David Charles Greeson:
While I appreciate purism as a general stance, and while it is far from my intent to dilute the original ideas, it is clear that something has already been lost in translation and in cultural context since the time in which they were formulated. That's impermanence at work for you... I believe the specific formulation of the ideas is much less important than the ability to communicate them effectively to people who need to hear them - and in that case it's important to use language that the particular person can relate to - even if it contemporizes in a way that is not aesthetically appealing.
I have an adolescent psychotherapy patient who says he's depressed though he doesn't technically meet criteria for major depression. When I asked him to get at the root of that feeling he said "Everything just sucks!" It was abundantly clear to me that he was appreciating the reality of dukkha - and that much if not all of his trouble stemmed from his attachments and his self-centered thinking and craving.
Now I could have said, "Well Jack, there are many things in life that are basically unsatisfactory: being separated from something you love, etc..." and probably lost him. [I seriously doubt that, unless the person was a real moron to begin with; although for fairness' sake I'll grant you your point.]
What I did say was "What you're telling me reminds me of what the Buddhists call "The 4 Noble Truths" - the first one is that "LIfe sucks." - basically what you're telling me." His eyes lit up when I told him that - someone long ago had understood his experience now. He went on to ask me what the others were - and I was able to explain the origin of dukkha, and the way out.
Now that you put your quotation in context, I see your point. At least as far as it goes without a larger and more comprehensive explanation of the 4NTs to someone who is not in "therapy" and who has a sincere desire to learn more about this path. Pretty neglectful of you to omit the context in your initial post, don't you think. As most readers here may have, I took the context to be that you were speaking to a healthy and suitably interested (in Buddhism, that is) listener and not to a troubled adolescent in therapy with whom you were trying to relate.
Yet, even when dealing with healthy adolescents, I would be disinclined to use the version you submitted as it would be talking down to their intelligence (in a way that wasn't exact enough and which
assumed that they might not understand or appreciate a more detailed approach). This is not to deny that there may be contextual instances wherein the approach you outlined may be more effective in getting across certain
general points with your listener in order to establish rapport.
David Charles Greeson:
So I do think there is a pragmatic reason to update - because the meaning will change over time anyway - and communicating the essential truth of the message is much more important than preserving it's authenticity.
I disagree that the essential meaning changes all that much over time, although I do agree that the essential truth of the message is important to preserve (along with explanations of historical authenticity). If "the meaning was changing"
that much "over time" were true, those of us who are using the translated version of the Nikayas would not be able to understand them in present-day context. I will concede, however, that historical differences in idiom and whatnot may need to be either explained or updated for a contemporary audience. But I have found that the painstaking translations that Bhikkhu Bodhi in particular has done (along with those of Nyanaponika Thera, Nanamoli Thera, and Maurice Walshe) have only added to my appreciation of them. Time honored concepts like "dukkha," despite the difficulty sometimes encountered in translating between different cultures centuries apart, has managed to be made clear and precise in these translations, which is all that one could reasonably ask of the translation of documents thousands of years old.
Personally, I think it is important to preserve the context of the time period and the general cultural thought and milieu in which the discourses where made in order to preserve them accurately as historical documents. Without that, sometimes, it can be difficult to make out the intent within certain contexts (context itself having already been noted as being important). The preservation of the historical context has helped to clarify this reader's appreciation of the meaning of the discourses, as well as assisting in bringing his own life's experience to the table in order to help comprehend fine points in the text.
But, unless you have read the discourses within the context I'm speaking about, I don't suppose you would have an inkling what I'm talking about.