Talk:Four Noble Truths

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.

--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), 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)


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

WP:UGC
Copied from User talk:Dharmalion76

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


 * 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

rgerading the vents so far: 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)
 * 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


 * 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 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
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;
 * Three references are given, all of which support the word 'suffering'. The words in brackets are unsubstantiated.
 * Secondly, to say this First Noble Truth dukkha is innate in existence is not proven by the quotes.
 * To rectify the mistake, I added the word 'grasped': 'dukkha is innate in grasped existence.' Grasping implies tanha.
 * 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.'
 * 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."
 * 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)


 * 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. [].

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)