are provided betrays an enormous ignorance, c.q. lack of WP:COMPETENCE. This whole discussion is an extended example of WP:GREENCHEESE, and an example of WP:DONTGETIT and WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC) I'm referring here to the statement of the four noble truths themselves. These are central to Buddhism. Yes I do suffer from immense ignorance, thanks for pointing that out :). But that's not too unusual in Samsara. The path is about trying to find a way out of this current state of immense ignorance. The four noble truths are to do with recognizing that ignorance. So it's rather strange to start by saying you have to say that you already know that we take rebirth, and that the path requires you to find a way to end rebirth. That is just not how Buddha taught them. Robert Walker (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Might I request ....

Hello everyone. There sure is a lot going on around this article right now. I see Joshua Jonathan that you are continuing to edit the Four Noble Truths article in the midst of it all. As a new editor, it's not easy for me to keep up with all the material here on the talk page, the RfC, the ban proposal, and evaluating new changes to article itself. I know for me that it would be more useful to not have any changes to the main article right now until the current conversations have been resolved. I don't know what the culture here is around this kind of thing, nor how the rest of you feel, but I thought to post and ask. Best, AD64 (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your request, but Robert's conversations never end. It would mean that WP:FILIBUSTER is effectively rewarded, and allowed to paralyze the editorial process. That is not how Wikipedia works. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Just to say, first I'm not intentionally doing WP:FILIBUSTER which means to discuss with the intent of slowing down due process.

However, I agree that it is normal to continue editing the article during discussions.

But please see: Suggestions for responding

"Edits to content under RfC discussion may be particularly controversial. Avoid making edits that others may view as unhelpful. Editing after others have raised objections may be viewed as disruptive editing or edit warring. Be patient; make your improvements in accord with consensus after the RFC is resolved."

I think that's what What @AD64: is referring to. It's not edit warring here, as only you are editing the article. But it's still confusing as you don't know what the RfC is about if the word has been removed. And participants may be scared of taking part if the article is edited this way and that in response to every comment in the discussion. Please leave the article stable with respect to the subject of on going RfCs.

It is also somewhat confusing if you reactively edit the article during a discussion of a possible future RfC. It's okay if you say "I think this will fix it so we don't need the RfC" and the other person agrees with you, and then you do it after that. That's just common courtesy I think. Robert Walker (talk) 12:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

TPNO and this talk page

@Robert Walker: please don't re-edit your old posts or insert text into your old post, after someone has responded. You did that with your latest RfC list above. Given your ~500 edits in ~10 days, with walls of post, on this talk page alone, such back-editing makes understanding others difficult, and does not help in cogently discussing this article. See WP:Talk guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: Okay. I can do that as a general thing if it bothers people. Note that this is the first time in this discussion that anyone has said anything about it. Presumably collapsing parts of the posts is still okay?

But with that list of topics for the RfC on "redeath" then it is meant to be edited and changed in response to comments. It's a draft for discussion and improvement.

Also, please note, it is not a list of RfCs. It's a list of topics to discuss for a single RfC on "redeath". Just logging out now - I found this comment in the process of logging out. Robert Walker (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: Collapsing is okay. But you have been inserting sentences and changing your older text, after someone has already replied; that is not okay. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: See WP:TALK. I requested you to review that behavioral guideline page days ago. Yet you keep abusing this talk page, and keep ignoring basic talk page editing etiquette. Please don't. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary of the main questions about this article

I'm going to leave the RfC on "redeath" open until it closes by itself. Maybe it will attract the attention of knowledgeable experts in early Pali sutras or others with a new perspective on the debate. This experience has shown me that even an attempt at a focused discussion on a single word doesn't seem to work. So, I think there's no chance of a discussion that is somewhat larger in scope than that. @AD64:, thanks so much for your suggestions for the RfC and I think they were good ones, but can't see a way forward to implementing them. Unless someone new comes to this page who can help. The main larger question was, whether the third truth should be phrased as a path to cessation of suffering / unsatisfactoriness as Buddha himself expressed it according to the Pali canon, or expressed as a "way to end this cycle" - and I also touched on whether the historical section should mention the views of Gombrich, Harvey, Wynne, Payutto, etc etc according to which most of the Pali Canon expresses the teachings of a single teacher, the Buddha.

