Talk:Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. Please participate by editing the article Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
|
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
[edit] 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)
