Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

it

A handful of leaves

I was just reading this sutra today and it reminded me of our discussion here. Buddha explains clearly that what he taught is a path to cessation of suffering and gives a short summary of the four noble truths, in the Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves, SN 56.31.

(pali text collapsed)

Extended content

Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā kosambiyaṃ viharati siṃsapāvake. Atha kho bhagavā parittāni siṃsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahetvā bhikkhū āmantesi: “taṃ kiṃ maññatha bhikkhave, katamaṃ nu kho bahutaraṃ yāni vā mayā parittāni siṃsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni yānidaṃ upari siṃsapāye”ti? Appamattakāni bhante, bhagavatā parittāni siṃsapāpaṇṇāni pāṇinā gahitāni, atha kho etāneva bahutarāni yadidaṃ upari siṃsapāyeti Evameva kho bhikkhave, etadeva bahutaraṃ yaṃ vo mayā abhiññā anakkhātaṃ. Appamattakaṃ akkhātaṃ. Kasmā cetaṃ bhikkhave, mayā anakkhātaṃ? Na hetaṃ bhikkhave, atthasaṃhitaṃ nādibrahmacariyakaṃ na nibbidāya na virāgāya na nirodhāya na upasamāya nābhiññāya na sambodhāya na nibbānāya saṃvattati, tasmā taṃ mayā anakkhātaṃ. Kiñca bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṃ: ‘idaṃ dukkhan’ti bhikkhave, mayā akkhātaṃ, ‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti mayā akkhātaṃ, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti mayā akkhataṃ, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti mayā akkhātaṃ. Kasmā cetaṃ bhikkhave mayā akkhātaṃ? Etaṃ hi bhikkhave, atthasaṃhitaṃ, etaṃ ādibrahmacariyakaṃ, etaṃ nibbidāya virāgāya nirodhāya upasamāya abhiññāya sambodhāya nibbānāya saṃvattati, tasmā taṃ mayā akkhātaṃ. Tasmātiha bhikkhave, ‘idaṃ dukkhan’ti yogo karaṇīyo, ‘ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo’ti” yogo karaṇīyo, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodho’ti yogo karaṇīyo, ‘ayaṃ dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti yogo karaṇīyoti.

"At one time the Sublime One was abiding at Kosambi in a siṃsapā forest. And there the Sublime One had taken up a few siṃsapā leaves in his hand and addressed the monks: “What do you think monks; which are greater in number, these few siṃsapā leaves in my hand or those that are in the siṃsapā forest above?” “The siṃsapā leaves in the hand of the Sublime One are of smaller amount than those that are in the siṃsapā forest above.”

“Even so monks, it is just this way with those things of perfected knowledge that I have not taught. And why monks, have I not taught these? Monks, indeed because these are not of significance to what is beneficial; neither do they lead to the principles of the renounced life, nor to disillusionment, nor to dispassion, nor to cessation, nor to peacefulness, nor to perfected knowledge, nor to awakening, nor to Nibbāna. It is for this reason that I have not taught these.”

“And what, monks, have I taught? This is dukkha, monks, this I have taught; this is the arising of dukkha, monks, this I have taught; this is the cessation of dukkha, monks, this I have taught; this is the way of progress leading to the extinction of dukkha, monks, this I have taught. And why monks, have I taught these? Monks, indeed because these are of significance to what is beneficial; they lead to the principles of the renounced life, to disillusionment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peacefulness, to perfected knowledge, to awakening, to Nibbāna. It is for this reason that I have taught these. Therefore, monks, the effort to be made is ‘this is dukkha’; the effort to be made is ‘this is the arising of dukkha’; the effort to be made is ‘this is the cessation of dukkha’; the effort to be made is ‘this is the way of progress leading to the cessation of dukkha’."

Where "dukkha" is a word variously translated as suffering, unsatisfactoriness, stress etc. That's the translation here, which I chose because it is parallel text Pali and English. Itallics and bold for the statement of the four noble truths added. Other translations available online here, here, and here - links to other online translations very welcome!

If one accepts what is said in this sutra, that Buddha did choose what he taught and how he taught it carefully, surely one should present the four truths in the same way he did, at least in the lede? Well I'm not going to attempt an RfC on this as I said, no point, when an RfC on a single word doesn't work. But future readers of this page might consider whether this is a question to re-open at some future date. Robert Walker (talk) 10:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Four Noble Truths as a path to cessation of dukkha - cites

These are cites for any future editor who might want to take up the discussion again, mostly from the discussion above. First of all to introduce this: one of the main objections in the discussion was that since on reaching nirvana you are no longer tied to the cycle of rebirth (everyone in the discussion agreed on this), that it makes no difference whether you present it as a path to cessation of suffering or a path to "end this cycle", as it means the same thing. I was arguing that it does matter how you present it.

Buddha set out to find the cause of suffering and a path to freedom from suffering, according to the story of his life in the sutras. And the 4NT invite us to do the same. And though he gives advice about how to do this, he also presents it as a journey of discovery where you have to see things for yourself. If he presented the truths as "you must stop rebirth" then that would present a creed asserting belief in rebirth that Buddhists would have to affirm first, to follow the path.

So, assuming Buddha chose his words with care, it needs to be presented as it is, as an open ended search for the causes of suffering, where the practitioner eventually sees the truth for themselves. I think also that's one of the things that makes the 4NT difficult for some people as they want to be presented with a creed, to understand what Buddhists must believe to follow the path. But the core truth is one that you have to see through open ended discovery, and any cut and dried solution would detract from that. I think this is the main issue with this article, because it turns an open ended path of discovery, which can be recognized by anyone, of any religion or none, a path to end suffering, into a creed. While doing it the other way around, mentioning that it was his last rebirth after statement of the four noble truths, presents it as Buddha himself did and preserves this approach of open discovery. This is the way it is done in all the WP:RS that I've checked including e.g. Harvey, which @Joshua Jonathan: cites for his approach. Everyone agrees that it was Buddha's last rebirth, but folding that back into the four noble truths as the aim of the practitioner, is highly WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS in my view, since Buddha did not teach the path in this way and since he spoke so strongly against the need to accept any kind of a creed to follow his path.

These WP:RS cites all present the four noble truths as a path to cessation of suffering. This is also how it was stated in this article up to 2014: Old lede

---

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

"The four noble truths are:

• "The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness)
• The truth of the origin of dukkha
  
• The truth of the cessation of dukkha
  
• The truth of the path leading to the cessation of dukkha"

---

For many more cites for this way of presenting the 4NT, from WP:RS in the old lede's footnote b.

In addition note that in some traditions Buddhas don't have to enter paranirvana on death. In Tibetan tranditions, Buddhas can have new rebirths, sequences of incarnations after enlightenment.

On the centrality of the four noble truths, note that Carol Anderson herself asserts this in her entry in the Macmillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism.. Robert Walker (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

This might seem a small point to non-Buddhists used to the idea that religious folk follow creeds. It may even seem a subtle point of little interest. But it makes a big difference for Buddhist teachings. It goes against the very basis of how Buddha taught to make the four noble truths, central to his teachings, into a kind of a creed requiring belief in rebirth, and in a path to end rebirth, which you can't verify for yourself, only affirm on the authority of another person or being. Robert Walker (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Note, the four noble truths are now correctly stated in the new first paragraph of the lede, but the second para still presents it as "a way to end this cycle," which is not how Buddha taught them. Robert Walker (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Walpola Rahula quote

@Joshua Jonathan: - this is a quote from Walpola Rahula's What the Buddha Taught", which is of course a notable WP:RS on Therevadhan Buddhism. It may help you understand the central point I have been trying to make, in my clumsy attempts above. Added extra header break above for convenience.

"The third Noble Truth is that there is emancipation, liberation, freedom from suffering, from the continuity of dukkha. This is called the Noble Truth of the Cessation of dukkha (Dukkhanirodha-ariyasacca), which is Nibbāna, more popularly known in its Sanskrit form of Nirvāṇa...
...
"Elsewhere the Buddha unequivocally uses the word Truth in place of Nibbāna: ‘I will teach you the Truth and the Path leading to the Truth.’[103] Here Truth definitely means Nirvāṇa.
...
"It is incorrect to think that Nirvāṇa is the natural result of the extinction of craving. Nirvāṇa is not the result of anything. If it would be a result, then it would be an effect produced by a cause. It would be saṃkhata ‘produced’ and ‘conditioned’. Nirvāṇa is neither cause nor effect. It is beyond cause and effect. Truth is not a result nor an effect. It is not produced like a mystic, spiritual, mental state, such as dhyāna or samādhi. TRUTH IS. NIRVĀṆA IS. The only thing you can do is to see it, to realize it. There is a path leading to the realization of Nirvāṇa. But Nirvāṇa is not the result of this path. You may get to the mountain along a path, but the mountain is not the result, not an effect of the path. You may see a light, but the light not the result of your eyesight...
...
"An Arahant after his death is often compared to a fire gone out when the supply of wood is over, or to the flame of a lamp gone out when the wick and oil are finished.[111] Here it should be clearly and distinctly understood, without any confusion, that what is compared to a flame or a fire gone out is not Nirvāṇa, but the ‘being’ composed of the Five Aggregates who realized Nirvāṇa. This point has to be emphasized because many people, even some great scholars, have misunderstood and misinterpreted this smile as referring to Nirvāṇa. Nirvāṇa is never compared to a fire or a lamp gone out...
...
"In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained only after death. But Nirvāṇa can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it

"He who has realized the Truth, Nirvāṇa, is the happiest being in the world. He is free from all ‘complexes’ and obsessions, the worries and troubles that torment others. His mental health is perfect. He does not repent the past, nor does he brood over the future. He lives fully in the present.[114] Therefore he appreciates and enjoys things in the purest sense without self-projections. He is joyful, exultant, enjoying the pure life, his faculties pleased, free from anxiety, serene and peaceful.[115] As he is free from selfish desire, hatred, ignorance, conceit, pride, and all such ‘defilements’, he is pure and gentle, full of universal love, compassion, kindness, sympathy, understanding and tolerance. His service to others is of the purest, for he has no thought of self. He gains nothing, accumulates nothing, not even anything spiritual, because he is free from the illusion of Self, and the ‘thirst’ for becoming..."

From Walpola Rahula in "What the Buddha Taught" in his discussion of the third truth of cessation.

That is the main issue I have with your lede. Some Buddhist commentators, even great scholars, as Walpola Rahula says, have presented it like that in commentary on the Four Noble Truths. But in my view such commentary should be presented separately and not used to restate the four truths. Buddha chose his words precisely and carefully, and the safest way to present the four truths is to present them exactly as he did. And he never presents them as a "path to end this cycle". He does present them as a path to cessation of dukkha, and as a path leading to the truth (of Nirvana). Both of those would be correct as they have sutra cites. The problem with your second paragraph really is that it suggests the view that Nirvana is an effect, like a blown out flame and that the aim of the practitioner is to cause this effect. It's a very subtle difference, but this is a topic where such things matter. It is safest to just present them exactly as Buddha did. As do the commentators. Even the ones who say the aim is to end rebirth later, in their commentary on Buddha's text, present the truths exactly as in the sutras first. Robert Walker (talk) 09:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It would also focus the practitioners on their future, and what happens when they die, and such questions as "Shall I exist in future? Shall I not exist in the future? What shall I be in future?" which Buddha warned against as an unwise reflections leading to attachment to views relating to a self, in the Sabbasava-Sutta. I think there are numerous reasons for supposing Buddha chose his words with care, when he presented it as a path to cessation of dukkha and realizing the truth of Cessation / Nirvana. Robert Walker (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

The main point here is, it is fine to say anything in commentary on the four noble truths, so long as it is from WP:RS. But it is only fair on the reader to start by stating the truths as they are presented by Buddha, as that's the subject of the article. To fold the commentary into the statement of the truths means the reader never has a clear idea what the commentary is a commentary on. Robert Walker (talk) 01:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS who assert that the Pali Canon are largely the work of a single teacher

Here are cites that future editors may find useful in an RfC on the historical section. I'd strongly encourage such an RfC, though I don't think I'm the one to do it myself.

@Joshua Jonathan: has presented several WP:RS cites for the view that the four noble truths are a later addition to Buddha's teachings. However, note that this is a subject of very extensive discussion. It's not hard to find a few WP:RS cites for any view on the topic. This does not make it an academic consensus. Indeed as for many academic debates, there's a wide range of views on WP:RS. It is equally easy to find cites that say the exact opposite of this.

Compare Historical Development section of this article, which presents only one view, with Origins section of the Pali Canon which presents a wide range of views including Views concerning attribution to the Buddha himself. I suggested some other cites to add to the article on its talk page (including Anderson): Other Views on the origins of the Pali Canon (talk page) though they have not been taken up in the article itself.

Here are a few cites from Peter Harvey , Richard Gombrich Alex Wynne , Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali . And Prayudh Payutto is a particularly strong supporter of this view on the authenticity of the canon. . These WP:RS all agree that the canon is layered, and all agree that some parts of the Pali Canon post date the Buddha. But they attribute the earliest layers to pre-existing teachings which he referred to and incorporated in his own, and attribute most of the canon to Buddha himself.

Of course the view that most of the teachings are later needs to be presented, and I have not the slightest objection to that :). All I'm saying here is that the other views at the other end of the spectrum, also in WP:RS should also be presented. In my view it violates WP:NPOV to present only one end of this spectrum in the article. Robert Walker (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

References

As before, you're confusing several several issues:* Several of those sources are primary sources, which a priori state that the four truths are the essence of the Buddha' s teaching.

• The fact that there is disagreement on the "authenticity" of the sutras, does not mean that you can conclude that all those authors who favor the "historical position" reject the conclusions of Bareau, Schmitthausen, Vetter, Bronkhorst etc on the historicity of the four truths and their role in the sutras. You conclude that the one position (the sutras are historically accurate and reliable) leads to the other (authors who conclude that the four truths developed historically are incorrect), which is WP:OR, and not based on those sources.
• As a matter of fact, there is widespread agreement on this historical development of the four truths and the role of insight in the Buddhist path. It's not just Anderson; it's also the authors mentioned above, and Ui and Gombrich. Call it scholarly concencus, versus faith-based fundamentalism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

First, I've no idea what you mean by calling these "primary sources". Think about how many monks and priests have written theological texts that are WP:RS for Christianity. In the same way, when you become ordained as a Buddhist monk, it doesn't disqualify you as a WP:RS or a secondary source. I can't think of any objection to these cites except that some of them are by Bikkhus.

The four noble truths are central to the Buddhist teachings and repeated over and over in the sutras. I haven't come across this idea that most of the teachings in the Pali Canon are by the Buddha, but that the four noble truths, the central point in his teaching, is not. Do you have a cite for that view? And if you read the articles by the cites given here, it is not at all based on faith. The most extensive one is the Sujato one: cite which goes into great detail. He examines for instance, the level of technology as described in the sutras, which corresponds to the technology in India at the time of Buddha and doesn't mention later innovations. That they never mention writing (except in obviously later texts), but describe a pre-literate society. That they don't retroactively "predict" the great Buddhist King Asoka who united India not that long after Buddha's death - which the Mahayana sutras do, that they describe a geographically small region of a few kingdoms accurately in a way that was valid for Buddha's lifetime - but would no longer be valid just a short while after Buddha's death. That they do not mention places in Southern India that would be well known due to political developments soon after he died, and present many other very detailed arguments based on minute examination of the texts. Have you read it?

Your Gombrich cite actually says: "The most important of these changes is the development of the idea that Enlightenment can be attained without meditation, by a process of intellectual analysis (technically known as panna, insight) alone.". So, he says direct experience through meditation leading to enlightenment is the original idea here. And he says quite clearly that he thinks these discrepancies also date from within Buddha's own lifetime. He says "As I have written elsewhere, one likely reason for the discrepancies is that in the course of a preaching career lasting forty-five years, the Buddha formulated things in various ways and perhaps even changed his mind (Gombrich, 1990-9). But another reason I posit for discrepancies is that monks were arguing about these topics and that the texts sometimes preserve more than one side of an argument."

His views are pretty much diametrically opposite to Andersons, so how can you summarize that as "there is widespread agreement"? There is no consensus here at all, except that there are multiple layers in the Pali Canon which is generally agreed, but easily explained (as Gombrich himself does) by including earlier texts plus development of Buddha's teachings over several decades. See Page 96 of How Buddhism Began by Richard Gombrich. Robert Walker (talk) 10:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I like to read all viewpoints on a subject from WP:RS and I think many wikipedia readers are in the same situation. We don't need a wikipedia editor to figure out a unified narrative to present to us. The rough edges and inconsistencies are part of what makes it interesting when you present a subject in a WP:NPOV way. Robert Walker (talk) 13:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Those cites have been presented over and over and over again. Here you've got some of them again:

• Andre Bareau (1963), Recherches sur la biographiedu Buddha dans les Sutrapitaka et les Vinayapitaka anciens, Ecole Francaise d'Extreme-Orient
• Schmithausen, On some Aspects of Descriptions or Theories of 'Liberating Insight' and 'Enlightenment' in Early Buddhism
• K.R. Norman, Four Noble Truths
• Tilman Vetter, The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism, by Tilmann Vetter
• Richard F. Gombrich (2006). How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-19639-5., chapter four
• Bronkhorst, Johannes (1993), The Two Traditions Of Meditation In Ancient India, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, chapter 8
• Anderson, Carol (1999), Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon, Routledge

I don't expect you to read French (I don't), and Schmithausen's article is unfindable (though often cited), but the other four can be found on the net, so go read them. They pretty much agree that the four truths as used and formulated in the sutras are a later development, reflecting a growing importance of "insight," in ressponse to non-Buddhist movements after the Buddha's time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:36, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's an interesting view. No problem at all in presenting it so long as you summarize it accurately. But please present the other views as well! Is it perhaps because they present what seem to be "knock down" arguments against all the other views? If so academic debates are always like that. Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali . particularly completely demolish all opposing views in their article, through careful reasoning. And Wynne likewise puts a very strong case for his point of view. It is often the case in academic disputes that both sides in the argument have what seem to them to be extremely strong cases, even apparently irrefutable cases, for their own views. You can't regard any academic's own presented views of the nature of the dispute as unbiased. In many cases they would be horrified if you did, as they write these specialist papers and books for other academics, not for encyclopedias. Robert Walker (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

References

(multiple e-c) First, I urge Robert to read and make every effort to be able to apply WP:FRINGE and WP:MINORITY and see how if at all his proposals might be addressed there. Regarding what he himself "likes" to read, well, his likes and dislikes are of at best secondary importance here, our first goal is to ensure that our content meets our content requirements. If we don't have enough space in one article, it is certainly possible, if NOTABILITY and other concerns are met, to create spinout articles on either minority views held by multiple sources, or, in some cases, minority views limited to a single book. But that is an entirely separate matter from indicating that wikipedia policies and guidelines come after what individual editors like and dislike.

Also, I regret to say, that I think most editors here really do not want to see openings of sections as long as this one. The best way to propose such changes, in a way people are probably more likely to read, is to propose specific wording which is being sought to be added or changed in the article, the sources to support it, and the reasoning behind the proposal. Block quotes like the one above really do nothing to make others more likely to be interested in reading what some might consider the uncontrolled verbiage of another. Please, just stick to the relevant facts, and discuss the changes proposed, and why they are being proposed, and really try to keep personal opinions and other at best dubious content as per WP:TPG elsewhere.

And it is now twice I have been caught in conflict with Robert while he made minor changes to this section. Few if any editors welcome having to go through the effort of trying to repost simply because someone wants to heap more on the pile of overkill information already presented. Please, make a bit more of an effort to see that your first version of a post says what you want it to say, and, unless you find a really awesome source later as piling-on support, try to refrain from adding sources for what some might see as being the sole purpose of "piling on" sources. Remember, the talk page is about making changes to the article, it is not designed to allow individuals to use as a form of soapbox for presenting material which may never be likely to be included in the article at all. Please, try to limit your postings to deal directly with the matters of the proposed changes to the article, the sources for the changes, and the reasoning why the changes are being proposed. John Carter (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:/@John Carter: I reread Carol Anderson, and Gombrich. I fail to see the "pretty much diametrically opposite", alleged by @Robert Walker, which I presume is an allegation with respect to 4NT. The authenticity of Suttas, and for that matter all ancient Indian texts, as well as when they were written, has been an active topic of scholarly discussion for a long time. But that does not make 4NT or Sutta or commentaries on Sutta or last 100 years of scholarship on 4NT to be WP:Fringe or WP:Minority. Is there anything in above sources, such as Anderson, that this article has not already summarized? I don't see it. On page 295, Anderson writes, Buddha knew he had reached Bodhi, that "he had escaped endless cycle of birth and death...". On page 296, she writes again, "he [Buddha] had attained the state in which there is no death or suffering...". She repeats, in her summary of the first truth of 4NT, "birth is suffering, old age is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering..." on page 296. This is what the cited sources state, this is what the current summary of this article states. As far as WP:Technical goes, note Dukkha and Nirvana are WP:Technical terms and essential parts of 4NT. It is these two terms that need proper context and explanation, that is repeated birth and death, along with other sources of Dukkha, as @JJ has already summarized from secondary and tertiary scholarly sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Robert, you're again confusing two lines of thought, and doing WP:OR. You argue against a specific line of research, drawn out over more than half a century by mulitiple scholars, who argue that there is a historical development in the formulation and usage (the role) of the four truths in the Pali canon. Against their concensus, you posite two quotes which seem to argie that most of the Pali canon comes from the Buddha himself. Neither of them adresses Bareau, Schmitthausen etc specifically. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

NB: note what Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali also say in their abstract:

"Most academic scholars of Early Buddhism cautiously affirm that it is possible that the EBTs contain some authentic sayings of the Buddha. We contend that this drastically understates the evidence."

Why do you ommit this line? The Bhikkhus are well aware that their thesis is outside the scholarly mainstream, c.q. fringe; you show again that you don't present those sources accurately. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Ah, right. Page 78: "The EBTs are characterised by a rigorous consistency in doctrinal teachings." Precisely what all those academic scholars have argued against, pointing out many inconsistencies. Read the sources above. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:46, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Also interesting: pp.84-85, "Claims of incoherence". Thesis: "Scholarship has not succeeded in finding consequential contradictions within the EBTs." Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali:

"An important challenge to our contention that the EBTs are coherent comes from those who have argued that Buddhism contains fundamental teachings that are hard to reconcile. Probably the most important of these arguments is the claim that Buddhism, specifically the Buddhism of the Pali sources, gives contradictory accounts of the goal of the Buddhist practice, including contradictory accounts of the path of meditation that leads to these goals [1]. This is not the place to assess these claims in detail, but a few general remarks seem called for. A major problem with these claims, here exemplified by those of Griffiths [1], is that they often do not distinguish between EBT and non-EBT material."

Great line of defense: making a statement, and then stating that "This is not the place to assess these claims in detail." Not exactly what I'd call "completely demolish all opposing views in their article." What's more, they refer to one author, Griffiths, stating that he does not disyinguish between EBT and non-EBT material. Well, that's not the case with Norman, Schmitthausen, Gombrich, Bronkhorst and Anderson. So far for this great source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

And regarding Wynne: "The claim that we cannot know anything about early Indian Buddhism because all the manuscripts are late is vacuous, and made, I assume, by those who have not studied the textual material thoroughly." I don't know to whom he's referring here, but surely not to Norman, Schmitthausen, Gombrich, Bronkhorst and Anderson. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear from Anderson's book that she thinks the Four noble truths themselves were not part of the original Pali Canon. See for instance page 21. Where she is quoting another scholar but makes it clear she accepts his findings:

"Norman's analysis of the grammatical forms in the four noble truths indicate that the teaching was not among the earliest components of the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta"

She's not just talking about how they were understood, but about the actual texts. I don't know when exactly she thinks they were introduced to the canon, perhaps you know? Some time post Buddha's death but in pre-sectarian Buddhism period I think. While according to Gombrich, and others of similar persuasion, the preachings in the Pali Canon go back to Buddha individually.

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

Gombrich also says much the same about other scholars as Sujato, when he says " that the preachings probably go back to him individually - very few scholars actually say that". I never said it is a majority view. I don't know what the majority view is. Perhaps agnosticism?? Somewhere in between Anderson, and some of the scholars she cites etc at one extreme and Sujatto and Payutto at the other.

Just saying that this view of authenticity is a respected view held by some of the top scholars in the field of Early Buddhist studies, such as Gombrich, Wynne, Payutto, etc. As for the details of the discussion - yes of course they mention their opponents case. So also does Anderson. That's part of the normal scholarly dialog. I won't argue the case myself as the aim is not to try to persuade you that they are right in their conclusions :). And this is not the place to engage in critical peer review of the WP:RS. Just that their views should be presented here as part of an ongoing wide ranging scholarly debate on the subject. And that the article shouldn't try to build a consensus view out of extracting comments from the various scholars wherever they say things that are compatible and ignoring all differences in opinion. The reader can make their own decisions and synthesis. As readers we want to be presented with the full range of views in a WP:NPOV way. That's what you expect from an encyclopedia. Robert Walker (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

You don't get it again. The point is, that they do nothing more than mentioning them. They just duck away. for a serious treatment of thr topic, they should respond to the relevant literature. They don't. That's not part of the normal scholarly dialog. If there are scholars who disagree with Norman, Schmitthausen, Gombrich, Bronkhorst and Anderson on the hsitorical development of the four noble truths and their usage, go ind them. But don't stray away with a general discussion on scholarly views on the historicity of the sutras, meanwhile referring to religious authors who evade serious discussion of the topic - both general and specific. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It is not our place to say if they respond adequately to the opposite point of view. Lance Cousins gave a very detailed croticism of Anderson, saying she had misunderstood many of her sources. Reviews like that can be cited, so if you find a review of Sujato that says what you just said, you can cite that. But it is not the work of wikipedia editors to decide which of the WP:RS are right and which are wrong, or to make criticisms of them of this peer review type. Their job is simply to present whatever it is they say - and when there is a diversity of views, to present them also as they are. Anything more is to go beyond WP:NPOV to a WP:OR synthesis of the literature. Robert Walker (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Lance Selwyn Cousins critical review of "Pain and its Ending"

(added new header for convenience)

For those interested, here is Lance Selwyn Cousins critical review of Anderson's "Pain and its Ending". . He says that Anderson misunderstood some of the sources she cites in her book. For instance (italics and bold added to highlight one of his sentences):

"Here and elsewhere, Anderson attributes to Norman the view that "the four truths were probably added after the earliest version of this sutta" (p. 68; cf. p. 20 and p. 149). I do not think this is what he says.
...
"As a result of this and other matters, Norman concludes that the simpler form of the truths, which occurs elsewhere, (ida# dukkha# . . . aya# samudayo, and so forth) must be earlier. He also concludes that the term ariya-sacca- probably did not occur in the earliest versions of the four truths. He does not, however, say that no references to the four truths occurred in the original version of the sutta."

L. S. Cousins was a leading scholar in the field of Buddhist studies, and undoubtedly WP:RS, and I think any article that cites Anderson should also cite his critical review of her article. (It is also of course important to mention any critical reviews of the articles by scholars at the opposite end of the scholarly spectrum from Anderson in their views on authenticity of the Pali canon, such as Sujato, Wynne, Payutto, Gombrich, also if they can be found, I'm not singling out Anderson for special treatment here :) ). Robert Walker (talk) 10:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

References

That's a relevant, an interesting, point, indeed. A few comments, though:

• This piece of info from Anderson is not being used in the Wiki-article; the Wiki-article does refer to Bronkhorst, though, with the line "According to Bronkhorst, the four truths may already have been formulated in earliest Buddhism, but did not have the central place they acquired in later buddhism.";
• Norman, The Four Noble Truths, p.222, does say: "It is possible that in the earliest version there was no set of of four NTs at the beginning of this portion of the narrative at all [...] a statement of the four NTs was prefixed to the story as a header or rubric, in some traditions." So, either Cousins seems to be mistaken here, or Anderson is justified in her reading of Norman;
• Anderson's statement is not an isolated observation or conclusion, but part of an established line of analysis concerning the inconsistencies in the enlightenment-story of the Buddha, and the realtion between dhyana and insight. See note 20 on the Wiki-article.

