Talk:Four Noble Truths - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) at 07:27, 6 January 2012 (→Recent tags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 07:27, 6 January 2012 by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) (→Recent tags)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Buddhism Start‑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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Simplicity, Legibility versus Accuracy

I just added some discussion about the reverting of an edit I'd made a few weeks back. I'd added some of my own words as a preliminary easy-for-beginners description of the FNTs.

But now I see that this has been an issue under discussion for years (since at least 2007). Several people have raised the problem, several have offered fixes, but here in 2011 the problem still exists. The problem is this. And bear in mind when I say this that while I am not an expert in Buddhism, I am an expert in not being an expert in Buddhism!

This article is not serving a newcomer who seeks a newcomer's answer to the question "What are the Four Noble Truths?"

Answering the question with answers such as "The First Noble is 'The First Noble Truth of ...'" is a Category error (to a Western novice).

Can I respectfully remind the various Buddhism-schooled reverters that this is Misplaced Pages, and not a piece of Buddhist scripture and as such it needs to cater for people who are coming to the topic afresh, not just to advanced folks who want to discuss nuance and deeper issues.

(I was going to do a fairly chunky refactoring of this very talk page, to draw together the various items expressing this very concern. But I wasn't sure if that's permitted.)

Thomask0 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added back the simple definitions but now with sources. I can't see how that is not helpful. I've also merged the first two sections, with only minor editing to allow the now-three lists and their commentaries to flow smoothly. The aim is to let the page do well what is probably the thing it is most often going to be used for -- namely, give a newcomer a basic answer to the question "what are the four noble truths" but then lead them immediately on to understand that the basic answer is only a tiny part of the subject.

Hope this works.

Thomask0 (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Is Buddhism Pessimistic?

Because of its focus on suffering Buddhism is often called pessimistic

I thought people say its pessimistic because of the idea of nirvana = nothingness. that the happy cure is to cease to exist.

Plasticlax

I find the idea of suffering never reaching cessation much more pessimistic than the idea of reaching the end of suffering (even if conciousness has to cease with it). The Buddha said that he does not only talk of happiness with reference to happy feeling - but any kind of happiness whatsoever. Elsewhere he concisely states: Not to suffer is happiness Bhikkhusilaveda 02:04, 24 June 2006

Simplicity

Though I am sure that this was a great article, I had some trouble understanding some of it. Maybe if someone who understands it could make a Simple English version?

I have tried to make the intro more accessable, but I have not attempted to put the FNTs into more simple english because I don't wan't to just type out my opinion - rather I prefer to qoute scripture. Even quoting an authoritative scholar's opinion is troublesome because I would then have to quote the counter-interpretation. I hope the article is a bit better, but I aggree that it needs more clarifying.... hard to do without putting some opinion in there :o\ Bhikkhusilaveda 08:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Strange...

In one of the paragraphs, someone has placed BUDDHA BUDDHA BUDDHA...etc. I have tried to remove it, yet I cannot find the text (or indeed some of the paragraphs...) in the editor...so I appeal to someone else to remove it.

EDIT: And now the paragraphs are gone! This may explain why I couldn't find them, but is it really correct to remove them entirely?

cicero225 05:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Statement of the Noble Truths

I like the article. A very abbreviated version of the noble truths is :

 All life is suffering. 
 Suffering is caused by desire. 
 To eliminate suffering, eliminate desire. 
 To eliminate desire follow the Eightfold Path.

I think this has a simplicity that is memorable and appealing, and is worth including in the article

I agree something along these lines needs to be included. I came to this page looking for what the Four Noble Truths are, but all I found was a dogmatic and exclusive interpretation. --FearedInLasVegas 11:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The Four Noble Truths all have the number 1 on this page. I do not know how to change that. A minor chage would be useful. I am new and do not understand how to set this up as a new topic yet. --Jso456 18:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The useful comments above are a nice way of saying that the first body paragraph is as clear as a brick. Like Feared, I was looking for the Truths simply stated with much clarification, but what we have here is a gloss describing what each Truth is about, with a technical term, some commentary in a quote block and then some more commentary in italics below. Part of the problem is that the secondary commentary (I'll reiterate that someone unfamiliar with the topic of the article will not have found an actual statement of the 4 Noble Truths yet) is spliced with the numbered list, so each is listed as the First Noble Truth!
Callowschoolboy 19:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I took the plain English statements above and incorporated them into the list in italics, pulled all the commentary for each Truth together (unitalicized), changed the list back to a numbered list, and cut a few phrases. The commentary is hit or miss: some of it is very helpful for non-experts to understand by, but other parts are total fluff. There is still some left if anyone wants to cut it out or modify it into useful statements. We might also consider just using the technical term as the first word, since the simple statement and especially the commentary make it clear that, for instance, the first Truth is about "The existence of suffering." - Callowschoolboy 15:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation

The Buddha was enlightened near the Neranjana River, not the Ganges. Bhikkhusilaveda 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarity

It is the remainder less fading away and cessation of that same craving Is this the best wording? What exactly does "remainder less fading away" mean? Xyut 09:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Pali compound term is asesavirāganirodhā and translating this as "remainderless fading (away) and cessation" seems to be common -- for instance, Bodhi is quoted as using this translation in this current article for SN 56.11; Thanissaro does it, e.g., in his translation SN 12.2; and Harvey does it, e.g., in his translation of SN 56.11.

Nonetheless, you might find helpful the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary's translation of the word asesa: "not leaving a remnant, without a remainder, all, entire, complete ... entirely, fully, completely ...." In other words, it appears that asesavirāga could also be translated more simply as "complete(ly) fading away."

I hope this might help some. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 06:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The Four Ennobling Actions

Stephen Batchelor, 'the heretic', in his book Buddhism without Beliefs, made an excellent point -- often lost -- that the Four Noble Truths are to be experienced rather than be believed as simple statements. Therefore we are directed to exercise them by:

1. Understanding anguish 2. Letting go of its origins 3. Realizing its cessation 4. Cultivating the path

Removing non-canonical commentary from the traditional exposition of the Four Noble Truths

Up until June 26, 2007, this article's identification of the Four Noble Truths appears to have been based on a translation from the Dhammacakka Sutta. Then, on this aforementioned date, someone inserted the following seemingly idiosyncratic four-part commentary:

This first Noble Truth reflects on the nature of suffering. The word "Dukkha" is usually translated as "suffering" in English. It comments on types of suffering.
The second Noble Truth reflects on the sources of suffering (Dukkha.) Put very simply, it states that suffering results from expectations linked to our desires, and our attachment to those desires themselves.
The third Noble Truth reflects on the belief that suffering can be eliminated. It asserts that it can be done, and that it has been done.
The fourth Noble Truth lays the groundwork for the cessation of suffering (Dukkha) through the Noble Eightfold Path.

Some time afterwards, these personal observations were then re-formatted to appear to be part of the original canonical words and, in fact, additional personal exposition was added to it (e.g., "A more accurate simplification of this truth is 'Life is full of suffering'").

From a scholastic and general WP viewpoint, the main problem with this, especially in its current format, is that it misrepresents what is taken from the cited source (the Samyutta Nikaya, presumably SN 56.11?). Of course, from a Buddhist viewpoint, it's wordsmithing the Buddha's reputed own words. These issues aside, why reiterate what is already said?

So, shortly, I'm going to delete the above-identified commentary. If someone would like to add it back in a manner consistent with basic scholasticism (e.g., perhaps in a separate subsection), I'd welcome that. Any further discussion here -- whether rejecting my action or thoughts here or otherwise -- I, of course, further welcome as well. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nearly illegible article

I realise the importance of including buddhist dogma and accurate terms into this article, but the current writing style makes it necessary to have about 5 different buddhist-oriented articles open to get even a loose idea what this one is about. Is this an encyclopedia for people to gain an understanding of buddhism from a relatively low-level start, or a buddhist text for those who are already familiar with the Four Noble Truths?

A large and relatively simple change I would suggest is changing a number of the Indian-origin terms to their English equivalents, and pipelinking them to their indian term articles. For example, instead of the line "The Buddha was a Śramaṇa, a wandering ascetic", why not "The Buddha was a wandering ascetic"?

Simply trying to read the article to get a quick idea of what the four noble truths are does not yield much, since all the truths are listed using the term "dukkha" rather than the English term "suffering". I realise there are differences, but should that not be mentioned as a note, rather than writing the main point of the article using predominately non-English vocabulary? Erk|Talk _{-- I like traffic lights --} 04:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Erk -

Thanks for the sanity check :-)

FWIW, I just got around to checking the cited reference for this article's statement of the Four Noble Truths (Bodhi, 2000, p. 1844) and I see that the referenced text actually uses the word "suffering," not "dukkha." So, given that this is a cited blockquote, I'll change it to correctly reflect what is in the source text.

Tangentially, this article has one of the more convoluted "References" section I've seen. For instance, to figure out what the current footnote 6 is, I have to go to the top of the Reference section to see that "SN" is "Samyutta Nikaya" (no surprise there) and then figure out that this refers to yet another footnote (in this case, 13) which identifies the SN edition used is the Bodhi (2000) text. Given that the well-intentioned and undoubtably smart editor who instituted this version of the "References" has not logged in since January 27, 2007, I hope no one minds if I simply go ahead and modify the current "References" to resemble the frequently used "Notes"+"References" style of many WP articles (especially since many notes will reference the same text but different pages). If so, please free to revert and discuss here, of course.

As for the choice of Indian words in this article's intro, I'll leave that for someone else to address (since I've not had anything to do with that portion of this article). Erk, I can appreciate what you are saying though.

With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Your right I haven't logged in for a while. Actually I recently disrobed and will no longer be logging in as Bhikkhu Silaveda (not my real ordination name anyway). I appreciate the tidying of the references and all the wise contributions of Mr. Rosenfeld. Sunfirejake 14:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The appreciation is reciprocated — welcome back to the WP! I very much appreciate your sensitivity to and wisdom about the Dhamma and look forward to your future contributions. Best regards, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Simplicity

Can I just add that I would seriously encourage future editors not to try to represent these Four Noble Truths in a casual paraphrased way, this is such a contraversial topic and any effort, however well-intentioned, to interpret these teachings to the newbie, would always incorporate some bias. Perhaps one day there will be another article which comprehensively covers the interpretations; but out of respect for each other lets keep it out of this head article. Sunfirejake 15:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mahayana understanding

The whole section is source to a book by Tony Page published by Nirvana Publications. Tony Page has a PhD in literature and no qualifications regarding Buddhism, can we have information about Nirvana Publications? Another Tony Page book is published by UKAVIS which Tony Page appears to have founded, i.e. this book is self-published.

A book written by an unqualified person and self-published is clearly not a reliable source. Someone please justify this material. Mitsube (talk) 05:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This article does not actually state what the truths are

It just waffles on about their interpretations and other stuff. 82.28.92.99 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this anonymous commenter. I propose that a very common aim of the interested-but-as-yet uninformed visitor to the page (e.g. me) is to get an answer to questions of the form "What is the Nth Noble Truth?". However, the current wording in the "Basic teaching" section -- which is where most beginners will look for a quick summary -- gives answers to questions of (roughly) the form "What is the title of the Nth Noble Truth?"

I tried to help this when I added the following:

"In the simplest terms, the Four Noble Truths may be stated as follows:

  1. Suffering exists (i.e. it is not simply our imagination)
  2. Suffering is caused by attachment to desires
  3. Suffering can be ended by ending that attachment
  4. A way to achieve that ending of attachment is to follow what is known as the Noble Eightfold Path"

But it was undone. Now I'm new to Misplaced Pages editing (and completely unschooled in Buddhism) so I'm willing to accept that it was not appropriate. However, I think that what I was trying to do really needs to be done. I'm sure that there are volumes to be written as to why my "simplest terms" is not a fully accurate version of the Four Noble Truths. But I didn't make them up on the spot. I based them on numerous interpretations I could find, and then made them as succinct as possible without losing the intended effect of providing simplicity-for-a-beginner.

Does this make sense? Is it reasonable? If so, could someone more experienced/knowledgeable offer some words to achieve what I was trying, only in a Misplaced Pages-acceptable way? Thanks Thomask0 (talk) 12:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mahayana Buddhism and the 4NT

Mahayana Buddhism regards them as a preliminary teaching for people not ready for its own teachings.

This is just way too reductive, and not even true. In the MMK, Nagarjuna uses the 4NT to demonstrate the teaching of Buddha. The 4NT are just as central and important to the Mahayana in general as they are to any other group of Buddhists. I agree that there are some Mahayana schools who may wish to downplay the 4NT, but they would be a distinct minority. 20040302 (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing Mahayana about the MMK, actually. Some scholars have written that, since it is the only text that can be conclusively attributed to Nagarjuna, he may not have been a Mahayanist himself. Mitsube (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

See also the heart sutra. 20040302 (talk)

How come the article did not include an exact translation?

Though "Four Noble Truths" is the popularly accepted translation, it actually translates to "Four Aryan Truths". This is significant to scholars of early India and the Vedas, so I've added the literal translation to the article.Flygongengar (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Misunderstandings

This section is unreferenced and reads like original research, so I marked it. Kaelfischer (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Different Interpretations

I know different interpretations of the 4NT exist, such as David Brazier's as presented in his book The Feeling Buddha. I think these different understandings should be mentioned in this article. --98.218.46.137 (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Limitation of applicability

The teaching of the Four Noble Truths is limited to attachment to desires which cause sufferings. There is however, a different category of desires, which do not cause sufferings, but rather constitute good causes for enlightenment. The basic human desire to learn, desire for helping others, compassionate desires, desires to protect others, desire to benefit society, desire to teach the Dharma and ultimately the desire to attain Buddhahood - these are desires for which the teaching of the Four Noble Truths simply does not apply, because they cause joy, not sufferings, and it is not possible to eradicate them. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Duality in the concept of the Four Noble Truths

The strict focus of the Four Noble Truths on the sole element of “suffering in daily life” is basically inconsistent with the principle of non-separation (and non-duality) of all phenomena. As a fact, sufferings express only one side of human experience. According to Nichiren, neither sufferings nor joy really constitute the essence of one’s life. The Ultimate Truth of life is the Middle way. It is the truth of Temporary Existence (of both sufferings and joy) and the Interconnectedness of all Phenomena, being the Dharma or the Wonderful Law: “Regard both suffering and joy as facts of life, and continue chanting Nam-myoho-renge-kyo. no matter what happens. How could this be anything other than the boundless joy of the Law?” WND 1 p 681

Nichiren’s explanation in the above passage (that both sufferings and joy are facts of life), constitutes a Mahayana view on life, based on the Lotus Sutra. Furthermore, with the power of the Dharma, sufferings in daily life can be transformed into enlightenment. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with these statements, and the content you have added, is that information in an encyclopedia must be verifiable. Otherwise it is just POV and your own interpretation. If you say "The Lotus Sutra views the Four Nobles Truths as...", then that is problematic. Readers often have various interpretations, so statements regarding views on doctrine should be qualified, especially if they may be controversial. Tengu800 (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. There is a difference between an "interpretation of a statement" and the original "statement itself". I did not write the Lotus Sutra. The quoted statements of the Lotus Sutra are in their original form as delivered to us through generations. The Sutra is clear about the superiority of the Dharma (Wonderful Law of Lotus) to all other teachings of the past, mentioning in particular the Four Noble Truths by name. The Sutra introduces the concept of Joy of the Dharma, as opposed to "all is Suffering". Similarly : the quoted statement of Nichiren, who is followed by millions of believers, are not my own comments. In his teachings, he clarifies that the Four Noble Truths was a doctrine expounded for a certain group of the Buddha's followers. The other statement of Nichiren that : "regard BOTH Sufferings & Joy as facts of life" - this is not my own comment - it is an original statement from a historical document written by his hand. What you kindly mentioned that :"statements regarding views on doctrine should be qualified" - raises the question: qualified by what authority? I am qualified to comprehend as I acknowledge also your views with respect. Buddhist dialogue is an exchange of insight and search for enlightenment within, and I wish to learn from you and from others on this and on other subjects. 27.33.207.182 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawi27.33.207.182 (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, qualified and spoken by a reliable source on the matter. For example, the views of a Buddhist scholar, or a historical figure. If they are the views of a historical or sectarian figure, then the views can be associated with that figure. Otherwise Misplaced Pages just devolves into the interpretations of contributors, which cannot be verified by a third party. Buddhism by its nature is highly interpretive, and an example of this is the interpretation you have given of the Four Noble Truths being different from that of the view widely held in some other forms of Buddhism such as Theravada. Even in India there was quite a bit of disagreement about these things. This is why it is doubly important that statements about doctrinal interpretations are verifiable. It makes the quality of the encyclopedia better and strengthens the material. Views by others who also use the Lotus Sutra may be quite different, as well. For example, the Tiantai school just views the Four Noble Truths, and the Agamas in general, as skillful means and not representative of the ultimate truth. A provisional teaching, if you will. I'm not aware of their acceptance of any transcendent quality to the truths themselves. This school is also based on the Lotus Sutra, and the Nichiren school may even be viewed as a derivative of this school. From this example as well, we can see that views cannot be ascribed to a text itself. That would qualify it as original research, which is discouraged, and can be flagged or removed by others. Tengu800 (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

What you kindly mentioned, Tengu, strongly supports enriching this Misplaced Pages article about the Four Noble Truths with a variety of sources, and not only the one and only Theravada interpretations.

You rightly brought "Other Teachings on the Doctrine" (which are in fact still missing in the Article) - such as Tendai school of Buddhism teachings about the subject (actually the article still ignores all Lotus Sutra schools of Buddhism teachings on the subject).

To research and include the whole spectrum of sources is important not only because it is an essential Misplaced Pages requirement for articles to be impartial - but because Buddhist doctrines are shared among all schools and are not a private property of one school only. It would be lacking neutrality to disregard the statement found in the Lotus Sutra and attributed to Shakyamuni Buddha – as all other sutras you quote. You cannot ask for more reliable statements as the ones attributed to the Buddha. As for your requirement of a "qulaified scholar": it would be a bias to refuse to include statements on the subject by such remarkable scholar of Buddhism such as Nichiren (whose huge volume of published works and valid-today teachings are recognised world wide by millions of practitioners).

Tengu, may I kindly stress this point and repeat that Wiki rules about research require including diverse sources on the subject. This was missing in the Article, which focused only on the Theravada sources and interpretations, and hence its research was limited and incomplete. Please consider what other participants in this Discussion mentioned earlier about missing the Mahayana teachings about this doctrine. You kindly brought an important point, that Tendai Buddhism teaches that the Four Noble Truths are preparatory in nature and not ultimate. This an essential matter but which is still missing from the text of the Article, and as you have brought it to this Discussion, please also include it in the Article.

Apparently you are not convinced that the Lotus Sutra's part should be removed, but you have implied that the Lotus Sutra's teachings about the subject may be "removed by others". I am decided to follow this eventuality up within Misplaced Pages on whether monopoly on information is accepted. I can also start eventualy a separate Article on "The Four Noble Truths in the Lotus Sutra". Respectfully:202.0.106.130 (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawi202.0.106.130 (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The matter has nothing to do with rejecting the Lotus Sutra, but rather about Misplaced Pages contributors interpreting doctrines. Your additions also include terms such as "Wonderful Law" which reflect a writing style inappropriate for an encyclopedia article, which must be written in a careful and neutral style.

Misplaced Pages:No original research

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability

Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view

Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources

Tengu800 (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Tengu, I think you misunderstand Misplaced Pages rules; /1/ The "No Original Research" does not mean you cannot quote from an original source, such as the text of the Bible, Old Testament, Lotus Sutra or Dharmacakra Pravartana Sutra. /2/ The text you encouraged to be deleted is completely verifiable in 2 forms: one as an official website of a Buddhist school (Nichiren Shu) and the other form is a published book by a world known translator of the Sutra. /3/ You are not adhering to the rule of being neutral by deleting or encouraging to delete an impartial text attributed to the Buddha. All Sutras, whether Theravada and Mahayana are just attributed to the Buddha. One cannot quote from one Sutra and refuse quotes from another Buddhist Sutra.The article WITHOUT the Lotus Sutra teaching on the subject is NOT NEUTRAL but biased, deliberately avoiding its recorded teachings on the subject /5/ Misplaced Pages requires the Article to include "Other Teachings and Other Sources about the same subject" supported by identifiable and reliable sources and my sources were: The words of the Buddha in the Lotus Sutra and the statments of Nichiren in his documented letters.

As for the word " wonderful Law " well,Tengu, it is not my invention. The word "wonderful Law" was not introduced by myself but by the text attributed to the Buddha. The word "wonderful" was an exact quote from the world-wide acknowledged translation of the Lotus Sutra, not my personal opinion or view. It is like the Bible- for example -saying "the Great" god or "splendid heaven'. These are poetic words from the original text and thus they cannot be judged as anti Misplaced Pages. (I will pursue this further with a question to Misplaced Pages).

For your knowledge: The original word (character) of the"Law of Lotus" :is "MYO" which has 2 meanings: "Mystic" and also "Wonderful". The translator used the word "Wonderful".

I am respectfully trying to resolve these issues with consensus, and asking you to kindly consider that deleting the Lotus Sutra's teaching about the subject is exactly like deleting quotes from Theravada Sutra or the Bible etc...and is considered as an act of vandalism and disrespect to a historical document revered by millions of people. For this reason I will return the deleted part. SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC) .....................................

About the section entitled "The Four Noble Truths and the Lotus Sutra", I believe it would be more informative if we would add something like: "In Mahayana Buddhism the Four Noble Truths do not have the same importance as in the Theravada school". But I am not knowledgeable enough to do this, with an appropriate reference. --Robert Daoust (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

.............................. Thank you Robert for the suggestion. I think the generalisation of all Mahayana as having the same view on the Four Noble Truths as the Lotus based schools is not consistent with the reality of the situation. Zen, for example is a Mahayana school, but they advocate rather exactly the same teaching as the Theravada here about this subject. The same with the Tibetan Buddhism, a Mahayana branch - but has similar acceptance of the Four Noble Truths as the essential teaching of Buddhism. The Amida school does not seem to focus at all on the subject. In reality it seems that only the Lotus Sutra stated its view that the Four Noble Truths as mere preparatory doctrine, being the first but not the final teaching of the Buddha, and that the "Law of the Lotus" (of transformation into Buddhahood in one's present form) - is the ultimate truth. So it seems appropriate to keep the view of each school or branch stated by internet participants-followers of the Buddha within that branch of Mahayana, rather than generalising. Respectfully. 27.33.207.113 (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawi27.33.207.113 (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC) ...................................

Then, it would be nice to have some sentences describing how various Buddhist schools consider the Four Noble Truths. --Robert Daoust (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

................................. Agree, Robert. But quotes and references are needed. I know for example that generally speaking Zen lectures on the 4 N Truths but Amida Buddhism does not see that the 4 N Truths is central to their practice. The best thing is to have a practitioner who would supply reliable references and documented statements. Maybe in time this will happen. Freedom of expression is welcome - of course within the acknowledged rules of the Misplaced Pages.

What is confusing for many people about the whole subject is the distinction between the Four Basic Sufferings (of Birth, Sickness, Old Age and Death) and the sufferings originating from Attachment to Desires and Craving. The 4 basic sufferings every single one experiences are not caused by his/her craving or attachment to anything, These basic sufferings are just part of life (as it is). Who craves or desires for Sickness? Old Age? or Death? No one. So these 4 basic Sufferings are not what the Noble truths are speaking about, being Attachment (to Desires and false beliefs or Illusions).

In the Definition of the 4 N Truths of this Article there is no clarity to distinguish between the concepts of Sufferings arising from natural existence (4 basic) and those caused by one's responsibility of being enslaved to Desires and Illusions- (and those should be of course cut out). But I did not want to edit that as I don't want to go into details, which may create disharmony, however, I think that the proper forum for exchnage of opinion on this subject is here in this Discussion. 27.33.205.168 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawi27.33.205.168 (talk) 12:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Nichiren’s Buddhism and the teaching of the Eightfold Path

The fourth of the Four Noble Truths teaches that the path to emancipation is found in the Eightfold Path to Nirvana. (Briefly: The Eightfold Path is a “code of conduct” of the following aspects: maintaining right views, right thinking, speech, action, tendency, mindfulness and meditation).

Aparently, these particular aspects of practitioner's conduct - which are mentioned in the Eightfold Path - are manifestations of one’s Buddha nature, and expressions of one's enlightened behaviour in reality. The totality of the Eightfold Path comprises the “Effect” of revealing one’s Buddha nature in reality. Through revealing one’s Buddha nature in what Nichiren describes as the "Direct Path to Enlightenment” would ensure manifestation of all valuable characteristics of the Eightfold Path.

http://www.sgilibrary.org/view.php?page=3&m=3&q=direct%20path%20to%20enlightenment

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanZabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Correction to the Article needed

I am not a Theravada Buddhist but I have respect to all and here : to the person(s) who wrote the Article on the Four Noble Truths. But the mentioned definition of the doctrine is based on one sutra which translator(s) deliberately avoided mentioning the CAUSE of suffering (which is : Attachment to Desires, or Craving):http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/fourtruths.html.

This weakens the Buddha's teaching and makes him unable to explain why sufferings arise. What the Article mentions is that the cause of suffering is the accumulation of sufferings - which does not give any meaningful information, because it implies that the cause of suffering is suffering!!!

Why not record all views where the Cause of Suffering is mentioned as Attachment to Desires? Mentioning all various views on the subject is a healthy sign and is a cause for broadmindedness and acknowledgement of knowledge into deeper sources.

I did not want to correct the Article by myself. Of course, I can bring other Theravada explanations which include the word "desire' or "attachment to desires", but I respectfully leave this to the person who included only one (and ambiguous definition of the Four Noble Truths), to mention that the Cause of Suffering is Attachment to Desires (rather than only one view that sufferings are caused by accumulation of sufferings!). 27.33.207.113 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Elimination or Transformation?

The Buddha's aim was to help people aspire to and attain enlightenment. For the sake of ordinary people - who were immersed in daily life of desires and lack of hope for changing their destiny - he taught them first to aspire to a pure land after this suffering-filled life, giving them hope. Unlike ordinary people who could not leave their dailylife activities, but who were ready to denounce the secular life, monks and nuns who followed and listened to the Buddha (Voice-Heares, Saravaka disciples), he taught them the Four Noble Truths: that first they must be free from being controlled by their desires, and cut their attachment. Attachment to desires is the cause of sufferings, because it means that one is controlled by inner illusions and by the environment. "Elimination of Desires" is not possible, bcause the Buddha followers must had the desire to listen and follow the Buddha, and the desire for emancipation.

Negative desires, such as Greed, Jealousy, Arrogance, Foolishness....which control one's mind become like metallic chains imprisoning the true nature of the person and creating sufferings for self and others. The Buddha taught that the Elimination of this foolish Attachment to this chains of desires - this is possible. And He prepared his followers to lift their aspirations in a noble way of conduct (The Eightfold Path) to be free from being controlled by inner or external negative influences.

When they became ready to receive the final Dharma which can make them Buddhas, in the Lotus Sutra, the Buddha taught (not the elimination of desires themselves but) the Transformation of desires: Like the Lotus in the pond, which Transforms dirt and mud (fundamental darkness, illusions & sufferings) into beauty, meaning and benefit to people (Enlightenment). The Law of the Lotus is that of Transformation rather than Elimination.

SafwanZabalawi27.33.207.113 (talk) 02:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Breaking the Cycle of Birth and Death

The "definition" given in the Article for the Four Noble Truths clearly inicates (in the third N. Truth) the need to have motivation or to use one's desire or urge for eliminating craving for "renewed existence". All people accept that there is no meaning to get reborn again and again in the same circumstances of suffering and sufferings and sufferings all over since birth till death.

The expression "renewed existence" here means "renewed existence in the realm of sufferings" - because to exclusivelly define "existence" as "sufferings" is a biased thinking and a focus on the negative side of life. This biased interpretation (of Life=Sufferings) runs against Buddhist doctrine of non-duality. Non-duality demands recognition of the "negation of Sufferings" as well, and not mentioning just one side of the coin.

In Mahayana Buddhism, the aspiration of a Buddha's follower is to reach Enlightenment (and not to esacpe rebirth, as the Article's definition of the 4 N.Truths implies ).

First, it is lack of compassion to escape rebirth or exterminate one's life (or stop the possibility to get reborn - IF that is at all possible) leaving the world but having full knowledge that other people are suffering there, and in great need of help.

The "Save yourself" principle is understood in Mahayana as "Save yourself through saving others". This introduces the Bodhisattva spirit of aspiration to Buddhahood and to helping others transform their sufferings and lead a meaningful life.

Mahayana Buddhism introduces the concept of the "Ten Worlds of existence", or "the whole spectrum of life" of individual. As we observe in reality: there are states of sufferings, there are states of life which are neither sufferings nor joy (such as tranquility, neutrality...) and their are states of life full of joy in helping others and aspiring to Enlightenment. The Four Noble Truths of Theravada relate to one part only - which is the field of attachement to sufferings. Mahayana accepts this as one part of existence in which people are imprisoned in their sufferings - but opens the way for the higher states of Life being: Learning the Dharma, Reaching Insight, Bodhisattva compassion and becoming a Buddha.

Once one reached these higher levels of existence (in which sufferings can be transformed and stop being an obstacle) then one creates the Karma of meeting the Buddha's teachings (Dharma) in every rebirth. Every rebirth will be associated with good circumstances, where he/she would dedicate one's life to helping others experiencing satsifaction in carrying out the Buddha's wish to save people. To interpret the Buddha's teaching as escapism from exitence and from helping people who are desparte for the Buddha's teachings life time after life time, this is an interpretation which contradict the Buddha's compassionate desire to save people (not to exterminate people).

Mahyana leades to breaking the Cycle of continual rebirth in the realms of sufferings. Accumulating good karmic causes in this life, one becomes free from being controlled by "only sufferings" states. Mahayana schools differ in how to achieve this goal and how long it takes. In case of The Lotus Sutra - this is achieved in this lifetime in one's present form. The Lotus is taken here as a symbol for the Power of Transformation of life's hardships (and for the pure renewal of one's life) in an eternal journey of enlightenment and helping others.

SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)SafwanzabalawiSafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed the article

I've changed the article, mostly the order of the (sub)sections. Various bits of information are grouped in appropriate sections, to give more coherence to the article. Three version sof the For Noble Truths are listed: the Pali, which is the classic one; an abreviated (western) one, which is probably the best known version in the west; and a text-critocal interpretation, which makes sense of 'desire leads to suffering'. Also, I changed the notes and references, to get neat appendices. I hope the article has improved this way. Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, Kudos for all of your effort, and for your cleanup of the notes and references. This article definitely needs some TLC. I've just added an overview section to help put the teaching on the FNT in context. Regarding the current state of the article, this "abbreviated Western" version of the FNT (which was already in the article before your editing work) is actually very poorly sourced. It's from a website with no name, and there is no indication who the translator is. It is, in my opinion, a misleading oversimplification of the Four Noble Truths. There are plenty of good, reliable translations by well-respected translators, so there is no need to include an over-simplified, anonymous translation. So I will plan on removing that translation and replacing it with a more traditional translation in the next few days. (This is no reflection on your editing, since as I mentioned, that translation was already there.) Generally speaking, finding sources for Buddhist topics on the web is a hit or miss proposition. There is some very good material, but also a lot of dubious material--a lot of misunderstanding and inaccuracies. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dorje108. I totally agree it's an oversimplification. But it's also a widespread translation & simplification, so it might be useful if it is mentioned, to show what a difference various translations can make. PS: you gave two different publication-years for Walpola Rahula (1974/2007)Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added two sections: "Brief description", intended for a general audience, and "Summaries", presenting different summaries used for the four truths. p.s. I found using the citation "group" tag to be cumbersome, so I left using that tag. - Dorje108 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dorje108. I put the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta back to the beginning of the article. I admire the amount of quotes, but I also find them somewhat confusing. The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta is the best-known statement of the Four Noble Truths; it seems to me that this should be in the beginning, not the opninions of commentators on the Four Noble Truths. The Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta provides a summary introduction; after that, elaborations may follow (but I do feel a little bit unconfortable changing the order of your changes, after all the work you undoubtedly put into it...) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, Thanks for clarifying your edits. I am sure that your edits are made in good faith. Here are some points for you to consider, which I also offer in good faith:

Firstly, the Misplaced Pages (WP) guidelines recommend using secondary sources. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources; I am copying this section here as well:

Main page: Misplaced Pages:No original research § Primary, secondary and tertiary sources

Misplaced Pages articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.

Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Although Misplaced Pages articles are tertiary sources, Misplaced Pages employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Misplaced Pages forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Misplaced Pages articles (or Misplaced Pages mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose.

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors.

I think the commentaries that I have quoted from are very good sources. They are from published authors, scholars and translators who are experts in their field.
I think there are a lot of misunderstandings about the Four Noble Truths and Buddhism in general. That's why it's important to rely on these secondary sources, as per Misplaced Pages guidelines.
As noted in my citations, the Four Noble Truths (FNT) are a topic that was taught repeatedly by the Buddha; he gave many clarifications on this topic. That's why it's preferable to rely on these secondary sources (as per WP guidelines)--because many of these sources (especially the Pali translators) will have studied all of these teachings on this topic, as well as having the studied the topic in detail with their teachers.
When you say "he Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta is the best-known statement of the Four Noble Truths", isn't that just your opinion? "Best-known" to who? :)
When you say, "not the opninions of commentators on the Four Noble Truths", I think your contradicting the WP guidelines. I actually was careful to only choose sources that are well-respected in their field, and I made sure to choose sources from the two main traditions of Buddhism: Theravada and Mahayana. I think the article could benefit from a broader range of sources (particularly from a scholar like Robert Gethin), but I've used what I have available at the moment.
I understand the urge to want to go to the primary source (i.e. the sutras), but the problem is that it is easy to misunderstand or misinterpret the primary sources without the proper context. Ten different people might have ten different opinions on the same primary source, and this just makes it difficult to reach a consensus on anything. Hence, the WP guidelines to rely on secondary source.
Specifically regarding this topic on the Four Noble Truths, it seems to be a common misconception that the first teaching of the Buddha is the only significant teaching on this topic. That was actually my concept before I did the research for this article. But the Buddha actually taught the topic many times, as the sources indicate. Hence the importance of the commentaries, which take into account all of the clarifications that the Buddha gave on this topic over many years.

Please consider these points and let me know if they change your point of view. My understanding of the WP guidelines was part of my rational for presenting the material in the order that I did. (I'm not saying my presentation was perfect, but I think the precedence given to the secondary sources is consistent with WP guidelines.) I appreciate your explanation of your edits and I hope my points are helpful. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 18:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Having said all of the above, on reflection, I think it is OK to put the quote from the first teaching at the beginning of the article, but it needs to be put in context. All for now. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

p.p.s. Apologies for sounding overly critical. I think the collaboration will improve the article in the long run. Unfortunately, I'll only have a limited amount of time to put into this in the coming days. Best, Dorje108 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

p.p.p.s. Just another note: Upon further reflection, I think the section you titled "Four Noble Truths" actually flows nicely, and the placement is fine. I would suggest moving the section "Explanation..." just under this. But I need to take a break for a while, so I'll leave this to your discretion. I think we are on the right track overall. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I love it when someone takes the Discussion Page seriously! You're not overly critical. I like it when there's room for discussion and exchange of information. And indeed, my alterations are also made in good faith. I was hesitating to make changes, and I have considered to first just propose those changes, but then I thought that just showing them would be clearer.

I see your point on the "secundary sources", though I also think it's not just my opinion on the 'primacy' of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta. It's the source that I've seen most used when the Four Noble Truths are explained. It's also older than the Mahaparinibbana Sutta or the secondary sources, of course. But you're right that there are many statements of the FNB.
My problem with quoting so many secondary sources, is that it is just so much. Of course it's also the way I read a text, looking for a quick overview, but to me it's like "Okay, where's the essence? What are those FNB?" Imagine a moderate 17 year old High School student, who finds out there's more to Buddhism than just this saintly Buddha and meditation. What does he or she read when finding this page? It seems to me that a short list should be the start, for this reason.
My second point (and now I'm going to contradict he first point, as you'll probably notice), is that translation and interpretation is so important when the FNB are presented. The difference between "cessation of suffering" or "containment of unease" is huge. The first translation/interpretation is quite common, but also misleading - if the second one is 'right' or 'better'. I prefer the second one, but that's my preference. But for this reason, I think it's very important to show right away that it's possible to read various meanings and interpretations into the Pali words, so readers can make up their own minds. Where-after those various interpretations are offered indeed.
Mixing these two points: what is primary, and what is secondary, regarding the FNB? They are given in the (Pali) canon; all translations, explanations and commentaries are dependent on this source. Do the FNB truths exist as a "thing" separate from the text? It seems to me that we can't avoid first mentioning the original, which are the four Pali-terms, and then the translations & interpretations. In this regard, best would be to give the Pali-text (but this would definately not attract our 17-year old High School student, would it?) Even the translation of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta isn't "the real stuff", but a translation and therefore an interpretation.
I'll give it a try, putting "Explanation" right under the pali terms + meanings.
I'll also try to find the Pali Text, see if it says "nirodha" or "dukkha nirodha" etc.
I've got one other suggestion: instead of "X says", how about a very short introduction for each quote, for example "Bikkhu Bodhi explains this 'medical model' as follows:". It gives the reader a quick overview of what's following in the quote.

Friendly regards, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the order again, but also put "Centrality" after the FNB-terms, so that those form the 'kick-start' of the article. I removed the last sub-section, "FNB in Buddhism". This subsection seemed like some kind of appendix now, out of line with the rest. The Lotus I moved to the other two sutras. And some minor changes, as you'll notice. But i'm not sure yet; to my opinion the textual accounts should follow after the the intriduction of the FNB. But now it's your turn again. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

Okay, it's kind of trying out what works best. See this version where only the pali terms + possible translations are being mentioned first, and the texts later. There is a 'traditional argument' to mention the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta first: it's regarded as the Buddha's first sermon. Now it's really your turn again! Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Pali terms

Can't help rereading and thinking it over again, so I moved the Pali terms to the Explanation, since this is an explanantion too. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking better and better, IMO. Sunray (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Joshua Jonathan (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Joshua, I agree--it's looking good! I encourage you to keep editing as you see fit while you are focused on this. Don't feel the need to explain your edits on my behalf. I see where you are going with this and it looks good to me. I will be able to focus on this on the weekend, and I'll either try to build on your edits or offer constructive feedback. A couple of more points:

I particularly agree with your point of keeping in mind a "17 year old high school student". I think that is the best approach.
I think your idea of a short explanation for each quote is exactly the way to go. I think what I have provided is something like a skeleton, and there is a lot of fleshing out to do.
Thanks Sunray for your input. :)

Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I almost forgot--the Mahayana sutras actually present the first teaching slightly differently. But this point can be presented in the section now called "Textual accounts". There is a very nice translation by Thich Naht Hahn of the Mahayana version. I'll try and get this in over the weekend, it just needs to be presented clearly. The meaning is the same (as the Pali text), but the presentation is slightly different. Dorje108 (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Regarding this point: "Do the FNB truths exist as a "thing" separate from the text? It seems to me that we can't avoid first mentioning the original, which are the four Pali-terms, and then the translations & interpretations." - I think the key is to consider the audience. For a WP audience, I think it's better not to introduce too much Pali in the beginning. All for now. - Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 04:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent tags

Tengu800, can you kindly provide some specific reasons for the following two tags so that we can address them:

Fans point of view
Previously unpublished synthesis of published material.

Regarding the number of quotes, I think we should first work on fleshing out the article, and then see what it looks like. In any case, I'll try and address that issue separately. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree! I'm curious too; what didn't we notice? Groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"Fan's point of view" refers to statements such as "Buddha said this", that the Buddha was enlightened (and this event was "recorded" in the suttas), or that the Mahaparinibbana Sutta existed around his lifetime. These do not really reflect a historical view of the matter, nor the views of modern scholarship. For example, there is no proof from the Buddha's own era that the Buddha even existed, much less that he said certain words in a particular sutta. Much of the article is in the form "_____ states" and then a long quote, which goes against the Misplaced Pages MOS for quotes (for multiple reasons). There is also improper use of references, with various views strung together without any context, such as the following: 'It has been pictured as the "king of sutras" that "included the essence of all the other teachings", and "downgraded the early discourses as mere fodder for the unintelligent disciples who surrounded the Buddha".' Tengu800 01:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tengu800, thanks for the clarification. I'll try and address these points. A few notes:

The intention was to say that the first teaching was "recorded", not so much the Buddha's enlightenment. But I see your point and I will clarify.
Regarding the section on the Lotus Sutra, I think that information is misplaced in this article, anyway; I think it should be moved to the article on the Lotus Sutra.

Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I've made some minor changes. I'll make more changes over the weekend.Dorje108 (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tengu800, thanks for your clarifications. Here are two notes/questions from me:

I see, on the Lotus Sutra (I put in the "fodder"-quote). But let's not take the whole section out too soon. There is a tendency in Mahayana-Buddhism to downgrade the oldest teachings, while at the same time Mahayana is indebted to it, as far as I can tell from what I know about Zen. Is it relevant to mention this change in opinions/beliefs? Or should the article be confined to the FNB as stated in the oldest sutra's? For the comprehensibility of the article, this might be better.
And, Tengu800, how about the summing up of different possible translations of the Pali-terms? Is this useful, to your opinion? Or is this getting close to Original Research? I think it is (but I'm the one who expanded this part), but I also think it's useful to show that different translations are possible. And it was Brazier who gave me this insight, so it is backed up.

Groet, Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Quotes

I tried to shorten some quotes; see revision. For matter of politeness, I undid this revision right away. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Centrality of the FNB

I'm wondering: are the FNB "central" to Buddhism? Or is the observation that we are driven by sankhara's central to Buddhism, and are the FNB one formulation of this observation? If we say that they are central, and give quotes to substantiate this statement, who's statement is it? 'Buddhisms'? Or the various teachers' who are being quoted? I've noticed that the oldest sutra's contain a lot of lists. Often a term in one list refers to another list. And this other list may contain a term which refers back to the first list. Which gives me the impression that those texts and lists are not exactly what we westerners know as 'objective science', but teaching devices, heuristical tools. Therefore, maybe, just maybe, presenting the FNB as they are plainly presented in the sutra's is also interpretation. But, that's my impression; I haven't got any source to substantiate this impression. Actually, this is still about the FNB as a "thing", or as a 'specific construction'. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 07:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Harvey (1990), p. 92.

Categories: