Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:50, 21 April 2017

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Four Noble Truths article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Buddhism B‑class Top‑importance

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Four Noble Truths article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Three things wrong with this article

I hope that this comment will be of interest and value to other editors, whether you agree with what I say here or not. I will only say what I see as wrong with this article, and not present a way forward to solve it, nor will I attempt an RfC at this stage. I think that was one of the things I got wrong before in the long collapsed discussions above. The starting point is to decide if they are issues first.

The ideas in the article are presented in some detail and to explain what I see as wrong with them requires a similarly detailed reply. These points are not easy to follow if split over a thread consisting of many comments, and I see that as one of the other main things that I got wrong in the previous discussions. So, to avoid breaking up and confusing this exposition, please add any comments in the #4. Discussion section below. Your co-operation in this is much appreciated. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

What's wrong - short summary - Four Truths incorrectly stated, Redeath technical, and POV statements on authenticity

The Four Noble Truths of the old lede have been replaced by four statements which describe a non Buddhist aim to end rebirth back into the "mundane world" of Samsara.

1. According to the Pali Canon Buddha, although Buddha went on to grow old, get sick, and die like everyone else, he had already realized cessation of all dukkha as a young man aged 35 - the new statements imply that this can only happen after death. The collapsed sections below go into this in detail as explained by Walpola Rahula, whose book "What the Buddha Taught" is widely regarded as one of the best expositions of the central teachings in the Pali canon by both Eastern and Western scholars alike.
2. The idea that the aim is to end rebirth and escape from this "mundane world" is an attempted reconstruction of the original teachings by some academics. It's not based directly on the sutras but rather on what these academics think the teachings were before the sutras were recorded. For modern practitioners who base their understanding on the sutras themselves, it is a path to happiness, which also can be realized in this very lifetime. As Walpola Rahula put it in his exposition of the first truth : "It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”.
3. The article has ten uses of the highly WP:TECHNICAL term "redeath". All of these could be replaced without loss of meaning by "death".
   
   The footnotes also make an inaccurate parallel with a non Buddhist idea of preventing Punarmrtyu, or "redeath" from a heavenly state back into Samsara. Therevadhans don't have the concept of an intermediate state between death and rebirth of any sort, heavenly or otherwise. Instead, they say that the next thought moment after your death is the first thought moment of the process of your next rebirth.
4. The article presents a single WP:POV on authenticity according to which only a few very early teachings in the Pali Canon are by the historical Buddha. This is just one of many attributions according to scholars. The opposite end of the spectrum is the WP:POV according to which the earliest sutras were passed down through memorization, word for word, in a similar way to the Vedas and record the teachings as memorized shortly after Buddha died. There are many intermediate views too.

(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In detail:

Conclusions

In summary:

• The four statements in the lede correspond roughly to some views of Western academic Buddhist scholars of what they think the historical Buddha taught
• They are not consistent with the views of typical modern practicing Buddhists including many Buddhist scholars such as Walpola Rahula and leading teachers in all the main traditions of Buddhism.
• The WP:POV that the historical Buddha taught the views summarized in these four statements is academically respected, but only one view of many in a wide ranging debate about what Buddha taught. Other scholars like Alex Wynne, Prayudh Sujato etc have an equally carefully reasoned WP:POV that Buddha taught the four truths and other central teachings just as recorded in the Pali Canon.

So first, is this an accurate summary of the present day situation, of what is said in the WP:RS that I summarized?

(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

If the conclusions are correct

What should we do if those conclusions about what is said in the WP:RS on this subject are correct? I think we can learn a lot by looking at the articles on Christianity. Most Buddhists don't speak English (over half are Chinese, and the next most common by population are the Thai and Japanese ), and there are only 535 million Buddhists world wide compared with 2.2. billion Christians. Also, the majority of English speaking editors of Misplaced Pages are much more familiar with Christianity than Buddhism. The wikipedia articles on theology are of a high standard.

So, let's take a similarly central article in Christianity: Resurrection of Jesus. In the section on Historicity and origin you learn that there is a wide range of scholarly views about whether this event happened and what the event was. However, the lede relies on the biblical account, and there is no suggestion that the lede be rewritten to mention these views.

In a similar way, the old lede presented the four truths as they are presented in the canon. As with the lede for Resurrection of Jesus, this is not taking a WP:POV on the scholarly debate about what Buddha originally taught, it just gives the teachings as they are presented in the sutras, just as the lede for Resurrection of Jesus gives the teachings as presented in the Bible. Of course Richard Gombrich's views are notable, and interesting, and need to be mentioned. It's a matter of where and how this is done.

Whatever the decision is, as a modern Buddhist reader myself, I feel that it is especially important that the lede does not give the false view that most modern Buddhists aim to escape from this "mundane world" and to prevent rebirth when they die. That is so different from the views and practice of most Buddhist practitioners including many of the most respected Buddhist scholars and teachers like Walpola Rahula as described in many WP:RS. It is as if the lede of Resurrection of Jesus falsely promulgated the idea that most Christians don't believe in the resurrection.

The way it is done at present in the lede for Four Noble Truths is a bit like someone rewriting the lede of Resurrection of Jesus to attempt a coherent "best account" of what "really happened" according to the views of theologians that the wikipedia author of the lede thinks "got it right". That surely can't be the right way to do it, and the way that it is handled in theological articles on wikipedia may show the way to an alternative approach to this issue.

(If you wish to comment, please use the section #4. Discussion below). Robert Walker (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

4. Discussion

(back to start of comment)

Please discuss here to avoid breaking up and confusing the exposition above. Robert Walker (talk) 02:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@JimRenge: - I can understand that you want to collapse part of what I wrote since nobody has commented on it yet. But I think at least the discussion section needs to be left in case anyone wants to comment, and the material in the conclusion is important and not mentioned in the summary as I added it later. Plus I hope you agree that if anyone decides they want to take up the discussion then it would then be appropriate to uncollapse it. I'm going to do some more editing of the uncollapsed sections as they were written on the assumption that the whole lot is visible to the reader. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I can also understand collapsing the references section as the collapsed section does have rather a large number of cites. Just a remark to anyone reading this - if you want to be able to jump to the citations then please uncollapse the References section as well as the collapsed section above. Robert Walker (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

As the only remaining uncollapsed area of this page available for me to say anything, I'd like to say briefly: the neutrality of this article is disputed. I think it needs a POV tag. See WP:NPOVD. Please see collapsed sections of this talk page for details. Robert Walker (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Short summary of the issues with this article

I thought I'd just briefly state the main points again, perhaps I went into too much detail. Check the collapsed sections above for the sources, quotes and details for what I say below and if you have any questions do say.

I think it can't be denied that Walpola Rahula said that Buddha reached cessation in the sense of the four truths, already in his own lifetime. Also it can't be denied that Walpola Rahula is highly respected by Western and Eastern academics alike as an expert on Therevadha Buddhism and the Pali Canon. And Richard Gombrich also agreed that this is the view of modern Buddhists. I gave cites and quotes that support this without question, in the collapsed section above.

Then, it's true that Richard Gombrich says that in his view this is the result of later authors rewriting some of the Pali Canon and is inauthentic, not the view of the Buddha himself. He doesn't deny that it is the view of modern sutra tradition Buddhists. He just finds it puzzling and thinks that Buddha's original teachings must have been misunderstood and rewritten.

On rebirth and redeath, then it's true that the sutras use a phrase "coming and going" that can be translated this way. But it is just ordinary death and rebirth within samsara. No evidence at all has been given that Buddhists have the idea of redeath from a heavenly state from Hinduism. Cites to the Vedas can't establish this as the Vedas are not sacred texts for Buddhists. Also the word is not used in the wheel turning sutras.

On the view of inauthenticity of the Pāli Canon, Anderson's view is at an extreme range of a spectrum. And even she, as a Buddhist herself, agrees that the sutras are the basis for the practices of modern Buddhists, whatever it is that Buddha himself orignally said.

The Pāli Canon article here presents the full range of views. That includes the view of authenticity, held by many scholars, that most of the Pali Canon, apart from some obviously later texts, was memorized by the same process used to memorize the Vedas and records nearly word for word what the monks recited together in the first great council after Buddha died, and that they started to memorize his teachings before he died, as recorded in the Pāli Canon. All are agreed that Mahayana texts are a later composition, and that some Pāli Canon texts are too. But for many internal reasons, also supported by archaeology, many scholars are of the view that much of the Pāli Canon dates back to shortly after the death of the Buddha and records events that happened during his lifetime, the technology of his lifetime, and surely also, the speeches of the Buddha as they were memorized by monks during his lifetime.

So, given that, then the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream. It presented the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions, as Gombrich himself agrees. It is true that it did not present Richard Gombrich's views or Anderson's views and the views of a few other Western Buddhist scholars. But surely the solution is not to rewrite the article so that it only presents the views of Gombrich and Anderson. The previous article did not discuss the authenticity of the sutras. Again surely the solution, if such a section is needed, is to include the entire range of views on this matter rather than just the views of Gombrich and Anderson. I am sure that Gombrich and Anderson themselves, as good scholars, would not want an article on the Four Noble Truths to present only their views.

Robert Walker (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to say, that I now think that perhaps this has a lot to do with a difference of WP:SUBPOV which naturally influences what one thinks are WP:RS. See my Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal which I put on the Buddhism project talk page as I see it as a pervasive issue that affects many articles in this topic area. It may possibly give us a way forward and it has concrete proposals. Robert Walker (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply by JJ

Robert, we've been going over this over and over again already, and frankly, I find it quite disruptive that you bring up your points again, despite the concencus on the present state of the article. Nevertheless, I'll answer your concerns again.

• 1 & 2: "cessation of all dukkha " & "The idea that the aim is to end rebirth and escape from this "mundane world" is an attempted reconstruction of the original teachings by some academics."

• What you seem to mean here, together with "the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists," is the idea that the four truths are "a path to happiness," a worldly happiness which ends all concrete suffering, here and now, in this lifetime. It surely may be so that some modern teachers present Buddhism in this way, as a means to well-being; and, granted (yes, here I concede!) happiness is part of the way, but it's not the final aim of classical Buddhism. It's ending rebirth. See the references in the article. See also this verse from the Maha-Parinibbana Sutra, which is quoted in the article:

"Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,

Long was the weary path from birth to birth.

