Dmytro wrote:Would you give an example of "noble truth" in Theravadin texts? There's no such term.
Given that these texts weren't composed in English, this is obvious.
Dmytro wrote:"Ariya-sacca" means something quite different, "realities fo the Noble Ones". As you wrote, 'ariya-sacca' are to be comprehended in the course of developing wisdom.
The cattāri ariyasaccāni don't exist as anything other than theoretical doctrinal statements apart from the minds that realize them. Thus, it seems accurate to emphasize that they are truths
to be realized by cognitions rather than realities
that exist independent of cognitions. (Also posted here
Dmytro wrote:Or would you give an example of "three characteristics" (ti-lakkhana) in the Buddha's teaching?
You know that tilakkhaṇa, sāmaññalakkhaṇa, etc., are commentarial terms not found in the suttas.
Dmytro wrote:IMHO, in addition to the general terms like "Theravada", it would be useful to specify the context. Otherwise people like John Peacock can indeed wonder - why there's no "tilakkhana" in the Sutta-pitaka?
For example, Theravada (Third Buddhist Council). Or Theravada (Buddhism of South-East Asia). Or Theravada (reconstruction by Pali Text Society).
I think it's quite reasonable to use the designation "Theravāda" without further qualification to meaningfully refer to and include the teachings preserved in the Pāli Tipiṭaka, the Aṭṭhakathā, the Tīkā, etc.
Dmytro wrote:Otherwise people may get an impression of some kind of unified Buddhism that never changed.
Yes, this would likely be an inaccurate impression. What I was attempting to highlight in my previous reply was that paṭiccasamuppāda, the cattāri ariyasaccāni, etc., were already singled out and further developed as distinctive and important doctrines by Indian Buddhists 2000+ years ago -- long before the advent of modern Western Buddhology.