Regarding Gombrich, I've already recommanded you, several times, to read Richard F. Gombrich (2006). How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-19639-5., chapter four. Gombrich shows how discrepancies in the suttas reveal the elevation of "insight" to a central place in (early) Buddhist soteriology. So, Gombrich is not at the "opposite end of the spectrum"; on the contrary, Anderson follows the same line of thinking, which can be traced back to Bareau (1962), and even earlier to the 1930s. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

NB: you should also have mentioned the opening and closing linesof Cousin's review:

[Opneing:] "This is a well-presented and clearly written book, based on a wide reading of both recent and older scholarship. Carol Anderson gives a detailed account of the various guises in which the four noble truths appear in the P!li texts. Overall, this is a valuable and intelligent account of the material, and it will, I suspect, be required reading in Buddhist studies courses for some time.

[Closing:] Let me reiterate that this is an important study, written in a stimulating and clear manner. I have enjoyed reading it and found it frequently both thought-provoking and useful."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this is a relevant quote from Cousins:

"I am a little uneasy with Anderson's choice of restricting the meaning of the term "four noble truths" to the form where dukkha ("pain") is the first item. It seems to me that such alternatives as "the world, the arising of the world" or "the asavas, the arising of the asavas" are just as much the "four noble truths" as the more well-known form. Or, to put it another way, the well-known form is simply shorthand for all of the forms." (p.36)

So, the four truths are not so 'usually presented' as you supposed, nor do they strictly refer to dukkha. Read that again; your basic objection crumbles here. Right, Ms Sarah Welch? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, you also conveniently forgot to give this quote: "I do not think that this misunderstanding of Norman's position critically affects Anderson's thesis." (p.38). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

First on Cousin's review, I didn't say he said it was a bad book :). As you rightly say, he said it was a good book. I just said he said that he criticised it and identified what he considered to be misunderstandings in it. And as such his review of it deserves to be cited as a WP:RS pointing out things that he considers to be errors in it.

On Gombrich, the particular passage you mention just now is not accessible to me. But from another cite you gave, from another book by Gombrich, "How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings" it actually says [1]:

"The most important of these changes is the development of the idea that Enlightenment can be attained without meditation, by a process of intellectual analysis (technically known as panna, insight) alone."

So by insight here he is referring to intellectual analysis. And he says direct experience through meditation leading to enlightenment is the original idea here.

And he says quite clearly that he thinks these discrepancies also date from within Buddha's own lifetime. He says [2]

"As I have written elsewhere, one likely reason for the discrepancies is that in the course of a preaching career lasting forty-five years, the Buddha formulated things in various ways and perhaps even changed his mind (Gombrich, 1990-9). But another reason I posit for discrepancies is that monks were arguing about these topics and that the texts sometimes preserve more than one side of an argument."

So you shouldn't use Gombrich to support the idea of a change of this nature after Buddha died. He didn't say that, at least not in this cite. Robert Walker (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Gombrich even gives an estimation for the time needed for this change: at least one geberation after the Buddha's time. So, after the Buddha. He explicitly attributes this change to later interpretators.

Some more on Cousins, from p.39:

"Drawing particularly on the work of Schmithausen and Bronkhorst, she eventually concludes that the four noble truths "were introduced into what became the canonical writings first in relation to attaining the jhanic states and to the eradication of the asava, and later in the context of the Buddha's biographies, such as the Dhammacakkapavattana-sutta" (p. 148f). Again, "What we emerge with is the tentative conclusion that the four noble truths were first conceptualized as related to the highest form of enlightenment: the attainments of an arahat" (p. 149). In actual fact, I do not have a problem with this in itself, but I would not see any reason to doubt that it was the Buddha himself who first conceptualized them in this context."

Schmithausen and Bronkhorst give plenty of reasons, so it makes one very curious why Cousins is not seeing those reasons. Unfortunately, no explanation; that's weak, and unconvincing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: It would be best to retain a summary, or at least include a few sentences, in the main article or as a note, the different views and disagreements on historicity of the 4NT-related Suttas, from the various WP:RS, for NPOV. All this is indeed notable, important and encyclopedic. Just like the Hindu traditions attribute a lot of texts to Vyasa or Yajnavalkya or Shankara or Ramanuja, the Buddhist traditions attribute a lot of texts to Buddha (or ancient scholars such as Nagarjuna), but the evidence on historicity is unclear. Similarly the century in which the texts in various Indian traditions, including Jainism, were composed, is uncertain (we can post quem and ante quem many Buddhist texts, given Chinese versions). This aspect of 4NT-related literature is worth a mention. I concur with you on Gombrich and Anderson. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Well if he says that, he contradicts himself because in the cite I just gave he says "As I have written elsewhere, one likely reason for the discrepancies is that in the course of a preaching career lasting forty-five years, the Buddha formulated things in various ways and perhaps even changed his mind (Gombrich, 1990-9)" so he says that they could reflect a change of teaching style over a period of 45 years of teaching (that's a quite common theme amongst those who hold to the theory of authenticity of the early Buddhist texts, and I find it plausible as teachers do change their teaching styles and 45 years is a long time. My own main Buddhist teacher made radical changes in his teaching style several times while I was studying with him, of the entire way he taught from newbies all the way through to people who he had been teaching for years, and this is not unusual in Tibetan traditions at least). (For a more famous example, Trungpa Rinpoche made very radical changes in his teaching style, several times in his quite short life, ending with an emphasis on the Shambala tradition for the last few years of his life).

Of course WP:RS by the same author often do contradict themselves. Indeed for similar reasons indeed, because their ideas change or they just present things differently, the first is an actual contradiction, the second is an apparent contradiction that may turn out to not be a contradiction if you look at it more deeply, e.g. due to a change in the meaning of the terms they are using and such like.

If that's the case, then I think - in a detailed article you might trace the changes in his thinking but otherwise, you'd probably go by whichever is the most recent. But it does need care. I find it very implausible that Gombrich would think that the four noble truths were added to the sutras after Buddhas death - it doesn't fit with the trend of his writings at all. So if you find a text that seems to say this, do look carefully! He might be talking about something else. In particular I don't understand at all why you think that development of the idea that it is possible to achieve enlightenment through analytical reasoning, and that it doesn't require direct realization of a truth would suggest the truths are a later addition. They seem to say clearly that the path is towards realizing a truth, which according to Gombrich is the original way the teachings were understood. So surely what he is saying here implies the truths are early, not late, in whatever the chronology, whether the main changes all happened in Buddha's lifetime or not? Robert Walker (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

And - responding to your "meanwhile referring to religious authors who evade serious discussion of the topic" it's just crazy to exclude "religious" people from the lists of WP:RS on the grounds that they are Buddhist or ordained as Bikkhus (to prevent misunderstanding, I'm not saying you are a crazy person :), just that this particular thing you are saying is crazy - everyone does that occasionally, I sometimes say things others point out are crazy too). Nobody would exclude all theologians from WP:RS on topics in Christianity on the grounds that they are Christian. For that matter, Anderson in her introduction to her book "Basic Buddhism" writes about her Buddhist faith

"The fit is natural, true and joyous. I am on the right path for me and I love this journey. I take responsibility for my own life. I find peace and joy in every day. Every day is a blessing and I can face death, when it comes, with no regrests. The world is no longer such a frightening and empty place. My perception of life has changed and therefore my reality has changed. Out of the madness and chaos of our time, there is room for amazing kindness and heroic gestures to occur. I am now open to create and accept those kindnesses"

So should she be excluded as a WP:RS because she is a Buddhist, what's more an enthusiastic Buddhist? And how can you possibly say that Sujato, Wynne, Payutto, Gombrich etc evade serious discussion of the topic? I could have answered your criticisms there based on my own understanding of the book, but that would just send us off on another one of these long debates. The main point is that they are WP:RS and deserve to be cited here and it is not the place of a wikipedia editor to do an extra level of peer review and to vet articles that are already published and established as WP:RS. Robert Walker (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

They deserve to be cited when they treat the topic of the historical development of the four truths, and are reliable sources. The two bikkhis are not excluded because they are bikkhus, but because they deliberately do notwant to give a serious response to the inconsistencies scholars have found. Instead, they just state that those scholars are wrong. That's not worthy to mention here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:24, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

That's because the rest of that paragraph explains why they didn't go into it in detail.

"A major problem with these claims, here exemplified by those of Griffiths [1], is that they often do not distinguish between EBT and non-EBT material... Another problem with Griffith’s proposition is his reliance on a very limited number of texts from the EBTs. His main reference is to the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta. However, in establishing any point about the EBTs one needs to consider the literature as a whole.21 It is our contention that the problems identified by Griffiths and others fall away once this is done"

In other words, it wasn't the place to go into it in detail because it's their contention that when you consider the literature as a whole the problems fall away. Which he then goes on to discuss in the next section. You need to read the article carefully - it's quite long, 152 pages, and goes into a lot of detail. But my main point is that it is not up to you as a wikipedia editor to decide whether particular views on the authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts deserve to be cited here or not. If they are WP:RS then they deserve to be cited, and that's all there is to it. Robert Walker (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

If other WP:RS criticize them, that also is not a reason for excluding them. Rather, both the views - the original WP:RS and their critics, should be presented. But if a wikipedia editor criticizes them on a talk page, this of course similarly should not be used to exclude them, or even mentioned in the article! Just because your criticism of their work has not been peer reviewed and is not a WP:RS. If you wrote your criticism of them up as a paper and published it as a WP:RS still that would not be a reason to exclude their views from this article, it would just be a reason to cite yours in addition. At least, that's my understanding of wikipedia policies. Robert Walker (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:Just had a thought, I wonder if the reason you are so skeptical about Buddhists who claim authenticity is by analogy with fundamentalist Christians who claim that the modern Bible, which is obviously a result of later composition long after Jesus died, is the work of God? Sometimes even the St James edition (no theologian would say this of course, except in the sense of inspired translators or editors).

If so, it is a very different situation, and these are not fundamentalist Buddhists in this sense at all. In India we have the Vedas which everyone agrees were transmitted pretty much word for word for thousands of years. See Vedic schools or recensions. The main reason for skepticism about Buddha's teachings is that it was not memorized and transmitted by a Brahmin priest caste, but by ordinary monks - but some of those would have been Brahmins with the training in memorization of Brahmins, so that's not such a knock down case as one might think. Also it depends on whether you accept the internal evidence of the sutras. Sujato etc give lots of internal reasons for believing them to be contemporary such as that they refer only to technology of Buddha's time, don't mention writing, or king Asoka, except obviously later additions to the canon, same kingdoms even as at Buddha's time, a geography that was no longer valid a short time after he died, and a lot of good internal evidence, which just could not have been invented by later additions as they didn't have the sophistication and understanding of history and archaeology that we have to do such a thing. If you accept that much, that at least it is possible that they are what they claim to be, then internally,they say that the monks started memorizing the sutras before Buddha died as a result of the leader of the Jains dying and his followers arguing about what he said. So that would mean, they memorized his later teachings, towards the end of his life, while he was saying them, and memorized earlier ones based on the memories of monks, and with the opportunity to ask Buddha for clarification - and birth stories of course would be less reliable still. But all that collated while he was still alive. Then rehearsed in the first great assembly.

Jesus disciples never did anything like this. No attempt was made to memorize or write down his teachings at all before he died, as far as we know.

Also, Payutto in his paper gives strong reasons for believing that memorizing is actually more accurate than written text, at least back when writing had to be copied by hand. It is easy for a scribe to make a mistake. You end up with many written texts with variations in them. But if one monk gets a word wrong while they are rehearsing in an assembly of 500, they will all hear instantly and can stop and figure out what is the right word to use there. He also points out that to this day, there are monks who can memorize the entire Pali canon, the Tipitaka, word for word. Even though they don't have to, and even though we no longer have this strong tradition of memorization, yet the task can be achieved today. Mingun Sayādaw was the first in modern times to achieve this, and others have since then.

With that much background now, it can become a possibility that the entire canon was indeed memorized. There are some sutras that are indeed definitely later, apparently. Refer to events after Buddha for instance. But most of them form an internally consistent whole. Those are the "Early Buddha Sutras" that according to the "Theory of Authenticity" record teachings of Buddha himself, or his disciples, given while he was alive, and memorized while he was alive. In this way, if this theory is right, it is well possible that we actually have a much more accurate version of the words of the Buddha, through memorization, than Christians have of the words of Jesus, even though they had writing at the time he was alive and indeed long before.Of course not word for word as in a recording or transcript. They are clearly organized in ways that make them easy to memorize. But organized in that way by monks who had heard Buddha himself give those teachings, and indeed for the later sutras, memorized immediately after the teachings themselves. If this is right, the Pali Canon surely contains actual words of Buddha, memorized and then checked with him to make sure they are correct. In particular the four noble truths, which are repeated so often in the canon, would record the words of the Buddha himself, if this theory is correct. With that background, then if you read the work of Sujato and Wynne and Payutto, maybe you will see careful scholarship, rather than fundamentalist religion? That's what it is. They have well worked out scientific reasons for their views. Robert Walker (talk) 00:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this the reason? If not, what is your reason? After all the Vedas were transmitted in this way, so why couldn't the Pali canon be transmitted in this way? And why would being a Buddhist and a Bikkhu disqualify you as a WP:RS? I'm trying to understand your reason for not accepting these peer reviewed articles in academic Buddhist journals as WP:RS.

Note, @Ms Sarah Welch: has just said [3] in the discussion about banning me from this page that this post, which basically is a short summary of the arguments in WP:RS on the theory of authenticity of early Buddhist texts should be a reason to restrict me from talking on religious topics on Wikipedia for a year. I don't understand why.

I did this post to try to understand what Joshua Jonathan's reason is for ignoring those who advocate the theory of authenticity of the early Buddhist texts in academic journals. I am just baffled about why he doesn't regard Payutto, Wynne, Sujato, etc as citable sources here, when they are undoubtedly WP:RS according to wikipedia standards for WP:RS. Why should it be a bannable offence to just summarize their views on a wikipedia talk page? Please explain! Robert Walker (talk) 11:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: Once again requesting you to read and respect WP:FORUM, WP:TALK particularly WP:TPNO. Article talk pages are not forums and place for "undue lectures with your wisdom/prejudice/opinions" or "conversations" or "generic discussions" such as on Jesus, fundamentalist Christians, etc above. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in this article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in the lede? Robert Walker (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Survey

Please indicate Support if you support use of this word in the article, and lede, and Oppose if you oppose use of this word in the lede and article. Or just Comment for general observations. Robert Walker (talk) 18:32, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

If you want to comment on any of the other responses here, please do so in the #Discussion section provided, unless your comment is short, and especially, please do this if you wish to argue the opposite case with one of the respondents. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - I've never heard the term redeath used in the Vajrayana, or Tibetan Buddhism, in a teaching context, nor it liturgies, nor in English language commentaries; it doesn't mean it isn't being used, it's just that I've never encountered it. Yet, it could indeed be part of the languaging in the Sutrayana and Mahayana, with which I am not as familiar. I wonder if there is a word in a source language (like Sanskrit, Pali, or Tibetan) that is being translated as redeath here? That could be helpful to know. Best, AD64 (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for responding! I expect @Joshua Jonathan: will explain his reasoning in his section of the RfC. He has said above it's a translation of the Sanskrit word punarmrtyu. I've edited the statement accordingly. Best. Robert Walker (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• 'Comment Support - I've already explained my reasoning several times. Here we go again:

• Buswell & Lopez (2013), The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism, Princeton University Press, p.708, on "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")."
• Paul Williams (2002), Buddhist Thought, Taylor & Francis, p.74-75: "All rebirth is due to karma and is impermanent. Short of attaining enlightenment, in each rebirth one is born and dies, to be reborn elsewhere in accordance with the completely impersonal causal nature of one's own karma. The endless cycle of birth, rebirth, and redeath, is samsara."
• Perry Schmidt-Leukel (2006), Understanding Buddhism, Dunedin Academic Press, pages 32-34: "Thirst can be temporarily quenched but never brought to final stillness. It is in this sense that thirst is the cause of suffering, duhkha. And because of this thirst, the sentient beings remain bound to samsara, the cycle of constant rebirth and redeath: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence as the Second Noble Truth"
• Sally B. King (2009), Socially engaged Buddhism, University of Hawai'i Press, p.8: "samsara (the wordl of birth, death, rebirth, redeath)"
• John J. Makransky (1997), Buddhahood Embodied: Sources of Controversy in India and Tibet, SUNY, p.27: "a beginningless cycle of rebirth and redeath refreed to as samsara"
• Paul J. Griffiths (2015), Problems of Religious Diversity, p.163: "samsara - the cycle of rebirth, redeath and suffering"

So, "less commonly," but not uncommon. It's an explication of samsara c.q "rebirth," it's sourced by three reliable sources on Buddhism, so it is appropriate to use. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I've changed my "comment"" into "support"; six refrences from credible scholars, plus two additional thoughts. Warder notes that "birth" in "birth, sickness" etc refers to rebirth; in that sense redeath makes sense. And a very old synonym for nirvana, c.q. the Buddhist goal, is attaining the "deathless," which implies not dying again. So, ending "redeath" makes good sense here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

NB: we cpuld also rephrase it as "dying again" os a similar phrase; the point is that samsara entails both repeated birth and repeated death, as Ms Sarah Welch has made abundantly clear. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose With only three cites it seems to be a very rare word in this context. The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta is also in Pali, and the word is a translation of a Sanskrit word and the word "redeath" is not used in translations of the Pali sutra. Also, I have never heard this word in numerous teachings on the dharma in various traditions, or seen it in any sutra translation or Buddhist texts about the four noble truths by scholars or any other Buddhist topic until I read it in this article. If its use in a Buddhist context is indeed as rare as this suggests, it seems WP:UNDUE to use it here, especially in the lede. The Encyclopedia Britannica lists it as a word from the Hindu Upanishads. (Depending on further votes and comments in this RfC as that is why I opened it to find out more). For more on this as a result of discussion, see #Vedas not sacred texts for Buddhists and #The five "unwise reflections" about the future in the Sabbasava-Sutta Robert Walker (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR and personal experiences and opinions do not supercede WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've edited my Oppose, trimmed it, hopefully improved it. Robert Walker (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh Robert, you're a burden, but you're also a nice fellow (serious!). Do you know this one: "I'm not weird, I'm a limited edition"? I love it; it always makes me smile when I feel like an alien in this world. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support With the new references and discussion, I'm in support of using "redeath". I am also in support of cleaning up the first paragraph (as noted below). Best, AD64 (talk) 04:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - surprising! I'd already removed it from the lead, and was about to close this RfC. I've re-inserted it now, but only at one place; let's see what MSW has to say. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @JJ: As I wrote earlier, there is no need for 'redeath' in every sentence of the lead. But it should be mentioned in the lead, and it should have a full discussion in the main, because all WP:RS explain/comment on 4NT with those terms. These terms have a very long, sustained history. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see #WP:RS and redeath Robert Walker (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Hi folks, I"m still here and I've been reading all this and not actively participating in the discussion. I now realize, that my initial vote of "Support" was premature. I'm learning a lot by following along and my own opinions are shifting as new perspectives emerge and as Wikipolicies get brought forward. I would like to change my vote to "Pending" until we are a little further along. In addition, I'm trying stay with you here even in the midst of the challenges because this is an important topic. Thank you and best, AD64.

• Oppose based on possible WP:RECENTISM concerns. The sources above, all good ones, are all also only within the past few years. This subject has been studied for a number of years, and it is only apparently within the very near past that this word has been used in connection with this topic. There are trends within academia as well, and it could be that this recent usage of this word might be one of them. Robert has indicated earlier reliable sources which have very specifically and sometimes vehemently objected to the use of this word in this context. Therefore, on that basis, without seeing specific recent reliable sources which specifically indicate why it is so vitally important to use this apparently disputed term in the lede in particular, and also question whether it is to be used at all. Also, I regret to say, that the request as phrased in no way indicates the possible frequency of usage of the term, and that makes it harder to know how frequently and prominently the word is to be used. I would have no objections to the word being used, possibly in conjunction with other synonyms, possibly not, in the body of the article, and possibly similarly used in the lede itself, but do not at this point see enough information which to my eyes indicate that this recent usage of the term is not potentially possibly just a passing trend in the relevant academic community. John Carter (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment @John Carter: This is not new. Repeated births and repeated deaths is in 'likely ancient /medieval /colonial era /modern scholarship on 4NT scholarship. Yes, non-RS websites such as buddhanet avoid these terms. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Please back up with cites. I'm interested to hear about it if you have evidence that this term was used in early discussions of the 4NT by Buddhists and would like to know how they used the term and what it meant for them. See also my #WP:RS and redeath Robert Walker (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

See the numerous cites on this talk page, and the discussion of Āgati on pages 94-95 of Rhys Davids for re-death in ancient Buddhist texts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, because it is common, notable and significant in WP:RS that has been published in last 40 years. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment this RfC is not well formed because it asks three questions so it isn't clear which question respondents are supporting or opposing. Moreover, expecting the general community to know whether a specific term appears in reliable sources is asking a bit much from them, and so it's unlikely that the RfC will receive much uninvolved community input.

That said, it's clear based on previous comments that the term redeath appears in enough reliable sources that it should be mentioned in the article. One possibility is to say something along the lines of "some sources call this redeath". In other words, report what the reliable sources say, and ifnot all reliable sources say it, the report that in the article. Ca2james (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ca2james: Not "some", many many scholarly sources mention "redeath, re-death or repeated death". This talk page and the article already cites over a dozen sources with explicit "redeath or re-death", some with embedded quotes. The cites date from 1921 to 2015, so this is not WP:RECENTISM. Further, I have never come across any scholarly source that states that 4NT are "not about birth, rebirth, death or redeath". If we want an NPOV sentence, then something such as "Some (unreliable) websites do not mention birth, rebirth, death or redeath at all in their introductory discussion of Four Noble Truths" would be accurate (see Buddhanet link on this talk page). But such sentences do not belong in an encyclopedic article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Sorry, I just realized, I hadn't put in a separate Survey section and hadn't given it a format. Have just done so. Please vote as support, oppose, or comment. Because if everyone just says "comment" it might not be so easy to see what the final consensus is. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Please use this for extensive discussion of the RfC if necessary, as RfCs can get very confusing if they end up with long comment threads on each response. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for making this format for the conversation. I'm not opposed to using the term, but I think it would need a footnote to link to sources, or a qualifier that this word is used in some contexts not others. In an introductory article like the Four Noble Truths, my preference would be to use language that is simpler, less specialized, and leads to less confusion, and would be congruent with language someone might encounter in commentaries, published books, teachings, liturgies, etc. So, from this perspective, simpler seems better, and I'd choose another word. In a more advanced topic, such specialized languaging is useful especially as it offers readers a connecting point with the language used in the culture of the teachings, commentaries, liturgies, etc. So, I'm not opposed, but I'm not yet for it. If there was a good context, referencing, etc, it could be insightful and useful for readers. I'm open to that possibility, but not yet convinced. Best, AD64 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, your comments are helpful and I look forward to seeing how this discussion develops. It's also given me the idea to ask Joshua Jonathan for clarification about how the word is used, which may help, see below. Robert Walker (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: - I wonder if I can ask a question which may help with this discussion? What is the difference in meaning between death and redeath? I can understand rebirth, it means you are born as a new sentient being. But the idea of redeath, I can't really get my mind around, it seems like becoming a new dead sentient being, but what could that mean?

If I understand it right, in Therevadhan Buddhism there's no bardo, so you are just taken instantly into your next life when you die, so the moment of death is also the moment of your next rebirth (or conception at least). And in the Tibetan Bardo, then you are in an intermediate state, yes, but it's not really another state of being, it's more like a situation where you have lost connection, are in between A and B, not sure where you are or what you are, bright lights, sound louder than thunder, everything is fluid, unless you get stuck there in which case it's rebirth into the "hungry ghosts realm"

Particularly, what does it mean in a Buddhist context? Are there any Buddhist sutras or other texts using the word that explain the distinction between death and redeath? And if so what is the distinction - what decides which term you use? Robert Walker (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Good question, thanks. That's a really much better way to proceed! If I look at the way Paul Williams uses it, but that's just my personal understanding, it just means 'to die again'. According to Buswell & Lopez, it's one of series of related terms which point to this whole cycle of dying, rebirth, dying again. The emphasis then seems to be on the cycle, not so much specifically on dying (again). For me, personally, the addition of "redeath" to "rebirth" struck me; dying is a painfull proces, highly dukkha, so to speak. In the western world we can alleviate the pain and suffering to a considerable degree, but imagine dying of cholera, without any medicine or tranquilizer. You've seen it happen, with your parents, some of your brothers and sisters, some of your children, maybe your husband or your wife, and you know that it is terrible. And you know it's going to happen to you too. By cholera, injuries, war, hunger, whatever. Not just this life, but a next life, and another next life ad infinitum. Just imagine. Horror!!! That's why it struck me: 'we got to get out of here!'

From my memory, it's indeed related to, or comes from, the (later) Vedic way of thinking: the idea that by "karma," that is, ritual actions, one can "gain" a life, a rebirth, in heaven. From this developed the idea that one can also die again in heaven: redeath. The merits (this is not the correct word here, is it?) of this 'ritual karma' do not last forever. Buddhism connected the next dot: rebirth again, on earth, as a human, or an animal or so. And then death againagain. Ad infinitum.

Well, that's out of my memory. I'll see what more I can find. I'm sure Ms Sarah Welch will also be pleased to tell more, in a couple of days. Thanks for asking; much better. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:48, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

NB: @AD64: there already are footnotes in the article with quotes in which the term is being used. Regarding the use of technical language: the four truths have a central place in Theravada, which is fond of using technical terms. In really "beginners text" one may encounter really simple language, but any text which is a little more than just really simple contains a lot of technical terms. So technical terms is also what one would encounter in other publications, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

NB2: see also Saṃsāra#Punarmrityu: redeath

Hi everyone. I appreciate what you have just shared @Joshua Jonathan: and what is meaningful to you about the term "redeath". This helps me follow your thinking more easily. I also went back to the article again, and did find the notes on original language sources. What strikes me now, on this read, is that even if we leave in "redeath" (which is growing on me), the first sentence is too long, has too many notes, sub-notes, and is too complicated for an overview sentence. I wonder if in all of this, part of what might be at stake is how to create a clear first paragraph that explains the basic concepts yet isn't too overloaded with notes, sub-notes, and complex concepts? If the first paragraph were cleaner and less cluttered, the usage of "redeath" might really point to something. As it stands, it doesn't work for me. So, I'm not opposed to the use of "redeath", yet I am opposed to the current clutter of the first paragraph. Thanks and best wishes, AD64 (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: thanks! Scroll through this talkpage, then you know why there are so many notes and references. I'll try to consolidate them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan:. I appreciate your quick responses here and all your efforts to offer information relevant to the topic. I had already looked through the talk section and do understand why there are so many notes and references. I think they are important. And, I support a cleaner and easier to read first paragraph. Thanks for all your time and effort on this very important article. I also appreciate you all making me welcome on my first RfC as a new editor. May the collaboration make for a better article. Best wishes, AD64 (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, it reads much better now! I'm grateful for your hard work on this. Might I ask one more question? A few lines later, there is this sentence: "The importance of the four truths developed over time, substituting older notions of what constitutes prajna, or "liberating insight."" I am unclear about what got substituted for what. Can you clarify, please? Best, AD64 (talk) 05:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I've made this next reply into a separate section so I can link to it from my Oppose vote (you haven't yet convinced me). Robert Walker (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I am extremely grateful to User:Joshua Jonathan for his comments regarding the use of the word above. I regret to say, however, that at least to my, ill-informed, eyes, there might be a bit of a question regarding whether our definition of Historical Vedic religion and Hinduism as entirely separate entities is supported particularly strongly by the evidence. I acknowledge up front that we are obligated to break really long articles into multiple subarticles, and don't question in any way the spinout of HVR, but I am myself unsure whether in the field of religion the two are regularly divided as clearly and distinctly. If they aren't, and at least some era of broad HVR is sometimes considered to be "early Hinduism," then differentiating between Hinduism and Buddhism as some sort of "siblings" might be questionable. Although it would allow for Buddhism to, basically, come into existence in opposition of early Hinduism.

Also, I guess, I could see some reason for thinking that "rebirth" and "redeath" are, ultimately, broadly synonymous, but, if that is the case, then there would be no particularly reason to choose either term over the other. If, however, both terms are also used at least occasionally in a more specific sense, such as specifically relating to being born again as a specific individual topic, or dying again as a specific individual topic, then using the terms interchangably or one to the exclusion of the other might be, to some better informed people (of which I am not one) potentially confusing. The death and resurrection of Jesus, for instance, also broadly refer to the same broader theological event, but can also be treated as separate topics on their own, independent of each other. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: Okay, others would know more than me but I think the main difference is that Buddhists don't accept the Vedas as sacred texts. They made a clean break with them. Not saying that they were wrong as such, more, that you can't accept their authority just because they are texts handed down and treated as sacred, but have to look into it yourself.

Buddha said many things that were unconventional at the time. For instance what he says in the Kalama Sutta about (I'll collapse most of this to avoid long comments:)

• "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.'"

At the time many would have accepted things just because they were said in the Vedic scriptures, for instance.

He also ignored the caste system, treating people with respect whatever their caste, accepting anyone as a monk or nun, and sometimes giving invites from low caste people precedence when invited by a King.

And he taught that sacrifices to Gods or other rituals of that type would not lead you to enlightenment or for that matter, to more fortunate future rebirths.

So I think you could say that Buddhism arose in opposition to the Vedic religion in some ways, while at the same time sharing much of the same background.

It's a bit like Plato and Aristotle, Aristotle has many philosophical ideas that are in opposition to Plato, yet he also has a lot in common too as seen from our modern perspective.

Also another big difference: Buddhism, like Jainism was founded by a single individual (or at least most scholars seem to think so), and so has the characteristics of the teachings of that individual, a bit like a single philosopher. While modern Hinduism I believe is not attributed to any single individual though of course there are many extraordinary teachers and practitioners, it's just that the roots of it go back thousands of years with no individual teacher that can be said to have started it. Robert Walker (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@John Carter: Just to say, Joshua Jonathan has proposed a topic ban of me from the topic of Four Noble Truths on wikipedia. It was immediately after this post. Do you think my posts here have been excessive and that I deserve to be banned from posting to wikipedia talk pages on the topic of the four noble truths as a result? See Topic Ban Requested Robert Walker (talk) 07:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Vedas not sacred texts for Buddhists

First, thanks for explaining your understanding of the term "redeath" above as:

@Joshua Jonathan: "From my memory, it's indeed related to, or comes from, the (later) Vedic way of thinking: the idea that by "karma," that is, ritual actions, one can "gain" a life, a rebirth, in heaven. From this developed the idea that one can also die again in heaven: redeath""

Okay this is surely a Hindu or Vedic idea then?

• Vedas are not sacred texts for Buddhists.

• The idea that one can "gain" a heavenly life is alien to Buddhism. Because there are no deathless Gods so no heaven in the Hindu sense. Just beings that have immensely long lives.

Details:

I have never come across any idea in Buddhism like this, of a heaven that is different from this worldly realm. The "gods" in Buddhist cosmology all die and it is just a life that is far longer than life in a human body, and more pleasant and enjoyable.

I understand that there is something like this in Hindu teaching, a "God realm" of higher Gods that never die, and the idea of a supreme deity above all the other gods, and of oneness of atman with Brahman. But in Buddhist teaching, then the "god realm" is just another realm like the animal realm, or the hell realm, or hungry ghosts etc, one in which the beings have especially long and pleasant lives, but like us, they all die eventually.

So again, it's my understanding that this may be a Hindu idea, that " 'we got to get out of here!'" and that you can do it by accumulating good karma, and even then, perhaps for many Hindus it may be more subtle than that (is oneness with Brahman really "out of here").

With Buddhist teaching, accumulating good karma can lead to potential for temporary stability in Samsara and a pleasant life, sometimes even for kalpas - but all this is temporary and part of conditioned existence.

Rather, all the Buddhist teachings I've read and heard have been about finding a path to cessation of suffering, as a direct experience and realization of a truth, in this very life. Positive karma helps by giving the stability you need to make it easier to realize that truth, and gives you connections with the teachings to help you along the path but doesn't get you all the way.

There is much less emphasis than in Hinduism on particulars of rebirth, and on particulars of how karma works, which you are not expected to be able to understand in detail, is beyond the understanding of ordinary beings. The sutras warn that trying to answer questions about who you are, and what your next life will be leads you astray. And death is just seen as a transition to another life. Birth, old age, death, rebirth is a continual stream, always within Samsara. Robert Walker (talk) 16:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The five "unwise reflections" about the future in the Sabbasava-Sutta

Indeed in the Sabbasava-Sutta, then the 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self include:

• Shall I exist in future?
• Shall I not exist in future?
• What shall I be in future?
• How shall I be in future?
• Having been what, shall I become what in future?

So how could the basic orientation be to "get out of here" in the future? Such an approach, according to Buddhist understanding, would reinforce your attachment to views relating to a self, and trap you in Samsara, even if perhaps it meant you ended up in one of the god realms for many kalpas.

That relates to the current statement of the third truth which I hope can be a subject of a future RfC. But keeping this discussion focused on redeath, from what you've said so far, the word seems to carry too many Hindu associations to be used to rewrite the four truths, if that is how it is understood.

Do you have any Buddhist texts that explain the word "redeath" in detail? Not just Vedic texts, or later commentaries on Buddhist texts by scholars based on comparative studies. In a Buddhist context?

Also, does anyone know, does any word in the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta have this as a translation?

If so, how is the word understood by Buddhists?

If it is a word used only in comparative studies, then surely this belongs later on in the article in sections that discuss other religions and historical origins of Buddhism.

On basis of discussion so far, it seems likely that most Buddhist readers will be like me, won't have heard of the word, and will need an explanation, and that the explanation will involve Hindu ideas that are unfamiliar to Buddhists.

Details:

I think, on the basis of the discussion so far, most Buddhist readers like me, @Dharmalion76:, and @AD64:, will have never heard the term before, and would need it explained to us, and it seems this explanation would involve Hindu ideas or ideas from the Vedas which are not sacred texts for Buddhists. And so I'm still not convinced that it is a good word to use, especially in the lede.

Will see how this discussion develops, and hope we get more perspectives on the debate :).

I hope this comment is not too long. I've worked on it for clarity and conciseness, and can't find any more repetition to remove. It is all directly to the point and to do with attempting to assist editors who want to improve this article. So I don't think you can call it a WP:WALLOFTEXT. It is certainly done to help improve rather than impede understanding and dialog as my motivation at least. I've just collapsed part of it to help readers who want to skim.

Robert Walker (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well the term was new for me too; I read it on Wikipedia. I bet Dorje108 added it! But it's surely not only a Hindu idea; Buddhism and Hinduism did not develop separate from each other; they developed in the same area, in the same culture. Many Indian Buddhists were Brahmins. The Buddha was familiair with Brahmanical ways of thinking (and responded to it). Regarding the differences, and the similarities between Buddhism and Hinduism: in many regards, they are very similar. Even the Hindu idea of an unchanging Brahman can be found, in a way, in Buddhism, as Buddha-nature, Dharmakaya, et cetera. While the Madhyamaka idea of sunyata influenced Advaita Vedanta and Shaivism. Really, many similarities. I've already suggested so many book-titles to yourself to find out more. But do read Presectarian Buddhism, and if there's one book to recommend, it is Geoffrey Samuel, The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. It's really good. And otherwise, the books by Gombrich and Bronkhorst which are referenced in this article are also very good and insightfull. You can find pdf's on the internet; put them on an e-reader, and take your time to read them. They're worth the effort. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and of course: read the sutras. Just start somewhere (have you got copies of them?). Make notes, read this sutra, then another random sutra at another place. And a reading tip: they're not "linear," like western texts; they're circular and cross-referential. One term may refer to a list of terms at another place; a term from that other list may refer to a third list, and that third list may refer back to the first list. For example: the fourth truth refers to the eightfold path; the first itme of the eightfold path, "right view," refers to the four truths. The "trick" is to memorize some terms, memorize some cross-references and make notes of those cross-references in the book ('hey, this term also appeared there, with a somewhat different meaning! see p.xxx'), and then "realize," see (prajna!) the interconnected whole of all the terms and sutra. Then it comes alive! And, important: see that there are also incongruencies, like the fourth truth saying that the eightfold path leads to cessation and liberation, while the sutras also say that the Buddha was enlightened and liberated when he simply understood those truths. Hmmm... so he points the way, knowing that he will be liberated when he follos the pat, but he's liberated himself by understanding that following the path will liberate him? Peculiair. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Well the word was introduced to this article by you here: [4]. I haven't seen it anywhere else including the articles Dorje edited. Robert Walker (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:"But it's surely not only a Hindu idea; Buddhism and Hinduism did not develop separate from each other; they developed in the same area, in the same culture. Many Indian Buddhists were Brahmins. The Buddha was familiair with Brahmanical ways of thinking (and responded to it)."

This is not enough reasoning to make it a Buddhist idea, never mind make it a word to use for the four noble truths.

A few examples (collapsed to help readers who want to skim:

Analytical philosophy was developed at the same time, in the same culture as existentialism and Marxism, and Jungian and Freudian philosophy and many other philosophical and psychological systems. But many of these have specialized words you wouldn't use in any of the other philosophies except for comparative analysis. E.g. if you talk about archai, then that means you are discussing Jungian philosophy or something closely related, and would not use this term for analytical philosophy or Freudian philosophy though doubtless thinkers in these various traditions knew about each others ideas and discussed them and responded to them.

Further back, Plato and Aristotle's philosophies developed in the same culture. But you wouldn't use the Platonic notion of forms when expounding Aristotle's epistemology. That would lead you far astray. Many other examples.

We need to know if the word is used specifically by Buddhists, and if so, in what context and how. Robert Walker (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Also collapsed the first part of next comment, I was answering @Joshua Jonathan:'s puzzle about how Buddha could become enlightened just by seeing a truth, if he needed to practice the noble eightfold path to reach cessation.

The answer to your puzzle about the eightfold path, as I've been taught anyway, is the distinction between relative and absolute truth. The eightfold path is mainly to do with practices that you do to get some stability to practice the dharma. Buddha had done this through numerous previous lives as he affirmed when he did the earth touching mudra when confronted by the assaults of Mara. But the truth itself is something you have to see for yourself, and that's what happened when he became enlightened. Even the noble eightfold path can only point you in that direction, to create a situation where you can see it for yourself.

And it's not the only way, in Zen traditions they use koans, in Mahayana traditions then they use the five paramitas, there are many teachings on paths you can follow that help you and others, both in Samsara, and also towards seeing the truth, relating to the truth of your situation. It's good to read the sutras extensively. But it can often be quite a shortcut to hear teachings from a teacher in one or more of the traditions, to help with understanding of them.

The main message of the third noble truth is that there is a path to cessation of dukkha. As you say, details of that path then follow elsewhere. But some people are able to see the truths directly. Just knowing there is such a path is enough for them. Kondanna did, just on the basis of the minimal teaching Buddha gave.

"This is what the Blessed One said. Being pleased, the bhikkhus of the group of five delighted in the Blessed One's statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, there arose in the Venerable Kondanna the dust-free, stainless vision of the Dhamma: "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation."

In the sutras there are stories also of people who didn't even need to meet the Buddha, that just heard someone else give the briefest description of the central point, not even the four truths, not the eightfold path, just a single sentence, for instance that "Whatever is subject to origination is all subject to cessation.", can be enough at times if they are ready, with "little dust on their eyes". Robert Walker (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you're right about Williams and the redeath-quote; apparently, I was too modest. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Just looked up the story of two people who according to the sutras realized cessation of dukkha just on hearing these words: "Whatever phenomena arise from cause: their cause & their cessation. Such is the teaching of the Tathagata, the Great Contemplative." - Moggallana the wanderer and Sariputta the wanderer, see Upatissa-pasine

So (as I understand it), that is like the four truths in a nutshell, but most people need a lot more than that, so then you get the four noble truths, same idea but in four truths - but most people need a lot more than that also so then you get the long expositions of each of the truths in turn. Anyway we can go into this in the RfC on the third truth when we get to it.

I think this is the reason why many treatments of the 4NT start with a short summary of the four truths, basically in the form that lead Kondanna to see the truth. I feel strongly that we should avoid folding later commentary back into the statement of the four noble truths in the lede, including words like "redeath" if these are anachronistic from a Buddhist point of view. More details below, collapsed to help readers who wish to skim. Robert Walker (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's why many treatments start off with a simple four line statement of the truths, as in the old lede for this article, a statement which according to the sutras can already lead to awakening just by itself for some people. So that's interesting to know. So I think it is important to present these simple statements, which lead Kondanna to realize cessation of dukkha on the spot. Then you go on to talk about it in depth. Not because you expect the reader of the article to become awakened on reading those four lines. But because it is only fair to them to present the truths in that format, as that is how Buddha presented them, so that they know what the article is about. While folding commentary and later comparative religion studies into the four noble truths complicates them and turns them into something that's no longer the simple statement the Buddha taught. Especially in an encyclopedia article. So I think we should avoid all anachronistic later developments especially in the lede so feel strongly we shouldn't use the word redeath unless it is essential and part of the way Buddhists themselves understand the four truths, and indeed, part of how Buddha himself taught them. And I don't think it is, on the basis of the discussion so far. (I know the Vedas are earlier, but as far as the sutras are concerned, use of the word redeath in commentary on the four noble truths is surely a much later development at least based on the evidence so far) Robert Walker (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I see you just collapsed this entire section on #Vedas not sacred texts for Buddhists - and the five "unwise reflections" about the future in the Sabbasava-Sutta. Was this a mistake? We were mid conversation.

I've undone your collapse, and broken it up into two subsections, and done some more collapsing of my posts above. I do hope you find this acceptable.

Please discuss first, if you think the whole section needs to be collapsed. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Either Bronkhorst or Anderson (or was it Gombrich?) has got more to say on 'the opening of the dhamma-eye'. Anyway, it's a complicated topic, which reflects the complicated development of Buddhist doctrine. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS and redeath

@Ms Sarah Welch:

Commenting here to avoid long threads on RfC responses.

"As I wrote earlier, there is no need for 'redeath' in every sentence of the lead. But it should be mentioned in the lead, and it should have a full discussion in the main, because all WP:RS explain/comment on 4NT with those terms. These terms have a very long, sustained history. Ms Sarah Welch"

There is a vast literature on early Buddhist teachings, but these are some works I have read recently in this topic area and none of them mention the term and surely all would count as WP:RS:

• Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha taught". (It's not just a book for beginners, it's a classic exposition of the core teachings in the Pali Canon).

• Translations of the sutra in which Buddha first expounds the four noble truths, see for instance Peter Harvey's translation. For more translations, see Translations into English.

• Anderson's book "pain and its ending" doesn't use it.

• The Pali Canon - What a Buddhist must know by Prayudh Payutto considered amongst the most brilliant scholars in Thai Buddhist History.

• "The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts" by Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali,a supplement to Volume 5 of the Journal of the Oxford Centre for Buddhist Studies.

• The Oral Transmission of Early Buddhist Literature - Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies (Volume 27. No. 1 2004) by Alex Wynne

These sources have numerous occurrences of the word "death" and never use the word "redeath".

Nor have I seen it in any translation of a Buddhist sutra that I've read, and so far @Joshua Jonathan: hasn't given a sutra cite for it.

I agree that the word is used occasionally in modern commentaries, as Joshua Jonathan has given some WP:RS cites including by Peter Harvey in Introduction to Buddhism.

However, note that Peter Harvey has 161 occurrences of "death", and only one occurrence of "redeath" in a 552 page book.

Also his presentation of the four truths on page 52 does not use the word.

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

His occurrence of the word is on page 72, in his discussion of the twelve nidanas

The aim of the RfC is to get the views of other wikipedia editors on the topic. They may unearth more information. The evidence so far seems to be that is a very uncommon word in commentary on the four noble truths, and one that has been in use recently only.

Robert Walker (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: There you go again. Did you read the Sutta and sources Joshua Jonathan or I cited above? If you missed it, see Saṃyutta Nikāya 12.38, the Cetanā Sutta. It includes punabbhavā (...) jāti·jarā·maraṇaṃ. The last word maraṇaṃ means death. That is not isolated use. 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. I am puzzled by your allegation that Harvey doesn't use repeated birth/death. He does. See cite above. Etc. You seem to be ignoring past discussion, recycling the same allegations with your wall of posts, which feels like WP:NOTHERE? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 08:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I did not see the sutta cite, sorry. Is this the sutra? Cetana Sutta: An Act of Will. If so, where is the word used? I live in a remote place, on an island in Scotland, with a two day journey there and back and accomodation overnight needed to go to the nearest big city with a large library so need online material if possible.

I'm interested to know, what is the difference from death in a Buddhist context? There must be some reason to use a different word. With Harvey I just said that he only uses the word redeath once and usually uses the word death. I think we need to know how Buddhists use it before discussing whether it is appropriate for the lede (Joshua Jonathan's explanation involved Hindu ideas).

All of course use rebirth. It's redeath specifically that the RfC is about, and whether it is frequently used or only rarely, and whether it is ever used to rephrase the 4NT, and whether we should use it in that way in the lede especially. Robert Walker (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And if the decision was made to use this word in the lede, I think it would also need an explanation in the lede as most Buddhists will have never heard the word before and won't know what it means. So if it is used because it has a significantly different meaning from death, this needs to be explained or the reader won't understand it. It still makes no sense to me as a Buddhist as death just leads right away to the next rebirth (or via bardo which is just a transition state), so what can "redeath" mean? Rebirth makes sense because you are born as a new being, redeath doesn't make sense to me yet, as a Buddhist term, because death is just transition to the next life, for me. Robert Walker (talk) 11:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: Again this is not a forum. You are looking at www.accesstoinsight.org and the wrong Sutta number there. Even after I gave you a scholarly translation and specific Sutta number, 12.38. Such misrepresentation and forum-y abuse of this talk page is a persistent problem with your walls of post. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Is this it then? SN 12.38. With alternative translations [5] and [6]

I don't see any problem linking to Access to Insight as Bhikkhu Bodhi is a renowned translator, President of the Buddhist Publication Society, and cited by other reputable scholars such as Gombrich. Joshua Jonathan has claimed he is not WP:RS but surely becoming a Buddhist monk does not disqualify you as a translator! See ScientificQuest's response to this claim [7]

As for talking about my own understanding of the word - I'm asking for clarification. What does the word mean in a Buddhist context? None of those translations listed above use the word "redeath" if I have now got the right sutra. And I can't figure out what it could mean in a Buddhist context. Can you not provide some explanation from Buddhist sources. And I think I can also use myself as an example of a reasonably typical Buddhist reader of the article, who is not a Buddhist scholar but has had teachings on Buddhism and read reasonably widely on the subject. Robert Walker (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: Websites with unclear oversight are not RS. FWIW, "repeated birth/death = renewed birth/death = rebirth/redeath = rebecoming = cycles of birth/death = future birth/death again =....". Just read the 10+ WP:RS already cited. This is, frankly, basic stuff. Now you have the ancient Sutta too, with future birth/death in 4NT context. We need to stick with reliable sources, not your (mis)understandings/ OR/ prejudice /wisdom. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

See Majjhima Nikaya etc too, the maha-tanhasankhaya sutta (MN 38) in there, but ancient Buddhism's discussion about "death again and again" starts early in that Nikaya. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem at all with "death again and again". That's obviously correct in a Buddhist context.

It's specifically the term "redeath" that this RfC is about.

It is a rare word, and most readers won't know what it means. It seems to violate WP:TECHNICAL to use it if it just means the same thing as "death". If it means something different, as Joshua suggested, using the Vedas to expound it, then I think this needs to be explained, and also justified.

You can't expect a reader to work out what it means from the etymology, as often technical terms mean something different from what they seem to mean when you break up the component parts - indeed Joshua explained, that according to his understanding, in the Vedas, it means something more than "death again and again".

If that is all it means to Buddhists, then to accord with WP:TECHNICAL it should be replaced by "death again and again" throughout the article, in my view.

Thanks!

Robert Walker (talk) 14:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

On your other point, I was under the impression that accesstoinsight.org was under the oversight of Bikkhu Boddhi. I realize my mistake now. I'm not a Buddhist scholar. So you are saying that the translations of Thanissaro Bhikkhu are not WP:RS in your view? Because this translation is also in his published books.

I don't trust Joshua Jonathan's views on what counts as WP:RS as he has made some very absurd claims there such as that Bikkhu Boddhi and Walpola Rahula are not WP:RS in the past. But you seem more knowledgeable than him on this matter. Robert Walker (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: We need to stick with RS. Both rebirth and redeath is common. @Joshua Jonathan has done an excellent job in updating the lead and main summary so far. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes rebirth is common. Sorry, I don't agree that redeath is common on the basis of the information so far. Neither I, nor Dharmalion76 nor AD64 had heard the word before.

In Peter Harvey's book, which is one of the few WP:RS sources that uses it, I count

• 1 use of "redeath"
• 161 uses of "death"
• 923 uses of "rebirth".

I think we would need strong evidence in the opposite direction to establish it as a common word, and so worth using in place of "death again and again". Robert Walker (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

And just to say - this is all that this RfC is about. Whether to use this particular term. It may seem rather minor, but the idea was to start with a focused RfC that should be fairly easy to address.

If it works, then we can go on to do the other RfCs. Though I'd probably take a few weeks of rest from it before going on to the next one!

Perhaps the obvious next one would be the RfC on whether to mention Harvey's and Gombrich's and Wynne's etc views that the Pali Canon are largely the work of the Buddha himself. I've never understood why JJ wants to leave out their views which are clearly WP:RS. And I'd expect most wikipedians with any understanding of the topic to agree with me. I'd be astonished if the vote was that we shouldn't mention them here. So it would be an obvious next choice as perhaps a rather "uncontroversial" RfC. Except that JJ would surely argue vigorously that their views shouldn't be included as he says over and over that it is established by WP:RS sources that the four truths are not the work of the Buddha. I'd be interested to know what his reasons are for that in detail and to see if other editors agree with him. Robert Walker (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: Not true. See cites and explanation above. Did you really read Harvey, or are you doing google snipet search? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I found a copy of Harvey's book in pdf format online. If you search for a word in a pdf, it shows how many occurrences there are of that word. Those are the numbers I gave here. As I've explained I don't have access to a library. Even if I did, this would still be the easiest way to count the number of words, which is very hard to do with a physical book. Robert Walker (talk) 18:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: you need to read the book for context. What is the difference between 'redeath', 'death again', 'repeated death', 're-death', etc? FWIW, this article too has many more instances of birth + rebirth. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

After skimming all this material (I appreciate how dedicated you all are), I still come back to the suggestion that the lede should be in simple language for beginners, as an encyclopedic entry. If "redeath" is to be included (and I find it compelling to include it), perhaps it could go in a later section, perhaps in a discussion of meaning, or contemporary sources, etc. Best, AD64 (talk) 20:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Gombrich is used as a reference in this Wiki-article; he also says that "insight" gained more prominence only after the Buddha. See the references in the article. So I don't understand why you suggest that I want to leave them out when they are included. Read Gombrich's Retracing an Ancient Debate: How Insight Worsted Concentration in the Pali Canon, in How Buddhism Began. Munshiram edition, 1997, p.131, states that the insights in attaining enlightenment without meditation changed after the Buddha, and that this change is reflected in the Pali canon. So, not only do you misrepresent me and my intentions and stance, misrepresent the state of this Wiki-article and the references being used in it, you also misunderstand Gombrich and his stance on the Pali canon, on an issue that is directly related to the role of the four truths in the (Theravada) Buddist tradition. Ad infinitum. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@AD64: We can't make new rules for each wikipedia article. The main article needs to summarize the scholarship, WP:RS. The lead summarizes the main, per WP:Lead. As I explained above, many early Buddhist Sutta do discuss rebirth and redeath, that is the primary context of 4NT, nirvana, in ancient and medieval Buddhist texts. Of course, Buddha never spoke English, and we must try our best to summarize the best scholarly translations. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, I'm talking particularly about the section Historical Development. Compare with the section Pāli_Canon#Origins and Talk:Pāli_Canon#Other_views_on_the_origins_of_the_Pali_Canon (where I suggest they include Anderson's views on the origins of the Pali canon as well as a couple of views at the opposite end of the section - nobody has taken up that suggestion in over a year).

Your section does not mention the views of Gombrich, Wynne, Payutto, Harvey, Bhikkhu Sujato and Bhikkhu Brahmali amongst others. It focuses on the views of Anderson primarily with a few mentions of other views of scholars that support parts of her thesis. It would be a focused RfC only on that section of the page. Perhaps we can leave discussing the details to later as that would be a different RfC? Robert Walker (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch:Good point. There is

• re-death - 1 instance
• repeated death - 1 instance

I can't find "death again"

It still seems rare compared to rebirth.

This is just basic textual analysis where you find out about the usage of a term in a way agnostic of actual interpretation, such as they use for the first stage of dictionary construction nowadays.

I would see "repeated death" as much preferable as it is using ordinary language rather than "redeath" which is a rare word in English.

Just as a word, I don't see any justification yet for using the word "redeath" especially without any explanation of why it is done this way.

It surely at the least risks confusion with the separate (perhaps connected historically) concept of redeath in the Vedas which Joshua Jonathan explained, for anyone who knows about that, and it doesn't seem to add anything for a reader who has never heard of this word.

I haven't read Harvey, just done this basic textual analysis and read the section on the four noble truths at the beginning of his book.

I found it a very technical book going into intricate details about many concepts, I'd count it as rather advanced reading in this topic area. It may be too hard for me to fully grasp.

The other WP:RS books I have read recently on four noble truths don't use the word redeath, as I said. Advanced doesn't equate to WP:RS - there are many very approachable books that are also WP:RS such as Walpola Rahula's "What the Buddha Taught" and others intermediate like the ones I listed above on the origins of the Pali Canon. There are also some very advanced books that are unreliable. And easy books that are unreliable.

So the two are independent of each other. I'm talking generally, in all topic areas it is like this, same in astronomy and in maths.

As a matter of voluntary restraint, I won't comment any more on this discussion until tomorrow, so if you make replies please understand that I won't reply instantly. I also have many other things to do in my own life and am spending far too much time on wikipedia right now. :). Robert Walker (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

If those sources have something relevant to say about the development of the four truths, of course they can be included. That is, indeed, if they are reliable. If you want to develop an argument on the views regarding the "authenticity" of the Pali canon, wrong place. As I said before, Gombrich is being referenced; Anderson's ideas do not stand in a vacuum, but build on Foley (1935), Bareau (1960s), Schmithausen, Gombrich, and Bronkhorst. Read the references in the article; read Gombrich's Retracing an Ancient Debate, and Bronkhorst's chapter eight of The Two Traditions of Meditation in Ancient India. And read also Vetter's The Ideas and Meditative Practices of Early Buddhism. Great publications, with mind-blowing insights on the development of Buddhism.

If you want to use the specific point of view of those Theravada teachers on the position of the four truths, I guess it can be summarized as 'the four truths are the essence of the Buddha's teachings'. Better is a source which says "according to the Theravada tradition [etc]." That kind of info is in the article, and in the lead.

NB: I've added two introductory sentences to the section on "Historical development." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I suggest we leave discussing this to a future more focused RfC. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 10:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The conduct of @Robert Walker is of concern, because it is disruptive and WP:Forum-y. He has not read Harvey. If he did, he would focus on chapter 3, that starts at page 50, where Harvey discusses 4NT. On page 53, in chapter 3, Harvey uses re-death, explicitly. Contextually, it is there, even more, and is essential to the 4NT discussion. Redeath, as repeated death or re-death or etc, appears more than "2" counts. Redeath is there in Sutta translations by RS. He has not read the RS, despite last 10 days of requests, but we must stick to summarizing the RS. Perhaps, we should ignore @RW? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not a scholar and Harvey's book is a dense and technical scholarly work. The word occurs in a discussion of the twelve nidhanas.

This article doesn't mention the twelve nidānas either and Harvey's use of the word redeath is in context of that discussion. So the article doesn't have to use every word that Harvey uses when discussing the four noble truths. Harvey has one use each of redeath, re-death, and repeated death, and 923 uses of rebirth. I don't think you can use his book to show that it is a commonly used word in discussions of the four noble truths, even by Harvey. Robert Walker (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Robert Walker: you are wrong again. The chapter 3 of Harvey is about 4NT. Harvey discusses redeath and rebirth in that 4NT chapter. The book covers many topics of Buddhism. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ms sarah Welch: I'm already trying to ignore his posts as much as possible. But regarding the nidanas: the Wiki-article contains a link to the "twelve nidanas," and a link to "nidana" in the Harvey-quote. And chapter 3 of Harvey is indeed about the four truths. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes he is talking about the four noble truths,yes. But within that discussion, for several pages, he's discussing the nidhanas, and within that, in discussion of one of the nidhanas he uses the word redeath. It's pretty specialized. While the words death and rebirth occur all through the article.

A better cite is on page 53 with the word re-death where he says "The dukkha of these is compounded by the rebirth perspective of Buddhism, for this involves repeated re-birth, re-ageing, re-sickness and re-death"

If it was presented like that, it would be acceptable, because it is absolutely clear what it means - that "re" is just short for "repeated". Or similarly "repeating birth, old age, sickness and death". That's all standard Buddhist teaching and not remotely controversial.

Though he only uses the word "re-death" once. But the main thing is clarity. I'd have no problem if it was used like that with a dash in between and if it was also used in a sentence that involved birth, sickness and old age as well. Because teachings on dukkha don't single death out as anything special as a form of suffering.

And to avoid confusion with the very different meaning of "redeath" in the Vedas.

@Joshua Jonathan: wrote above:

"From my memory, it's indeed related to, or comes from, the (later) Vedic way of thinking: the idea that by "karma," that is, ritual actions, one can "gain" a life, a rebirth, in heaven. From this developed the idea that one can also die again in heaven: redeath. The merits (this is not the correct word here, is it?) of this 'ritual karma' do not last forever. Buddhism connected the next dot: rebirth again, on earth, as a human, or an animal or so. And then death againagain. Ad infinitum."

But Buddha made a clean break with the Vedas. He spoke often against the idea that ritual actions gain a life in heaven saying that they don't do anything to improve future rebirths. He also treated the various god realms as just part of Samsara like everything else so he didn't teach in terms of a separate Heaven.

So if redeath here specifically means "redeath in heaven" then that's not a Buddhist idea, surely?

While if it is about a native Buddhist concept it should be understood as it is understood in the Sutras. E.g. birth, old age, sickness and death, over and over again, with no mention of "heaven", and this should be made clear to any reader who may have come across the word in a Hindu context. Or just not use the word.

The difference with Harvey is that

• he uses the word very rarely, twice, compared to 923 uses of rebirth and 161 uses of death
• he uses it after much discussion and makes it clear to the reader exactly what he means
• he doesn't use it when he first presents the four noble truths.

So if we use Harvey's presentation as an example, we would not use this word in the lede.

Do you understand what I'm saying here? Robert Walker (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

When to close the RfC

@Joshua Jonathan: Just to say - above you said you were about to close the RfC, then changed your mind.

Please, however the discussion runs, can you leave closing the discussion until we have some consensus that it is time to do so? If you had done so, I'd have woken this morning to find the RfC closed with no opportunity to engage in the discussion about whether to close it.

I know you were going to close it in favour of not using the word "redeath" but irrespective of the conclusion of the discussion, can we give an opportunity for the full range of views of wikipedia editors on this matter be expressed? To close it too soon could bias it in either direction incorrectly. I'm also aiming for understanding of the situation, not just a "yes / no" answer, to guide editors working on this article, so the more perspectives on this the better.

I hope for more comments from Wikipedia editors for the project. Usually RfCs are closed automatically after 30 days, I understand, unless kept open for longer, or can be closed earlier if all participants are agreed that it is finished, or can be closed by an uninvolved editor.

They can also be closed by the editor who proposed the RfC withdrawing the question, but to do it that way, I think you'd need to ask me to close it, not close it yourself. At least, that's my understanding of how the process works.

Correct me if I'm wrong.Robert Walker (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Turning the table! We just let it run for 30 days, and see what more interesting opnions and questions arise. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Great. Unless of course a clear consensus develops. I have no problem keeping the other RfC open for 30 days too, it was just your statement that I couldn't start this one until it was closed that I had problems with. Robert Walker (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Publicising this RfC

For #RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Just to say, that I've mentioned this RfC on the Buddhism project talk page. However many editors don't watch project talk pages, so I've also posted to the talk pages for Buddhism and the separate articles on some of the main branches of Buddhism. Also alerted a couple of editors closely involved with the article or the discussion. Also posted it to the talk page for Pali Canon on the basis that this is a topic that would benefit from eyes of experts in the Pali sutras since it concerns the presentation of the wheel turning sutra. For similar reasons posted to the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta talk page.

If anyone else has any ideas of relevant places to publicise it, please just go ahead and do so, as I think the more eyes we have on this the better. Thanks!

Am I Robertinventor's "meat puppet" if I edit this article after discussion with him?

Recently, I glossed the term "redeath" as "punarmrityu" and wikilinked that term to a more detailed explanation in Samsara. I'm not a Buddhist scholar, I don't know if this is exactly correct, but I can't see how it would be wrong, it seemed like an improvement, and I decided to be WP:BOLD about it despite my relative ignorance. Robertinventor, an FB friend who pointed me to this article, and to certain disputes about it, including disputes about "redeath", has since asked me (on FB) to not edit the article, saying that if I make edits after conversing with him about it, that's "meat puppetry". But since I'm actually fine with the term "redeath" (it seems very common in Buddhist scholarship in English, even if it's not as frequent as "rebirth") while he seems uncomfortable with it, I don't see how that's me being his meat puppet. Unless, that is, meat puppets are somehow allowed to rebel against their masters (which, even if it ever happens, would be deeply convoluted wikidrama of no interest to me at all.) If anything, his request seems tantamount to a WP:OWNS vio on his part. Could someone here please straighten him out? I realize that I'm not supposed to reference off-Wikipedia discussions, but ... this is just too weird for me. What's going on here? Yakushima (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yakushima: Everyone is welcome to participate in wikipedia, including you. If yours is likely a WP:Bold edit, be prepared for WP:BRD and discussion cycle. There is clearly a lot of effort @Joshua Jonathan and others have put into this article, referencing the scholarly reliable sources, and odds are BOLD edits will get challenged if they delete sourced content, or duplicate anything that has already been said, or if your BOLD is based on non-WP:RS. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been on Wikipedia for almost ten years -- I was ready to see a revert with a reasonable explanation, some objection that eluded me at the time. The sentence is no longer as nicely balanced as it was, but I think that's a pretty minor objection. As for referencing the right sources for this change, I think my wikilink should be enough? And the only thing I've deleted so far was second "l" in "painfull". Yakushima (talk) 17:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

(e-c) I think he is referring to WP:MEAT in terms of saying that you might have meatpuppet issues, Also, I suppose, WP:CANVASS could be invoked as well in this instance, if you were contacted offwiki about this discussion. As one of the so-called "opponents" of redeath here, I actually don't have a particular problem with it myself, although I would want to have the clearest possible indication of how the terms rebirth and redeath are used, and, maybe, want to consider alternate phrasings like "the cycle of rebirth and redeath" or maybe "rebirth and redeath" or "redeath and rebirth". Based on your comment above, I don't doubt your independence myself, and have no immediate particular reservations about the edit made, but I am not the only one involved here. Thank you however for your being open about the nature of the events which led to you becoming involved here. John Carter (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

No, John, I was just arguing with him about his objection to the term "redeath", which happened to be new to me, but which is obviously not how he attempted to characterized it to me -- as a term that's used by only a handful of scholars. (Rather obviously not a mere handful[8].) After looking into it myself, I thought, "Well, arguing with him about this is time out of my life I can't get back, so what can I do at least, with my new-found knowledge?" Hence the edit, since in a pinch, editing Wikipedia does sometimes make me feel like I'm not a waste of space on this planet. As for your desideratum of "clearest possible indication" of how the terms are used, that's why I supplied the wikilink on punarmrityu since there's more discussion of both rebirth and re-death there. "Redeath" might not be the most satisfying translation of punarmrityu, but it's something, at least. Yakushima (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

@Yakushima: no, I wouldnt call that meatpuppetry; on the contrary (sounds more like Frankenstein ;)). What's FB, by the way? And regarding redeath/punarmrityu, I think that the term "redeath" here does not exactly refer to "punarmrityu," but soit, that's a minor issue. It's related for sure, and it's informative, so fine with me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

FB = Facebook. "soit"? What is that? Happy to help with more precise terminology or clarifications. Yakushima (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I closed my Facebook-account about a year ago; felt like a waste of time. "Soit" is French; something like "okay," "so be it." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I have never actually used my facebook account, although I created it a long time ago. Someone advised me that it might be possible for someone to create a trolling account there which could be theoretically linked to me here to my disadvantage, and on that basis I created my account to make it clear which account I would be using if I used facebook. John Carter (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Someone I was in a conflict with on Wikipedia once admitted that they had told their spouse, or someone with whom they had a cohabitous relationship, about me, and this is why an account CU identified as being indistinguishable from that user showed up and started following my edits. When asked if this was a sockpuppet, the user with whom I had initially had the dispute, said that it was someone else with with whom they shared an internet connection and to whom they had spoken about their dispute with me on Wikipedia, but had never openly requested that they involve themselves. The CU cautioned the first user against doing this, as it would usually be seen as a form of meatpuppetry, even if unintentional, if you tell an off-wiki acquaintance whom you know has a Wikipedia account about your on-wiki disputes and they show up and fight your battles for you.

So yes, technically it could be seen as a form of meatpuppetry, but you did the right thing to own up to it. I have not examined your edits in detail, so I will not comment on whether you were "right" or not, but if Robertinventor winds up being banned from this page and you continue editing after this ban is put in place, editing here will probably not be easy for you as other users will not be able to shake the feeling that you are helping your off-wiki acquaintance violate his ban via proxy.

If Robertinventor told you not to edit the page after discussing it with him and he were not banned from this page (a prospect which looks quite likely, at least in the long run) then it would not be seen as so much of a problem, but the (potential) ban makes it a problem. Since (unlike my above example) you are a regular Wikipedia editor who appears not to be here (read: on Wikipedia) solely to help your friend, if there were no ban under discussion your presence here (read: on this page) would at worst be considered a result of off-wiki canvassing; this would be bad, but not as bad as being seen as helping someone violate a ban via proxy.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:28, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope I can set the record straight here. I couldn't comment on this while banned, but my ban has just expired. This is not to take up the topic of the Four Truths. Just to hopefully explain to @Yakushima: and the rest of you what this was all about. I am writing this for the purposes of healing. So, what happened is, first as I always do, I warned all my facebook friends not to take part in the talk page discussions, since there was an RfC in progress. But Yakushima decided to ignore that warning and go ahead and edit the page anyway. He edited in the opposite direction to what I think is the right way to edit the article. So far of course that doesn't make him a meat puppet. More of an "anti meat puppet" if such things exist.

It is what happens next after that which was the issue. As soon as he edited the page, I felt that I could no longer discuss the topic with him off wiki, or indeed any Buddhist topic that might influence the way he edited the article. The problem was that if I managed to convince him to revert his edit or to change his edit in my favour, that would make him my meat puppet. So I just immediately stopped talking about Buddhism with him. It was rather dramatic because we were in the middle of a long discussion of the four truths on facebook at the time, and suddenly I went silent. He didn't understand the reason for my silence. Naturally enough, he wanted to discuss his recent edit of the wikipedia article with me on facebook. He kept asking me to discuss it, but I couldn't in case I convinced him of my side in the argument. He said he was sure I wouldn't convince him, but that wasn't good enough for me as I of course think my arguments are good and was afraid I might convince him of my views.

I tried to explain why I had to stay silent but with no success. I then told him that I could discuss the edit with him off wiki if he agreed not to edit it any more or at least not to edit the article in my favour if I managed to convince him that his edit was a mistake. But he didn't understand why I said that. That's when he came here and asked this question. Soon after he unfriended me on facebook so now I can't talk to him any more.

So, as you see, I did not ask him to revert his edits. Indeed the opposite. The reason I stopped talking to him on facebook was in case anything I said influenced him to do a revert. Yakushima if you see this, I hope it makes sense now - maybe also with a bit of calm and passage of time, maybe you can understand the bind I was in after you edited the article. And - when you unfriended me that hid all your posts from me in an interesting facebook group that we both belong to on a topic nothing to do with Buddhism. Although we were hardly close friends at all, I'm sad that this very minor matter (as it seems to me) lead to you unfriending me. And I hope now you understand why I suddenly stopped talking to you about the Four Truths in the middle of our conversation. I'd have been very happy to continue our discussion of this topic on facebook, if it wasn't for your edit. It made it impossible for me to talk about it to you any more, because of the wikipoedia guidelines on meatpuppetry during an RfC. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Maha-Parinibbana Sutra

I just added a quote from the Maha-Parinibbana sutra to the thread above, and noted that the Wiki-article said:

"In this sutta, the Buddha emphasized the importance of the four noble truths with the following statement:"

I checked the source; in it's introduction, is does not make such a statement; nor does the sutra itself make such a statement. With other words, a piece of WP:OR which was still left. I've corrected it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Theravada Buddhism and the British Encounter

Elizabeth Harris (2006), Theravada Buddhism and the British Encounter: Religious, Missionary and Colonial Experience in Nineteenth Century Sri Lanka, Routledge, may be a good source on the perception of Theravada Buddhism in the west, and the "colonial project" which co-shaped modern Theravada and it's understanding and presentation of Buddhist teachings. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, p.72-73. Gogerly 1861:

1. That sorrow is connected with existence in all its forms
2. That its continuance results from a continued desire of existence

Spencer Hardy 1866:

... there is sorrow connected with every mode of existence; that the cause of sorrow is desire

A subtle, but far-reaching difference: from the cause of the continuation of sorrow due to craving, to the cause of sorrow itself due to craving! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

David Chapman and Protestant Buddhism

David Chapman, how could I forget? Protestant Buddhism, A new World Religion and Problems with scripture:

• "“Protestant Buddhism” inherits from Protestant Christianity the idea that scripture is the ultimate spiritual authority. Many Western Buddhists take this for granted; others dismiss it."
• "Starting in the mid-1800s, Buddhism was partly reformed in imitation of Protestant Christianity. Scripture was given ultimate spiritual authority.

For this to work, all the following would have to be true:

1. The Buddha had a complete, correct understanding

2. The scriptures, as we have them now, are a complete, correct explanation of the Buddha’s understanding

3. The scriptures are so clear that each Buddhist can read them and form the same complete, correct understanding

All these seem questionable.

The third is particularly unlikely, because Buddhists do not agree about how to read scriptures. There is a problem of interpretation: we know what the text says, but what does that mean? Often texts are highly obscure or ambiguous. (They also often seem insane, idiotic, ethically repugnant, or factually wrong, which needs to be explained away.)

In such cases, who gets to decide what the right interpretation is? It seems that whoever decides, gets to be the ultimate spiritual authority—rather than scripture itself."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Gimello ((2004), as quoted in Taylor (2007), p.361), Rahula's book is an example of this Protestant Budhism, which "was created in an accommodating response to western expectations, and in nearly diametrical opposition to Buddhism as it had actually been practised in traditional Theravada." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Indeed. Many more scholars have observed the same "reconstruction and liberal reinterpretation of the Buddhist canon to suit modern social and economic trends". Please see, for example, Heinz Bechert's 'Buddhist modernism', Gananath Obeyesekere 'Protestant Buddhism', Emanuel Sarkisyanz, Donald Smith, etc as they are also relevant. Moore's has a review of 1850-1950 period in chapter 3 of Buddhism and Political Theory, published by Oxford University Press. One of the strangest fringe elements of this modernism has been the allegation that Buddha or 4NT never discussed rebirth! Perhaps this article needs a better discussion of the related scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: thank you for these sources. David Chapman's writings were quite a stir; my Zen-teacher, who is highly respected in the Netherlands as a true 'older teacher', recommended them for reading. NB: Bikkhu Bodhi, as quoted below, also makes clear that rebirth is part of the story. Yet, interestingly, he also seems to postulate a "transcendent" nirvana, in line with Buddhagosa-style Theravada orthodoxy. According to David Kalupahana, Buddhaghosa introduced some Mahayana transcendentalism into Theravada, in an ingenious way. And, of course, it's not only Theravada which has reshaped Buddhism several times; Makransky has an extensive treatment of the doctrinary difficulties in Mahayana-Buddhism of reconciling the Bodhisattva-ideal with the third truth, the ending of rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Bikkhu Bodhi and the goal of the Buddhist path

Bikkhu Bodhi (2016), The Transformations of Mindfulness. In: Ronald E. Purser, David Forbes, Adam Burke, Handbook of Mindfulness: Culture, Context, and Social Engagement, Springer:

"While in modernist adaptations of Buddhism, the four noble truths are often taught as a diagnosis of the psychology of suffering - of sorrow, discontent, worry, and fear - in classical Buddhism the four truths build upon the right view of kamma and rebirth and offer not merely a psychological diagnosis of suffering but a comprehensive existential diagnosis of our samsaric predicament. Dukkha, the first noble truth, is epitomized by the factors of mental and bodily experience that are "acquired" at each new birth and then discarded at each new death, the "five aggregates subject to clinging." The second noble truth, the cause of dukkha, is caring, tanha, described as ponobhavika, "productive of renewed existence," that is, as capable of generating a new birth consisting of the five aggregates. The elimination of craving culminates not only in the extinction of sorrow, anguish and distress, but in the unconditioned freedom of nibbana, which is won with the ending of reapeated rebirth." (p.10)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this a blog of your edits?

@Joshua Jonathan: Is this a blog of some of the edits you make to the article? You've never done this before in any of the articles on my watch list. If it is, I suggest we put all these entries under a new top level talk page header "Recent additions" or some such, as you aren't asking any question of other editors here, or suggesting a change, or doing any of the things that are normally done on talk pages, but just recording the edits you do. This is unusual, I have seen it sometimes in early draft articles, I think, as a way to alert readers to major changes and the reasons for them - but it is not in any of the suggestions for WP:TALK#USE. On the other hand it is surely permitted, at least not listed under WP:TALKNO

So not objecting to you blogging your edits here. You may well feel this helps other editors keep track of what you are doing to the article, and perhaps it does. But I don't think they need to be all separate top level entries. I think it might help the reader of the talk page to group these posts all together under a new heading "recent additions to the article" and to keep them all in that place.

I suggest this would make it easier for the reader to see which entries here are just a list of new additions to the article, and which are actually asking questions, requesting input or making suggestions etc and other things covered under WP:TALK#USE. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:TALK#USE: "New material can be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay that explains the reason it's sometimes done with articles that are at an early draft stage. Do you have any objections to me putting it all under a new top level section header "New material for the article" to keep things clear? As you are not posting any questions or suggestions, or asking for input from other editors but just parking material here that you are preparing to add to the article? I think it may make it clearer to everyone if we do that. Robert Walker (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I split the topics on purpose, to keep them separate; that's clearer, and makes eventual future reference easier. So, please, don't put them all together under one header. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Western Buddhism and rebirth

Since Robert's talking points seem to resolve around the issue of rebirth, believing that this is a modern invention, it may be wise to add a short section on western Buddhism and rebirth. Google, as always, is a good friend to find some printed sources on this topic:

• Adrian Konik (2009), Buddhism and Transgression: The Appropriation of Buddhism in the Contemporary West], BRIIL, p.ix. Quote:

"The point of entry of this book is an understanding of the discrepancy between the locus of discontent addressed by early Indian Buddhism, and the one addressed by contemporary western Buddhism: the former suffered from the anxiety of an interminable series of rebirths; the latter, from the experience of being pressed into and shaped by the power relations and thought patterns dominant in the west since the eighteenth century - as anlyzed by Michel Foucault. Since the fundamental problems underlying early Indian Buddhism and contemporary western Buddhism are not the same, the validity of applying the set of solutions developed by the first to the situation of the second becomes a question of great importance. Simply putting an end to rebirth would not necessarily strike the western Buddhist as the ultimate answer, as it certainly was for early Indian Buddhists [...] No doubt, according to the early Indian Buddhist tradition, the Buddha's great discovery, as condensed in his experience of nirvana, involved the remembrance of his many former existences, presupposing as fact the reality of a never-ending process of rebirth as a source of deep anxiety, and an accpetance of the Buddha's overcoming of that fate as ulitmate liberation. This was not an isolated item, but embedded in a nexus of great complexity and reciprocally implied in other factors. The belief in rebirth was inextricably connected to the pan-Indian ontological axiom of karma." (p.ix-x)

• Richard P. Hayes (2013), The Internet as Window onto American BUddhism, Routledge, p.172. In: Christopher Queen, Duncan Ryuken Williams, American Buddhism: Methods and Findings in Recent Scholarship. Quote:

"One of the most frequently discussed issues in western Buddhism has been the matter of whether it is necessary to believe in rebirth and what it means wihtin the context of Buddjism [...] The issue of how literally one should take Jataka tales and other Buddhist texts that speak of rebirth is merely one instance of a deeper uncertainty that seems to haunt the minds of western Buddhists." (p.172)

• Christopher Lamb (2001), Cosmology, myth and symbolism, Bloomsbury Publishing, p.258. In: peter Harvey, Buddhism. Quote:

"That said, to what extent is the Buddhist idea of the cycle of rebirths a mythic one? Certain forms of modern western Buddhism (e.g. Stephen Batchelor) see it as purely mythical and thus a dispensable notion." (p.258)

• Bhikkhu Bodhi (2005), Does Rebirth Make Sense?. Quote:

"Newcomers to Buddhism are usually impressed by the clarity, directness, and earthy practicality of the Dhamma as embodied in such basic teachings as the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path, and the threefold training. These teachings, as clear as day-light, are accessible to any serious seeker looking for a way beyond suffering. When, however, these seekers encounter the doctrine of rebirth, they often balk, convinced it just doesn't make sense. At this point, they suspect that the teaching has swerved off course, tumbling from the grand highway of reason into wistfulness and speculation. Even modernist interpreters of Buddhism seem to have trouble taking the rebirth teaching seriously. Some dismiss it as just a piece of cultural baggage, "ancient Indian metaphysics," that the Buddha retained in deference to the world view of his age. Others interpret it as a metaphor for the change of mental states, with the realms of rebirth seen as symbols for psychological archetypes. A few critics even question the authenticity of the texts on rebirth, arguing that they must be interpolations.

A quick glance at the Pali suttas would show that none of these claims has much substance. The teaching of rebirth crops up almost everywhere in the Canon, and is so closely bound to a host of other doctrines that to remove it would virtually reduce the Dhamma to tatters. Moreover, when the suttas speak about rebirth into the five realms — the hells, the animal world, the spirit realm, the human world, and the heavens — they never hint that these terms are meant symbolically. To the contrary, they even say that rebirth occurs "with the breakup of the body, after death," which clearly implies they intend the idea of rebirth to be taken quite literally."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• James Ford, The Karma and Rebirth Debate Within Contemporary Western Buddhism: Some Links to Follow

• Links to Thanissaro Bhikkhu, The Truth of Rebirth. And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice. Quote:

"Rebirth has always been a central teaching in the Buddhist tradition. The earliest records in the Pali Canon (MN 26; MN 36) indicate that the Buddha, prior to his awakening, searched for a happiness not subject to the vagaries of repeated birth, aging, illness, and death. One of the reasons he left his early teachers was because he recognized that their teachings led, not to the goal he sought, but to rebirth on a refined level. On the night of his awakening, two of the three knowledges leading to his release from suffering focused on the topic of rebirth. The first showed his own many previous lives; the second, depicting the general pattern of beings dying and being reborn throughout the cosmos, showed the connection between rebirth and karma, or action.

When he did finally attain release from suffering, he recognized that he had achieved his goal because he had touched a dimension that not only was free from birth, but also had freed him from ever being reborn again. After he had attained release, his new-found freedom from rebirth was the first realization that occurred spontaneously to his mind."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Indeed. There is another aspect of this tragic ignoring of the Buddha's teachings. It has created these blogs/websites pushing the WP:Fringe with "complete silence on born again, death again, dukkha, karma, realms of rebirth (gods, demons, ghosts, etc) and the rest of the core teachings" in various traditions of Buddhism. The tragic aspect is to blame all the uncomfortable / now-unfashionable doctrines on Jainism or Hinduism or Ajivikas or such. If you spend a few months in any Theravada Buddhist majority country living in rural or small towns, or read any historic text from these regions, you witness a totally different reality than what these blogs/fringe-y teachers (mis)represent Buddhism to be or have been. Modernist Buddhism blogs are not alone, Jainism etc internet activists are reconstructing their religions and scriptures as well, ignoring what the mainstream scholarship has and is stating! They suppress the strange and unfashionable stuff, or blame it on their dehumanized neighbor. No evidence necessary, of course! What the Buddha never taught!

Of course, Buddha never spoke English, and claims such as "the English word rebirth never appears in any Sutta" can be technically argued because "rebirth is an English word". Just like, "Buddha never used the English words redeath or suffering or pain or dissatisfaction or monk or meditate, etc". But this article cannot be reflecting such fringe views, without a major violation of the wikipedia community agreed content guidelines. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

4NT relationship

@JJ: The section on Western Buddhism should keep the discussion on or about 4NT, avoid sidetracking into rebirth. The generic discussion might fit better in the Rebirth (Buddhism) article. I have added Keown, and clarified Flanagan. Please feel free to improve it further and make it more relevant to the 4NT subject of this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking so too; tried to keep within limits. The main point was that "traditionalist Buddhists" can be quite critical of this modern re-interpretation of Buddhism without rebirth. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

We need a few more sentences in that section to clarify the second part. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Eugene Burnouf

@Joshua Jonathan: From history perspective, I wonder if it may be worth mentioning somewhere in this article that it was Eugene Burnoff who first translated and published the Four Noble Truths in Europe in 1844? Burnoff was teaching Sanskrit in Collège de France then, and used a Tibetan manuscript. A methodist missionary in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) named Daniel Gogerly had translated it in 1837 from the local Theravada Suttas, but that version did not reach Europe for many years. The different underlying primary texts led to many versions of 4NT in European languages. Carol Anderson mentions five versions. For the early history of 4NT-related literature in the West, see pages 169-171 of Anderson's book. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ms Sarah Welch: I've mentioned Gogerly in various notes; Harris mentions him and his interpretation of the four truths, which seems to be quite accurate. Yes, it might be interesting, but also abit too much; I'm not sure. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)