I think the answers to both those is obvious as is the answer to this one about redeath, that it's a WP:TECHNICAL word that most readers won't know, that it has too many associations with the Vedas which Buddhists don't accept as sacred texts, and that it should just be replaced by an ordinary English phrase such as "repeated birth, old age, sickness and death" or the like, so that there is no ambiguity and the ordinary non technical reader can understand what it means. I understand that the other editors here don't see it that way. And they seem to think that there is no future in debating such questions. I am glad to see one improvement since the start of the discussion. The fourth truth is now expressed much better than it was before. However generally, I think the way the four truths are expressed in the old lede is still far far better than this new version. I am still here, and if anyone else wants to take this up any further, I'll be happy to join in and help as best I can. When I asked @Robert McClenon: what my options were, purely as a matter of wikipedia policy (not asking him to join in the debate) he said I could try very focused RfCs, or I could try mediation. I've tried very focused RfCs and they don't seem to work, or at least I'm not the one to do them.

I could try mediation but I don't have the time to set aside for this. It's my experience from the past that if you try to go through wikipedia due process, it can take weeks of work, and may well still fail because you haven't understood something significant about wikipedia policies and procedures. And that approach also tends to generate a fair bit of ill will from people opposed to you doing it. At least when I do it. So I don't want to do that again right now. I have too many other things to do, and I also don't want to generate ill will in others in that way. One parting thought, wikipedia editors' views are impermanent like everything else. Perhaps some day there will be a change of heart? Or perhaps I might change in a way that makes this all much easier? Robert Walker (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

List of topics discussed in the RfC on Redeath

Extended content

Introduction - reason for making this list of topics This is a list of topics which can be used to focus the existing debate. Or we could just close the previous RfC and start a new one afresh. To "clear the decks" we could archive the whole of this page first. It's @AD64:'s idea to do it as a list of topics presented in a neutral fashion, rather than for and against arguments, which I think is an excellent way to proceed. In detail (collapsed for readers who want to skip): Extended content @AD64:First to give the context for readers of this page, who haven't been following, this is from the ANC discussion to topic ban me from this page. See Topic Ban Requested. In that discussion I suggested the idea of closing the RfC and re-opening a new copy for a fresh start and suggesting that Joshua and I then stay out of the discussion for some time, say 7 days, to avoid overwhelming newbies to the discussion. Joshua Jonathan wasn't interested in that idea saying it would amount to changing the wikipedia policies on how an RfC is conducted. However, I'm willing to show restraint on my side and just not comment for the first few days - so long as I know the RfC won't be closed by anyone else in that time period. I could add a note to the RfC saying "Please don't close this RfC without discussing it with me first". As that is also wikipedia policy as far as I can tell, this should be enough to protect it from premature closure. Then I suggested a new RfC could have a reasonably short sections of supplementary material by JJ and me summarizing the main arguments. @AD64: suggested that instead of a summary of views, it could instead have just a list of topics prepared by a neutral third party. See ANC Comment I think that's an excellent proposal. As it is rather a technical discussion, and long, I think it would be hard to find a good neutral party to summarize it. But I'm quite used to presenting things from a neutral point of view myself and I think I can make a good stab at it for discussion. List of topics for the redeath RfC So here is the list of topics as suggested by @AD64: - some of them may have reached conclusion already -if so I'll say so. Is redeath a word that most readers of this article will know already, or is it a technical word? This can lead to a discussion of WP:TECHNICAL Is redeath a word that has only been used recently in scholarly discussions of the four noble truths or is it one that has been used since ancient times in this context? This can lead to a discussion of WP:RECENTISM Is it used frequently in discussions of the four noble truths in WP:RS or is it a rare word in such discussions? Does the word "redeath" occur in WP:RS translations of the earliest Pali sutras? If so, what word is it the translation of? @Ms Sarah Welch: and @Joshua Jonathan: say that they have answered this. This was my attempt at summarizing what they said, which they say misrepresents them: Extended content @Ms Sarah Welch: says that it occurs in the text "punabbhavā ... jāti·jarā·maraṇaṃ". The original is here SN 12.38 (S ii 65) Cetanā Sutta, translated from the Pali on that site as "When there is the production of renewed becoming in the future, there is future birth, aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair." That's an informal translation, so not citable, but can get the discussion going perhaps - as presumably the text at least is authentic. Perhaps she can provide a better quality parallel translation for further discussion? In that text, then according to that site, maraṇaṃ means death, bhavā means existence, and punabbhavā does not occur in the online glossary, but seems to mean renewed becoming from the sutra translation. So I'm not sure what word "redeath" is supposed to be a translation of here. Preferred translations of each word here could help for future discussion. @Joshua Jonathan: says it is a translation of the word punarmrtyu. But hasn't given a sutra source. A search for this word turns up many Hindu texts. Enclyclopedia Britannica entry on it says it is a word from the Upanishads. He hasn't yet given a sutra source or said which word in the Pali Canon it translates (I think it is Sanskrit??) (I am not a scholar so this summary may not be very accurate, but I think we need an accurate summary of this type to focus the discussion - please provide a corrected version of this, something that is accurate and also easy for a non specialist to read). I suggest that to focus the continued discussion, it's a top priority to answer this question. @Ms Sarah Welch: and @Joshua Jonathan: - please provide your own concise answer to include in the topics list, thanks! @Ms Sarah Welch: has answered this (finally! after several days and many replies back and forth, to try to get the answer from her). The Pali phrase is agatigati which is translated as "coming-andgoing" in the cite she gave on page 171 of The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, and as (re-birth and re-death?) in the commentary on the translation there. It is also translated as' re-birth and re-death in a Pali dictionary pages 94-95 of Rhys Davids & William Stede, and in another Pali dictionary [2] as "rebirth and death", where agati here means coming and gati here means going. Does the word occur in the original wheel turning sutra? - the sutra where Buddha according to tradition first presents the four noble truths. I think the answer here is no. So far nobody has answered this question but I'm sure they'd have said "yes" if it did (do correct me if this summary is wrong!) What does "redeath" mean? Does it just mean the same as "repeated death" or "death again and again"? As in Harvey's "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 is synonymous with a phrase in ordinary English, then what are your thoughts about just using the synonym instead, e.g. "repeated birth, old age, sickness and death"? Robert Walker (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Discussion of list of topics for redeath RfC See #List of topics for the redeath RfC. Please help me to make the list neutrally expressed and correct. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC) (shortened version of:) Extended content I think that's about it. It's been a long complex debate and I may have missed something out. Do comment and correct, and do say if any of these questions are not stated neutrally. Also, once the list of topics is worked out, what do other readers think about closing and re-opening the RfC with just this list of topics and nothing else to guide the discussion? Also what are your thoughts about collapsing the former RfC first, or indeed to just archive this entire page and start a new page with nothing but this list of topics plus the RfC statement. That seems a feasible way to proceed as there are no other currently active discussions on this page, and the former discussions would still be in the archives and could be referred to when creating new RfCs in the future on the other topics. Just ideas :). Robert Walker (talk) 11:18, 7 May 20) That's me for now. I think it helps to say when I'm finished. Will check back maybe eight to ten hours from now. I'll log out from wikipedia, so that I'll get no notifications either. I think this idea of just leaving wikipedia for a few hours or a day at a time may help deal with some of the issues about my talk page content. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Please note, this is not a list of separate RfC topics as suggested in #Misrepresentations by Robert Walker continue. It's a draft for a future list of topics to focus the discussion on a single RfC on whether or not the article should use the word "redeath", as suggested by @AD64:. The idea is that as the proposer, I would close the existing RfC which has become too intricate for newbies to follow. Then re-open it, same statement as before, and with this list of topics as the only supporting material which hopefully would lead to a more focused discussion next time. See the Introduction for the motivation and more details. Robert Walker (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Misrepresentations by Robert Walker continue I have been quoted in this yet another "list of RFC topics", but without the scholarly translations / sources I gave previously for Buddhist Nikaya. Instead @Robert Walker gives a website, misrepresents me, and then follows it with his forum-y 'but can get the discussion going'. Not constructive use of this talk page, and repeated violation of WP:TPNO. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Please provide an accurate summary of what you say. Your only explanation so far is ". It includes punabbhavā (...) jāti·jarā·maraṇaṃ. The last word maraṇaṃ means death" As I understand it, punabbhavā means "renewed becoming" and "jāti" means birth and "jarā" means aging. Please correct if that is wrong. If the word "redeath" occurs in a WP:RS translation of the early Pali sutras, please provide the original Pali sentence, the English translation of that sentence, and an explanation of how the one is connected to the other, particularly which word or phrase in the Pali corresponds to "redeath" in the translation. Thanks! This is what I replied originally yesterday, much the same thing but with more "please please". Extended content I presented what you said as best I could understand it, linking to the original Pali. I explained that the english translation on that website is informal and not citeable. But it was the only parallel translation I could find. Remember I live in a remote island and don't have access to a big city library with specialist books in oriental studies so I can't just go and pick those books off the shelf when you cite them. It would be a two day journey for me, to Glasgow and back, to find such a book. Please, please, can I ask you to explain your ideas in a way that is understandable to the rest of us! And provide a parallel translation of the Pali and the English from reliable sources. You just need to type in a sentence of Pali, a sentence of its English translation using the word redeath, and explain how the one links to the other. Then the topics list entry on the meaning of this word can be updated to give your explanation in the place of my rough draft. Thanks! Remember that Wikipedia is meant to be editable by anyone, and also understandable by everyone as far as can be achieved in the guideline WP:TECHNICAL. "If an article is written in a highly technical manner, but the material permits a more understandable explanation, then editors are strongly encouraged to rewrite it." Here I'd say use of the word redeath is highly technical, given that most Buddhists don't know the word. At any rate, I don't know the word, and I'm just asking you to explain what it means and which Pali word it translates. I don't yet understand your explanation. I posted that clumsy attempt at explaining it in hope you'd see what I have misunderstood and correct it. Please explain more clearly for those of us who don't know Pali. And it doesn't help to use the word "misrepresentation" which implies that it is willful. I am trying to understand as best as I can. Please help also from your side. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC) Just about to log out. Hopefully saying this will help lead to more considered replies - there is no pressure to respond. Take all day if you like :). At the moment I am logging in for a short time in the morning, and a short time in the evening to do my talk page posts. I have many other things to do and so need to do this from my side also :). Robert Walker (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: This is not a forum. We can't do OR, and must rely on published scholarship. I already provided a scholarly translation+interpretation source for the Sutta. @Joshua Jonathan, others and I have provided 10+ RS so far. See above. Quit your misrepresentations and WP:Forum-y conduct. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC) @Ms Sarah Welch: I'm not asking for WP:OR. I'm just asking for the parallel text Pali and English from a WP:RS which you can provide - it is not a breach of copyright to type a single sentence from a WP:RS here. And asking you to explain which word or phrase in the Pali means redeath. Also this is the talk page. The guidelines for talk pages are not as strict as the guidelines for articles. See How to use article talk pages and if I am breaching any of those guidelines by asking for a parallel translation and clarification of which words in the Pali correspond to the word "redeath", please explain further. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Just about to sign out of wikipedia, back again this evening. Please take your time, no pressure, a considered reply is best. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 09:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: I already provided 3 WP:RS with Sutta specifics, that discuss death/redeath/punarmrityu in early Buddhism (with rebirth). Go to the library. If you can't go to the library, just WP:AGF. Because, beyond the Sutta, you have already verified scholars use the words re-death, redeath, repeated death along with rebirth while summarizing 4NT. I feel you are looking for a forum, and you are disrupting this wikipedia article talk page and editing process. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Your explanation only gave the pali word corresponding to "death" and you didn't provide the WP:RS translation of the sentence. WP:AGF doesn't answer the question of what Pali word or phrase "redeath" corresponds to, or enable me to see what is written in some library in Glasgow over a hundred miles and a ferry journey away, possibly further away. While you presumably have this book in front of you, as you just cited it. Indeed it is rather hard to assume good faith when you won't answer such simple questions. I'm trying to do so! Robert Walker (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC) @Robert Walker: See WP:Notforum and above. I don't have to give you a forum-y explanation of what a Sutta is, and how they are interpreted. We rely on RS on that, for wiki articles. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC) I have now found out why @Ms Sarah Welch: never provided a quote in this discussion, as I found a copy of the book available online as a pdf. You said "Sutta 12.40 repeats the mention of re-death. As does the rest of the Sutta, and as do other early Buddhist texts. See any scholarly translation. For example, M Choong, The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, page 171" [3] On page 171 of The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, it translates the passage you mention as "Consciousness being grounded and growing, there comes to be a bending (nati). From there being a bending, there is coming-andgoing (agatigati). From there being coming-and-going, there is decease-and-rebirth (cutiipapato). There being decease-and-rebirth, there arise in the future birth, ageing-and-death, grief, lamentation, pain, distress, and despair. Such is the arising of this whole mass of suffering. ". So, it just translates it as " ageing-and-death"' like all the translations I found online which you claimed were inaccurate in this respect and not WP:RS. It does use the word "redeath" but only in commentary as "These texts, in both SN and SA versions, present a sequence from activities (as volition) to consciousness; from consciousness to the becoming of rebirth or a bending, coming-and-going (rebirth-and-redeath?), and deceaseand-rebirth; and thus to birth, ageing-and-death and the whole mass of suffering. Despite the variant terminology, they present the factors from activities to ageing-and-death in the usual sequence. ". So it doesn't establish what you said at all. It even has a ? after the word redeath in the commentary, which is also in brackets. Basically you deceived intentionally confused me there. And you compounded it by telling me to accept what you say as true through WP:AGF! Robert Walker (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC) I think an apology would be an idea here. Robert Walker (talk) 08:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC) @Robertinventor and Ms Sarah Welch: I think you misunderstood Ms Sarah Welch here, Robert. You specifically asked about the use of the singular term "punarmrityu" in the sutras, while Ms Sarah Welch is referring to "those terms" which deal with the concept of "repeated birth/death," c.q. "repeated birth/death = renewed birth/death = rebirth/redeath = rebecoming = cycles of birth/death = future birth/death again =....," c.q. "ancient Buddhism's discussion about "death again and again"." See Talk:Four Noble Truths#WP:RS and redeath. I admit this is confusing, but calling it "deceiving" is an exaggeration. WP:AGF still applies here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC) I wasn't asking about punarmrityu but about any term in the Pali canon that can be translated as "redeath". She said "Sutta 12.40 repeats the mention of re-death"[4]. And I repeatedly asked her what Pali word or phrase it is a translation of. She told me to WP:AGF. She didn't say "actually it doesn't correspond to any Pali word or phrase" as you are now saying. I think any neutral reader of this conversation would understand that I'm asking her for the Pali word or phrase and that here WP:AGF was her answer to that question. Robert Walker (talk) 09:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Call it "intentionally confused me there" if you like. I don't see much difference. I'll correct that though. Robert Walker (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC) On re-reading @Ms Sarah Welch:'s comment from the ANI topic ban discussion this morning [5], she says "Agatigati or Agati gati (plus a few other terms) is generally translated as 'rebirth, redeath'; see any Pali-English dictionary; e.g. pages 94-95 of Rhys Davids & William Stede, where they list five Sutta examples with rebirth and re-death sense." Now that answers my question. Great. Why didn't you say that days ago when I first asked which Pali word or phrase corresponds to "redeath"! And why didn't you give straightforward answers to my questions about whether it occurs in the English translation of the sutra in your cite? With that background, it would be fine, when the topic is Agatigati to use the phrase "re-birth and re-death". I think it is a bit academic and technical, as most Buddhists won't have come across it, but especially with a re- before the "death" it's clear enough what is meant and with it tied to the word Agatigati that also would help to avoid confusion with the concept in translations of the Vedas as explained by @Joshua Jonathan: above, which translates a different word punabbhavā (if I understand right). That then leads to the question, does Buddha use this term Agatigati or cognates in his presentation of the four noble truths in the wheel turning sutra? If he does, it might well be appropriate to use it in the presentation here, as "re-birth and re-death" with the Pali word given in brackets. If not, then it still seems somewhat WP:UNDUE to introduce the word right in the lede if it comes from other sutras, especially as most WP:RS don't use it to state the truths. Indeed, correct me if wrong, I don't think we yet have a single WP:RS that uses "redeath" in its statement of the four truths - only in extensive commentary on them. If he does uses this word in his wheel turning sutra, then the lede just needs more clarification, perhaps with the original Pali given. However, if it is collating material from a different sutra into the wheel turning sutra, I think that would count as WP:SYNTHESIS myself unless you find an academic source that also rewrites the four truths in this way, and if you do, I think that would need to be cited. This is just a case of being precise in citations so readers can understand and can follow up to find out more, rather than have to say "because wikipedia says so". If you are collating sutras into a single statement that doesn't occur in any of them individually, the reader needs to be told that it is a synthesis and an explanation and cite is needed for such action, in my view. Robert Walker (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

List of potential topics for possible future "redeath" RfC

I'm just repeating the list above in #List of topics discussed in the RfC on Redeath, now that we have a Pali word or phrase to ground it. One of the topics is no longer needed and I've added extra couple at the end. This is not a list of RfCs. This is a list of topics (as suggested by @AD64:) to help focus the discussion of a single RfC, if we ever do this RfC. This section is meant to be edited in response to comments on it.

• Is redeath a word that most readers of this article will know already, or is it a technical word? This can lead to a discussion of WP:TECHNICAL

• Is redeath a word that has only been used recently in scholarly discussions of the four noble truths? This can lead to a discussion of WP:RECENTISM

• Is it used frequently in discussions of the four noble truths in WP:RS or is it a rare word in such discussions?

• Does the word "redeath" occur in WP:RS translations of the earliest Pali sutras? If so, what word is it the translation of?

The Pali phrase is agatigati which is translated as "coming-andgoing" in the cite she gave on page 171 of The Fundamental Teachings of Early Buddhism, and as (re-birth and re-death?) in the commentary on the translation there. It is also translated as' re-birth and re-death in a Pali dictionary pages 94-95 of Rhys Davids & William Stede, and in another Pali dictionary [6] as "rebirth and death", where agati here means coming and gati here means going.

• What does "redeath" mean in English?

We have that answered now. It's actually part of a Pali phrase variously translated as "re-birth and re-death", "rebirth and death" or "coming and going".

• Does the word occur in the original wheel turning sutra, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta? - the sutra where Buddha according to tradition first presents the four noble truths.

The answer is no, the phrase agatigati and the words agati and gati do not occur anywhere in this Pali text.

• Should it be used in the exposition of the four noble truths in the lede?

• Should the word be used in the body of this article, and if so where and how?

The aim of the RfC is to answer the last two questions, but along the way, the others probably need to be answered also. Some have been answered already and for those I've given the answers. Robert Walker (talk) 08:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion (not an RfC) of the topics list for redeath

This section is just for discussion of this suggested topics list for a future RfC. The idea was to keep the RfC very focused on just this one question, whether to use the word "redeath" and if so how and where. It doesn't look as if this RfC is going to happen at present. I'm doing this just to leave this talk page in a good state for anyone who wants to take this up in the future. The above topics list is neutrally expressed (as best I can do it), and intended to be corrected if there is any bias in it. Also please correct it if there are any mistakes in the answers I give for the questions that I think have already been resolved. I think some progress was made in the discussion, though it took a long time. At least we now have a Pali word or phrase to discuss. Robert Walker (talk)

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)

Have just edited my "Impossible to vote" explanation to make it clearer. I am not voting against use of WP:RS of course, and that would be a nonsense thing to say :). The RfC doesn't even make sense if that is what it is about - how can you have an RfC on whether to use WP:RS?

• Support comment - 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)

The discussion above 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.