Talk:Four Noble Truths

Arbitrary header #1

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>^[1]

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".^{[1][web 1][2]}

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)

Arbitrary header #2

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"^{[note 1]}), but that there is a path of development which leads to awakening and full liberation from dukkha.^[5]

• 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)

Well, the lede in first few sentences should give a concise summary. Instead, we are forcing readers into detailed bullet points on each truth, with multiple difficult translations.

I would request you to please try to use the below summary from Buddhism in th lede; and you may edit & improve the language yourself, as currently we do not seem to have any other active Wiki editor here.

"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."

Thanks for your contributions. RogerYg (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says that the first sentence should give a definition of the topic; it does. Compare EB Four Noble Truths, written by Donald S. Lopez Jr., one of the best authors on Buddhism, which you deemed WP:UNDUE.

Then should follow a summary of the body of the article; that's what the lead does. It gives indeed a bullit-list, with a short explanation, summing-up those four truths; paragraph three explains these further. Compare, again, the EB-article.

You expect a simple, or simplistic, description, of the four truths. They aren't. They are the result of a long development in the Buddhist tradition (as explained in the article), serving two functions (as explained in the article), open to multiple translations and interpretations (as explained in the article), et cetera. What you expect is the most simplistic, and therefor inaccurate, translation, something you already know, not something you have to think about. Again, the four truths are not simple; to 'understand' them for what they are, a summary of the matrix of interconnected Buddhist teachings, you have to be familiair with this matrix. We can't give the whole matrix, but at least we can try to give an accurate overview, with links to other articles for further exploration. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:44, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Dear friend, I respect your very noble intentions of enlightening the readers to the summary of the matrix of interconnected Buddhist teachings. But, neither you or me own Wikipedia, and we both need to follow Wiikipedia guidelines. Our personal noble intentions cannot override WP policies on WP:First sentence and WP:First paragraph.

We need to update the lead to follow several WP:LEAD guidelines, especially the WP:Firstsentence guidelines, more specifically,

• It should be in plain English.
• It should not be cluttered MOS:LEADCLUTTER
• Avoid cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthetical containing items like alternative spellings and pronunciations: these can make the sentence difficult to read. This information should be placed elsewhere.
• The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where.
• MOS:FIRST
• MOS:LEADSENTENCE
• MOS:LEADCLUTTER

RogerYg (talk) 09:49, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

So now you object to the Pali and Sanskrit terms? Do you actually want to be this page about the four truths? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:24, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I am just quoting the policies mentioned under MOS:LEADSENTENCE, which are guidelines for all Wiki editors.

I am not against using Pali and Sanskrit, but first sentence is not the place for detailed translations.

As per the guidelines, first sentence should not be a clutterred with translations that are difficult to read.

However, the current version is clutterred and difficult to read as per Ms Sarah Welch (talk), Spasemunki (talk) and myslef. Therefore, I am requesting all editors to develop a more readable version that is as per WP guidelines.

I have suggested a sentence from Buddhism page, that can be improved as a good first sentence for this page:

"The four noble truths are among the core teachings of the Buddha broadly 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."

I hope you can improve upon it and get a better first sentence. Thanks for the discussion. RogerYg (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I have already explained what's wrong with that addition; let me add that that info is already twice in the lead, and that it is not a core teaching in Mahayana-Buddhism. "Ttruths of the Noble One(s) is a concise definition, followed by an two explanations. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:57, 22 September 2024 (UTC)