Talk:Four Noble Truths

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)

Agree with Ms Sarah Welch (talk) that the lead is too complicated for the a common Wikipedia reader. It does not follow the WP:LEAD Firstparagraph and WP:READABILITY. Wikipedia Lead is for introducing & summarizing the topic in an understandable and readable manner. The technical accuracy of translation can be explanied in the next paragraph. RogerYg (talk) 04:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ms Sarah Welch (talk) , --Spasemunki (talk) and other editors. Please work on a READABLE lede for the article.

Sadly our learned and respected friend, Joshua Jonathan seems to have taken OWNERSHIP of the article which is not per WP:OWN, and unfortunately his version is almost unreadable and not per WP:READABILITY. Hopefully he will work with us to improve the readability of the article for millions of Wiki readers. RogerYg (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Like this diff. Remember: "The use of an expedient means is not, however, a deceiving act like offering an empty fist to make a child stop crying, pretending that there is something the child wants in the hand." Takashi James Kodera, Dogen's Formative Years. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry about slightly harsh language, and I am not accusing you of WP:OWN but raising a concern that it seems like so. I will try to use milder language. Again, I fully respect your knowledge and contribution to the article, and hope to work along. RogerYg (talk) 07:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, I am again seeing that you are reverting and deleting entire contributions from other editors without discussing on TALK page. RogerYg (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2024 (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: I see now that I have altered quotes. Apologies. But 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 kind of dukkha is called 'unsatisfactory.'
5. The dukkha of the First Noble Truth is dependent on tanha. When tanha ceases, suffering ceases. This kind of dukkha 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 I pointed out, the three references given here all say 'suffering.' In a discussion like this, dukkha 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 the word, because it is a technical term. 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)

@Sukusala: thank you for thoughtfull reply; I'll give a more extensive reply later. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:

• Ajahn Sumedho's work on this is very interesting. His translation on Vibhavatanha is helpful: "wanting to get rid of"

Sukusala (talk) 10:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Quick reply, more later:

• Translation of dukkha: "suffering" was a common translation, but is regarded as problematic by many authors.

• Analayo (2013), Satipaṭṭhāna: The Direct Path to Realization: "Dukkha is often translated as “suffering”. Suffering, however, represents only one aspect of dukkha, a term whose range of implications is difficult to capture with a single English word. 4 Dukkha can be derived from the Sanskrit kha, one meaning of which is “the axle-hole of a wheel”, and the antithetic prefix duå (= dus), which stands for “difficulty” or “badness”. 5 The complete term then evokes the image of an axle not fitting properly into its hole. According to this image, dukkha suggests “disharmony” or “friction”. Alternatively dukkha can be related to the Sanskrit stha, “standing” or “abiding”, combined with the same antithetic prefix duå. 6 Dukkha in the sense of “standing badly” then conveys nuances of “uneasiness” or of being “uncomfortable”. 7 In order to catch the various nuances of “dukkha”, the most convenient translation is “unsatisfactoriness”, though it might be best to leave the term untranslated.""
• Gombrich, How Buddhism Began: "The first Noble Truth is the single word dukkha, and it is explicated to mean that everything in our experience of life is ultimately unsatisfactory";
• Dalai Lama, Thubten Chodron, Approaching the Buddhist Path, p.279 note 2: "Duhkha (P. dukkha) is often translated as "suffering," but this translation is misleading. Its meaning is more nuanced and refers to all unsatisfactory states and experiences, many of which are not explicitly painfull. While the Buddha says that life under the influence of afflictions and polluted karma is unsatisfactory, he does not say that life is suffering."
• Roderick Bucknell, Martin Stuart-Fox, The Twilight Language, p.161: "Thus dukkha at the most subtle level appears to refer to a normally unperceived unsatisfactory quality";
• Peter Harvey, Dukkha, Non-Self, and the Teaching of the Four Noble Truhts, in Steven M. Emmanuel, A Companion to Buddhist Philosophy, p.30: ""suffering" is an appropriate translation only in a general, inexact sense [...] In the passage on the first True Reality, dukkha in "birth is dukkha" is an adjective [...] The best translation here is by the English adjective "painful," which can apply to a range of things."
• Gombrich, What the Buddha Thought, p.10: "there has been a lot of argument over how to translate the word dukkha; and again, the choice of translation must depend heavily on the context. But what is being expressed is that life as we normally experience it is unsatisfactory."

• The article says "an innate characteristic of existence in the realm of samsara";
• Regarding dukkha means 'the type of dukkha that arises when there is tanha.' [...] Sometimes, for example, dukkha is used for bodily pain. - yes, good point; "unsatisfactoriness" applies to some forms of 'the type of dukkha that arises when there is tanha', though maybe not all; in the case of old age, sickness and death, "aversion" may be the best translation/interpretation. In the case of the five aggregates, "unsatisfactoriness" may be better, while in the case of gain and loss, maybe "remorse" may be best. Good point to think about further; it's really relevant. I never really figured out the birth-old age-sickness-death sequence, since this is literal suffering; but the aversion to, and lamentation of, these processes is indeeddukkha. Sanskrit/Pali is different form modern English; we're accustomed to precise meanings, but the suttas seem to 'work' in a different way, much more contextual, and using 'implicit' knowledge and understanding. Again, this is a good pit to discuss further.
• Irrelevant points: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article; Anderson (and others) give relevant info on the development of the dominant position of the 4NT in the Theravada tradition;
• I'll have a look at Ajahn Sumedho; thanks.

Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I've added "suffering" to the translation, as a compromise, and expanded the note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Translation of Tanha as "Desire"

I have read over and over that "desire is an inaccurate translation of tanha- that it is not desire but a specific KIND of desire: craving, thirst, attachment, "self-centered" or "selfish" desire.

This page has a few references to primary Buddhist sources which say there is a difference. [[1]].

This distinction is talked about in the Tanha article.

I propose we take out the word "desire" out of the lead and let this nuance be dealt with in the Tanha article or in the 2nd Noble Truth article. Sethie (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

It's one of several possible translations; because of the ambiguity of the word, and the problem of 'translation = interpretation', I think it's best to keep, to show this ambiguity. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Undue detail of Arya translation in the lede

WP:UNDUE weight given to a single source Encyclopaedia Britannica, as if it is a gospel truth, or the only translation.

Quote: "Although the term Four Noble Truths is well known in English, it is a misleading translation of the Pali term Chattari-ariya-saccani (Sanskrit: Chatvari-arya-satyani), because noble (Pali: ariya; Sanskrit: arya) refers not to the truths themselves but to those who recognize and understand them. A more accurate rendering, therefore, might be "four truths for the [spiritually] noble" [...]";
[b] Arhat (Buddhism), Encyclopædia Britannica</ref>

References

We need to follow the widely used sources, and at least not get into such debataable specificieties of translation in the leded. This can be discussed in the body. RogerYg (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 05:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not just the EB; the full sentence has three sources, and is as follows:

In Buddhism, the Four Noble Truths (Sanskrit: चत्वार्यार्यसत्यानि, romanized: catvaryāryasatyāni; Pali: cattāri ariyasaccāni; "The Four Arya Satya") are "the truths of the Noble Ones", the truths or realities for the "spiritually worthy ones".

References

Web-reference

The EB-quote gives an explanation. The full term is "arya satya," whether you like it or not. See Four Noble Truths#Truths for the noble ones for a further explanation. Your statement "According to some sources [...] can be translated as" diff is misleading, and may betray a lack of knowledge of the topic. The sentence "the truths of the Noble Ones", the truths or realities for the "spiritually worthy ones" is relevant because the texts do not suggest that these truths are comprehended by everyone; they are comprehended by the Arahats, the enlightened ones. With other words: they may seem simple, but they are not - unless you understand that they refer to transience, and not to suffering in general. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate your knowledge and concern for detail. And I agree with your points. But, my concern is for READABILITY aspect of the lede, which is currently very difficult to read. Probably my edit was a bit hurried, and I am okay with revert. I just want to improve the Readability of the lede per WP:READABILITY. RogerYg (talk) 06:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@RogerYg: you may have a point; I'll ponder over it, and see if I can improve it. Something along the lines of 'reality as perceived by ..." Problem is, of course: how do you define the truths? What are they? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear friend Joshua Jonathan,

I fully respect your knowledge as an Expert in this area. But, average Wiki readers are not Experts, and Wikipedia is not an academic journal.

Please see how Readable and Understandable the BBC lead is as below. I think , we need try to have something similar with few some more non-academic sources:

The Four Noble Truths contain the essence of the Buddha's teachings. It was these four principles that the Buddha came to understand during his meditation under the bodhi tree.

The truth of suffering (Dukkha)

The truth of the origin of suffering (Samudāya)

The truth of the cessation of suffering (Nirodha)

The truth of the path to the cessation of suffering (Magga)

The Buddha is often compared to a physician. In the first two Noble Truths he diagnosed the problem (suffering) and identified its cause. The third Noble Truth is the realisation that there is a cure.

The fourth Noble Truth, in which the Buddha set out the Eightfold Path, is the prescription, the way to achieve a release from suffering.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/buddhism/beliefs/fournobletruths_1.shtml RogerYg (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Nice, but misleading. "Suffering" is too simple as translation, as explained at many Wikipedia-pages. When we follow the Buddhist path, we won't suffer of cancer, war, etc. anymore? Idem for "origin"; samudaya has several meanings, and means more something like "arising together with." That's why we summarize scholarly sources, not the BBC. We don't lower the standards to a level where we give something that readers may think to be understandable, yet is not what the subject is about. What they understand here is not what the four noble truths intend to convey or summarize. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Please dont try to take Ownership of this article, as it is against WP:OWN. Also, BBC is a WP:Reliable source. There is an important principle of WP:READABILITY and again Wiki is not an academic journal, and Wikipedia reports from secondary sources such as the BBC. Please let other editors improve the article's readability. You or me are not the owners of this article. RogerYg (talk) 06:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You're quick with throwing around accusations... Not the best way to have a fruitfull discussion. As you wrote yourself: We need to follow the widely used sources. The BBC is nothing compared to Wynne, Williams, Norman, etc., which are specialized scholars. Wikipedia sumarizes what those scholars say, not what the BBC says when we have good scholarly sources. And, notice the discrepancy with what you wrote about the EB? Which source do you think is preferable, the EB or the BBC?
The BBC-text is not just a presentation of the four truths - dukkha, samudaya, nirodha, magga - it is also a translation and interpretation. And that's where the BBC fails; they don't give a sufficient explanation. That's where we rely on scholars like K. R. Norman, Peter Harvey and Paul Williams, and not on anonymous BBC-editors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I want to have a fruitful discussion. And, I was trying to remind that neither You are Me are the Owners of this article. BBC was just an example of Readable language. I agree that we should use Scholarly sources, but the language should be more readable per WP:Readability. RogerYg (talk) 06:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Like this diff. Remember: "The use of an expedient means is not, however, a deceiving act like offering an empty fist to make a child stop crying, pretending that there is something the child wants in the hand." Takashi James Kodera, Dogen's Formative Years. Following the Buddhist path won't immunize you from suffering like cancer (see Ramana Maharshi#Final years (1940–1950); not a Buddhist, but also a saint; he died of cancer), death (see [https://meltingpotdharma.com/2015/09/28/marpas-grief/ Marpa's grief), etc., but that's the illusion we tarnsmit (evoke, awake?) when we don't give an adequate explanation of the four truths. Maybe people can think that they understand when we give a simple "explanation," but what do they inderstand then? The four truths, or their own understanding? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:01, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to get in argument my learned friend. Sorry about any harsh language. RogerYg (talk) 07:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Instead of reverting and deleting my contributions continuously, it may be helpful to discuss, edit and improve them. RogerYg (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I was about to answer, but you were quicker. This addition is not an adequate summary:

These are among the core teachings of the Buddha explicating that attachment or clinging is the cause of dukkha (often translated as "suffering" or "unease"), but that there is a path of development which leads to awakening and full liberation from dukkha.

References

• core teachings: see Karen Anderson, as noted before;
• cause: one of several translations of samudaya, as noted before;
• you omitted nirodha;
• "awakening" is a loaded term, the ultimate carrot on a stick. And maybe "awakening" is the first step on the path. Even more complicated: accoridng to Buddhist tradition, when the Buddh was awakened, he comprehended the four truths. So, he was liberated when he discovered the path to liberation - but he himself did not follow this path, since comprehending this was enough? You see, it's complicated...

You're now repeating, in an inadequate way, info that is already in the lead, even twice (paragraph three gives a further explanation). The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; you're just dropping-by and editing the lead, without knowledge of the article. That's not how it works. By the way: it looks like you copied this from Buddhism; when copying within Wikipedia, you have to attribute this in your edit-summary. Note that the line is fine for the lead for the Buddhism-article, though "cause" is still not exactly right, but that a specialized article like this gives room to go into the details. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I have removed/rephrased some of the Sanskrit words diff; I hope that helps. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)