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

The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth."

• Regarding "a path to happiness," you state, citing Walpola Rahula:

"For modern practitioners who base their understanding on the sutras themselves, it is a path to happiness, which also can be realized in this very lifetime. As Walpola Rahula put it in his exposition of the first truth : "It tells you exactly and objectively what you are and what the world around you is, and shows you the way to perfect freedom, peace, tranquility and happiness.”."

• This is your personal reading of two words of Walpola Rahula, taken out of the context of a much longer exposé. Rahula is not talking about "happiness" in the ordinary sense, which is dukkha; he is talking about a "perfect happiness," a happiness which is not based on transitory pleasures. Even dhyana is regarded as dukkha!
• See Jeremy Carrette and Richard King (2005), Selling Spirituality, on the "commodisation" of spirituality, and the reduction of eastern spirituality to personal well-being:

• "A basic misunderstanding is that many people have come to see Buddhist training as no longer about bringing compassion to the whole world, and have, instead, started to see it as a means to a private and personal salvation." (p.102)
• "The purpose of these contemplative techniques is to unravel or deconstruct the fixed boundaries of the individual self so that one might see things as they really are and live one's life for the sake of the flourishing of all beings, not just oneself." (p.102)

• See also Gombrich (1996), Theravada Buddhism, "Using Buddhism for this world" (p.207-208):

• "... to use one's states of altered consciousness for the good of others is the recognized role performance of the religious virtuoso, or the professional. But the urban and suburban middle-class Sinhalese is coming to use meditation as something usefull in everyday life." (p.207)
• "To use meditation for secular purposes is to try to adapt Buddhist soteriology to life in the world." (p.208)

• See also Bodhisattva, Guanyin, and Tara. For a personification of this ideal of compassion, see Etty Hillesum (not Buddhist, but Jewish) and her An interrupted Life: The Diaries of Etty Hillesum 1941 -1943. She declined the possibility to hide from the Germans, and went to the camps, with her fellow Jewish citizens, knowing she would be killed, yet choosing to stay with the ones whose fate she shared. That's what spirituality is about!!! Not about "happines" and never being in pain again, but about compassion and 'doing the right thing,' even when this means to be in pain.

• You also cite Walpola Rahula as stating;

"Buddha reached cessation in the sense of the four truths, already in his own lifetime."

That's not what the quote says; it says:

"In almost all religions the summum bonum can be attained only after death. But Nirvana can be realized in this very life; it is not necessary to wait till you die to ‘attain’ it."

• The cessation you're referring to is stated by Rahula as

"the Cessation of dukkha (Dukkhanirodha-ariyasacca), which is Nibbāna."

Indeed, in this life, and implying that it comes with the "perfect happiness" Rahula refers to. Yet, this does not change the basic fact that the ending of samsara is the ultimate goal of Buddhism (a fact which Rahula hardly mentions in What the Buddha Taught, which is a strange omission, given the myriad debates in Buddhism about what exactly it is that transmigrates. Really curious).

• Rahula's comment about "the summum bonum" is questionable, at closer consideration:

• Nirvana means "extinction," of craving, which fuels the process of rebirth. Craving can be extinquished in this life, which gives peace of mind, in this life. So, what happens when the body dies? Is there a residue which still enjoys this "perfect happiness" after death? Is Nirvana some kind of Heaven, akin to Christianity, which continues after death, as Rahula seems to imply here?
• Note that Christian mysticism states that the "Vision of God" can be attained in this life, in line with its Neo-Platonic origins, which strives toward the realisation of the One in this life. Just like, in Hinduism, moksha can be attained in tbis life. Rahula's comment about this "summum bonum" seems to be quite inaccurate!

• Rahula's metaphysics are problematic:

• Rahula seems to turn "Nirvana" into some kind of metaphysical entity; the proof of it's existence is the fact that "it" can be experienced. Gombrich, a student of Rahula, was astonished by this kind of epistemological naivity (What the Buddha Thought, p. 155-157. NB: Gombrich also notes: "Over the years I have come to think that that book might be more appropriately entitled What Buddhaghosa Taught (p.155-156)).
• Such reifications, turning elements of the Buddhist teachings into a metaphysical highest priniple, are not restricted to Rahula; see Buddha-nature and Shentong. But it is also deeply disputed; see Rangtong and David J. Kalupahana, A History of Buddhist Philosophy.

• This 'cessation of dukkha' does not mean that there is no concrete suffering anymore; the Buddha died in pains, Dogen suffered from depression. It means that they didn't cling any longer to fleeting pleasures. See also Jack Kornfield, After the party, the laundry, and Ton Lathouwers, More Than Anyone Can Do.

