Editing Four Noble Truths (section)

===Other interpretations===
According to Bhikkhu [[Buddhadasa]], "birth" does refer not to physical birth and death, but to the birth and death of our self-concept, the "emergence of the ego". According to Buddhadhasa,
{{Blockquote|... dependent arising is a phenomenon that lasts an instant; it is impermanent. Therefore, Birth and Death must be explained as phenomena within the process of dependent arising in everyday life of ordinary people. Right Mindfulness is lost during contacts of the Roots and surroundings. Thereafter, when vexation due to greed, anger, and ignorance is experienced, the ego has already been born. It is considered as one 'birth'".<ref group=web name="Buddhadasa"/>}}

Some contemporary teachers tend to explain the four truths psychologically, by taking ''dukkha'' to mean mental anguish in addition to the physical pain of life,{{sfn|Batchelor|2012|p=94}}{{sfn|Bhikkhu Bodhi|2016|p=10}} and interpreting the four truths as a means to attain happiness in this life.{{sfn|Kingsland|2016|p=280}} In the contemporary [[Vipassana movement]] that emerged out of the Theravada Buddhism, freedom and the "pursuit of happiness" have become the main goals, not the end of rebirth, which is hardly mentioned in their teachings.{{sfn|Fronsdal|1998|pp=164–166}}{{refn|group=note|The Vipassana-movement originated in colonial Burma, in response to the British colonial regime. While traditional Theravada saw little room for meditation practice, a subordinate role for lay Buddhists, and the attainment of ''nirvana'' as impossible in our times, reformists advocated the practice of meditation by lay Buddhists, as a means to preserve the pre-colonial order, which was based on Buddhism. ''Nirvana'' was suddenly deemed attainable, also for lay Buddhists. The Burmese reformists had a profound influence in the Theravada world, and also in the US since the 1970s, shaping the popular understanding of Buddhism.<ref group=web name="Braun2014">Eric Braun (2014), [http://www.spiritrock.org/document.doc?id=5335 ''How colonialism sparked the global Vipassana movement'']</ref>}}

Yet, though freedom and happiness is a part of the Buddhist teachings, these words refer to something different in traditional Asian Buddhism. According to [[Gil Fronsdal]], "when Asian teachers do talk about freedom, it is primarily in reference to what one is free from – that is, from greed, hate, delusion, grasping, attachment, wrong view, self, and most significantly, rebirth".{{sfn|Fronsdal|1998|p=172}} ''Nibbana'' is the final freedom, and it has no purpose beyond itself. In contrast, freedom in the creative modern interpretation of Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path means living happily and wisely, "without drastic changes in lifestyle".{{sfn|Fronsdal|1998|p=172}} Such freedom and happiness is not the goal of Four Noble Truths and related doctrines within traditional Buddhism, but the vipassana teachings in the West make no reference to traditional Theravada doctrines, instead they present only the pragmatic and experiential goals in the form of therapy for the audience's current lives.{{sfn|Fronsdal|1998|pp=172–174}} The creative interpretations are driven in part because the foundational premises of Buddhism do not make sense to audiences outside of Asia.{{refn|group=note|Stephen Batchelor states, "Such craving is at the root of greed, hatred, and bewilderment that prompt one to commit acts that cause one to be reborn after death in more or less favourable conditions in samsara. Although I have presented this formulation of the existential dilemma and its resolution in Buddhist terms, the same soteriological framework is shared by Hindus and Jains. (...) So embedded is this Indian soteriological framework in Buddhism that Buddhists might find it unintelligible that one would even consider questioning it. For to dispense with such key doctrines as rebirth, the law of kamma, and liberation from the cycle of birth and death would surely undermine the entire edifice of Buddhism itself. Yet for those who have grown up outside of Indian culture, who feel at home in a modernity informed by the natural sciences, to then be told that one cannot 'really' practise the dharma unless one adheres to the tenets of ancient Indian soteriology makes little sense. The reason people can no longer accept these beliefs need not be because they reject them as false, but because such views are too much at variance with everything else they know and believe about the nature of themselves and the world. They simply do not work anymore, and the intellectual gymnastics one needs to perform to make them work seem casuistic and, for many, unpersuasive. They are metaphysical beliefs, in that (like belief in God) they can neither be convincingly demonstrated nor refuted."{{sfn|Batchelor|2012|pp=89–90}}}}{{refn|group=note|name="Wallace"|B. Alan Wallace states, "The Theravada Buddhist worldview is originally based on the Pali Buddhist canon, as interpreted by the great fifth-century commentator Buddhaghosa and later Buddhist scholars and contemplatives. For the immigrant Theravada Buddhist laity, the central feature of this worldview is the affirmation of the reality of reincarnation and karma. The possibility of achieving nirvana is primarily a concern for Buddhist monastics, while the laity are more concerned with avoiding karma that would propel them to a miserable rebirth, and with accumulating meritorious karma that will lead to a favorable rebirth and, in the long run, to ultimate liberation. (...) As a direct result of their belief in the efficacy of karma, Theravada lay Buddhists commonly make offerings of food, goods, and money to the ordained Sangha. Such meritorious conduct is thought to lead to a better rebirth either for themselves or for their deceased loved ones, depending on how the merit is dedicated by the person who performs this service."{{sfn|Wallace|2002|pp=36–37}}}} According to Spiro, "the Buddhist message is not simply a psychological message", but an eschatological message.{{sfn|Spiro|1982|p=42}}