Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sukusala (talk | contribs) at 08:04, 16 November 2022 (→Mass-delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 30 days

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

The four noble truths as the original teaching of the Buddha

Part 1

This Misplaced Pages article asserts that the noble truths are a later development in Buddhism and uses a few arguments to do so. Below, I outline how these arguments are flawed:

1) The argument that Vetter etc. makes that the Buddha could not possibly have gained an insight into the noble truths at the stage he did, because he would have already had to know and follow the eight fold path in order to reach said stage (as presented in the following sentence of this article "Oddly, the four truths refer here to the eightfold path as the means to gain liberation, while the attainment of insight into the four truths is portrayed as liberating in itself.") This argument is based on a seemingly irrefutable logic. I show that this logic does not hold. However, note that I am not arguing that my line of logic be incorporated as WP:OR. Rather, I wish to show that sources which use such a line of logic should not be given elevated precedence, as it is nowhere near incontrovertible. Note that the interdependence of the eight fold path that I pointed out in this conversation was also observed by Anderson

2) Inconsistencies in the presentations of the Buddha's enlightenment, and the Buddhist path to liberation, pointed out by Bronkhorst - This is directly addressed in Anderson's 'The four noble truths in the Therevada Buddhist Cannon'. Anderson's line of logic is as follows:

2a) There is no reason to doubt that the Pali cannon was written down in the first century BCE

2b) The four noble truths were widely recognised as a central teaching of the Buddha by the first millenium.

2c) The original form of the four noble truths was a basic set in short form.

2d) Schmithausen and Bronkhorst do not conclude that the four noble truths were a later addition into the cannon. Rather, that they were not as central in early Buddhism's history (a very different assertion to saying that it was later added due to the influence of other Indian thought).

2e) Having established that the four noble truths as they currently appear in the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta may not have been in its earliest strata, Anderson articulates that the four noble truths are significant "for more reasons than their appearance in the... sutta". In addition, he states that the rest of his book is dedicated to providing this point.

2f) Anderson makes an argument to the effect that the noble eight fold path is not out of place within the context of 'right view', despite being seemingly anomalous elsewhere.

2g) In the introduction, Anderson states that one of the reasons that it is believed by Scholars that the noble truths are a later addition to the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta, is that almost all versions found are identical and the homogeneity of different sutta versions point to a deliberate effort to align them by early Buddhists. Later on, Anderson shows that the four noble truths are scattered throughout the cannon in varying formats, indicating that they are an integral part of the cannon

2h) One such example of the above is the Bhayabherava-sutta, of which the four noble truths are an integral part.

2i) Anderson reiterates that although the extended forms of the four noble truths seem to be later additions, the four noble truths themselves are integral to the cannon (some arguments around whether the noble truths are an addition to the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta center around the idea that the extended forms of the noble truths are grammatically incorrect and therefore later additions - yet it seems Anderson is inclined to believe that the short form of this was originally part of the sutta - see 2c). He provides further supporting evidence in the form of the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta, Bhayabherava-sutta and Ariyapariyesana-sutta, each of which overlaps with the others in at least one aspect with regard to the Buddha's enlightenment narrative. He shows the interlocking nature of the narratives as non self contradictory, and as different angles of the Buddha's enlightenment experience.

2j) Despite Bronkhorst etc. asserting that the four noble truths may not have been central to the pali cannon (see 2d), Anderson has a different view. In Anderson's view, the notion of a 'path' is central to the cannon, and the noble truths have a large part to play in this.

3) On liberating insight. Arguments by Bronkhorst with respect to the noble truths were not originally synonymous with liberating insight seem to only be accepted by Anderson the basis of the illogic cited in (1) above . However, I have shown in (1) how that line of reasoning does not hold and is not, in fact, in line with the teachings of the cannon. Given this, and other statements made by Anderson above, it seems that he had to settle for proving that just that the noble truths were integral to the cannon - rather than proving the the four truths were synonymous with liberating insight. So what are we to do in this situation? Most other scholars such as Piadassi Thera do not question the authenticity of the noble truths. In addition, when all literary scholarly work on Buddhism is taken in aggregate (including the commentaries), almost all accept the four noble truths as being synonymous with liberating insight. Given this, it seems, that Bronkhorst and Vetter's view are a minor view, as defined in WP:RS and should not be given undue weight, or should simply omitted - if only because their logic is flawed and the opinion of other scholars in the history of Buddhism is contrary to theirs.

As you can see from the points above, the logical arguments of Vetter etc. do not hold, and such cannot be given precedence with respect to other scholarly work. In addition, Anderson's work is more complex and varied than the current article would suggest. As such, I believe that these pages are in need of correction. @Joshua Jonathan: Trutheyeness (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

References

1. Anderson: is often taken as a synonym for magga (path).57 The significance of the term is that it carries a sense of pragmatism and direction: it is the practice or means which leads to the ending of pain. The means are the eight steps of right view (sammādiṭṭhi), intention (sammāsaṅkappo), speech (sammāvācā), action (sammākammanto), livelihood (sammajīvo), effort (sammāvāyāmo), mindfulness (sammāsati), and concentration (sammāsamādhi). Each of these steps are explained at different places in the canon and commentaries.58 The commentator Buddhaghosa followed one canonical arrangement in the Majjhima-nikāya which classified the eightfold path into three stages of virtue (sīlaṃ), concentration (samādhi), and wisdom (paññā), with right speech, action, and livelihood grouped under virtue (sīlam), right effort, mindfulness, and concentration under concentration (samādhi), and right view and intention under wisdom (paññā).59 The progress through these eight stages is intended to be interdependent instead of linear; for example, the remaining seven steps are occasionally listed as requisites for right concentration.60 While descriptions of the eightfold path may vary, the fourth truth remains the means or the way which leads to the ending of pain. The fourth truth is not always explained, but when it is, it is consistently explained in terms of the eightfold path.
   Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 2258-2269). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
2. Anderson: There is no obvious reason to reject the accounts of the Sinhalese chronicles that explain that the Theravāda canon was first written down in the first century B.C.E. (other than the need for verification from sources outside the chronicles). The inscriptions that refer to bhāṇakas and sutaṃtikas provide indirect support for the first century B.C.E. as the time at which the canon was first recorded. However, the other end of the range of possible dates is the late fourth century C.E.: this is the only confirmed date for the existence of the Theravāda canon in a form that was similar to what is available today. The existence of the canon in the third century B.C.E. is a possibility that requires further verification.
   Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 563-564). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
3. Anderson: This brief survey of where the four noble truths appear in Buddhist literature outside of the canonical sources indicates that the four noble truths were widely recognized as a central teaching of the Buddha by the middle of the first millennium throughout the world of Indian Buddhism, usually in their role as Gautama Buddha's first dhamma talk. The teaching continued to be identified as a central tenet of Indian Buddhism throughout Southeast and East Asia as the texts of Indian Buddhism were translated; the reference to the four noble truths in a Nō play in the middle of the second millennium is an indication of their sustained presence, however attenuated.
   Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Location 597). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
4. Anderson: Norman concludes that the original form of the enlightenment set was the basic set: idaṃ dukkhaṃ, ayaṃ dukkhasamudayo, ayaṃ dukkhanirodho, ayaṃ dukkhanirodho-gāminīpaṭipadā.
   Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 691-693). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
5. Anderson: Both Schmithausen and Bronkhorst conclude that because the four noble truths do not appear have been part of the earliest strata of the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta, it is likely that the four noble truths were not as central in the earlier periods of Buddhism's history as they were in later periods.
   Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 733-736). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
6. Anderson: The following chapters seek to establish the thesis that the four noble truths are significant for more reasons than their appearance in the ‘Sutta on the Turning of the Dhamma-wheel.’
   Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 742-743). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
7. Anderson: One who does not pay careful attention (ayoniso manasikaroto) is censured for holding these views. As in the Aggivacchagotta-sutta, taking refuge in these views is described as going to views, holding on to views, the wilds of views, scuffling of views, and struggling of views. Bound by views in this way, the passage continues, an ordinary person is not set free from birth, from old age and death, from grief, from sorrow, from suffering, from tribulation.38 (This last phrase is familiar from the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta as an explanation of the first noble truth.) Wrong views are again understood in terms of the views of permanent existence or non-existence, and the Buddha details the costs of holding to such erroneous views by inverting the well-known benefits of the path to nibbāna... As a doctrine, the four noble truths are an anomaly: they appear in various places throughout the canonical texts, they disappear at other points, and are extolled as necessary in still other places. As sammādiṭṭhi, however, the four noble truths are not out of place. Because we have traditionally defined doctrine as propositions to which practitioners must grant intellectual assent, the practices and actions closely associated with right view appear to be extraneous in previous studies of right views. When we place the four noble truths in their proper context of right views, the propositional role of the teaching emerges as thoroughly enmeshed with the ethical actions and behaviors that are conductive to recognizing right views, learning them, and knowing them as liberating insight. As sammādiṭṭhi, propositions initially require an intellectual agreement. But beyond that, developing a familiarity with the teachings and knowing them as liberation involves more than the mind. In turn, the Theravāda canon demonstrates that views are efficacious in and of themselves, influencing one's actions and success along the path. The play between types of human action in the category of diṭṭhi is the pattern that structures the appearance and disappearance of the four noble truths.
   Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 1611-1613). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
8. Anderson: There are different grammatical forms in which the four noble truths appear throughout the canonical corpus; there is no one formula for the four noble truths. Even though the four noble truths do not appear in a single fixed grammatical form throughout the canon, it is possible to identify a limited number of established patterns or formulas with which the teaching was recorded and passed on.
   Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 1887-1889). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
9. Anderson: In the Bhayabherava-sutta... The four noble truths are an integral part of this sutta and the Buddha's description of his enlightenment. The grammatical form of the four noble truths in this passage is that of the basic set, with the properly gendered pronouns, and the adjectives ‘noble truths’ are not used. (The basic set is the one that Norman identified as the correct form and suggested that this was the earliest form in which the four noble truths appeared in the Pāli canonical tradition.)
   Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 1958-1962). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
10. Anderson: There are four verbs that describe how each truth is to be learned, one for each truth: ‘the noble truth that “this is the way leading to the ending of pain” should be known completely/has been known completely (pariññeyyaṃ/pariññātaṃ) ‘the noble truth that “this is the arising of pain” should be given up/ has been given up (pahātabbaṃlpahītaṃ). (pahātabbaṃlpahītaṃ) ‘the noble truth that “this is the ending of pain” should be realized for oneself/has been realized for oneself (sacchikātabbaṃ sacchikataṃ) ‘the noble truth that “this is the way leading to the ending of pain” should be developed/has been developed (bhāvitabbaṃ/bhāvataṃ).61 The three parts and twelve modes leads to ‘seeing the truths as they really are,’ to full enlightenment, and to the ending of the cycle of rebirth. This threefold and twelvefold analysis is not foundational throughout the canon in the same way as are the four noble truths themselves....In each of the suttas examined up to this point, there are three different portraits of the Buddha's enlightenment. The Bhayabherava-sutta, the Ariyapariyesana-sutta, and the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta differ in terms of content as well as in the phrases used to describe the Buddha's enlightenment experience. In the descriptions of the three watches the Bhayabherava-sutta relates the story of how the Buddha entered into the first and then the fourth jhāna, where he contemplated his own previous existences and the past and future lives of all beings, and finally eradicated the corruptions by knowing them according to the four noble truths. While the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta is devoted to the four truths, it does so with different ways of knowing them as well as different grammatical formulas; neither the three watches nor the jhānas make an appearance. After he had grasped the four noble truths, the Buddha recites the phrase found in the Ariyapariyesana-sutta, but not in the Bhayabherava-sutta: ‘Then knowledge and vision arose in me, release is unshakable for me; this is my last birth, there is no more becoming.’66 The Ariyapariyesana-sutta tells us that the Buddha described his experiences in terms of the noble search, having realized the dangers of those things which are subject to birth, decay, death, and so on; it makes no mention of the four noble truths. In the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta and in the Mahāpadāna-sutta the cosmological imagery and description of the significance of the Buddha's first sermon accompany the four truths. What we have at this point is a series of interlocking narratives, each of which has at least one component in common with another narrative but none of which are identical to the others.
    Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 2331-2334). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
11. Anderson: Regardless of the lack of a single unified path to nibbāna outlined in the canon, the notion of the path is indisputably central to the teachings of the Buddha. Robert Buswell, Jr. and Robert Gimello make this point in the introduction to their volume on the Buddhist path, when they write that the mārga/magga (path) ‘incorporates, underlies, or presupposes everything else in Buddhism, from the simplest act of charity to the most refined meditative experience and the most rigorous philosophical argument.’4 It is therefore appropriate to analyze the structures of the path in which the four noble truths appear, in order to gain a fuller sense of the functions of this teaching throughout the canon. This chapter explores two bodies of evidence: the features of different paths in which the four noble truths play a role, and the pedagogical techniques used to attain and make progress along the path, however it is construed. As a doctrine, the four noble truths are not simply a theoretical proposition to which followers must grant ‘intellectual assent’;5 the pedagogical techniques of meditation, analysis, reflection, debate, hearing, and talking are all embedded — explicitly and implicitly — in the passages which describe the four noble truths. <br\> Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 4062-4067). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
12. Anderson: There is still a question of whether or not the four noble truths constitute liberating insight in the earliest strata of Theravāda tradition. Bronkhorst and Schmithausen claim that they do not.51 The teaching of the four noble truths, we have seen, were not present in the oldest versions of certain suttas. They were added at a relatively early date, but were not present in the first versions of the Dhammacakkappavattana-sutta. The variations of that sutta led Bareau, Bronkhorst, and Schmithausen to their conclusions that the four noble truths were not linked to the eradication of the āsavās in the earliest layers of Buddhist teachings. Bronkhorst cites the illogic of placing the four noble truths at the end of one's progress along the path as another reason that the four noble truths were not considered to be among the earliest of definitions liberating insight. Nonetheless, the Theravāda tradition did incorporate the four noble truths as one of its central teachings by claiming them as sammādiṭṭhi.
    Anderson, Carol. Pain and Its Ending: The Four Noble Truths in the Theravada Buddhist Canon (Routledge Critical Studies in Buddhism) (Kindle Locations 6826-6830). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

The Wiki-article does not say:

This Misplaced Pages article asserts that the noble truths are a later development in Buddhism and uses a few arguments to do so.

What the article says is:

The function of the four truths, and their importance, developed over time, when prajna, or "liberating insight," came to be regarded as liberating in itself, instead of or in addition to the practice of dhyana, meditation. This "liberating insight" gained a prominent place in the sutras, and the four truths came to represent this liberating insight, as part of the enlightenment story of the Buddha.

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. According to Anderson, only by the time of the commentaries, in the fifth century CE, did the four truths come to be identified in the Theravada tradition as the central teaching of the Buddha.

According to the Japanese scholar Ui, the four truths are not the earliest representation of the Buddha's enlightenment. Instead, they are a rather late theory on the content of the Buddha's enlightenment. According to Vetter and Bronkhorst, the earliest Buddhist path consisted of a set of practices which culminate in the practice of dhyana, leading to a calm of mind which according to Vetter is the liberation which is being sought. Later on, "liberating insight" came to be regarded as equally liberating. This "liberating insight" came to be exemplified by prajna, or the insight in the "four truths," but also by other elements of the Buddhist teachings. According to Vetter and Bronkhorst, this growing importance of "liberating insight" was a response to other religious groups in India, which held that a liberating insight was indispensable for moksha, liberation from rebirth.

References

1. ^ Bronkhorst 1993, p. 99-100, 102-111. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)
2. Anderson 1999. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAnderson1999 (help)
3. ^ Gombrich 1997, p. 99-102. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGombrich1997 (help)
4. ^ Bronkhorst 1993, p. 93-111. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)
5. Bronkhorst 1993, p. 107. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)
6. Anderson 1999, p. 55-56. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAnderson1999 (help)
7. Hirakawa 1990, p. 28. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHirakawa1990 (help)
8. ^ Vetter 1988, p. xxi-xxxvii. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVetter1988 (help)
9. Bronkhorst 1993, p. chpter 7. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)
10. Vetter 1988, p. xxxii, xxxiii. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVetter1988 (help)
11. Bronkhorst 1993, p. 54-55, 96, 99. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)

ad 1: the argument is made by Bronkhorst, not by Vetter. Brinkhorst does not state:

...the Buddha could not possibly have gained an insight into the noble truths at the stage he did, because he would have already had to know and follow the eight fold path in order to reach said stage

Instead, according to the Wiki-article he states:

Oddly, the four truths refer here to the eightfold path as the means to gain liberation, while the attainment of insight into the four truths is portrayed as liberating in itself.

Those authors argue that "insight into the noble truths" was not the original means to liberation; insight only acquired a central position over time, and the four truths became the element into which insight was said to be gained.

Further, Bronkhorst argues that it's not logical to present the eightfold path as the means to liberation, while similarly presenting insight into this path as the means to liberation. Compare it to baking cookies: you've got a recipe; understanding how the recipe works, does not instantly give you a plate of cookies. You still have to bake them.

Note also that Four Noble Truths#Acquiring the dhamma-eye and destroying the āsavāssays:

In contrast, here this insight serves as the starting point to path-entry for his audience.

References

1. Anderson 2001, p. 126, 132, 143. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAnderson2001 (help)
2. Bronkhorst 2000, p. 79, 80. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst2000 (help)

What you are arguing, is that the Buddha followed a couple of practices, and then realized, 'Hey, this works!' Well, he may have realized this - but we don't know if that's what happened; and if it happend, we don't know how. What those authors argue, is that the whole enlightenment story, and it's emphasis on insight into the four truths, developed later. It's a story, an educational en religious narrative, not a factual account. They also explain why: because insight only later came to be deemed as important as it is now, in response to other Indian traditions. Just like the four truths only over time acquired the central position they've got now. That's it. We simply don't know what happened. But hey, if it works for you, just go ahead. Don't be fixated on scholastics, just practice, and be a good human being. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:38, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Part 2

@Joshua Jonathan:, the first part of your explanation is fair. Having read your statements on my talk page, and having read the Four Noble Truths article immediately after, it gave me the impression that I stated above. But you're right - the article only states that the four noble truths gained centrality later on. However, it would be helpful to add a few lines there to indicate that the authenticity of the four noble truths in and of themselves is not under contention (as if I made the mistake, others may as well). Thanks also for correcting my attributions to Vetter/Bronkhorst etc.

I'll have to read Ui, to get an idea of what he said, so I'll limit my discussion below to the texts mentioned above.

You're right in that I can practice Buddhism without getting caught up with scholarly opinion. However, the reason for my persistence with regard to the Four Noble Truths has less to do with personal practice and more to do with how Buddhism is introduced to others. Misplaced Pages has become the website of choice for most people wanting to look up a certain topic, so I'd like to contribute towards ensuring that its content on Buddhism is correct. Granted, I have made errors in the past and will likely make more in the future, however I believe discussions and debates such as these are useful; especially because, despite the myriad rules Misplaced Pages enforces in order to preserve a true and fair representation of a topic, a topic can nonetheless be skewed towards a particular outcome simply through a certain selection of scholarly works. The assertions make by Bonkhorst and other scholars, especially with regard to liberating insight, upends more than 2000 years of scholarship on Buddhism to date. Therefore, despite such work being decades old, it is in the greater scheme of things relatively new and should be tested from as many angles as possible.

Thus far, we seem to be in agreement that the four noble truths in and of themselves are not a later addition to the cannon. In addition, we know that some scholars are of the opinion that they may not have been as central to early Buddhism (in other words, there was less emphasis placed on them then than now).

In addition to this, we know that the line of reasoning I presented on my talk page is a valid alternative; even if it can't be proven that this represents the actual experience the Buddha had.

Now I would like to address the following statement from above:

Further, Bronkhorst argues that it's not logical to present the eightfold path as the means to liberation, while similarly presenting insight into this path as the means to liberation. Compare it to baking cookies: you've got a recipe; understanding how the recipe works, does not instantly give you a plate of cookies. You still have to bake them.

The lack of logic noted by Bronkhorst holds because the ideas discussed are from a perspective of self-view and/or fixed-views. For example, your comment on baking cookies makes complete sense because it contains an actor (i.e. the 'you' or 'self' that knows the recipe and then proceeds to bake). However, we can see what happens when we remove the perspectives self-view and fixed-views by considering a different example.

There is a bowling ball suspended in the air, with a plank stopping its descent to the ground. At some point, the plank cracks, and gives way and the bowling ball (formerly at rest) moves down due to gravity. Now in this example, it would be easy to assume the chain of causation as follows:

1) The cracking of the plank caused it to give way (i.e. deform);

2) The giving way of the plank caused the bowling ball to move down

Yet, despite this sequence of causation seeming to make sense, a reversal of the sequence seems equally valid. Consider the following:

1) The bowling ball moved down, causing the plank to give way (i.e. deform)

2) The giving way of the plank caused it to crack

We can consider other permutations of the three events that also seem equally valid, but I'll limit my analysis to the two above. Despite us enforcing a certain order of causality, what actually happens is that all three events happen simultaneously. However, despite them happening simultaneously, they cannot occur in isolation, and occur in concert. The apparent causality described in the scenarios above is only perceived when we try to understand what 'caused' one of the three events. When we look for what 'caused' the ball to move down, we conclude that the plank gave way first. When we look for what 'caused' the plank to give way, we conclude that the ball moved down first. The fixation on a particular event / point of view (in other words, a type of fixed-view) is what leads us to prefer a certain sequence of events with respect to causation.

This example is not unique, but is one case of a ubiquitous principle that comes into play whenever potentials (in this case gravity), energy transfer and movement are considered in naturally coupled components of systems. The relationship between the four noble truths and liberating insight can be viewed in the same way. The 'potential', in this case is kammic potential (i.e. the strong intention to achieve the end of suffering). The components are the four noble truths and the eight fold path. From this perspective, the traversal of the 'complete' eight fold path, as well as insight into the four noble truths occurs simultaneously because a kammic potential couples them (in other words, the strong intention to overcome suffering results in one simultaneously following the 'complete' noble eight fold path and trying to achieve liberating insight). Note that the intention to eliminate suffering is neither a part of the path nor a component of the truths, but simply a potential that leads to 'movement' (in the same way that gravity causes the plank to experience a force and deform while causing the ball to experience a force and move down). This brings me back to self-view. If the eight fold path and four noble truths are viewed from the perspective of 'someone having to achieve something', there will always seem to be a paradox. However, when self-view is removed and the path and truths are considered as components of a system devoid of self, the paradox is resolved.

In addition to this, the traversal of the path and progression towards liberating insight can be viewed as gradual. Thus, incremental traversals on the path lead and incrementally gaining partial liberating insights can be seen to occur simultaneously such that they culminate in the traversal of the complete Path and the gaining of final Liberating Insight. This is in line with the view that things are aggregates of other things and that progress towards liberation is gradual.

As before, my intention is not to have the above explanation incorporated into this article. Rather, it is to point out that Bronkhorst's logic, as presented in the block above is still not incontrovertible. As such, the burden of proof is still on Bronkhorst and similar scholars to prove that insight into four noble truths cannot be synonymous with awakening (this is because the suttas, commentaries and scholarly works spanning 2 millennia all agree that they are synonymous with each other).

I believe that the reason for that Bronkhorst etc. did not consider alternative explanations, such as the above, is that they were not sufficiently skilled practitioners and did not have access to such practitioners. Here is a brief example from Bronkhorst's 'Two traditions of meditation in Ancient India' that, while slightly off topic, illustrates this point. In it, he states that it is difficult to understand how not breathing could lead the bodhisattva to experience extreme heat, and offers an alternative explanation to the effect of not breathing might cause one to become more prone to sickness, and therefore fever . However, we now know that mountaineers in the Himalayas experience just this effect when they suffer from oxygen deprivation, with known cases of mountaineers stripping off all their clothes due to the heat experienced, despite the bone chilling temperatures at altitude . This example shows the value in the type of cross examination of scholarship that we are doing here. The fact that a scholar is well known, reputed and published is no guarantee that what they say is true or probable. This is especially so in cases where the scholar may lack practical experience.

References

1. Bronkhorst: But the same comparisons occur in the exact words elsewhere in the Påli canon and always in connection with a sick person: MN II. 193; SN IV. 56; AN III. 379-80. There can be no doubt that the comparisons fit a sick person much better than one engaged in meditation fully without breath. The important role allotted to wind in Indian medical treatises is well-known.33 Further, it is difficult to see why meditation without breath should bring about the extreme heat of the fourth comparison, which appears to describe fever, which is connected with bile ( pitta ) and not wind (see note 28). It is however clear how the four comparisons could come to be transferred from a sick person to one engaged in meditation fully without breath; the first and the third mention wind, and winds are not allowed to leave the body in this kind of meditation
   The two traditions of meditation in Ancient India, page 23
2. Telegraph UK: Among its various symptoms is a sudden sense of overheating – which, when coupled with reduced mental function and impaired co-ordination, can cause climbers to start tearing off their protective clothing, though the ambient temperature is around 30 degrees below freezing.
   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/everest/true-story-1996-disaster/

Given the above, are there any other compelling reasons to believe that the majority of scholars who contributed to Buddhism are wrong in this regard? If so, I shall read up on any sources you recommend to understand them. If not, I believe that the majority viewpoint on the matter of liberating insight with respect to the four noble truths should prevail (i.e. the majority of Buddhist scholarship done over the last 2 millennia). Trutheyeness (talk) 22:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your '2000 years of scholarship' is called WP:PRIMARY at Misplaced Pages; our task is to summarize secondary and tertiary sources. Though the discussion on the status of primary religious sources is an old discussion at Misplaced Pages.

Regarding

the burden of proof is still on Bronkhorst and similar scholars to prove that insight into four noble truths cannot be synonymous with awakening (this is because the suttas, commentaries and scholarly works spanning 2 millennia all agree that they are synonymous with each other)

Bronkhorst c.s. do not state that "insight into four noble truths cannot be synonymous with awakening"; they state that this is a later development. Please read Four Noble Truths#Substituting "liberating insight" again:

The ideas on what exactly constituted this "liberating insight" was not fixed but developed over time. According to Bronkhorst, in earliest Buddhism the four truths did not serve as a description of "liberating insight". Initially the term prajna served to denote this "liberating insight." Later on, prajna was replaced in the suttas by the "four truths." The four truths were superseded by pratityasamutpada, and still later, in the Hinayana schools, by the doctrine of the non-existence of a substantial self or person. Schmithausen states that still other descriptions of this "liberating insight" exist in the Buddhist canon: "that the five Skandhas are impermanent, disagreeable, and neither the Self nor belonging to oneself"; "the contemplation of the arising and disappearance (udayabbaya) of the five Skandhas"; "the realisation of the Skandhas as empty (rittaka), vain (tucchaka) and without any pith or substance (asaraka).

References

1. Vetter 1988, p. xxi-xxxvii. sfn error: no target: CITEREFVetter1988 (help)
2. Bronkhorst 1993, p. chpter 7. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)
3. Bronkhorst 1993, p. 107. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)
4. Bronkhorst 1993, p. 99-100, 102-111. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)
5. Anderson 1999. sfn error: no target: CITEREFAnderson1999 (help)
6. Bronkhorst 1993, p. 100-101. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)
7. Bronkhorst 1993, p. 101. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBronkhorst1993 (help)

So, your statement

commentaries and scholarly works spanning 2 millennia all agree that they are synonymous with each other)

is far from correct, even if only regarding the Pali canon, let alone other Buddhist traditions. In Zen, it is insight into Buddha-nature which defines awakening, while in Dzogchen it is rigpa which is synonymous with awakening. "Awakening," "enlightenment," itself has multiple meanings; and it cannot equalled one-to-one with mukti, liberation.

What's more, is there really such a thing ("thing," "event," etc.) as "final Liberating Insight"? Or do (some) Buddhist traditions claim that there is "final Liberating Insight"? The "burden of proof," in this respect, is not on scholars like Vetter and bronkhorst; the burden of proof is on the people who make this claim. And take note, the Buddhist traditions are far from unanimous on this. See for example Kenshō#Training after kenshō, where it is explained that insight is just the start of the path of practice to real liberation.

I'll even tell you: claiming that there is "final Liberating Insight" is dangerous. It elevates some special people, namely those who got it, who are "enlightened," to a special status. I do hope you have some knowledge of all the scandals in which Buddhist teachers have been involved, because they were deemed special. There is no "final Liberating Insight"; there is insight into the BUddhist teachings, into sunyata, Buddha-nature, whatever; but it's not the end of the road, it's the start of a humble way of living, in which one is (increasingly?) aware of one's limitations and impulses, and (increasingly?) lives out of compassion, not out of selfishness. Don't be fooled or misled, and stay awake: final liberation is a cookie for immature people who long for a perfect life.

Your statement

I believe that the reason for that Bronkhorst etc. did not consider alternative explanations, such as the above, is that they were not sufficiently skilled practitioners and did not have access to such practitioners.

is exactly that, a believe, a personal opinion. Many believers believe that academic scholars don't understand their religion, becasue they deviate from (cherished) traditions. Well, many scholars of Buddhism are also Buddhist practioners (though Bronkhorst is not, as far as I know); but thay're also 'outsiders' with a rigorous academic training, who are able to take into account a lot of "alternative explanations" which are untenable for religious practitioners who operate 'within a religious system, and cannot afford to deviate from that system.

Your suggestion that "the majority of scholars who contributed to Buddhism are wrong in this regard" is annoying rhetorics. As said above, Misplaced Pages summarizes relevant scholarly views on religious topics, not primary sources. Those sources are leading when summarizing 'two millennia of Buddhist scholarship', not what particular editors deem to be "the majority viewpoint of Buddhist scholarship done over the last 2 millennia." Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a religious faith manual. And religious faith is more than obeyance to dogma's; it's about openness to suffering and imperfection, and compassion with all of mankind. Dare to face yourself, dare to be imperfect, and dare to be compassionate with your fellow human beings. Everyone is suffering, and insight alone is not enough to "solve" this! (See also the pictures at User:Joshua Jonathan.)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Part 3

I agree that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. I didn't suggest otherwise, or suggest that the suttas be taken at face value. What I did say is that the opinions of even scholars need to be cross examined before including their conclusions in articles. Granted, the suttas are primary sources, however their commentaries can be regarded as secondary sources, if only because they are commentaries on the main text. The commentaries would only become primary sources if it were the commentaries themselves that were under scrutiny by other scholars. It is not my imagination that the viewpoint of the commentators is sometimes contrary to the viewpoint of the scholars under discussion. This is because, if they were in agreement, the scholars would likely point it out (in the same way that they reference other scholars' work for support). Commentators seem to sometimes take for granted ideas that modern scholars question. One could argue that it was because the question did not occur to them. However, one could equally argue that the answer was so obvious that they didn't feel the need to articulate an answer. Nonetheless, even supposing that modern scholars are breaking new ground by analysing things never before discussed, it is worth cross examining.

With respect to diversity, I agree with you. More diversity is a good thing. However again, if a scholar uses a certain set of logical constructs to put forward an argument, these should be reviewed to ascertain whether they make sense. Sometimes it may not be possible; but in certain cases, where the soundness of a scholar's arguments depend on one or two key pieces of logical reasoning, this reasoning can be analysed. The benefit of this approach is that if the reasoning is found wanting, all arguments built on top of it automatically become void (unless of course there is a parallel argument that leads to the same conclusion).

I have already shown with my examples above that at least one line of logical reasoning used by Bronkhorst can be successfully challenged (e.g. with the bowling ball example). Regardless of my beliefs about modern scholars in general, I have further shown that although Bronkhorst tries to make reasonable assumptions when coming to conclusions, his lack of knowledge in certain areas leads him to base certain arguments on assumptions that can be proven to be incorrect (e.g. effects of hypoxia). Given this, I think it is reasonable to review other arguments made by scholars used in this article, that lead to unusual conclusions (i.e. deviate by conclusion or implication from the suttas and/or commentaries).

On final liberation: I may have misspoken but this is a probably a debate for another time. My own view is that the the Buddha taught a path that leads to complete freedom from suffering and it is this that denotes final liberation. But it likely needs qualification (also for another time). Nonetheless, what I'd like to debate is the assertion that in earliest Buddhism the four truths did not serve as a description of liberating insight.

Since I seem to to have mis-constructed a couple of sentences with respect to the four noble truths and liberating insight by using the word awakening, I'll try to use a quote from the article itself: "The ideas on what exactly constituted this "liberating insight" was not fixed but developed over time...in earliest Buddhism the four truths did not serve as a description of "liberating insight". Vetter and Bronkhorst have been used as sources for this statement.

Vetter does not seem to use grammatical anomalies, linguistics or historic aberrations as a reason for coming to this conclusion. His primary method of analysis is almost purely logical reasoning which we can analyse with reasonable accuracy.

A key point used by Vetter, that seems to underpin his entire argument is that discursive thinking ceases in the fourth jhana and that it is difficult to understand how the Buddha could have followed a prescribed scheme of suffering, origin, cessation and end in this state, even making an allowance for intuition This shows that Vetter himself did not have first hand knowledge of the fourth jhana and is just hypothesising. However, as I have shown in the case of Bronkhorst, such hypotheses, while seemingly reasonable, can be incorrect. To understand how this could be in Vetter's case we can think of a situation where we are walking to some place and suddenly remember that we forgot something at home. Or perhaps we are enjoying a nice shower and get a brilliant idea, even though we were thinking something else entirely. It is difficult to know how this happens, but because we know that it does, we come up with theories on how this could be. Similarly, in Vetter's case, it is difficult to know how a prescribed scheme of the four noble truths can be followed in the fourth Jhana. However the key difference is that without firsthand experience of the fourth jhana, he just assumes that it is not possible. This does not mean that Vetter is incorrect in his assumption. However it does mean that the basis for much of his argument lies on an assumption that we can neither confirm nor deny is correct, even on the balance of probabilities. As such, his basis for deciding that the formulation of the suttas was "probably due to the influence of an environment that demanded some truth or knowledge as the real means of release" is quite weak. Note that in these passages, he relies almost solely on his own reasoning and assumptions, with few references to other scholarly works.

Now let's take Bronkhorst's reasoning that the four noble truths doesn't fit within the narrative of Buddha's enlightenment. He makes two points.

The first is that the link between the recognition of the four noble truths and the destruction of the intoxicants is unclear . This seems to be another version of your example of 'having the recipe does not mean you automatically have a cake'. If this is indeed the case, then the link can be understood in terms of a kammic potential created by a strong intention to overcome suffering acting to destroy the intoxicants as soon as the four noble truths are recognised (this is similar to the ball moving down as soon as there's a crack in the plank). Because of this, there is at least one explanation that makes sense in this context.

The second is that insight into the four noble truths results in the discovery of the path, creating a paradox because knowledge of the path is a prerequisite to reaching a stage at which insight can be gained . However, I've shown in my talk page how this paradox can be resolved, by not taking the path to be a monolithic, indivisible structure. To Bronkhorst's point about the first jhana (from the quote mentioned): While the first jhana can be considered the start of the path, the complete eightfold path can be considered as encompassing all of it. This is in line with the suttas, as the Buddha needed to surpass the first jhana to become enlightened, meaning that the first jhana does not encompass the entire path. Now, it is interesting that despite there existing at least one alternative explanation, Bronkhorst is utterly convinced that his two arguments are bullet proof and goes so far as to say that "There can be no doubt that this passage does not represent the original account of enlightenment".

Bronkhorst's assertion that the four noble truths did not serve as a description of liberating insight rests primarily on the aforementioned two arguments. The strength of these two arguments is based on there existing no resolution to the paradoxes that Bronkhorst has put forward. Since there is at least one resolution to each of the paradoxes, his two arguments are weakened to the point of being unable to support his conclusion.

To your point about the following:

many scholars of Buddhism ...'outsiders' with a rigorous academic training, who are able to take into account a lot of "alternative explanations" which are untenable for religious practitioners who operate 'within a religious system, and cannot afford to deviate from that system.

Yes, you are correct. However these alternative explanations must be backed by sound reasoning. If the reasoning can be faulted, then these alternative explanations fail to become valid.

The issue I have is that the conclusions of Vetter and Bronkhorst are used in this article, with little reference to the logic used by them to justify their conclusion. I guess, in some ways this can't be helped as the content needs to be summarised. However, we still have an issue where the central arguments that support their conclusions don't seem to hold and this needs to be accounted for within the article using a suitable means.

One final note. I tried to find the sources used for the rest of the Misplaced Pages passage on liberating insight, however pages 99-102 of Bronkhorst don't seem to contain any relevant information while pages 103 onwards is an appendix with abbreviations and lists of sources. Maybe I'm using a different version of 'The two traditions...' book? If you could point me to the relevant chapters of the book - I'd like to see if there are any other points to support the conclusion currently presented in the passage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trutheyeness (talk • contribs)

References

1. What is the problem of plausibility at this point of the argument? If one interprets the text literally, one must realize the four noble truths in the fourth stage of dhyana. In order to understand the problem one must pay attention to the description of the dhyana-meditation and its preparation... The problem is that already at the second stage ofdhyana, contemplation and reflection-one could also say every form of discursive reasoning-have disappeared; one is in a state of inner calm and oneness of heart. And yet, at the fourth stage the four noble truths must be realized in a form described by the words' 'this is suffering, this is the origin of suffering, this is the cessation of suffering, this is the path to the cessation of suffering. " That is not to say that this stage cannot be the origin of an intuition of a truth or that in it one cannot be aware of the words of a truth (they may be presented to the mind in the same way as objects, feelings, etc.). But it is difficult to imagine how in that state of pure equanimity and awareness one can follow a prescribed scheme. It apparently produces a high degree of non-identification with everything presented to the mind. Originally this may have been the only ground of an experience of release. Being based on an ascetic discipline guided by a concern for the well-being of all living beings, it need however not lead to indifference in everyday life. Moreover, penetrating abstract truths and penetrating them successively does not seem possible in a state of mind which is without contemplation and reflection. If the assertion were that in that state entities (and not truths) are to be clearly seen, it would be less unlikely.... I have discussed a particular problem of one transmitted path to salvation, i.e. how one can perceive the four noble truths at the fourth stage of dhyana. Insofar as an older stage of the same path to salvation ends in the right samadhi, this is only a fictitious problem. The fact that it came to such a problematic formulation is probably due to the influence of an environment that demanded some truth or knowledge as the real means of release.
   Vetter, 1988, The ideas and meditative practices of early Buddhism XXVII / XXXIII.
2. This bridge – regardless of the question whether it was added by the composer of this passage or later – therefore emphasizes the fact that the Four Noble Truths just do not fit here. They do not fit because the connection between their knowledge and the destruction of the intoxicants is not clear.
   The Two Traditions of Meditation in India, Bronkhorst page 79
3. But the Four Noble Truths do not fit in this context for another far more serious reason. Recognition of the Four Noble Truths culminates in knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of suffering. This is useful knowledge for someone who is about to enter upon this path, but it is long overdue for someone at the end of the road. Knowledge of the path must and does precede a person commencing upon it. This also applies to the Buddha himself. In the passage which we studied above (§ 1.5, MN I. 246-47) we were told that the Bodhisattva remembered how once in his youth, he reached the First Dhyåna and wondered if this could be the road towards enlightenment. The text then continues: “following this memory I had this knowledge: ‘This is really the road towards enlightenment’.” In other words, also the Bodhisattva knew the path he was to traverse, and knowledge of the Four Noble Truths could not thereafter bring him anything new.
   The Two Traditions of Meditation in India, Bronkhorst page 79

Trutheyeness: I will let JJ continue his discussions with you. About your last para on Bronkhorst (pp 99-102 etc), please note that I struggled with the same issue long ago when I was reviewing / verifying / assisting JJ in matters related this article (see the talk page archives). There are several versions of Bronkhorst publication, where the page numbers vary significantly. It is chapter 8 and in part chapter 7, regardless of the version. There you find the context and relevant discussion on 4NT (for example, I see one patch of Bronkhorst discussions about 4NT on pp. 80-85 of the hard copy in my library). Those chapters do rely on the context set by the earlier chapters. Before signing off, I note my agreement with JJ in general above and about what we can include in this article per the wikipedia content guidelines, and my disagreement with you that "the opinions of even scholars need to be cross-examined before including their conclusions in articles" because that is a slippery slope, leads to cherrypicking and edit wars, more importantly it violates our NPOV, OR etc guidelines. Misplaced Pages can at best follow and "not lead" the scholarship curve, inform the diversity of views in peer-reviewed sources, both majority and significant minority, but that does not mean readers should not reflect, question the sides, decide for themselves, and continue the journey of knowledge and compassion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks MSW. Trutheyeness, it comes down to WP:OR, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and WP:CENSOR from your part: you take your personal opinions as the measure for what's to be included, and develop an argument based on those opinions. That's not how Misplaced Pages works, nor how scholarship works.

Regarding insight versus jhana: I've already provided you with a list of sources on this topic. You want cross-examination; well, it's there. Read Gombrich, and the appendix with Du Vallee; almost a cntury ago Du Vallee already noted that there are to 'roads to liberation' in the oldest sutras, namely insight and jhana. This has been noted by many scholars, explaining the centraility of insight as a later development. Buddhism has changed over time; the centrality of the four truths was not there in the beginning. Maybe your teachers do not know that much about Buddhism as you think they do...

If you think that's impossible: read some texts by Buddhadasa, an eminent modern Thai monk, respected and criticized in his country, who rejected some of the most basic notions of Buddhism as un-Buddhistic, including reincarnation. Bright man; someone who dared to investigate, instead of uncritically accepting age-old beliefs and interpretations. Buddhism may not be what you think it is... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

PS: see also WP:FORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:42, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Another note... while Trutheyeness in part presents their arguments as "Vetter only", this is not true. Bronkhorst, Schmithausen, Anderson, Arbel and others reason the same or a similar view as Vetter. We cannot censor such scholarship. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

So, apologies for the break in conversation, I was down and out with the flu for a while. Thanks for the guidance Ms Welch - I'll follow up chapter 7 and 8 and see where I get.

JJ - It's not that I want to censor opinions because I don't like them. It's just that there is an issue that needs resolving with respect to the balance of voices heard. I'm assuming that you haven't attacked my arguments from a logical stand point because they make sense (the debate around WP:OR not withstanding). The fact that they make sense means that the basis on which these authors make their arguments is generally invalid. This is not my opinion, but a logical result of their own arguments being undermined by shaky premises.

If you look to the last part of my preceding comment, I've simply asked for a suitable means to show the logic employed by the scholars mentioned is faulty; and I've not asked that they be censored. It is, however, hard to know how this can be done within the current rules of Misplaced Pages. Buddhism in general is a path of practice, and many of the brightest minds in Buddhism have used the teachings to further their own practice, rather than question the authenticity of the teachings (e.g. Thai Ajahns of the Forest Traditions or forest monks in Sri Lanka). This means that the opinions of scholars such Vetter, Bronkhorst etc. are included in an article such as this without any other scholarly opinion to the contrary DESPITE their logic being weak or un-supportable (as I have demonstrated). A natural consequence of this is that the article presents a one sided view because the 'other side' is busy practicing and not arguing.

So the question is this. How can we ensure that the inconsistencies within the reasoning of these scholars is brought to light? It is your view that this can only be done if/when a scholar publishes a work specifically aimed at showing the logical weaknesses in the work of scholars to date?

I'd like to propose an alternative. I've noticed that Misplaced Pages pages with mathematical proofs don't seem to have many references, because the proof itself is incontrovertible. As logic is a branch of mathematics, can we not follow a similar line here? There is no need to introduce any new assumptions or information... just point out the weakness in the authors' premises and let the author's own logic show that it doesn't hold. Trutheyeness (talk) 09:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Trutheyeness, per WP:OR we are not allowed to include our personal experiences, analysis and opinions in an article. Editors should summarize what independent, high quality, peer reviewed sources write about the topic (see also WP:NPOV). You argue that "the opinions of scholars such Vetter, Bronkhorst etc. are included in an article such as this without any other scholarly opinion to the contrary". Please cite high quality sources which discuss and criticize the publications by Vetter, Bronkhorst etc. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't currently have a source that directly contradicts Vetter, Bronkhorst etc. However, I do have a source that presents a counterpoint to one of Bronkhorst's arguments against the four noble truths. Bronkhorst maintains that the eightfold path cannot be rightly included as part of the four noble truths because the path itself leads to insight into the four noble truths. However, Nanavina Thera presents logic to show that this not the logical paradox it seems (see page 38 and notes on pages 198-200 http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/ctp_screen-view_v1.pdf).

With regard to peer reviewed 'high quality' articles. The measure by which we can judge the quality of an article depends entirely on its contents. If it presents empirical research or new/novel facts, then a high quality article must necessarily be peer reviewed to ensure accuracy/validity. However, an article that uses logic to show the implication of existing facts need not be peer reviewed to such an extent, if at all, as the accuracy or validity of the logic is self evident. In addition, one could argue that if the logic presented in an article is faulty, it doesn't need to be criticised by anyone in order to be deemed low quality, as this is readily apparent (although in this case, I'll concede to Ms Welch's point that an attempt to treat a source as low quality on this basis may result in WP:OR).

A final point I'd like to raise is the way that existing sources are used in the present narrative:

e.g. 1) Vetter is used as a source to show "inconsistencies in the oldest texts" with respect to the four noble truths. However the basis by which Vetter came to his conclusion (i.e. the assumption that fourth jhana does not allow discursive thinking) is not mentioned. This is a key piece of information because it reveals to the reader that Vetter had to make such an assumption in order to reach his conclusion. If the assumption is included, the reader can make up their own mind about whether such an assumption should hold.

e.g. 2) Anderson maintains that although we can only trace the written records of the suttas to 500 AD, it is reasonable to assume that the suttas existed in that form at least since 100 BC or AD (I forget exactly which). This second point has been omitted from the article even though it helps to show that the four noble truths were central to Buddhism at least 400-600 years prior to what the article mentions.

-> Supporting evidence: The first three divisions of the Milinda Panha (a recorded conversation between the Greek king Menander and a Buddhist sage), dated at or before 100 AD, equates the arising of wisdom with knowledge of the four noble truths. The last few divisions, who's age is under debate by scholars, mention that a person who has not attained the perception of the noble truths has died in vain. (see pages 25, 42, 83, 101 http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/milinda.pdf)

e.g. 3) A restatement of the point made above. If Bronkhorst's logic were made plain in the article and Nanavina Thera's logic is presented as a counterpoint, the reader can decide which should hold.

In general, the current narrative states that there are inconsistencies in the four noble truths and, rather than elaborating on what these are, just references a long list of sources that say so. Since the article and its sub sections are about the four noble truths and not specifically about Vetter, Bronkorst etc., their logic should be made plain so that contrasting logic and points of view can be placed side by side for the reader to compare (even if the source that provide these contrasting perspectives do not direct their comments specifically at Vetter, Bronkhorst or the rest). Trutheyeness (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A few other points I haven't addressed:

Ms Welch: Your point that other authors have come to the same conclusion as Vetter may be valid however, as mentioned, their train of thought and assumptions should be made plain so that the reader can decide for themselves whether their conclusions are valid. Is it not presumptuous to assume that just because a number of scholars agree on a point that their reasoning is valid and doesn't need to be articulated?

JJ's point about Buddhadasa. He may have dared to investigate, however you'll find that the logic behind criticisms directed at him are quite sound. In addition, if you look at Professor Ian Stevenson's work (esp. Reincarnation and Biology, which provides physical evidence for rebirth), you'll find that about 40 years of empirical evidence on rebirth is against Buddhadasa. Also, unlike the scholars presented in this article who postulate what is probable or improbable based on what they have not experienced, Stevenson uses statistical techniques to show that his evidence for reincarnation is solid. This is yet one more example where your scholars' theoretical speculations are eclipsed by empirical evidence (much the same as the hypoxia example I mentioned earlier on)

JJ's point on Gobrich and Du Vallee on insight and jhana. If you could provide me with the names of these books that would help greatly. However, if these arguments are similar to those made by Vetter (something along the lines of the Buddha couldn't have been teaching his five first diciples the four noble truths because it does not justify the amount of time that he spent with them... and that it is more likely that he was teaching them the jhanas), they likely don't hold. Anyone who's been on a meditation retreat (advanced or beginner) will tell you that they hardly ever interacted with the teacher and spent most of their time meditating (thus the Buddha would have spent much of his time doing nothing if he was teaching the jhanas). In addition, the book 'Right concentration: a practical guide to the Jhanas' by Leigh Brasington shows how his students spontaneously drop into the 7th Jhana (sphere of nothingness) without traversing the first 6, while others traverse the first six to get to the 7th - resolving the questions by scholars on how the Buddha could have learned about the 7th and 8th jhana from Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta when other portions of the sutta state that you ascend to the 7th jhana after going through the preceding six. This undermines scholarly speculation that the 7th and 8th Jhanas were not learned by the Buddha from his teachers, but were the pinnacle of his own achievement. Some scholars state that that the 8th jhana is absurd, on the grounds that you can't be both percipient and non percipient. However, Brasington shows in his book that the 8th jhana is a practical possibility. Since at each step Brasington compares his and his students' experience to the descriptions in the Suttas, his work provides a valuable insight into the role of jhana in Buddhism.

JJ's point on WP:FORUM. I'm not discussing the points on hand for the sake of it, but to show just how many cracks there are in the current narrative, regardless of how many of your modern scholars support it. I have to contend, not only with the sources currently used (by providing contrasting sources), but also the narrative that has been taken up by the Misplaced Pages article in its current state - which naturally reflects the opinion of those who wrote it. Having provided alternative perspectives, and now alternative sources I hope you'll see that the argument is not as clear cut as it appears. Trutheyeness (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Part 4

See note 21 for sources. That the primacy of insight is a later development is a given fact, for scholars. A really interesting point is: did the Buddha believe in rebirth, or did he teach release from dukkha here and now? The four truths seem to center on ending rebirth; that too may be a sign that their primacy is a later development. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:13, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Nanavira Thera: did he reject the concept of rebirth? His Wiki-page is not clear on this. NB: avijja does not only refer to the four truths; that's typical Theravada scholasticism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:18, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

JJ - you've addressed none of the points I've raised:

* Nanavina Thera's work contributes a valuable alternate perspective to Bronkhorst's paradox about he four noble truths and eightfold path and thus deserves a place in the article. On your note about avijja - you may be right. However, the example sheds light on the fact that Bronkhorst's paradox is not a paradox. In addition, the notes in page 198-200 further support this point.

* The Milinda Panha alludes to the centrality of the four noble truths as far back as the first century AD, and it equates the arising of wisdom with knowledge of the four noble truths. This provides a contrasting perspective to Bronkhorst's, who suggests that the four noble truths later supplanted panna (using logic that has an alternative in Nanavina Thera)

* Anderson states that there is no reason to question whether the Suttas were in the same form in 100 AD as they were in 500 AD, further showing that at least one of your sources believes the centrality of the noble truths extended as far back as that.

* Vetter's assumptions about the jhanas (as well as assumptions made by other scholars) should be articulated so that the reader can decide for themselves whether their logic holds.

* As for Nanavina Thera's belief on rebirth - I'm not sure on which way he leans, however that is immaterial. I don't need him to believe everything I believe and Stevenson's work is a more than adequate rebuttal for those who question rebirth.

I've now provided not only logical arguments of my own devising, but facts and arguments from relevant sources that provide a contrasting view to those expressed in this article. The arguments I've devised aside, on what grounds do you ignore these new sources and selectively cherry pick from your existing sources (e.g. The omission of Anderson's comment on 100 AD and the omission of the logic used by your sources to come to their conclusions)? Trutheyeness (talk) 06:56, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

About whether the Buddha originally taught about rebirth: I suspect that the question is only raised because rebirth is not what most people in the world believe (this includes scholars). As such rebirth is, to them, just an interesting way to explain what happens after death without any real substance. However, if the dominant belief today was rebirth and people were familiar with Stevenson's work would scholars question whether the Buddha originally taught about rebirth? I suspect not, in the same way that Vetter would not have jumped to conclusions about meditation without breath, had he known about how hypoxia works. Trutheyeness (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but your own logic does not hold, and is WP:OR; and the way you synthesize sources is exactly that, WP:SYNTHESIS. Nanavira Thera is not writing about, ior responding to, Vetter; he's writing about his own thouhgts. Thouh I'll bet he would have loved Schmithausen, Vteer, Broinkhorst, Gombrich, Anderson and Wynne. Wynne, by the way, p.108:

Thus I think we can discount the notion that the earliest conception of liberating insight was the insight into the Four Noble Truths. The content of liberating insight in the earliest teaching is unclear.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

PS: regarding Stevenson, "about 40 years of empirical evidence on rebirth is against Buddhadasa," and "Stevenson's work is a more than adequate rebuttal for those who question rebirth": see Ian Stevenson#Reception. Stevenson is WP:FRINGE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

External Links

http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/ should point to http://www.themindingcentre.org/dharmafarer. This might be needed else where also hence it might be good to get a bot to do the URL change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirinath (talk • contribs) 15:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Revising the Intro

I want to open up a discussion about the introduction, which I think has gotten much more comprehensive but is now straying into territory where it is too complicated for the average non-specialist reader and is not really recognizable as what is presented as the Four Noble Truths in most secondary and tertiary literature (as well as the primary sources). Proposed re-work of the opening couple paragraphs is below- I'm not at all opposed to restoring some of the references or footnotes where relevant, but I do think that the more detailed discussion needs to be kept in the body of the article to comply with WP:LEDE. Please comment, edit or propose alternatives as needed- I have a copy of my version on my sandbox.

1. Suffering(dukkha): Existence is characterized by dukkha, suffering or 'unsatisfactoriness'. Birth, aging, death, sickness, separation from what is desired, association with the unwanted and the Five Aggregates are all aspects of dukkha.

2. Arising(samudaya): Suffering arises due to attachment or craving (tanha). This includes both attachment to what is desired and seeking to avoid what is undesired, all of which is rooted in attachment to the self and the desire for further existence.
3. Cessation(nirodha): It is possible to make an end of dukkha through the fading and cessation and craving and desire. This is the attainment of nirvana, whereafter birth and the accompanying dukkha will no longer arise again.
4. The Path(marga): This can be accomplished by following the eightfold path,, specifically by restraining oneself, cultivating discipline and wholesome states, and practicing mindfulness and dhyana.

As the "Four Noble Truths" (Sanskrit: catvāri āryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni), they are "the truths of the Noble Ones," the truths or realities which are understood by the "worthy ones" who have attained nirvana.

References

1. ^ Anderson, Carol S. (2004). "Four Noble Truths". MacMillan Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Vol. 1. New York: MacMillan Reference USA. pp. 295–98. ISBN 0-02-865719-5.
2. Warder 1999, p. 45-46. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWarder1999 (help)
3. Buswell & Lopez 2003, p. 304. sfn error: no target: CITEREFBuswellLopez2003 (help)
4. Raju 1985, p. 147–151. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRaju1985 (help)
5. Eliot 2014, p. 39–41. sfn error: no target: CITEREFEliot2014 (help)
6. Williams 2002, p. 41. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWilliams2002 (help)
7. Warder 1999, p. 67. sfn error: no target: CITEREFWarder1999 (help)

--Spasemunki (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm open to discussion; the current lead was also the product of prolonged "discussions" with a banned editor. But it's also the prodcut of thoughtfull, and prolonged, considerations, and I do see problems with this opening:

• "Existence is characterized by dukkha" - no, existence an sich is not characterised by dukkha; existence which is absorbed in craving is dukkha. Liberated mind (luminous mind, Buddha-nature) is also inherent in existence.
• "Birth, aging, death, sickness, separation from what is desired, association with the unwanted and the Five Aggregates are all aspects of dukkha" - this is the sutta-text, which needs explanation. It does not summarize the article, which does ecplain, and nuance, these statements.
• "Suffering arises due to attachment or craving (tanha)" - idem.

I'll think about it, but the lead has been thoroughly discussed before, several times, with one editor concluding that the four truths cannot be meaningfully summraized for people who are not acquainted with Buddhism... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I've made some adjustments to the lead, moving the mnemonic set upwards to the start of the lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think maybe the issue is separating definition from trying to summarize interpretation. The source text in Sanskrit and Pali is unequivocal and all three canons preserve it that way with little variation- in other words, every tradition agrees on what the 4NT are, but not all of them interpret what they mean in the same way.

My concern is that right now there is more interpretation and re-framing than either the primary or neutral 2ry/3ry sources do, and in that sense we aren't really supplying the consensus definitions- for example, neither the primary sources nor academic summaries of them include 'unguarded sensory contact', 'clinging', etc. with the First Noble Truth- what is being given as the First actually sounds quite a bit like the ordinary contents of the Second, while the Second is more like a summary of Samsara, which doesn't occur in the original context.

There is nothing wrong with quoting a primary source where it is definitional- in an article about the Ten Commandments, it would be misleading to describe the distinction between killing and murder in the first description of the Fourth Commandment, because that is a widely shared interpretation rather than the definition according to the source. As an example, McMillan includes the translated source text in their article because it's definitional- they describe what is meant by the key terms in each of the Truths and give suggestions at various interpretations, but that is as a supplement to the clear definition provided in the Sutta/Agama text. To your specific example on #1, luminous mind and Buddha-nature being inherent in existence reflects other aspects of existence according to some Buddhist traditions, but while those traditions may regard those facts as co-equal with the 4NT, it isn't what anyone calls the First Noble Truth- the First Noble Truth is something quite specific that the Buddha said, whose contents are recorded in the Agamas and Nikayas and which all three textual traditions basically agree on. I also note that Nyantiloka's Buddhist Dictionary is being used as a source for the current summary of 1NT, but the definition he gives under sacca does not include any of the qualifiers currently included- I'm not sure if I'm finding the specific reference though because the online version isn't paginated.--Spasemunki (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the explanation downwards; I hope that helps too.

Regarding "definition": there are several sets of the four truths; the full set seems to be an aggregate of various texts, including grammatical errors, and may have been a later addition the several suttas. There is no "clear definition"; worse, the additions given in full set rather aid in misundestanding the intention of the four truths. As Buddhadasa explained, "dukkha" dos not refer to birth etc. in themself, but to experiencing birth etc. as being of a painfull quality. it's not without reason that the truths are 'the truths or realities which are understood by the "worthy ones" who have attained nirvana'. I can't recall who wrote it (see Talk:Four Noble Truths/Archive 2#Lead), but one editor commented, after long contemplation, that the four truths may actually only make sense when one has comprehended the Buddhist teachings - meaning that we will simply fail to explain them here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

The lead and our WP:LEAD guidelines again

The lead should summarize the main article, its most important contents with appropriate weight. Our old April/May 2017 lead versions were better because it reflected the main article and the vast majority of mainstream peer-reviewed scholarly sources. See, for example, Encyclopaedia Britannica on 4NT, any secondary source and any tertiary/encyclopedia on Buddhism (such as by Buswell etc). I will check these sources again and restore a bit to the lead where appropriate in the coming days. Comments and concerns are welcome, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this up- I've meant to return to it but kept postponing. I think we're on the same page with respect to where the lead has gone astray compared to the relatively clear descriptions given in Lopez's Brittanica article and comparable sources and most of my view is captured in my remarks above, but I would like to see the historical development material qualified a little more, as it reflects interpretations by specific scholars rather than an observable fact. I can take a crack at it, but I don't have access to all the relevant sources at hand and don't want to misrepresent them.--Spasemunki (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Spasemunki: Exactly my sentiments. The lead is indeed too complicated and places undue weight on interpretations. We must never forget the eager reader, rather the spectrum of readers who likely visit and read a wikipedia article such as this one. This spectrum ranges from the non-specialist to specialists, from "know-nothing-about-Buddhism" to "practicing Buddhists". As wikipedia community has previously debated and agreed, our articles should have enough to give a reasonably fair and balanced summary of the most important contents, per the main article and the peer-reviewed WP:RS, for the non-specialist reader. Yet, JJ also makes good points above, and a few sentences to reflect his sentiments and others in the archives of this talk page would serve the specialists. A better lead would summarize the main article in the following format:

• what are the 4NT (from Section 1 of the main article and peer-reviewed secondary and tertiary sources; this ought to be simple and close to what the vast majority of RS state)
• who, when, where (from Sections 3 and 4)
• how and why are they significant (Sections 2 and 5)
• interpretations and disagreements (Sections 2 and 5)
• misc

That is along the lines I am thinking. I have a personal copy of almost all the key scholarly sources on this, but it is finding the time to go over them and their context again that slows me down. I will probably get this done in a week or two, perhaps starting this weekend. Your, JJ's and others help is most welcome as always. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nuances are required, which get lost with certain "common" translation. Remember, translation is also interpretation, and the four truths are not as self-explanatory as often supposed. To 'express' their meaning we have to be carefull in our wording:

• Dukkha: the source says samsara, "the realm of rebirth," not rebirth sec. This makes a big difference. It's an aimless wandering, like a yuvenile without a goal in life. The buddha calls for an awakening: 'What are you doing?!? Wake up, start behaving in a rational way!"
• Samudaya: "cause" is simplistic, and an interpretation-by-translation; samudaya literally means "coming together with," arising. The nuance, the original meaning, gets lost when we accommodate this to the supposed comprehension of the average reader; we turn Buddhism into something else, a modern interpretation
• Nirodha: there is a range of translations here: "cessation," "extinction," or "suppression," (Buswell and Lopez 2014, entry "nirodha") "giving it up, renouncing, releasing, letting it go" (Anderson 2001 p.96), "stop desiring" (Anderson 2004). "Elimination" is too simple, mechanistic, as if one can literally eliminate those emotions. What Buddhism teaches is to be aware of these emotions, to realise what effect they have, and to let go of them, not to be lead mindlessly by them. "Confinement" (Brazier) also catches the nuance better. Who was the Buddha?:

Early Buddhist teachings bypass these problems by focusing on the fact of suffering (or unsatisfactoriness: dukkha), and the possibility of its cessation (dukkha-nirodha). In this elegant scheme, spiritual practice is a form of mindful introspection: by paying close attention to experience, and keeping guard over the likes and dislikes that pull one into it, the painful experience of conditioned reality unravels by itself.

• Marga: "the means" is some sort of 'goal-rationality', like a big company for which human resource is a means to enhance profit, not a means to enhance workers satisfaction. "Path" is gentle; it's a path one is walking.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:UGC

Copied from User talk:Dharmalion76#WP:UGC

Hi Dharmalion76. Blogs by single persons are not WP:UGC. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: The author is not a recognized expert and the bulk of them were extraneous references on things already referenced. Dharmalion76 (talk) 12:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we better avoid links to blogs, personal websites and self-published content. JimRenge (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

End of copied part

@Dharmalion76: rgerading the vents so far:

• you removed David Chapman, stating Blog is WP:UGC and not a recognized expert
• I reverted you, stating blog by single person, not UCG; and a see also link, not a reference
• you reverted me, stating Reverted good faith edits by Joshua Jonathan (talk): WP:RSSELF not an expert

WP:RSSELF, just like WP:UGC, is about sources; this is not a source or reference, but a note, giving a link to additional info; David Chapman is quite usefull in this regard. David Chapman is a noted blogger on Buddhism; his series on the origins of western Buddhism caused quite a stir in Dutch (Zen) Buddhism. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:04, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

David Chapman is a noted blogger on Buddhism? Noted by whom? He writes Buddhism for Vampires so his views are hardly non-controversial. The note was in the form of referencing the statement made in the body so it was a reference whatever you choose to call it. Dharmalion76 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. The link was provided in a note with additional info, and clearly introduced with "See also." That's not a reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The blogs are in a {{refn}} format. They are being used to further reference the statements which precede them. Putting "see also" at the end of a string of references shows they are related and further reference the subject at hand. David Chapman is not a recognized authority and I don't understand why you are fighting so hard for his inclusion where it isn't needed. None of the places where I removed his blog required the reference. Dharmalion76 (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, in this place I didn't intend Chapman to be used as a reference. And I'm 'fighting so hard for inclusion' because Chapman's series of blogs back then were very insightfull for me, back then. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I can respect that they were insightful for you but that isn't inclusion criteria. They are blogs from someone who is not a recognized expert. Dharmalion76 (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Mass-delete

@Sukusala: you can discuss your objections here. You removed large amounts of sourced info twice; you even altered straight quotes. That's a no-go. And nu, dukkha is not "always" translated as "suffering"; that's an outdated and inadequate translation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Good to meet you. Thanks for your long application to this article. My deletions were not malicious. Consider the first deletion:

• dukkha ("unsatisfactory," "unease") is an innate characteristic of existence in the realm of samsara;

1. Three references are given, all of which support the word 'suffering'. The words in brackets are unsubstantiated.
2. Secondly, to say this First Noble Truth dukkha is innate in existence is not proven by the quotes.
3. To rectify the mistake, I added the word 'grasped': 'dukkha is innate in grasped existence.' Grasping implies tanha.
4. The dukkha innate in existence is the dukkha of the Three Characteristics, Tilakkhana. There is a separate Wiki article on this. Often that is called 'unsatisfactory.'
5. The dukkha of the First Noble Truth is dependent on tanha. When tanha ceases, suffering ceases. It is therefore not innate in existence. As the article says: "dukkha can be ended or contained by the renouncement or letting go of this taṇhā."
6. You say that 'suffering' is outdated and inadequate translation. But, as you can see, the three references given here all say 'suffering.' Suffering is the standard translation for the First Noble Truth. In a discussion like this, it means 'the type of dukkha that arises when there is tanha.' It would be helpful to be consistent in this article in the translation of that word, because it is a technical term: the dukkha of the First Noble Truth. Sometimes, for example, dukkha is used for bodily pain. In that context, you would not use words like 'unsatisfactory' or 'unease.' Usually it is simply called 'pain. For example, in the phrase: 'Sorrow, lamentation, PAIN (dukkha), grief, and despair: soka-parideva-dukkha-domanassa-upayasa.

Sukusala (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=web> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=web}} template (see the help page).

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