• The article does refer to reaching happiness in this life, but balances it, with WP:RS:

"The four truths describe dukkha and its ending as a means to reach peace of mind in this life, but also as a means to end rebirth. Some contemporary teachers tend to explain the four truths psychologically, by taking dukkha to mean mental anquish in addition to the physical pain of life, and interpreting the four truths as a means to attain happiness in this life. Yet, though happiness is part of the way, it is not the goal. Spiro notes that "the Buddhist message is not simply a psychological message," but an eschatological message." (The section is longer than just this quote)

• A previous version of the article contained a large collection of quotes from modern teachers; this was deleted because of WP:OVERQUOTE and WP:OR; there was a strong concencus to do so.

• 3. "Redeath": this is a referenced term; see the previous discussions.
• 4. "Authenticity of the sutras": the article says, with extensive notes:

"three positions held by scholars of Buddhism can be distinguished:

1. "Stress on the fundamental homogeneity and substantial authenticity of at least a considerable part of the Nikayic materials;"

2. "Scepticism with regard to the possibility of retrieving the doctrine of earliest Buddhism;"

3. "Cautious optimism in this respect.""

So, this topic is covered. Additional info on the Theravada-view can be added at "Emphasis within different traditions," which does have a section on Theravada.

• Regarding your statement "the earlier version of this article was much more mainstream. It presented the four truths as they are undestoood by modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions":

• If this "mainstream" understanding is the idea that Buddhism offers a path to happiness in this life; that this is based on the sutra's; that the sutras preserve the original teachings of the Buddha himself verbatim; that the Buddha himself therefore offered a path to happines in this life: that's a very limited understanding and presentation of what Buddhism is, based on a personal interpretation of what the sutras entail. At best, this "happiness" is part of the Buddhist path to liberation, and a means to present this path to a lerger audience. It may be how some "modern Buddhists in the sutra traditions" present Buddhism in a nutshell. But it is far from an comprehensive understanding or presentation of Buddhism, not even of what you call "the sutra traditions;" nor an accurate scholarly presentation of Buddhism. Basically, it is your personal understanding of Buddhism and a few selected sources. And, note: the "earlier version of this article" was not even accurate in it's presentation of the "sutra traditions." See the thread below on "Maha-Parinibbana Sutra."

And no, I do not only see the views here of Gombrich and Anderson; I see the views of Norman, Cousins, Paul Williams, Spiro, Geoffrey Samuels, Patrick Olivelle, Peter Harvey, Anderson, Stephen Batchelor, Schmitthausen, Ui, Vetter, and Bronkhorst. And those are only the scholars who are mentioned explicitly; the list with sources is much longer.

So, to summarize:

• The present article is based on WP:RS, and gives a reliable overview of scholarly views on the four truths;
• The ultimate goal of Buddhism is the ending of rebirth, as referenced by 14 sources in the article;
• Happiness, and the interpretations of some popular modern teachers, are presented with the lines "there is a way to reach real happiness" (prominent in the lead!), "Some contemporary teachers tend to explain the four truths psychologically, by taking dukkha to mean mental anquish in addition to the physical pain of life", and the comment happiness is part of the way; that suffices;
• Eventually missing Theravada-views can be expanded in the Theravada-section.

I hope we you can now finally put this matter to rest, and accept the concensus on this article. Improvements are welcome, of course, by editing the article. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC) / last update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion

I will reply later. I am currently taking a wikibreak from the Buddhism topic area. It was quite stressful for me when you deleted my post here and another editor collapsed it, and then you took me to WP:ANI to get me topic banned without first warning me that you planned to do so, indeed immediately after I announced in the Buddhism project talk page that I was about to take a wikibreak for a few days. Hope you can understand. I need a few more days break. Thanks!

When I come back, I plan to do a post to the project talk page on reliable sources in Buddhism - your reply here is based on your idea that while Richard Gombrich is a reliable secondary source in Buddhism, Walpola Rahula is not and so you believe that all of Walpola Rahula's comments need to be filtered through the interpretative lens of Western commentators who come to them often with a background of Christian theological ideas such as Heaven - as I commented a while back, Therevadhan Buddhists don't even have the idea of an afterlife, the first moment of the next life is the next moment after the last moment of this life. Tibetan Buddhists have the idea of an intermediate state but it is between two lives and does not in any way resemble ideas of an afterlife, it is rather a time of instability and loud sounds, bright lights, etc. Anyway - more later, what you say does seem to summarize some of the ideas of some Western scholars so the most fundamental question here surely is whether articles in this topic area should reflect their views, and the views of others only as filtered through their eyes, or should they, like the previous version of this article, use the books and articles written by highly regarded Buddhists like the Dalai Lama, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Walpola Rahula etc. I find the way you treat Walpola Rahula particularly puzzling as even by your own standards according to which the authors need Western scholarship, he had a doctorate from a Western university and was a highly regarded professor from 1964, the first bhikkhu to become a professor at a Western university. I hope the essay I'm preparing on reliable sources in Buddhism based on a close examination of the wikipedia guidelines and other articles on religion here will help. More later. Robert Walker (talk) 01:01, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I've added some statements by Walpola Rahula (and moved quote from Ajahn Sumedho from a note into the main body), and supplemented them with info on two Theravada views on nirvana, Gombrich comment on Rahula's view on nirvana, and added an extensive note to explain Rahula's view and Gombrich's note. I've also added the views of B.R. Ambedkar, the Dalit Buddhist leader. And I have added info on Atisha, who regards meditation on the four truths as a means for an intermediate level of liberation, namely personal happiness by the liberation from samsara, which is deemed inferior to the Bodhisattva-ideal.

Note that Walpola Rahula and Thanissaro Bhikkhu give different translations for the Dhatu-vibhanga Sutta. Even if the sutras are the verbatim transcripts of the Buddha's words, which is contested by a significant number of scholars, then we're still tied to the problem of the translation of those texts, and the interpretation of those texts. This one example, on the nature of nirvana, already illustrates that these problems lead to very different views, even within the Theravada tradition. Which shows the problems with using "reliable sources in Buddhism," and the usefullness of the Wiki-policies on WP:RS and using secondary, scholarly sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Joshua Jonathan: first glad to hear you have agreed on the need to make some changes so that the article briefly mentions some views of Walpola Rahula on modern Therevadhan Buddhism, in one short sentence in the historical section and in a footnote. But the article is still entirely from the WP:POV of Western academic Buddhism, and even those statements about the views of Walpola Rahula are presented as "incorrect", filtered through the lens of Gombrich.

In your concluding statement in that footnote, you say: (emphasis mine).

"In response to Rahula, Gombrich notes:"

"Since truth can only be a property of propositions, which have subjects and predicates, and nirvana is not a proposition, it makes no sense in English to say that nirvana is truth.".

This contrast between "According to Rahula" and "Gombrich notes that" implies editorial approval of Gombrich's statement as a truth. But it is just Gombrich's view that "Nirvana IS TRUTH" makes no sense. After all Keats in his Ode on a Grecian Urn wrote

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," – that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know. (lines 49–50)

Is he implying that Keats didn't understand how to use the English language? "Beauty" is not a proposition. So even the small changes you have made, as read by a modern Buddhist, are still highly WP:POV because of the way you give the Western viewpoint the last word and present it as correct.

It's the same all the way through that footnote:

"According to Rahula,...

"Gombrich notes ..."

"Rahula gives ..."

"Rahula refers to ..."

"Thanissaro Bhikkhu gives ..."

"In response to Rahula, Gombrich notes: ..."

Whenever you approve of an author's views you say that they note whatever their view is.

I hope you can appreciate that it will take a fair number of words to respond to your many points in the post you made a few days ago. My next post will be about secondary sources however as I think that is the most important thing to address first. Should the articles be based on authors like Gombrich and Anderson etc primarily or should they be based on authors like Walpola Rahula and the Dalia Lama mainly? Also, I'll add a POV tag. I'll also do a very short bullet list summary of my later replies which I can add later. Robert Walker (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: Presenting Rahula's views and other scholars (Gombrich) disagreements with Rahula is important for NPOV. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robertinventor:

• Good observation on "notes." I had to search, though; in the main text I'd used "states"; you were referring to the note. I've corrected it, and moved the Gombrich-comment fully into the note. The rest is a fair representation of Rahula and Gombrich on nirvana as "absolute truth." The remaining "Gombrich notes" is about the apaphatic approach of "truth"/"highest reality"/etc.; Gombrich makes an interesting observation on the use of "negative" terminology, which is in line (I think) with Rahula's reasoning here. Especially because Rahula postulates an "absolute," through "negative" terminology, just like Neo-Platonism and the apophatic Christian mystics. This is interesting, because, in a Buddhist context, postulating an "absolute" is disputable, yet far from uncommon, despite the Buddhist history on denying an "absolute." Yet, in the context of comparative religion (or whatever it is being called), ir definitely makes sense. So, that's intersting I think.
• I understand your comment "it is just Gombrich's view that "Nirvana IS TRUTH" makes no sense", but I have a few objections here. First, the phrase "just" is a belittleling of Gombrich's views, as if it is "just" an opinion, withour any base or serious consideration. In this way, any comment or objection can be declined, but it makes a meaningfull discussion impossible. Second, Gombrich does not say "Nirvana IS TRUTH" makes no sense", he says "it makes no sense in English to say that nirvana is truth." He does not say it makes no sense at all; but he does say "In proclaiming (in block capitals) that 'Truth is', Rahula has for a moment fallen into Upanisadic mode." And that's ac orrect observation, I think. But... in the context of human understanding and meaning-making, and the capacity of mysticism, I think it's interesting that Rahula takes this stance. The 'standard Buddhist "rhetorics"' on this point may be an attempt to reconcile a fundamental tension in the Buddhist teachings in this respect. Your quote of Keats is a beautifull addition, or note, in this regard. Indeed, as "propositional logic" it doesn't make sense (British philosophers would surely have objections to Keats lines. But in the context of Neo-Platonism, and its enduring influence in western thought and religiosity. Consider the additional question: what is higher? Good, or the One?, and you have all of mystical philosophy, including Buddhism, gathered in a few lines.
• Regarding the kind of sources we should rely on primarily: we've discussed this through and through before. Misplaced Pages has clear guidelines on WP:RS: primary sources can be used, with caution; secondary sources are to be preferred.

• WP:SCHOLARSHIP (a guideline) is very clear on this: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible."
• WP:WPNOTRS (from Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources, a content guideline): "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."
• Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples#Religious sources (an essay) says; "the proceedings of official religious bodies and the journals or publications of recognized and well-regarded religious academies and experts can be considered reliable sources for religious doctrine and views where such views represent significant viewpoints on an article subject." This does not mean that we can cherrypick our favorable quotes, nor that we can bypass reliable scholarship when available.

Given the inherent problems with primary sources, as illustrated by the various Theravada views on nirvana, and the diffences in translation and interpretation of basic texts, it's clear why secondary sources are to be preferred. If we use primary sources, we have to be carefull to use them correctly, and to provide a context for these sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: note that the Dalai Lama is only one of fourteen Dalai Lama's, and that he represents Mahayana Buddhism, a form of Buddhism which regards the four truths to be part of the lesser Hinayana path. Any book by him on the four truths is a publication for a large audience, and not necessary a comprehensive overview of the Gulag-views, let alone "Buddhism" in general. An occasional reading of a book by the Dalai Lama might suggest that the four truths are an important aspect of Tibetan Buddhism; a more substantial reading on Tibetan Buddhism makes clear that this suggestion is misleading. That's also why secondary sources are important. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not really that different, Gombrich "states" but it is "According to Walpola Rahula". Why not "According to Gombrich". Would you say "Walopla Rahula states"? If not, then why say that "Gombrich states"? What's the difference, why use this language only for particular authors and not for others? It once more biases the reader somewhat towards the idea that it is true as though one can state opinions it is more usual to state facts. While "According to" is always an opinion rather than an objectively established fact, and draws attention to it as a WP:POV, and something introduced with that phrase could never be an objectively established fact. I meant no belittling of Gombrich who is a highly respected scholar. It the "just" meant that it was just his WP:POV in contrast to the implied suggestion that it was an objective certainty. And I referred there particularly to his statement that "it makes no sense in English to say that nirvana is truth.". That is a WP:POV and not an objective fact as I demonstrated by using the Keats example - unless you think that it is also an objective fact that the second last line in Keats very famous poem, Ode on a Grecian Urn also makes no sense in English. It is surely one of the most famous poems in the English language.

On secondary and primary sources, I will reply tomorrow. I have prepared an essay on it as I said which you might find interesting. But if I reply today I still feel you may take me instantly back to WP:ANI as I had no warning last time. Also it's good to give others who are watching this talk page a chance to catch up on our conversation. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 17:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to the essay; it sounds promising. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Concrete proposals

Well, I read part of that draft on reliable sources in Buddhism; I suggest you come with concrete proposals for additions and/or changes, like RegentsPark suggested:

• "Robertinventor, a better tack for you to take is to propose very short changes to the article, suitably backed up by references, and do this one change at a time. For example, you say the solution is not to rewrite the article so that it only presents the views of Gombrich and Anderson. I know next to nothing about this topic but, as an independent observer, I'd like to see a couple of things: the exact text that incorporates these other views and a clear sense of how much weight they carry in the scholarly literature. Suitability referenced, of course. It is then possible to discuss whether those views are relevant and whether or not the text accurately reflects the scholarly weight of those views." diff
• "My suggestion is that Robertinventor is advised to make more specific suggestions" diff

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It is mid edit. In the old version I asked readers in the lede to please not link to it, but now you have, well no point in that any more, but it's not ready for discussion. I will post it when ready, then we can discuss it. I will have concrete proposals when it is ready but probably not what you expect. I don't think the issue can be fixed by small changes to the existing articles.

I realized that after my attempt at an RfC on "redeath". You took me to WP:ANI mid discussion, and got me topic banned for verboseness, in a discussion where you were as verboese as me doing many replies in a short period of time. And this was as small a matter as one could attempt to discuss. Use of a single word. All this made that clear, as I said in my reply to @RegentsPark:. RfCs of that nature are clearly not going to work, though it seemed a good idea at the time. But I think there is a way forward. As you will see, it helps explain why it was almost impossible for us to get consensus on this article, to the extent that all the previous editors have left leaving only you and editors who do minor edits. It is also an additional reason why RfCs on minor points can't work either, and helps explain why both sides in the debate were passionate about their views and why when you did your rewrite of the article, in all the discussions asking you to revert, we were unable to find a neutral common ground. Please be patient. Thanks! Also I will recommend discussing it on the Buddhism project talk page rather than here as it affects multiple articles in the project. Robert Walker (talk) 08:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal

The essay is ready now. As it is relevant to many articles in the project, please discuss here: Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

POV tag

I have added a POV tag to the article. The edit summary is:

"POV tag - Bias towards western academics - Gombrich etc - to detriment of recognized and well-regarded Buddhist authors Walpola Rahula, Dalai Lama, etc. No details on view of authenticity of sutras. Rewrite of four truths in lede is WP:SYNTHESIS"

For the issues in detail, please see #Short summary of the issues with this article above.

(preceding line added as a result of the POV tag redirection) Robert Walker (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

As a reminder, you may remove this template whenever any of the following is true:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

(see Template:POV#When_to_remove).

We don't have a consensus to remove it at present, as I think will be clear to almost anyone reading this talk page. Your recent edits have not solved these problems in my view @Joshua Jonathan:. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• Regarding "Bias towards western academics such as Gombrich et al, to detriment of recognized and well-regarded Buddhist authors Walpola Rahula, Dalai Lama, etc.": WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." & "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."
• Regarding "Doesn't discuss view of authenticity of sutras.": the article says (and this has been mentioned before at Talk:Four Noble Truths#Reply by JJ, so I'll copu it from there):

"* 4. "Authenticity of the sutras": the article says, with extensive notes:

"three positions held by scholars of Buddhism can be distinguished:

1. "Stress on the fundamental homogeneity and substantial authenticity of at least a considerable part of the Nikayic materials;"

2. "Scepticism with regard to the possibility of retrieving the doctrine of earliest Buddhism;"

3. "Cautious optimism in this respect.""

So, this topic is covered."

• Regarding "Rewrite of four truths in the lede is WP:SYNTHESIS"": it's not a rewrite, it's a summary and explanation of the four truths, based on multiple WP:RS.

In return, let me remind our that you have been pushing your pov for two-and-a-half-tears now, withour providing any reliable academic source, without gaining any concencus for your preferred version, and with ignoring the solid concencus for the article as it is now. See also:

• WP:TALK#USE: "Be positive: Article talk pages should be used to discuss ways to improve an article; not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article or its subject."
• WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE: "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a place for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a place to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material."
• WP:TALK#USE: "Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article."
• WP:EXHAUST: "Keep discussions focused"
• WP:TPG#YES: "Avoid repeating your own lengthy posts"
• WP:DISRUPTSIGNS:

• "Does not engage in consensus building"
• "Rejects or ignores community input"

• WP:LISTEN: "In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after the consensus of the community has decided that moving on to other topics would be more productive. Such behavior is disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted."

Let me remind you once again of the advice of RegentsPark: come with specific proposals, based on WP:RS diff diff. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree that this adequately covers the view of authenticity. To explain properly needs a longer reply. I will post that later. With regard to the bias towards western academics, do read my Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal. I think that is best discussed on the Buddhism project talk page, so let's continue the discussion there, thanks!

I call the rewrite of the four truths a WP:SYNTHESIS. We can discuss this again but have already discussed it many times. We do not have consensus on your view that it is just a summary of WP:RS. That of course depends on what you mean by WP:RS. If you mean a summary of the views of Richard Gombrich et al on what they think "Buddha thought" in these new humanistic and Vedic religion based reintepretations of Buddha's teachings, and what they think the sutras originally said based on theory of inauthenticity, I don't know, you know far more on that than I do. But it is certainly not a summary of the four truths as understood in WP:RS such as Walpola Rahula, the Dalia Lama etc. I won't write any more at this time. I have probably written enough for today already. But I thought a brief reply was needed. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Multiple references have been provided, with extensive quotes in the notes, which do explicitly state what the Wiki-article says. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The Buddhist sutras hav ebeen extensively quoted. The Theravada-view on the four truths, and their central importance in the Theravada-tradition, has been mentioned, and extensively explained, using WP:RS. Walpola Rahula and Bikkhu Bodhi have also been quoted. What more do you want? Come with a concrete, explicit proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning my edit summary of the main issues in the tag - but you just redirected the tag from #Short summary of the issues with this article to this post. I've therefore edited my post above to link back to the short summary of the issues which is what I intended the tag to link to originally. It does make sense to redirect it here, but of course the reader has to get to the list of issues with the article. So this seems one of those situations where you have to edit your comment after it has been repleid to.

I have made plenty of comments today so will leave replies to your further posts above to later. I already have a backlog of many other things to reply to as well from your previous post, below and will do so when I get the time, thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Just to say - I do have concrete proposals, not just for this article but for several affected articles. I've mentioned them several times on this page - here is the link again: Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal Robert Walker (talk) 23:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Remove POV tag

@Robertinventor: We have been through this last year. Your explanation for the tag does not make sense, and I will remove it shortly if you do not address, "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given". For example, you write in "Three things wrong with this article" section, a wall of text which includes allegations that are simply wrong because what you claim does not verify. You wrote in "Details" section, as an illustration:

Quote (Robertinventor): "No use of the word "rebirth" in the Wheel Turning Sutra which presents the Four Noble Truths; It's also worth noting that the wheel turning sutra does not include the word "rebirth" in any form."

= This translation by Peter Harvey.

If you read Harvey's explanation of the primary text carefully, he uses the word "rebirth" five times!

Peter Harvey's publications such as An Introduction to Buddhism, published in 2013 by Cambridge University Press clearly link and extensively discuss 4NT with rebirth (pages 32-43, 50-87), citing numerous Suttas. Please explain your alleged claims against Peter Harvey? Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of your main points

I will answer the other points you raised above gradually over the next few days in order to avoid any possibility of being taken back to WP:ANI for verboseness, and also to make it easier for anyone watching this page to follow our conversation. I hope you can understand that in the circumstances, which we all know so no need to repeat them.

I will focus my replies on these four main points, because they seem to be important to you.

• How adding a fifty odd word statement to the start of the historical section hasn't made it WP:NPOV - to explain why I need to give a brief summary of what you left out
• That for Buddhists there is no problem about what it is that takes rebirth for the very reason that we think in terms of Anatta. This needs more than a one sentence answer obviously, and I'll quote from Walpola Rahula who makes this very point in a very clear passage. This is a pre-occupation of Western Buddhists only AFAIK
• That for Buddhists, then the only problem with worldly happiness is that it is not lasting - that's what makes it dukkha which is inaccurately sometimes translated as "suffering" but has many other meanings, has no single word translation into English. If Nirvana was a mystic state it would be produced and so not lasting and that would make it dukkha. It's that it doesn't last that makes it dukkha. Adding a single sentence with a cite to Walpola Rahula in the historical section does not fix this. Again this is obviously going to need a fair bit of writing with quotes from Walpola Rahul.

Your edits and replies above do not address these points. But to explain so, I will need to go into detail on each of those points.

Also, the points I gave in the summary above remain, and you haven't yet answered them. Indeed I think there probably is no way to answer them. See #Short summary of the issues with this article. You raised so many points in your very long reply #Reply by JJ that it was hard to know where to start. I chose those as a starting pint, because they seemed to be key points for you.

I think myself that the issue here is a difference of WP:POV and that many of these problems would be solved if we had separate articles for the WP:SUBPOV of western academics and the very different WP:SUBPOV of sutra tradition Buddhist. If so we might go on endlessly trying to answer each other, rather like Christians and Muslims trying to work out the best way to write an article on the Resurrection of Jesus.

These are issues for western academics who are attempting a humanistic reintepretation of the Buddhist teachings, also informed by ideas from Indian Vedic religions (which sutra based Buddhism is not of course). So by answering these issues, I of course talk about how WP:RS in the sutra traditions of Buddhism think about such ideas. They simply don't have these issues. Because they think about the teachings differently.

I think it is possible that my Essay on Reliable Sources in Buddhism and a Proposal has a chance to resolve many of these issues, by just recognizing these as valid distinct WP:SUBPOV. If that happens, then perhaps it may simplify many things and I wont need to do all these replies to your points :). Robert Walker (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

On quotes

I will also add a post about quotes. This was your original stated reason for doing a major rewrite of this article. But there was no consensus. We had a discussion during which you said the quotes needed to be removed, @Dorje108: wanted to retain them but as a compromise suggested doing paraphrases. He asked for time to do this as the quotes were succint statements by experts in the sutra traditions and not easy to summarize because they already used carefully chosen words to express their points. So we had three options here under discussion - to remove the quotes, to paraphrase them, and to keep them. All these options were actively under discussion when you chose to remove them all, and when asked to revert and discuss first, ignored what he said. This is not what editing by consensus means! We didn't even have an RfC on the matter.

Meanwhile we discovered later, a few weeks later, that you had written other articles that consisted almost entirely of quotes, when another editor took you to ARE on a charge of Copyvio. The admins gave you only a mild rebuke, "Joshua Jonathan is advised to use quotation marks or to paraphrase content from external source, and you weren't sanctioned by the admins. But the action was rather striking to those of us who had just recently watched you remove all of @Dorje108:'s quote from this article.

Since you and other editors continue to remove quotes from Buddhism articles here whenever they are added I think that it may be useful to do a similar study of use of quotes in articles on religion, similarly to my essay on reliable secondary sources. I'll look at the guidelines, and I'll also look at actual practice in articles in the topic area of religion here in Misplaced Pages. These essays take a fair bit of my time, though I think well worth doing. I'll do that maybe a week or two from now. It may help. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

My plan is to post about these issues, one at a time, on separate days, to minimize the risk of being taken back to WP:ANI. It will also help readers here to follow the discussions. To post so much in one go and then to have comments on them would surely be rather overwheliming. I'll probably start on it some time next week. Robert Walker (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the overusage of quotes: see WP:QUOTEFARM. That's a policy, and htere was a strong concencus to follow this policy. Regarding the ARBCOM-case: I strongly advice you to be aware of WP:TENDENTIOUS, and to follow the advice which was give there: leave it to rest. Your comment "you had written other articles that consisted almost entirely of quotes" is wrong, very wrong. RegentsPark: please do have a look here. And again: stop your pov-pushing, accept the concencus, and start contributing in a constructive way to Misplaced Pages, instead of hounding me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I will reply later on quotes, I think there are important distinctions to be made here. Please link to the RfC or other evidence that there was a strong consensus to remove the quotes. Robert Walker (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

See the quotefarm-tags that JimRenge added to various articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I choose not to reply any more on whether you did articles consisting almost entirely of quotes. You know whether you did or not as much as I do :). It wasn't a huge misdemeanour and I don't want to link to those articles to highlight what you did. I've already said enough. Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 22:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's focus on the positive. I hope to write an essay on use of quotes in articles on religion as applied to Buddhism. Perhaps we can return to this topic when I write that essay. It won't be for a week or two probably. Robert Walker (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2017 (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)

• B-Class Buddhism articles
• Top-importance Buddhism articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles