Talk:Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta

Chronology and hierarchy

In a little book in Norwegian which I just picked up, Buddhistisk psykologi by Kåre A. Lie (Solum Forlag, Oslo, 2007 – ISBN 978-82-560-1551-1), on page 10, the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta is relayed to have been the first act in Gautama's teaching career. It is described as teachings following a "list format", which was common practice in the pre-literary Indian society of this time period (the Buddha's teachings weren't put into print for several centuries to come). These lists were construed to assist memorizing of the information so that it could later be transmitted down in time with a minimum of loss or distortion.

The paragraph in the aformentioned book detailing this subject also states that the Four Noble Truths were presented, and, that the fourth truth in turn is sub-divided into the Noble Eightfold Path.

If this information stands undisputed I would suggest that some description of the choice of format in the context of its time period and traditions be included, and that the relationship between the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path be presented as outlined above. __meco 09:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi meco,

Thank you for your sharing in such a thoughtful and gentle manner the interesting information you've uncovered. (Thanks too for the breath-taking panoramas you've included on your user page!)

In regards to the points from Lie's book, please forgive me if I am confused or in error, but it appears to me that a couple of the points are already addressed in the existing article. For example:

• The first sentence of this article mentions that this was the Buddha's first (post-Enlightenment) discourse.
• The Noble Eightfold Path is mentioned as part of the Four Noble Truths and is fully enumerated with appropriate wikilinks and a "See also" reference to the appropriate article for more detailed analysis.

Have I misconstrued your intent regarding these particular points? Please educate me further if I have and, again, I apologize if my obtuseness is causing you to rehash something you have already stated.

Regarding the statement that this discourse has a "list format" and such was done to facilitate memorization prior to the canon's being written down, I can understand this observation. I have two reservations about it though: (a) throughout the Pali Canon, especially in the discourse section, such a "list format" could be found and thus such an observation might be best represented in the general Sutta pitaka ("discourse basket" of the Pali Canon) article; and, (b) the reason for the "list format" in any particular discourse could likely be disputed. For instance, was the list format part of the original Buddha's teaching, as a didactic technique? Or was an original non-list-format teaching restructured into a list format to facilitate memorization? Or was an original non-list-format teaching originally memorized correctly but then over the centuries corrupted? Or was an original non-list-format teaching originally memorized correctly and recalled over the centuries correctly but then written down in a "list format" by the Canon's original or subsequent redactors for a variety of possible reasons? (I've seen a couple of these points mentioned by Bhikkhu Bodhi in at least one or more of his editions of a Nikaya and I suspect Oskar von Hinuber and others have also mentioned such.) In regards to this specific discourse, personally, I don't think we can know at this point (ever?) which (one or more?) reason applies for the perceived structure. (Perhaps User:Peter jackson or others can correct, rebut or expand on this?)

Nonetheless, frankly, if you feel the "list format" point is important and should be inserted here, I'd like to suggest that you add a "Context" or "Background" or "Contemporary perspectives" section after the current "Contents" section and insert Lie's assessment. (As precedence for such an addition, in a number of WP pages related to Pali Canon discourses, the article includes a core subsection labeled "Text" or "Contents" or "Sutta summary," and then is preceded by either a "Background section" (e.g., see Fire Sermon) or followed by a "Context" or "Commentaries" section (e.g., Anapanasati Sutta, Dighajanu Sutta, Sigalovada Sutta. Sammaditthi Sutta, Satipatthana Sutta). While the commentaries usually involve ancient commentaries (e.g., officially labeled as either "canonical" or "post-canonical"), it is at least in one instance identified as "contemporary.")

Does this make sense?

I very much value your kindly contributing information from Lie's book here, whether it primarily underscores existing points or adds a new perspective. Your voice is invaluable. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternative Viewpoints

See article-version of 2 september 2010

The quotation from the writer Gombrich in the section entitled "Alternative Viewpoints" is especially lame. I think it should be scrapped. The author says that "of course" we don't know what the Buddha said in his first sermon. But he gives no reason for thinking that we are worse off with respect to what the Buddha said than we are with respect to other historical figures whose words were recorded at one point or another. Also, the claim that the sermon cannot be understood without reference to earlier doctrinal texts is argumentative. Is the author saying that no text can be understood without the context of a literary tradition? Is he saying that the Buddha's sermon is somehow more obscure than other texts, so that while other texts are self-explanatory and can be understood without reference to a literary tradition, the sermon is not? Get real. Yes, the sermon is hard to understand, but there is no reason to say that as an ancient philosophical text it is inferior to (less self-explanatory than, more obscure than) other ancient philosophical texts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.74.1.99 (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The section makes a good point, that the standard sutta as it is popularly known, is not self-contained, and almost by definition could not be the first discourse of the Buddha. For example, although the Buddha mentions that the Noble Eightfold Path completes the noble truth of the path that leads away from suffering, there is no clear instruction on what exactly the factors of the Noble Eightfold Path require. That is to say, it references teachings without explaining them, and therefore explanations are surmised to have existed prior to the authorship of the main sutta. It's not very difficult to understand, and it makes perfect sense. If the Buddha rattled off a list of requirements for enlightenment to his students such as "correct view", "correct concentration", etc., then anyone would logically still be left without any answers whatsoever as to what is meant by each of those things. This is why some scholars would be skeptical about this sutta being the actual first discourse of Buddhism. Tengu800 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

@Tengu800: as always, thoughtfull comments. Hope to see you back at Wikipedia! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

Is the word redeath (sanskrit punarmrtyu) commonly used in Buddhist texts and teachings, and is it an appropriate word to use in the Four Noble Truths article, and in the statement of Buddha's Four Noble Truths in the lede?

Comments welcome. Please respond on the talk page for the article here: RfC on use of the word "redeath" in the article and lede for Four Noble Truths

I've posted here since the discussion is focused on the interpretation of this sutra. So editors of this article may have a valuable perspective on the debate.

Robert Walker (talk) 10:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)