Talk:Nirvana/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Kukkurovaca vs. Mysterious Stranger

There is some confusion about Nirvana as a goal or as a soteriological goal. Soteriology is the Christian doctrine of salvation (according to the OED) Calling it a goal is not quite accurate since one needs to give up all striving or even the idea of attaining it in order to reach it (an irony, I know).

Soteriology in the 20th century has become dispersed throughout religious studies, and simply means "having to do with salvation or the study of salvation." It is routinely used in Buddhist studies. However, it is not essential that it be used here.

On the other hand, I'm nervous about "Nirvana...is the fruit or culmination of enlightenment." I don't think it's clear that enlightenment is a process of which nirvana is the end; many would say "enlightenment" and mean "nirvana", and vice versa. Certainly "fruit" seems unnecessarily flowery language.

I agree they are often used interchangably. Fruit can be changed to something more suitable. The essential meaning I was going for was that nirvana is something that can be experienced once things are seen or understood as they really are (a.k.a. enlightenment).

I gave it another shot; tell me what you think. Also, are you the "Indian physics" person? Because I'm worried that "physics" erroneously implies that Indian philosophy was anything like Aristotelian philosophy or even, god forbid, modern science. Besides which, the concept of fire had a much more lively life as a rhetorical device in Indian philosophy than as a physical concept.

Thank you Kukkurovaca, you said it better than I could have. I am new to Wikipedia and working on getting an identity. I am not the Indian physics person, and I fully support any changes you will make about this part of the article.

Usedbook vs. Smack?

What does a continuity of void processes mean?

I think my paragraph about the frogs and tadpoles should help you understand that :p Smack

I had to remove the following for too many reasons. I was hesitant at first for this may cause conflict between myself and Smack. There are many descriptions and explanations about Unbinding (Nirvana) in the scriptures. To generalize that all teachers in such a manner teach the uselessness of their students questioning Nirvana is disturbing. You may ask your teacher anything about Nirvana. Although I agree 100% with his intent, what Smack is attempting to convey with his article is extremely obscure, especially to those unfamiliar with the subject wishing to learn. Lastly, the dangerous paraphrasing is always avoided in religious articles. You should bring reference. I've read a similar simile expounded from Sariputta or the Milinda Debate but I'm unsure. In what sutra did Gautama say this? The difficulty with labeling Buddhism a philosophy is having Gautama being quoted vaguely like Plato enthusiasts while we have a canon to consider like a religion. Usedbook 17:00 20 May 2003 (UTC)

"In fact, the Buddha and other teachers have left us with much fewer descriptions of nirvana than explanations of why it cannot be described. One such explanation is thus: ordinary people are like tadpoles, and those who have achieved nirvana are like frogs; the dry land represents nirvana. The tadpoles may ask the frog, "Does the dry land have fish?" "Is the air anything like water?" "Can you swim on dry land?" The frog's answer to all of these questions will be negative or indeterminate, perhaps leading the tadpoles to wonder whether dry land exists at all. Similarly, Buddhist teachers have said, it is useless for common people to ask questions about nirvana."

Deletions

I removed "Often considered ineffable, Nirvana may be denoted as a continuity of void processes. " as it is confusing and possibly meaningless, at least without considerable elaboration.

Also killed "However, when teaching his own disciples, the Buddha used nibbana more as an image of freedom. Apparently, all Indians at the time saw burning fire as agitated, dependent, and trapped, both clinging and being stuck to its fuel as it burned. To ignite a fire, one had to "seize" it. When fire let go of its fuel, it was "freed," released from its agitation, dependence, and entrapment -- calm and unconfined. "--There's no point in the history of Indian philosophy about which one could get away with a statement like "Apparently, all Indians at the time x." Nor am I at all sure this was even a particularly common view; fire is pretty well revered in Indian thought, and metaphorically in the realm of philosophy, logic, and theological debate it usually stood in not for entrapment or agitation but for motion and power.

I also deleted the attribution of one quote to Suttinapatti, as that looks entirely wrong (Sutta Nipāta, perhaps?) to my eye, and a quick google turned up no references to anything of that name. कुक्कुरोवाच 22:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Refugees from Buddhism main page

I trimmed the following from the Buddhism main page. Someone may want to try to work it in at Nirvana, though I'd want to see it explained historically and contextually, rather than simply declared like this. Which version of Nirvana, discussed where, is being called on here? That sort of thing.कुक्कुरोवाच 17:22, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Nirvana is a supramundane state which is unconditioned, unmade, unborn, unfabricated and results from unbinding from or extinguishing all that was conditioned, born, made, or fabricated; Nirvana can be thought of as a state of ultimate peace or reality in which all duality in the universe is resolved."

Organizing Afterlife Articles

I would like to organize the articles that deal with an otherworld as a real existence. I propose that Afterlife would be the best hub for such articles. Eschatology and Underworld are other possibilities, but I don't think they work as well as Afterlife. Any thoughts on such a project? Please come to Talk:Afterlife to discuss. Tom (hawstom) 14:46, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Nirvana is so not an afterlife. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:28, May 6, 2004 (UTC)

Can you explain? Is Nirvana then a totally worldy concept, rather than an "otherworld"-ly one? Tom (hawstom) 17:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Well, properly speaking, Nirvana can't be defined; Buddhist scripture identifies the condition of the enlightened as indescribable. But speaking conventionally, one can make generalizations. Those following Nagarjuna claim that there is no distinction between samsara and nirvana; this is not precisely the same as saying that Nirvana is "worldly" in the sense of being vulgar or secular, but it is worldly in the sense that, under such an analysis, Nirvana is precisely the correct way of experiencing the world. More traditionally, however, nirvana would have to be defined as nonworldly, neither belonging to this world nor to any other. In neither case is it an "afterlife" because there is no one to live it, no being engaged in it. The same problem would hold for discussing enlightenment in Advaita Vedanta, though this is not to say that the two forms of enlightenment are in agreement. ::grin:: -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 17:42, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Both Underworld and Afterlife articles would be great, Tom. But concerning Nirvana, as Kukku says, Nirvana is not to do with afterlife. Practitioners 'arrive' at Nirvana before death. According to certain tantric traditions, death can be used as an opportunity to 'arrive' at Nirvana, but this is not relavant to ideas of underworld etc. You may be more interested in Bardo (the state between lives), which is a late Indian buddhist development. As Kukku says,

In Nagarjuna's MMK XXV:19, he says

There is not the slightest difference

Between Samsara and Nirvana

If you wish to understand Nirvana, it would be a good idea to understand the non-affirming negative used in Indian logic (Dignaga) as a basis of what Kukku is expressing. This form of negative is one that does not imply something else in its negation.

For instance, if you were to ask me what color my coffee cup was, and I were to say "Not yellow", we normally assume that this would imply that the coffee cup was another color. However, if I were to ask you if your mind was yellow, and you were to reply "No, not yellow", then it does not necessarily imply that it actually had a color (just not yellow). So, when we ask about Nirvana "Is it worldly, is it non-worldly?", the answer may be "Not worldly, not non-worldly" - this does not mean that we are asserting a third state of being for things, but that this form of identification is merely not applicable. (20040302 09:33, 8 May 2004 (UTC))

Great. That helps a lot. I agree then that Nirvana wouldn't belong under the afterlife heading. Tom (hawstom) 02:37, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Regarding my recent revert of Usedbook

I reverted several changes by User:Usedbook for a couple reasons. First, Nirvana does not literally mean "unbinding". "transcendent and singularly ineffable freedom" is (a) perhaps a little flowery for an encyclopedia and (b) ungrammatical (sentence fragment). I would be opent to changing "culmination" to "goal" with some other restructuring, however.

Nirvana does not connote an indescribable reality etymologically; it is taken to refer to or depict one, but not on the etymological level.

If part of the article is a misunderstanding, we probably shouldn't include it at all. However, it's not clear to me which part is supposed to be a misunderstanding why.

Nirvana's often-asseted ineffability, while valid for inclusion in this article, belongs nowhere near the etymology section. Also, your edits sound like they reflect the teachings of some particular school, in which case they can be included under a special section devoted to that school's interpretations, but I can't do it for you if I don't know what school that is. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 16:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Experience of Nirvana

I experienced it today. It was an amazing feeling, but it felt souless. My body had a feeling it had never had before as my mind reached a new level of awakening. Everything became so clear to me and for a moment I felt as though I had no worries. Everything was so clear that I didn't need to learn anything, remember anything, it felt as though I was a god. Yet that feeling scares me, but let's me know everything will be ok. It scares me because... well I don't know. It just feels as though I have no meaning to life once I know everything. I just can't define the feeling. It was just so new and different. I read more of this article and it just bugs the crap out of me. Oh well.--Cyberman 02:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Hehe- Well, the question remains - how do you know what you experienced was Nirvana? (20040302)

My nirvana is eating oreos while surfing the internet and listening to ragtime music--67.184.163.248 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Ikiroid

--I am not really conversant with how this forum works, but just the same I would like to add my comment to this Nirvana idea or stuff, if I may call it so, because I am honestly disgusted with the whole Nirvana business.

I have been thinking and reading about this stuff, called Nirvana. My latest idea about it all is summed up in the Spanish phrase consuelo de bobo (consolation of the fool, compensation for the loser in my own interpretation). Here below let me explain.

Man is a loser but there are some more into losing than others. Among those who are more losers than others are those who don't achieve anything in life whether by constraints of nature or by mistakes of choices in life. For example if you are born blind and deaf you are a loser by constraints of nature; in which case all of us are, but still some are more so from nature than others. Now the losers by mistakes of choices in life, here are some examples for illustration of what I mean and you will understand: getting a college degree that doesn't get you anywhere except in your present job which is not as satisfying as you see how your childhood friends are doing now; or getting married to a wrong partner and having invested twenty years to come to that truth or fact; or losing all you life's savings in a business venture which flopped within six months time.

For all us losers, and being human or having come into existence is already in a very true sense, being losers because at the end of the day we all die and it's period -- and please don't even think about having left a good name as your satisfaction post death, Nirvana is the worst or the best consuelo de bobo, because it makes of man's destinty to consist in nothing but negativities, unlike the heaven of the Christians and the paradise of the Muslims.

I say the worst or the best of consuelos de bobos, because then you don't have to feel bad about not arriving at anything except Nirvana which no one knows anything about except all negatives even existence itself, i.e., nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing, to the nth degree which ends up with, yes, nothing; since you don't have to feel bad you feel good, in some kind of perversity of human self-consolation mechanics.

One should not aspire after Nirvana if one wishes for anything post death; fix one's glance post death on anything like heaven and paradise, but certainly not Nirvana unless in some kind of as I said perversity of human consolation gimmick, you prefer self-annihilation to existence.

But since we can't up to the present know and therefore do not know what comes after death if anything at all comes after death, then the best thing is to live to the fullest while still breathing.

What about those people who have experienced Nirvana in this breathing life and therefore according to the Buddhist theory will come to final complete Nirvana on their death? I would like to experience their kind of experience which they consider to be Nirvana, but please when they die and they will, please come back and tell us about their definitive and total Nirvana or Parinirvana, whatever.

Aside from the value of consuelo de bobo, for anyone who claims to have experienced Nirvana in this life, now what? will they be happier and more satisfied with life having experienced Nirvana, like more tranquil, more friendly, more courteous, more peaceable, and also more helpful in society and in the midst of their home and family, in their working environment? and very important, what about their security in old age when they will be helpless even just to get to the john -- not to talk about providing for those if any who will still or might still depend on them just to continue staying alive .

In sum, I tend to think that the whole business of Nirvana is a pure 100% hoax. Better tend to your potato patch and try to grow a better and better potato.

Pachomius

I think the above by Pachomius is just brilliant! I love it. It's a real hoot. A classic. But there's also some truth and wisdom there. Although I don't share Pachomius's (and many people's) view that Buddhist Nirvana is all negative and just "nothing, nothing, nothing" (I can understand why he thinks that - judging from some Buddhist commentaries on Nirvana!), I think Pachomius has (wittingly or unwittingly) made some pertinent points. More power to you, Pachomius. You have drawn the right conclusions, if Nirvana is just nothingness - why bother?. Fortunately - it is not (according to the Buddha's teachings). It is the "nothingness" (ending) of unhappiness and ignorance. It is not spoken of as mere and total nothingness by the Buddha (although lots of "Buddhists" don't really seem too bothered about what the Buddha says on such Buddhist matters: what does he know about it after all - seems to be the attitude?!). You have to beware of lots of nihilistic distortions of what the Buddha taught. I always think it's best to stick to the suttas and sutras (scriptures in which the Buddha himself is presented as teaching directly). Nirvana is not at all the destruction of the existing being (the Buddha specifically and forcefully denies, in the Pali Majjhima Nikaya, that he teaches the "destruction of the existing being")- Nirvana is actually supreme and eternal happiness (certainly the Mahayana Buddha expresses that). And it can start right here, right now. It's not just after death. But anyway, Pachomius, you have really entertained us here (well, me at least!) with your vivid and vital and sensible reflections. Hope to see you again here one day. I would like to discuss more with you on what the Buddha (rather than commentators, sometimes 2,000 years later) is recorded as having said about Nirvana. Best regards. From Tony. TonyMPNS 22:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Pachomius - Buddhadharma has it that Nirvana may be reached in this life, which takes care of the first seven paraagraphs - and the issue of death being the end for those who have achieved Nirvana in this life is just hokum - though it may accord with a few Buddhist sects - it certainly is not in accordance with eg the indo-tibetan traditions - but in all traditions, we can say that Nirvana is definitively beyond life and death.

Your final question demonstrates some degree of misapprehension regarding Nirvana - you know it appears that for you Nirvana is something that you 'get' or experiene once and then it's over. Not so - Nirvana is more like finding a way of winning the lottery - so then you are guaranteed to win the lottery every day and there is no old age, sickness or death left either. The 12 Nidana are over.

Once you've hacked the system, you can use it as you like - there are no more rules. However, many who reach Nirvana acknowledge a strong sense of responsibility towards those who remain floundering around in the suffering that they make for themselves- so these tend to do all sorts of things to do what is necessary. Not all though - the Pratyekas just go do their own thing.

Of course, until we see it for ourselves, it sounds like it could be a great deal of hokum. So it's not so surprising that growing potatoes or whatever becomes appealing. It's a lot to take on faith - and it's pretty hard to find a reliable teacher anyhows. BUT, if we are fortunate, and if we push through the initial work, once we start achieving clairvoyance and other 'impossible' stuff then the whole shebang becomes far more believable. (20040302 00:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

The above discussion doesn't seem to be appropriate for a page relating to an encyclopedia article. It also exhibits the misunderstanding of the concept of Nirvana. As Schopenhauer explained, Nirvana is a negative concept. Therefore, Nirvana is not experienced. Nirvana is the absence of experience. It is the absence of the suffering that results from attachment. It is not positive happiness or pleasure. It is the Nothing that follows the end of experience.Lestrade 12:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade, I don't think this discussion concerns the article - it is more to do with a thought of Pachomius'. You are not wrong in terms of your definition - Nirvana is most often defined as a cessation - the cessation of suffering and it's causes. However I disagree with the sentence: "It is the Nothing that follows the end of experience" on two grounds - firstly the capitalisation in Nothing indicates a proper noun which makes it something other than nothing. secondly, Nirvana isn't mere absence - it is the specific absence of suffering (as defined by dukkha) and it's causes. Within the Mahayana traditions experience cannot end (the continuum of mind is everlasting – my understanding of the Theravada interpretation is that the question of the presence or absence of the continuum of mind after Nirvana is something that is not worth thinking about, but I may be mistaken.) – but after Nirvana is achieved (by definition) experience no longer sustains suffering and it's causes. Of course, if you mean in your statement "It is the end of all experience tainted with suffering and it's causes" - then I agree with it. It could be said that Sravakabuddhas are not subject to rebirth - because there is no reason to be reborn; however the case for Samyaksambuddhas and Pratyekabuddhas is not so clear. (20040302 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

Nirvana, according to Schopenhauer, is the end of all experience of the external world. He equates Nirvana with the denial of the will in the following quote:

...with the free denial, the surrender, of the will, all those phenomena also are abolished. ... No will: no representation, no world. Before us there is certainly left only nothing ... we have to banish the dark impression of that nothingness, which as the final goal hovers behind all virtue and holiness, and which we fear as children fear darkness. We must not even evade it, as the Indians do, by myths and meaningless words, such as reabsorption in Brahman, or the Nirvana of the Buddhists.
— Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. I, §71

205.188.116.7 18:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

According to your quote, Schopenhauer argues that Nirvana is a myth/meaningless word. Are we to make that the new intro? "Nirvana is a myth and/or meaningless word used to evade the reality of the denial of the will."—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"Nirvana" is a meaningless word in the sense that it is a designation of nothingness. It has no meaning in a positive sense, about positive things, such as the world of experience. Just as "denial," "devoid," and "extinction" are negative concepts, "Nirvana" is a negative concept, but it is the most negative of all negative concepts. Negative concepts only have meaning in relation to positive concepts. Positive concepts represent the experienced world.Lestrade 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade, (to be clear) Schopenhauer is not universally considered to be an authority on Nirvana. So - as long as we prefix any views of Schopenhauer as being nothing more, we won't get lost. Personally, I disagree with Schopenhauer - as would many Buddhists. So, as Schopenhauer is not universally recognised as an authority of Nirvana - and as he is not the author of the term, we cannot make an assertive statement of fact like "As Schopenhauer explained, Nirvana is [...]" We can state, however, something like "Schopenhauer's view of Nirvana is [...] (cite)" (20040302 20:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

You have just diverted attention from the important idea that Nirvana cannot be experienced. We are now off on a tangent about Schopenhauer's authority. If we keep to the issue, it is apparent that the word "Nirvana" can only have a meaning as a negation of the world.Lestrade 23:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I don't follow you? How did you conclude this?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana means "extinguished." It is a negative concept. It means "the absence of everything, that is, the world." It is not a positive concept, such as "happiness," "bliss," "heaven," "pleasure," etc. According to the 4 Noble Truths, life in the world is a painful existence, full of suffering. This pain and suffering is positive. The absence of this worldly pain and suffering is the extinguished condition of Nirvana. This is what Schopenhauer tried to convey, but he realized that in order to do so, he had to use words, which are intended to designate positive concepts, to designate a negative concept. This is difficult for humans to understand because it is not the usual way of communicating.Lestrade 13:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Schopenhauer - Nirvana - Experience

Lestrade, Let me try to be more clear: If we wish to argue about the nature of Nirvana, we have to place it into the context of usage. Schopenhauer had a specialised definition of Nirvana, as do the various schools within Buddhism.

These definitions are heterogenous. I disagree with your statement that either the word "Nirvana" - or for that matter the various referents associated with the word "Nirvana" necessitate any specific meaning. You know that for many individuals the word represents a rock group, so it is NOT apparent that the word "Nirvana" can only have a meaning as a negation of the world. (my emphasis).

What is apparent is that under your interpretation of Schopenhauer, he asserts a set of ideas concerning Nirvana that require a negation of the world. This is disputed by other philosophers, such as Nāgārjuna who says

na saṁsārasya nirvāṇāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ
na nirvāṇasya saṁsārāt kiṁ cid asti viśeṣaṇaṁ

There is nothing whatsoever of samsara distinguishing it from nirvana.
There is nothing whatsoever of nirvana distinguishing it from samsara.

— Nāgārjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, XXV:19-20

Therefore the views of Schopenhauer and Nāgārjuna are heterogenous. If we study the commentaries of the MMK by Candrakīrti and subsequently Tsongkhapa and the lineage of Prasaṅgika we see that the argument of negation or absence - in the context of sunyata - is concerned solely with essence:

Ātman is an essence of things that does not depend on others; it is an intrinsic nature. The non-existence of that is Anatman.
— Candrakīrti, Bodhisattvayogacaryācatuḥśatakaṭikā,256.1.7

However when we talk of Nirvana - the absence (or cessation) is not of essence, but of dukkha. Nirvana is not the negation of the world, but a continuum of mind that is permanently freed from suffering and the cause of suffering. Of course, the nature of Nirvana is the same as the nature of Samsara (see above) - they are both essenceless - empty of any reifying essence.

Language is more slippery than a fish. But we can argue that for some people, it makes sense to talk about experiencing Nirvana - as long as it is understood to mean being free from something that cannot reoccur. We can talk about the experience of having lost our parents to death, so I don't see a specific objection to the idea of experiencing Nirvana, as long as we don't imagine it to indicate a positivistic experience - such as feeling blissed out, or seeing light or something. (20040302 00:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Briefly back to Schopenhauer - his exposure to Buddhism was secondhand - in that he depended upon the translations of the scholars around him. Most Sanskrit scholars of his time, including close friends (such as Karl Krause) tended to view Buddhist nirvana as representing some platonic or kantian transcendent state. Indeed, Krause himself was a panentheist. Therefore it is likely that Schopenhauer's understanding of Buddhist nirvana was highly influenced by the views that were held by the scholars of his day. As I understand it, his critique of Kant reflected his critique of Nirvana - he identified both as hypostasising something that he saw as a mere absence (though he saw Buddhist nirvana more as a circumlocution rather than a full-fledged hypostatisation). Regardless, as I see it, his understanding was based on the idea of transcendency - possibly in accordance with modern translators such as Murti. However, recent scholarship - especially since Sprung, Huntington, Garfield and others, as well as the introduction of the lineages of scholars from the Tibetan diaspora, has led very convincingly away from this syncretisation of Buddhism and neo-Kantian or neo-platonic concepts of transcendence. (20040302 02:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

Dear User:20040302, the satirist Karl Kraus was born fourteen years after Schopenhauer died. Therefore, it is apodictically certain that he did not influence Schopenhauer. Also, is your spelling of "Krause" a result of your acquaintance with Wikipedian User:Nat Krause? With regard to the concept of Nirvana, Schopenhauer did not have an "idea of transcendency." Rather, he had an idea that it was a state of non-willing or the absence of attachment. One of Schopenhauer's main influences with regard to Buddhism was Henry Thomas Colebrooke. In the Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 1, p. 566, Colebrooke wrote: " Nirvana as an adjective signifies extinct. Its etymology is from va to blow as a wind & the negation nir. It means calm and unruffled. The notion is that of perfect apathy." From such recognized scholars, Schopenhauer derived his definition of Nirvana, which has nothing to do with transcendency.Lestrade 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Deep Thought

Is nirvana absolute peace & truth? It certainly is NOT an ideal heaven("nahh" to those who think it is). Will someone actually know when they have achieved nivana. i don't think they will. Goes into deep thoughtfullness. Hmmmmmmm...

Dodo Birds and Dinosaurs have achieved Nirvana. That is, they are no longer in the world.Lestrade 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Lestrade, your naïveté astounds. Nirvana is extinction - but it is qualified - it is the extinction of suffering and the cause of suffering. Your approach to Nirvana reminds me of those who promote a nuclear Doomsday event as the sole road to world peace. (20040302 08:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has Nirvana as "the extinction of individual existence, or the extinction of all desires and passions; the attainment of perfect beatitude (blessedness, happiness)". I have to assume, though, that if a person's existence is extinguished and he/she is no longer alive, then there will be no consciousness of the happiness that results from the extinction of desire and passion. Consciousness of the result of Nirvana requires continued existence or life.66.82.9.56 19:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted

I see. The concept of Nirvana does not simply mean extinction or extinguishment. Its nothingness, voidness, and emptiness is only in relation to suffering and the desire or willing that causes suffering. Nirvana is therefore a relative absence of something or a relative nothingness.Lestrade 13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I would like to agree - though we need to be careful in our usage of words. The extinguishment of Nirvana must be qualified - but I am not convinced that it is therefore relative, though of course it depends upon the specific meaning of 'relative' in your statement. If you mean it in the sense that it is related to the object that it is absent of, then yes indeed. However if you mean that Nirvana is therefore (somehow) a contingent truth, you are making a mistake. The term Nirvana is a description of a realisation that is not contingent - it is final, absolute, and beyond contingency: However, the term itself belongs to language, and therefore implies a relation to the object that it is free from - in this case Samsara. In Buddhism, the foundational cause of suffering is ignorance. Once again, this has a specific, related meaning - not just ignorance of anything, but specifically ignorance regarding the three marks of existence. It should be noted that the Theravada tradition generally implies that nirvana involves a cessation of the continuum of consciousness, but this view is not definitive (IIRC Buddha said such questions have little value), and the Mahayana tradition generally denies that Nirvana entails the cessation of the continuum of consciousness. (20040302 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC))

death

Who else believe this as the only way to reach nirvana?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no suicidal at all as I love my life. But I think that's the only true nirvana.

One path to reach it is through knowledge. Another one trough meditation. Be carefull, there are several different unknown and unstudied ways to do meditation. I think meditation is the fastest and knowledge is the longest. And I choose the second.

Please, comment up.

Thanks for your time.

Moksha & Nirvana

hello , is there a difference between the two ? or is nirvana the buddhist term for moksha ? or is moksha a state before nirvana ?

In brief, they are different and distinct. One cannot meaningfully talk about moksha being a state before nirvana, and one cannot meaningfully state that nirvana is the buddhist term for moksha. (20040302)

my question is : what is the difference ? Hhnnrr 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

An examination of the 'difference' would involve understanding the nuances and ideas of thousands of schools of thought across several millenia, for two major world religions. However, in brief, for Advaitists, Moksha is oneness without form or being, whereas for Vaishnavites and Shaivites, Moksha means union with God. Buddhist Nirvana avoids at every turn - even linguistically - using the concept of 'oneness' or 'self' or 'Brahma', and in Buddhism, all Gods are subject to rebirth, and are therefore not liberated. (20040302 10:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Seeing this 'oneness' and 'self' made me think that maybe Nirvana could be zero, as in the great nothingness that is zero. However, that leads me to think it's should also be infinity, because it should cover the whole spectrum. Though, I suppose, it would then have to be not zero and not infinity too.(2:00, 8 April 2006)

Deleted additions

I removed or edited recent additions because: First sentence (about people interpreting Nirvana): Vague and not really informative. Second sentence: Quote is not understandable at all. If it's put in again, please explain it for the lay reader. Third sentence: changed subjective viewpoint

Buddhism & Pantheism

Is it incorrect in all Buddhist schools to consider Nirvana a form of pantheism , and are any of these schools that regards Nirvana a state of unity with an absolute ? By the way , do any Buddhists believe in God in a similar way to Abrahamic religions ?.. 212.138.47.17 15:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding no, Buddhist do not worship nor recognize God or gods. Exception can be made to Pure Land Buddhism sect. Tibetan sects does recognize Devas, god-like beings, but they are still bound to Samsara. So they are not treated like Abrahamic God.

POV Problems

This article suffers from a certain sectarian slant, in two respects: one, it assumes in a number of places the obvious superiority of the Mahayana view of nirvana over the Theravada view; two, it assumes a degree of unity on the Mahayana side which just isn't there. In particular, the views of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvanasutra are not typical of Mahayana thought in general, and the sutra itself has been the subject of controversy. I tried to soften the language where it was most obviously polemical (or making the most overstated claims), but some of the problems may be structural and require a more complete rewrite. RandomCritic 21:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Besides, mahayana mahaparinirvanasutra, is I think a sutra reffering to buddha nature, and explicitly explains it means that by 'true self', so there is an essential difference there. Its quite hard to fit a 'self' in buddhism :) The problem is simply a greater involvment of hindu-inclined authors in this, and many other pages which are common in some extent to both buddhism and hinduism - however well intentioned and npov in intent, a bias does show.Even in obvious details - part of wikiproject hinduism, but not buddhism?.--Aryah 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It is also not accurate to say that thathagatagharba sutras as such are disputed among buddhists - not significantly more than prajnaparamita sutras; i.e. they are not accepted by sravaka (nikaya) schools (btw teravada is not the only nikaya school), though, the presentation of the doctrine in this sutra is significantly more ethernalistic, but nothing said there is incongruent with, say, typical yogachara madhyamaka, or even tantric interpretations of prasangika madyamaka; in this article, they are simply horribly misrepresented. --Aryah 13:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

As the author of the section on "Nirvana in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra", I feel I should respond here. I added the caveats that the Tathagatagarbha sutras are disputed amongst Buddhists in my attempt to be impartial and unbiased. I did not want other editors to think that I was stating MPNS or Tathagagarbha doctrines to be the general view amongst Buddhists - when the Tathagatagarbha sutras are in fact very much an area of contention. I know that these sutras cause tremendous opposition and hostility in some Buddhist quarters. Myself, I don't share this apparent fear of these scriptures. I report what they say - I don't twist or distort. But I am more than happy to remove those comments about their being controversial amongst Buddhists, if you would prefer that. I do think the tag of "Disputed Accuracy" should immediately be removed - because nothing substantive in what I have written is inaccurate. I don't see at all where I have "horribly misrepresented" the Tathagatagarbha sutras or the "Mahaparinirvana Sutra". This seems unfair to me. There is not one statement which I have made which cannot be backed up by reference to the Tathagatagarbha sutras themselves. Just because I don't parrot a particular school's "interpretation" of such sutras does not mean I am "horribly misrepresenting" them. I report what is there - what is stated by the sutras themselves. It is then for others to make of the explicit teachings what they will. The function of this section on "Nirvana and the Mahaparinirvana Sutra" is to present what that little- studied sutra (which empahsises the notion of "Nirvana/ Parinirvana", even in its very title) actually teaches on the matter. I myself agree with you that this sutra is not intrinsically controversial - although for the totally opposite reasons from yourself, I suspect! I see no clash at all between the Dhamma of the Buddha in the Pali suttas and the Mahayana Dharma of the Buddha in the "Mahaparinirvana Sutra". For me there is no controversy at all - no shocking revelations. But for others, the MPNS is a huge stumbling block - as I know from decades of experience in this field! I hope this helps clarify matters a little. Best wishes to you all. From Tony. TonyMPNS 14:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have a few problems with this presentation - not huge, but imo quite significant - first, the unqualified refference to the True Self, while in fact its said in that sutra that tathagatagarbha is the true self. The biggest problem, in fact, is that no refference is made to the tathagatagarbha doctrine at all in the section, exept when naming sutras which belong in this category. This opens many possible misinterpretations. Second, I dispute that this is a disputed sutra among buddhists - its a normal part of mahayana canons - should we say then that heart sutra is a disputed sutra? It may have been an attempt at impartiality to add such a comment, but imo, it made it worse :) Its not the sutra thats disputed (this implies in my mind its semi-cannonical status or something like that), but there is simply some carefullness in its interpretations. Tathagatagarba is in fact a general view among mahayana buddhists, not some obscure dispuded area.

As tibetan buddhist, I share your opinion that dharma of the nikaya buddhism and mahayana dharma are not necessarely in conflict, and think are ellaborations presented for different people. However, when reporting what it says, the fact that a quote is not fabricated imo doesnt make it accurate, if too selective. Maybe the factual accuracy is a wrong tag - but then POV would be appropriate. Im simply suggesting that the error is maybe not even a matter of bias, but simple error. So, not parroting an interpretation of a particular school is not a horrible misinterpretation by itself; presenting no connection with the actual subject matter that opens the door for various interpretative schools (why the derogatory 'parroting' phrase anyways?) of the text i think is.

Id also like to note that this text is in clear dialogue with the more sunyata-emphasising madyamaka, and like with the shentong debates in tibet probably should be understood as existing in a context permiated with sunyata-heavy thinking...

Let me try to demonstrate why i think that simply saying 'Great Nirvāṇa" ... is controversially stated to be the sphere or domain (viṣaya) of the True Self' is horribly misleading - heres a coupe of diferent quotes from that same sutra:

The Blessed One has instructed us [in this way]: ‘Monks, all phenomena [dharma] are devoid of a Self. Practise thus! Those who practise thus will eliminate clinging to self (atma-graha). When clinging to self has been utterly eliminated, Nirvana will be attained.’ Blessed One, since all phenomena are thus devoid of a Self, we repeatedly cultivate the idea that a Self does not exist. Moreover, just as a bird leaves no tracks in the sky, so we shall detach ourselves from all types of [false] views when we have cultivated the idea that there is no Self.”

........

Just as a staggering drunk sees the heavens, mountain peaks, the ground, the sun, the moon, trees and hills whirling around, though they are not moving, in the same way do those who are utterly confused, ensnared by numerous kinds of distorted notions, adopt the idea that they are a Self, eternal, happy and pure.

“Herein, ‘Self’ signifies the Buddha; ‘eternal’ signifies the Dharma-kaya [Body of Truth; quintessential being]; ‘happiness’ signifies Nirvana, and ‘pure’ is a synonym for the Dharma.

........

the Supreme, the Teacher of Gods and Men, the Blessed Buddha appears in the world ... and then takes himself to all the heterodox teachers [tirthika] ... He utterly quells them all, utterly destroys them, and delights many kings. In order to curb [nigraha] the heterodox teachers, he says that there is no Self, no sattva [being], no jiva [life-essence], and no pudgala [individual]. The teachings about the Self by the heterodox teachers are like the letters bored [by chance, without understanding] by worms, and therefore I made known the teachings that all beings are devoid of a Self. Having proclaimed that the absence of Self is the word of the Buddha ... I also teach that there is a Self, after I have taught that all dharmas [phenomena] are devoid of Self, taking the occasion into consideration with regard to those who need to be trained and in order to benefit beings.

..

"The Self of the worldly, which they say is the size of a thumb or a mustard seed, is not like that. The concept of the Self of the worldly is also not like that. In this instance, it is said that all dharmas [things, phenomena] are devoid of Self. [But actually] it is not true to say that all dharmas are devoid of the Self. The Self is Reality [tattva], the Self is unchanging [nitya], the Self is virtue [guna], the Self is eternal [sasvata], the Self is unshakeable/ firm [dhruva], the Self is peace [siva]; ... the Tathagata teaches what is true.

....

"In the same way ... the Tathagatagarbha is like the elixir: it remains concealed by the various kleshas. Even though it has just a single taste - as the cause of becoming a Buddha - it is transformed into many different tastes by the maturation of the karmic actions of people, who then arise as men, women, or hermaphrodites. The Tathagata-dhatu is the intrinsic nature [svabhava/prakriti] of beings. Therefore, it cannot be killed by having its life severed.

....

“The True Self is the Tathagata-dhatu. You should know that all beings do have it, but it is not apparent, since those beings are enveloped by immeasurable kleshas

Quite an empty True Self really :)

So, to sum up:

it is not true that the sutras themselves are contraversial, any more than any other mahayana work, that is; merely, there could be disputes about its interpretation, but this is true, for example, for the prajnaparamita literature too.
it is a mistake not to say that True Self being spoken of here is the Tathagata-dhatu, as the sutra stresses.
the teaching of the True Self is embedded in a non-Self-rich context even in the sutra itself. Buddhism is a middle way of nihilism and ethernalism; and the sutra was clearly adressing such balance; some balance of it should be kept in this comment too ..

not sure what to do about this last point, but i do get a strongly ethernalistic feel from this short comment, that I dont have in an uncomfortable measure with the sutra itself --Aryah 19:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I just read the factual dispute policy, and i was wrong to put a tag on the entire section - I mostly have aproblem with those two sentences, and I tagged them specifically anyways.. Exept in the sence of the 3. point, so I put only a POV-check-section tag--Aryah 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed points. It is amusing to me that I (of all people) am accused of giving the impression that the MPNS might be bogus, or that it is a sutra that cannot be trusted, since it is so controversial! If my words in the article gave that impression, then I have to apologise and am indeed happy to remove them (which I have done) - since such an impression is the last one which I would seek to generate. I of course totally agree with you that the MPNS should not be seen as any more "controversial" than the Prajnaparamita sutras - but regrettably, it frequently is viewed as controversial. I wish that it were not so.

Next, the realm or sphere of the Buddha is indeed the Tathagatagarbha, and this is directly linked with the Self and the Dharmakaya in the MPNS. There is nothing "dubious" at all about such a linkage of the Self (what might be termed the Buddha-Self) with the visaya (sphere, realm) of the Buddha-dhatu or Tathagata-garbha or Nirvana. The MPNS makes it clear that all of these things - the TG, the Buddha-dhatu, the Dharmakaya - are nothing less than Nirvana or Great Nirvana.

Thirdly, the whole point about the rejection of eternalism and annihilationism is, in the context of the Tatahgatagarbha sutras, that one must recognise what is transient and what is eternal, and not muddle up the two things. The Tathagatagarbha / Buddha / Nirvana IS eternal, whereas the changeful skandhas are not. I agree with you totally that the MPNS is very balanced - but I have included in my "piece" reference to the impermanent skandhas to indicate such a balance (the contrast between transient skandhas and eternal Nirvana/ Tathagatagarbha) . Finally, I don't think this little article of mine on "Nirvana in the MPNS" breaches the "neutral point of view" rule of Wikipedia: I am writing here about Nirvana / Great Nirvana as viewed by the MPNS - and it is indeed portrayed as eternal and unchanging in this sutra. This is not my "point of view": it is a fact of this particular text, repeated in various forms numerous times throughout the sutra. But perhaps I could have made more mention of the Tathagatagarbha, as you suggest (I have given an internal, Wiki-link for that, so that the reader can get more information on it that way). Anyway, I don't feel that my piece is breaching the impartiality rule of Wikipedia. I've just tried to state the basic facts which the MPNS articulates regarding Nirvana.

Unless there is a lot of support from other editors for keeping that tag questioning the neutrality of my piece, I would therefore ask that you remove it altogether. Many thanks for your co-operation! Best wishes to you. From Tony. TonyMPNS 20:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the above:

1. "RandomCritic" writes: 'This article suffers from a certain sectarian slant'. I don't see this at all. The article merely reports briefly the position of the MPNS -- that's what the section heading says. The original author has also made clear that this sutra, or better, its contents are controversial -- which, in the present-day, it is, both within and outside Mahayana.

2. "Aryah" writes: The MPNS is 'a sutra reffering (sic) to buddha nature ... so there is an essential difference there.' I'm not quick what is meant by this. Is it that writer's intention to suggest that there is a conflict between buddha-nature and the [true] self ? There is not. Or that there is a perceived difference between her understanding of Buddhism and the teachings of the MPNS concerning a [true] self ? Then she write ' a greater involvment {sic} of hindu-inclined authors in this'. This is not true. I can't see any trace of Hindu-inclination here -- the original writer of the article is just summarizing the MPNS's views on Nirvana. Has "Aryah" actually read the entire MPNS ?

not a conflict - simply, giving a wrong impression. Its totaly illogical to suggest that when I say, and later quote, that True Self is infact the buddha-nature, that by suggesting stressing this, that Im implying a conflict between those notions. My point is that buddha-nature has different interpretations, and omitting this identification makes the differences between buddha-nature and a hindu notion of atman too invisibe to a reader not familiar with the sutra. Yes, I have read MPNS. Is there a reason why Im adressed in the 3. person? Yes, I do see I jumped to conclusions when seeing a hindu project refference, thinking the presentation of MPNS, which simply seemed to be selective in presentation, was due to such influence. Apologies for that unnecessary slander.--Aryah 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

However, the reference to the "wikiproject hinduism" must be taken very seriously. There are moves afoot by people sympathetic to the right-wing nationalist Hindutva movement to re-write anything touching on Indian matters. To get some idea of what is involved, look for at the Wikipedia article on the Californian Hindu textbook controversy (esp under the articles History). The list of names given for the Wikiproject Hinduism is almost entirely made of pseudonyms. It seems that this group of forty or so people who define themselves as Hindus have taken it upon themselves systematically to collaborate on rewriting selected articles in Wikipedia. For Hindutva followers, Buddhism is merely a subsidiary form of Hinduism.

alarming to hear! --Aryah 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

3. If "Aryah" is dyslexic, I apologize, for highlighting this, but what is 'thathagatagharba', 'ethernalistic' or 'teravada' ? It is rather discourteous to inflict one's careless illiteracy upon others and also does the writer no credit -- how can we be expected to take seriously the views of somebody who can't even take the time to check their spelling and punctuation.

Im not a native english speaker, and often type in hurry. I have never seen these fact considered in a civil conversation a reason to consider what i said of lesser importance; In fact, Id consider such corrections utter waste of time, bandwith, cash, and wikipedia's disk space - why would anyone ever take the time to check their spelling and punctuation??? --Aryah 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

4. "TonyMPNS" writes: 'I do think the tag of "Disputed Accuracy" should immediately be removed'. I agree, because none of the objections are substantial, though probably the article could be fine-tuned a little. I also agree that his objections to the claim that he has ' "horribly misrepresented" the Tathagatagarbha sutras or the "Mahaparinirvana Sutra" ' are well-founded. We need a little more evidence to establish this accusation.

the tag is removed, i agreed. I think it was removed before any of your comments were made - now only a tag asking for a pov-check is there. You should also note that my original claim was not of horrible misrepresentation of the sutras, but of other schools, which might have other takes on those sutras.. --Aryah 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

5. "Aryah" writes: 'the unqualified refference to the True Self, while in fact its said in that sutra that tathagatagarbha is the true self'. Actually, in the section of MPNS where the identity of the [true] self and Nirvana is mentioned, the concept of the TG has not yet been introduced -- the concept of the TG belongs to a later stratum of the text. But, it would merely need the addition of a small phrase to correct this perceived problem. She also write: 'This opens many possible misinterpretations'. Such as ? She also write: 'I dispute that this is a disputed sutra among buddhists'. But the original article does not say "disputed" ! It has "controversial", which seems to be a true statement. The ensuing comments about canonical status merely reflect her own confusion.

later stratum?? Why would it even be relevant if it is a later stratum or not?? In any case it followes quite quickly in the text of the sutra. The misinterpretations I was reffering to is simpy, and relatedly to the original question about hindu influence on this presentation, making it relatively easly to be misunderstood MPNS presentation as identical to hindu concept of self. Its unreasonable to expect a reader to be familiar with the context of this sutra, and connotations phrases used in it exactly reffer to. I would like to know why exactly are comments about canonical status problematic? If it demonstrates my confusion, then they are simply wrong. I fail to see any reason why apperently the main question seems to be about my competence to comment anything here, and only fragmentary dismissive mentions of what I actually asked are made...Yes, contraversial, not disputed, though I fail to see any relevant difference. You seem to state this is a true statement; my question was, if there is such a dispute, Id like to see a reference to it, the mahayana group that disputes it etc. --Aryah 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Aryah" also writes: 'Tathagatagarba is in fact a general view among mahayana buddhists, not some obscure dispuded {sic} area'. Are we to deduce from this that "Aryah" is actually the pseudonym of a leading Buddhist scholar who has the in-depth familiarity with most aspects of Mahayana Buddhism that results from many decades of study and fluency in the major Buddhist languages that would be needed to make this statement ?

no, in my small experience of mahayana, from few sources, and encounters with other buddhists, i have never heard it not considered part of the teaching, and am totaly suprised when hearing what type of qualifications I should supposedly have to write that simple sentence with any credibility, and dont understand at all why.. I see no reason for such extreme sarcasm... --Aryah 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

"Aryah" also writes: 'Let me try to demonstrate why i think that simply saying [snip] is horribly misleading - heres {sic} a coupe {sic} of diferent {sic} quotes from that same sutra'. I really do understand what you think you have demonstrated here. Please enlighten us ! Her comment, 'Quite an empty True Self really' seems to indicate a total failure to understand the doctrinal stance of the MPNS.

the comment at the end had a smile with it, and was just a casual remark how I percieved this could also be interpreted. What doctrinal stance of the MPNS? This is also a completely confusing; a person or a school has a doctrinal stance, but a text is allways open for reinterpretations, and most probably is reinterpreted in contemporary mahayana. You probably mean a doctrinal stance of school that wrote MPNS, but why is this historical speculation even relevant? In the quotes I tried to demonstrate two points, that the True Self was identified with TG, and that there was a context of not-self, first affirmed, and then against which the self is re-affirmed - while only a True Self got into this presentation...--Aryah 00:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

So, I would suggest removing the "Disputed Accuracy" notice and make a few small changes to clarify matters.

Additionally, and more importantly, I urge the removal of the "Category: ProjectHinduism" tag from all of the Buddhism related articles. I can see much trouble ahead. --Stephen Hodge 22:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

already done, above.

Right, the slight change is not bad - suggestion would be that the mention of thathagathagarbo {= tathagatagarbha} sutra lead to the list of those sutras (im {= I'm} sure Ive {I've} seen it on wiki), and the refference {= reference, passim} you added lead to the doctrine as it does now (maybe a mention along with the True Self in the sentence I mentioned above?. Also, what exactly do you mean by 'linked to' phrase there? could {= Could} you plz explain the nature of that link between Tathagatagarbha and the Buddha's eternal Self (nature)? i {= I, passim} thought the link was in fact that they are identical :)

is {= Is} greater nirvana different from nirvana in the sense that the attainment of a buddha is greater than that of an arhat - a difference, but i think only in the ability to teach, would be accepted by the teravada {= Theravada, passim} also, as 3 types of buddhas, think there is no mahayana {= Mahayana, passim} that would teach the attainment of a buddha and an arhat the same, so this is quite orthodox i believe.. Suggestion, maybe the term 'ordinary' nirvana is not a great idea - I mean, how ordinary is such attainment anyways :) Besides, though such distinction is afaik commonly present in mahayana buddhism anyways, the term great nirvana would be quite a suprise to most readers; its not used much, might seem as something specialy strange adding the feel of the inauthenticiy of this sutra.. again, not sure what to suggest about that. Think Ive {I've} seen it said 'ordinary' nirvana at least on one other place in wiki, the parinirvana article.

Look, Im {I'm} just a guy reading this text; on my inquery {= inquiry}, you removed the refference that it was a disputed sutra, explaining how you would be the last person to insist that it is disputed. Still, this in not our article - if it were actually disputed, this should remain in some form, but only if such a dispute can be sourced and traced to a tradition disputing it (other than teravada; its {= it's} obvious its disputed there, but so is all other mahayana literature). Is there any link at all to anyone disputing it, as you say is commonly the case - or do you simply mean that someone having learned of such a sutra might often personally dispute it? But this seems to me to be a bad criterium for the contraversy {= controversy} of anything..

curious {= Curious}, how does such a position deal with the abhidharmic arguments that there is no self either in the skhandas or outside them? Or nagarjunian denying both prabhava and svabhava as a causal basis of a self? I do understand that thathagatagharbo {tathagatagarbha} (like the tibetan concept of rigpa) could maybe be called some type of an extremely abstract self, but its usually explained as empty in the nagarjunian-tetralema sense anyways, and as possible (and of infinite potentiality) precisely because of this. Sorry for the offtopic of this, simply got curious about the issues here.

right {= Right}, you do have a point there, nirvana itself is of course displayed as infinite, unchanging, allways-existing, and nirvana being not an extinguishment, but a deathlessness, i have nothing to object here; similar to, say, the All-Creating King Tantra. This is in line, for instance with prajnaparamita notions how nirvana is not produced (so how could it arise or cease), with mahayana 'pantheon' of existing but enlightened beings. Only the True Self refferences made me raise my eyebrows in wonder, but :)

heres {= Here's} a short prajnaparamita in 8000 lines quote about nirvana: Even as Bodhisattva, great being, leads countless beings to Nirvana, and yet not any being has been led to Nirvana, nor has one led other to it.. As all-knowledge is not made, not unmade, not affected.. Subhti {= Subhuti}: Any state of all-knowledge is (also) non-produced.

Another question, why is this specific sutra put as something separate from all the rest of mahayana presentation of nirvana? Granted, sutras {= the sutra's} language might commonly be reinterpreted (interpreted away), and interpretation migh vary, but the sutra itself is afaik basic for any mahayana presentation of nirvana? Looks like there is some distinct 'MPNS buddhism' presentation of nirvana, while its {= it's} just a mahayana presentation, maybe with some linguistic/interpretational quirks. Think there shouldnt {shouldn't} be a separate MPNS section at all, but a much more detailed mahayana explanation, and within this context, commonalities and specificums of presentation in this and other sutras could be explored in the context in which they both originated (at least in the form known today), and in which they are today still in use.

Well, plz keep the pov-check tag a few days - it only says that someone is asking others to evaluate the NPOVness of the text, and comment, it doesnt {doesn't} imply that it necessarely is a pov problem. Id {= I'd} like more ppl give input on this issue. I dont {don't} think there is any intentional pov-pushing in this section, as Ive {I've} said from the start, and its {it's} a good and well-sourced peace {= piece} of text afaic, still, like I said there maybe {+ is} some pov-ness in the selection and details of presentation - lets {let's} just see what other ppl think about it. Its {It's} just a query - and I presented some queries about it above, asking (to recap) about slight changes on the begging of the text, some sources about previous claims of contraversie (= controversy), some irrelevant off-topic stuff :) , and it being structured as separate talk about specific sutra, instead of in a context of a presentation of mahayana. --Aryah 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)#

Aryah -- I have just seen your note that you are not a native speaker of English -- sorry if my comments were a little harsh. I had a little fun correcting the above posting from you. Apologies if that offends you.--195.92.67.75 00:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem: I saw who made them, and knew that I must have seen as horribly ignorant in comparison; however I do insist that by virtue of that my comments are not completely worthless, since an average reader, will I suspect be in a similar position.:) I mentioned them being such only so it wouldnt escalate further; wiki can often become a rather unhospitable place. Besides, I do the same to my native language anyways ;) --Aryah 01:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Aryah and hallo Stephen Hodge (thanks for your helpful comments!). Thank you for your interesting points, Aryah, which really deserve long answers. Unfortunately, I don't have so much time (other commitments call me). But I'll give some brief responses, and will then leave it at that and see what others think.

1)The reason why the MPNS deserves a special little section of its own in the "Nirvana" entry is that it is the ONLY Mahayana sutra that I am aware of which takes as its programme - as its actual title - the very notion of "Nirvana". The sutra calls itself either the "Mahaparinirvana Sutra", the "Mahanirvana Sutra" or the "Nirvana Sutra". Also, it does have a teaching which, to most Buddhists (but not to me at all) will seem really controversial and to run totally counter to what they believe is the central doctrine of Buddhism - "non-Self". In opposition to this usual Buddhist teaching of "non-Self", the MPNS posits a True Self, which it equates (you are right!) with the Tathagatagarbha. This is extraordinarily deviant doctrine for most "mainstream" Buddhists. However, I believe those Buddhists have totally misinterpreted the Pali suttas and much Mahayana too - but that is another matter! From the point of view of "orthodox" or "mainstream" Buddhism (if I can call it that), the idea that Nirvana is the realm of the eternal Self of Buddha, which is indestructible, blissful and utterly pure - yet full of virtue(s) - is very, very shocking. So this is why the MPNS deserves its special mention. It is (on the face of it - but again, not in my view at all) a worryingly divergent text for most mainstream Buddhists.

yes, so I see we really have a different perspective here - i consider it part of textual basis of modern mahayana teachings, interpreted and situated however it is in modern mahayana, and consider it interesting mostly in the context of whatever mahayana chooses to do with that thext. You however seem to consider the text itself as having a teaching, not only as it is existant in modern mahayana, but think it should be given a different place, and interpreted mostly as an independent teaching itself. This explains a previous note about parroting also. I dont personally consider there is ever anything said in any text ever at all; but is allways just a basis for various interpretations, some of which are rare, but this would be a different topic/discussion...--83.131.139.182 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

2) Controversy: yes, the MPNS is very controversial in its doctrines and language - and in the way it is appraised. Even now, if you look on the Internet, you can see that there is a discussion thread called "Nirvana Sutra: a dangerous sutra" - where people are alleging being barred from Buddhist groups for introducing the teachings of the MPNS! The Gelukpas of Tibet, for instance, do not regard the MPNS as a very high teaching (despite the fact that the sutra itself says it gives the ultimate teaching!), but as a lower-level doctrine for the less spiritually mature. This (distortionist) view - that the MPNS is merely a "skilful means" for less advanced students, without any ontic truth behind its notion of Buddha-dhatu or Tathagagata-garbha - is becoming quite common now (after this sutra has suffered from decades of neglect in the West). It is a view which the Jonangpa School of Tibetan Buddhism, for example, completely opposes. As do I - and as does the MPNS itself. The writings of the Jonangpas, who based themselves heavily on such sutras as the Nirvana Sutra, were allegedly locked away by the Gelukpas, as the latter felt that such teachings were deviant and dangerous. So there is a lot of controversy here - and with individual Buddhists themselves, who often express the idea that the MPNS does not really mean what it says (a rather ill-advised assertion, I find!).

What you describe is not a contraversy at all. First of all, note that even the mentioned Gelugpas do consider the text as words of Buddha. The fact that they dont consider it an especially high text doesnt make it contraversial in any sense - they simply choose a different role for that text.I think they are certanly within their rights to do so, as we all are. There is nothing contradictory in a text, considered to be spoken by the buddha, claiming to be highest, and a school saying its not really high; you can se various comments of lamas how a 'highest' teaching is simply the teaching most appropriate for a capacity of a person ( i could find such a quote by namkhai norbu rinpoche - or even longchenpa!) - cuz mahayana is mostly just skillfull means anyways, even madyamaka and yogachara not being particulary binding doctrines, just maybe usefull, to some... For ppl to whom this sutra was spoken, buddha was correct in saying that it is highest cuz for them it was... By the mention of Jonangpas you put this in a wery interesting context - I would then presume that the Gelugpas wou were mentioning are the conservative, Pabonkha-influenced Gelugpas, not Rime Gelugpas, since Jonangpa school was wery influential and respected in the now-dominant fruits of Rime movement. One could by this logic conclude that HH Dalai Lama is a contraversial figure because he practices Dzogchen, also a doctrinarly and politically contraversial teaching among such gelugpas, and for similar reasons - accused of ethernalism. But the real truth is in fact that such elements in the gelug schools are actually contraversial. If this sutra is indeed thought of highly by the Jonangpa school, then i cannot see how it could be considered contraversial - just a part of shentong debate - ; then Jonangpa are supposedly not considered buddhists in the 'mainstream' buddhism?This certanly is not the case within tibetan buddhism (where even bon is commonly considered a form of buddhism btw). You could also see in shenpen osel magazine , www.shenpen-osel.org , in the number where a Commentary on Chandrakirti's Entrance to the Middle Way by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche is presented, how this kagyu rinpoche states how shentong is the highest theaching, i.e. apparently supporting the Jonangpas position in the shentong debate. Would these buddhist groups consider expelling a kagyu rinpoche maybe? And wouldnt that make them contraversial, not what they were denouncing - exept of course, if there wasnt something much more than this sutra behind such ban. So, this is the internet thread refference supporting it being contraversial? I wouldnt be suprised if certan interpretations of this sutra were contraversial, but whatever Jonangpas support in this sutra certanly cannot be considered contraversial - debatable of course, but not in this extreme sense of being grounds for exlusions from buddhist groups anywhere(and this was the extremeness of connotation I got from this mention in the original text also). In this sense of debatable, we could consider all Gelug prasangika teachings as contraversial, and here too there were cases of supressed books of criticisms of Tsonkhapas positions etc, but i think reactions would be quite understandably negative if Tsonkhapas works were called contraversial in some wiki article on such grounds. Also, note that you originally didnt say that this sutra was contraversial, but that all Tathagatagarbha sutras were; if one is to conclude that the Tathagatagarbha doctrine comes from those sutras, you can see, for instance on berzin archives, that it is not a contraversial doctrine at least among any tibetan buddhist - its interpretation often isnt the one presented in this sutra, thats true, but is indeed explaing in sutric teachings only as a potential (in tantric, i think even this is not the case). So, judging by the data you just gave, it seems even clearer that at least in tibetan buddhism, this sutra cannot be considered contraversial, and certanly all tathagatagarbha sutrac cannot be considered contraversial, though there might be interesting debates about its role and interpretations, but this is the case even with prajnaparamita sutras, or for instance works of nagarjuna, which could hardly be called contraversial... --83.131.139.182 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

3) What about Nagarjuna, et. al.? The MPNS sees itself as the ultimate, final explanatory statement on Mahayana Dharma - and as such supercedes (in its own view) all other Mahayana treatises. The MPNS states itself to be the "absolutely final culmination" and to provide the "utterly supreme - "uttarottara" - meaning of all Mahayana discourses". So whatever other sutras or commentators may say or not say must (according to the text itself) be subservient to the definitive explanation of Dharma given by this "final" Mahayana sutra. It is the last Dharmic will and testament of the Buddha, as it were. You don't have to believe a word of this, of course (although I personally think that if one is a Mahayana Buddhist, one should take such insistent claims by the Buddha very, very, very seriously indeed) - but that is what the sutra teaches, and that is what I report. I am not putting forward my "point of view" - just reporting a central tenet of the MPNS. Also, it does affirm non-Self (again, you are right!) - but makes it clear that non-Self is the transitory skandhas, whereas the Self is Buddha. So both non-Self and the True Self are in fact taught by this sutra.

No, you misunderstoodl; I was questioning how it dealt with arguments there presented, not how it defined itself in comparison with them. If there were some ancient panditas of MPNS views, they must have taken on defeating such arguments? Sorry, this is irrelevant to this discussion, but Id love to see a link to some discussions of this, if you by any chance know of any. --83.131.139.182 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

So, Aryah, I hope that we can soon remove the tag challenging the POV regarding my little piece. I don't think there is space to go into how other schools interpret the MPNS. That would require a whole new article in itself, I think! The main thing in the context of the "Nirvana" entry on Wiki, I felt and feel, is to inform the reader that there is a sutra in Mahayana Buddhism which has a striking and seemingly "heretical" teaching on Nirvana and the Self. Of course (just to stress the point!), I think the MPNS is not heretical at all: it means what it says regarding the True Self in Nirvana and (in my view) continues the Buddha's actual teaching on Self and non-Self; it is in fact trying to correct misinterpretations of Dharma which have denied the Self altogether and which have emphasised Emptiness, construed in a totally negative, almost "nihilistic" way. As the MPNS says: "Non-Self is Samsara; Self is Great Nirvana". That is enough to get the hackles of most "mainstream" Buddhists - and their schools - rising (as I know from bitter experience)! "Controversial" is putting it mildly! Anyway, I hope this helps a little, and I shall be interested to see if lots of people write in demanding that you keep your POV-questioning tag - and want to kick out my little piece from the Nirvana article. You may well get such support (it would not surprise me at all!). Sorry I cannot devote more time to this.Yours with best wishes, Tony. TonyMPNS 09:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

right, I will remove this tag. I do think that the source of the feel of povness I had was found, which I explained in the answer to the first point. I do feel that much more should be said on these subjects. Such discussion about presentation of this sutra does not fit here, thats sure; but it should go in the text about this sutra imo. More note about both different mahayana and teravada 'takes' on nirvana should imo also be explained, and I still wonder if this section could not be 'drowned; among explanations of other mahayana presentation of it. So, If you dont mind, id like to remove the pov-check, since ppl seem not to be interested in this discussion, and stick a request for expansion on the whole article instead? Whould you agree on this sollution of this discussion?--83.131.139.182 15:57, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hallo Aryah. Thanks for your ideas. Yes, that's fine. Thanks for removing the POV tag. What I would suggest is that you leave my "Nirvana in the MPNS" section as it is and invite other people to create another section on Nirvana in the Mahayana traditions more generally, plus a further section on "Nirvana in the Theravada Understanding". What do you think? That strikes me as fair. For example, someone could create a section on "Nirvana as seen by Nagarjuna" or "Nirvana From the Perspective of Madhyamaka Buddhism". That type of thing would be informative, I feel. I believe this is the best and fairest way to go. It is also clear for the reader - to see separate subheadings on different approaches to Nirvana. But I would be grateful if you left my "Nirvana in the MPNS" piece as its own independent section, since (as I tried to explain earlier) the MPNS does have a very peculiar ( = specific, individual) stance on Nirvana. Anyway, I hope my suggestions will be acceptable to you. Perhaps you yourself could write a section on "Nirvana in Tibetan Buddhism"? Or encourage others to write such a piece (maybe on one or more of the Tibetan schools of Buddhism)? Have fun. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 16:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit

This is the first time I am like doing anything on Wikipedia other than reading.The summary for ths article I think has been vandalised by someone.I do not know what was actually there.Hence could not edit it.--61.246.68.245 07:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Part of a series on Hinduism

It is stated that, at the top, that this article is about buddhist concept of nirvana but yet why is there a "Part of a series on Hinduism" box? . And that there is no section about why "Part of a series on Hinduism" box is in Nirvana. Can someone explain the importance of putting keeping the Hinduism box? I removed it, but incase someone decided to put it back, give reasons. (-MonkeyBrain)

The article contradicts itself in the first sentence of the main text by saying, "Nirvāna ... is the culmination of the pursuit of liberation (moksha) in Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, & Jainism." I don't know whether nirvana is a significant concept in other Indian religious, and if the different religions' views of nirvana are similar enough to be well discussed in one article, but, in any event, we need to figure out what the subject of this article does and doesn't include. - Nat Krause^(Talk!) 07:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nat that it is necessary to decide whether this article really should also cover the Hindu version of Nirvana (e.g. as mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita). The same goes for the Sikh and Jain references. I personally feel (and this may shock those who totally misunderstand and misrepresent some of my own contributions to Wikipedia!) that the inclusion of the term in reference to Hinduism (or Sikhism / Jainism) in this particular article on (overwhelmingly) Buddhist Nirvana is inappropriate. My impression is that there are some important distinctions between Buddhist Nirvana and the use of the term in the Hindu and other scriptures. Also, I don't have the impression that the most famous Hindu shastras (scriptures) speak so centrally of Nirvana as do the Buddhist suttas/ sutras. But I may be wrong - not being any kind of specialist in Hinduism. I think it might be better (if the Hinduism-interested editors feel it useful) to have a "Nirvana (Hinduism)" entry - just as there are "Atman (Hinduism)" and "Atman (Buddhism)" entries. Also, I feel that the linking of Hinduism and Buddhism - formally, by the "part of a series on Hinduism" tag - is undesirable. Again, despite some frequently encountered misunderstandings, there are notable distinctions (although of course a number of commonalities, too) between Hinduism and Buddhism - even in the latter's "Tathagatagarbha" forms, which are emphatically NOT "entrist Hinduism" into Buddhism. Such is a total misrepresentation of the mood, detail and expressed intention of those "Tathagatagarbha" sutras. So in sum I would say: keep the "Nirvana" entry devoted exclusively to Buddhism - and possibly create a "Nirvana (Hinduism)" entry, if those who know more about Hinduism than I do feel that "Nirvana" is indeed a sufficiently important concept within the teachings of the Hindu religion. Best wishes. From Tony. TonyMPNS 08:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

We could do the normal 'trick' which has worked well elsewhere, (see Atman or Yama)that comes in two flavours:

We turn this into an informed disambiguation page and create derived articles off it - Nirvana (Buddhism), Nirvana (Hinduism), and Nirvana (Jain) etc.
We decide that this article IS the Nirvana Buddhism article and provide links to the other articles.

As a general rule, I prefer the former - as it remains less biased, even if it is the case that most individuals equate Nirvana with Buddhism.

Atman and Yama both improved as articles once they had focussed into specific areas. It's true that Atman remains pretty empty - but this may be that there is little to share between Atman (Buddhism) and Atman (Hinduism) until both areas are more mature. (20040302 00:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC))

I agree. I vote for option 1. My knowledge of the Hindu and Jain faiths is limited, and I am not qualified to edit the Jain or Hindu content. If we split the article into three, I will feel better about editing the Buddhist article and leaving the other two for Hindus and Jains to edit. Wandering Star 01:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking about the first option, but the problem I think is there is no difference difference Moksha and Nirvana (hinduism) from my understanding or is there?. But on the other hand, in buddhism, moksha (hinduism) differs greatly from Nirvana (buddhism) so the Nirvana being Buddhism centerfic seems reasonable. But once again, i do not have any info on jainism's take on nirvana, so I think for now, I say we keep the way it is, but provide a see also link to moksha and later on nirvana in jainism. Monkey Brain 01:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

recent edit

A recent editor added the comment: "However, it must be said, the Christian heaven is one of 'beatific vision' of a personal God face-to-face; nirvana one of 'annihilation' of ignorance and suffering in the face of the impersonal". This is somewhat wide of the mark. Nibbana is (as the rest of the article explains) beyond personality vs. impersonality - these are concepts within the realm of sammuti sacca or conventional truth. Nirvana (and indeed God or Heaven) being the realm of ultimate truth (paramattha sacca) is beyond such designations as personal or impersonal. The dharmakaya (our Father in Heaven) is our true home and in this sense is personal (closer to us than our own jugulars as the Qu'ran says) but this intimacy should not convey any literal sense of selfhood on the part of God or ourselves. God is called a person to make the nature of His Being more amenable to human understanding. The personhood of God is only analagous to human personhood. These words are just pointers and not to be taken literally. In point of fact there are Buddhist traditions (in Tibet and China) which describe the merging of the individual self with the dharmakaya at the moment of liberation as a child running into the arms of its mother. Finally, St Paul states that at the moment of union with God (entering the Kingdom) "...then shall I know even as also I am known."(I Cor,13). The word Buddha means (as well as Awakened) 'one who knows' (as in Gnosis) but at this stage the distinction between the knower and the known has disappeared - a buddha knows but at the same time is experienced as known (ie. by God). This is the experience of Thou art that. May all be well. User:Langdell

What does "SS" Refer to? A Sutra?

Hallo. I see that an editor has understandably enquired what the "SS" stands for that was given as a source for the seven synonyms of Nirvana. I myself did not put up that excellent quote - but I recognise it: it is from the "Surangama Sutra" (Chapter 4, on "Self-Enlightenment"). It would be helpful if the editor who originally posted that quote could tell us which translation was used for it. However, it does seem accurate enough(measuring it against my Lu K'uan Yu translation). Cheers. Tony. TonyMPNS 19:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sangha's Nirvana

User Sangha claims that Nirvana is not negative. This seems to me to be completely wrong. The word "Nirvana" designates a totally negative concept. That concept is "the absence of suffering and its cause, attachment." If a word designates the absence of a positively experienced thing, then it is designating a negative concept. Suffering and attachment are positive experiences. "Nirvana" is such a negative word. Other similar negative words are "void," "nothingness," and "emptiness."Lestrade 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Hm.. I don't understand your views, how is suffering a positive experience? How is emptiness (devoid of views (both good and bad)) a negative? Nirvana is extinguishing (positions/views(kinda)). How is "zero" a negative number? Monkey Brain 04:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

How is suffering a positive experience? If you feel a sharp pain, that is a positive experience in that the pain is really present. "Positive" means "possessing actual force, being, presence, or existence." On the other hand, "negative" means "the absence of actual force, being, presence, or existence." You must be thinking that "positive" means "good" and "negative" means "bad." Your mathematical question is not relevant to purely verbal concepts and only applies to the terminology of numbers. The meaning of that technical terminology is the result of conventional meanings that mathematicians have agreed upon. Lestrade 13:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Ah ok. That's an uncommon definition of Negative and Positive. But I now understand your negative(negation) concept of Nirvana and I don't have a problem with that. However others might object to your views. Till then. Monkey Brain 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana is not Knowledge

I intend to delete the paragraph in the article that asserts that Nirvana is a kind of knowledge. Nirvana, being the extinction of suffering and attachment, is not "enlightenment," "pure unobstructed awareness of reality as-it-is," "spiritual knowledge," "awakening," or "perfect gnosis." Nirvana is a condition of non-willing. Nirvana is not a condition of "higher" knowledge. A quick look in the nearest dictionary shows that Nirvana is: 1.(a)the extinguishment of the restlessness and heat of one's emotions; (b) the passionless peace of imperturbability attained through the annihilation of disturbing desires; 2. freedom from pain, worry, and the external world. [Sanskrit: a blowing out (as of a light)]. These are states of non-willing, not states of knowing. Lestrade 12:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I agree with you there. Monkey Brain 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

way to reach the status of nirvana

I'm not an expert,so someone please add section or subsection that describes how to reach the status of nirvana... Janviermichelle 00:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The way to Nirvana status (realizing empty-nature(a.k.a buddha-nature)) is through enlightenment(concentration) and Noble Eightfold Path(direction of concentration). The way to enlightenment is through meditation. Wow, I made it look so simple. lol. I think there might already be an article on this. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 01:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The way to attain Nirvana is to completely lose the will to live. See Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation, Vol. 1, Book 4.66.82.9.74 02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Schopenhauer's a buddhist? I didn't know that. I'll look into it later though. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 03:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Schopenhauer's philosophy corresponded independently with the first three of the 4 Noble Truths. Instead of the 4th Noble Truth, regarding the eightfold way, Schopenhauer taught that Nirvana, or denial of the will, can be reached in one of two ways. The most common way is to witness the suffering of other people and animals. The rarer way is to personally experience extreme suffering. Either of these paths may lead to loss of will, and therefore to Nirvana. Schopenhauer kept a statue of the Buddha (Gautama Siddhartha) in his room.66.82.9.49 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

But nirvana is not "loss of will" in Buddhism. His ideas may have created some parallels, however different from buddhist views of nirvana. Do keeping statues of Buddha make a person buddhist? Monkey Brain_(untalk) 14:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You said he was a Buddhist. I said that his ideas corresponded independently with the first three Noble Truths of Buddhism. I also said that he kept a Buddha statue. That was because he had reverence for the religion. Nirvana corresponds to the nothingness, emptiness, and void that is felt after a person loses all willing. This is the aftermath of the loss of craving, desire, appetite, and will to live. Nagarjuna tried to express this with his repeated emphasis on the void.69.19.14.35 15:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

"Schopenhauer's a buddhist?" I had not confirmed he was a Buddhist. Merely responded to why you try to explain Buddhist belief with Schopenhauer's belief. Ofcourse they can be congruent on some cases, however not all. Nirvana doesnot corresponds to nothingness or void, well not the buddhist version. However Schopenhauer's version of Denial of Will is not Buddhist belief. Nagarjuna did not put any emphasis on void, but simply emptiness. There is a big difference between Nihilism and Buddhism. One talks about physical( nihilism ), (nothing exists) and other is mental(Buddhism) (existence is empty in nature). Monkey Brain_(untalk) 20:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You claim that Nirvana does not correspond to nothingness or void. I think that you are wrong. Nirvana is the escape from the world into non-being, that is, denial of the will. This occurs as a result of the loss of attachment. Read the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism. You claim that Nagarjuna emphasized simply emptiness, not the void. Did you know that empty and void are synonyms? Then you mention nihilism. That diverts us from the main issue by introducing an extremely ambiguous word. "Nihilism" has multiple meanings, all of which depend on context.69.19.14.18 20:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Nope, emptiness(mental) and nothingness(physical) are different. Not same, read the Shunyata (emptiness) article. Nirvana is not an escape from the world, nor is it the denial of will. Loss of attachment does not cause Nirvana(but loss of will may leads to denial of will, but that is not Buddhism). The Four Noble Truth does not state that by getting rid of attachment, you have reached nirvana. It simply states that it stops suffering(mental). And while it is true that void and emptiness are synonyms, however, the way you are using void to lead to nothingness, is not Nirvana and simply incorrect. I brought up the Nihilism because you had stated Nirvana is nothingness. However, nothingness(Nothing exists) is a Nihilist pov; and by saying that Nirvana is nothingness, it becomes nihilism, which BTW, is NOT Buddhism. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't qute understand why Schopenhauer's thoughts are being discussed here. And I don't agree with that we can reach nirvana by witnessing the suffering of other creatures, or experiencing extreme suffering. By witnessing the suffering, Buddha started to think why the life is full of suffering, and 'experiencing extreme suffering to reach nirvana' is, i believe, the belief in hinduism, which is rejected by Buddha himself. Let me know if something's wrong. Janviermichelle 21:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

While I do not know alot about Hindu's pov, but I think to them, Nirvana is understood more as becoming one with the universe, or in other words, attaining moksha. Monkey Brain_(untalk) 22:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Becoming one with the universe is the characteristic of mysticism, not Nirvana. When a person realizes that the world is a place of suffering (1st Noble Truth), that person may lose interest in the world or even detest the world.

Becoming one with the universe is A hindu POV as stated; their pov differs from Schopenhauer's pov and Buddhist pov about what Nirvana is. Loss of interest/Detesting world maybe what Schopenhauer's philosophy is about, but it is not what Buddhism is about. -m

When this occurs, the world becomes as nothing to him/her. The impression or feeling that the world is nothing to him/her results in his/her seeing the world as empty and void of value or interest.

Although there does seem like similarity to you, buddhist views differ. World is said to be empty, not because it lacks value, or interest, but simply it lacks inherent self. There is no something to identify with. These objects then do not become the same nor are they different, because there is no thing to identify it by other than it's relation to others.-m

He/she no longer craves anything (3rd Noble Truth). As a result of this, he/she is in a state that is called Nirvana (extinguishment, as in the candle's flame that has been blown out).

Is that's schopenhauer's definition? or yours? Either way, defining something that is undefined is clearly a "wrong view" in Buddhism and not that is not what Buddhist believe in. -m

This corresponds to Schopenhauer's philosophy, which is why it was being discussed here for the benefit of those who may not have the time or inclination to read that philosopher. Understanding that philosophy may help in the understanding of Buddhism, and vice versa.66.82.9.54 17:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Schopenhauer may have learned of "denial of will", but that is different from Buddhist views. There is no "denial of will" in Buddhism, simply realization of the self(the no self and not-self). Monkey Brain_(untalk) 18:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana and Mysticism

Contrary to what Monkey Brain asserts, Nirvana is not mysticism. All mysticism consists of the feeling of being united with the whole universe. This is true of Hindu, German, Japanese, Tibetan, Chinese, French, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or any other mysticism. The individual is at one with the whole. On the other hand, Nirvana is the absence of craving, or the denial of the will. As a result of this absence or denial, suffering ceases. Siddhartha associated suffering with craving or willing when he proclaimed his Four Noble Truths. Those truths were realized as a result of his observation of the suffering of other people, in the form of seeing a sick person, an old person, and a dead person. Siddhartha lost interest in the external world as a result of these impressions. He turned against a world that he considered to fundamentally consist of suffering. The whole religion of Buddhism is a search for the way to escape suffering through the cessation of desire and attachment. It has nothing to do with mysticism. 69.19.14.33 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Yes, Nirvana (Buddhist) is not mysticism. It is pointed out that from Hindu pov nirvana is thought as merging with the universe(brahman). And my understanding is that Buddhism is not about losing the self, but simply understanding the self. And I doubt Siddhartha lost interest in the world, if he did, then he would have simply died without going on for 40+ years of teaching Buddhism to the locals. 71.214.82.119 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism is not "about understanding the self" because Buddhism's main concern is not with knowledge. Buddhism's main concern is with the removal of suffering through the cessation of attachment to worldly things . Did you ever see a statue of the meditating Buddha? Does he look as though he is interested in the external world? To Siddhartha, in focused meditation, the external world, as well as the fire of his own willing, was extinguished (Nirvana). After he extinguished his egoism and attachments, his body continued to live. The cessation of craving, willing, desiring, and attachment does not immediately result in physical death. 69.19.14.41 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Yea, and to be free of dukkha(suffering) is through "right understanding" of the self right understanding of the nature and right understanding of the connection between the two (dependent orgination), if there is no right understanding and simply want to get rid of dukkha, do you think it's possible? Because of this, right understanding, there is little place for belief in Buddhism. - Statues do not tell any thing, other than what you already preceive things to be. - Right, cessation of dukkha does not mean immediate death. Realization of nature(self) leads to freedom from dukkha, if there isn't a right understanding of the nature of dukkha, then one cannot be completely free from dukkha. If you read closely, Buddhism focus tons of attention on the will. Will to understand, will to stop dukkha, will to meditate. If the goal of the buddhism is to "lose the will/denial of will," then buddhism shouldn't be teaching meditation it should not even be teaching because learning requires the will to learn. 71.214.82.119 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge and understanding are the means by which the goal of Buddhism is achieved. They are not themselves the goal. They are not what Buddhism is "about." Through knowledge that life is suffering, suffering is the result of craving, and that craving can be stopped, the state of Nirvana can be attained. This state of Nirvana is what Buddhism is "about." It is the final goal. It is the death of attachment, appetite, will, desire, wanting, and craving. When it is attained, suffering ceases because the world becomes nothing to that person. As Schopenhauer wrote: "to the person whose will has turned and denied itself, this very real world of ours, with all of its suns and milky ways, is — nothing."66.82.9.77 21:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Nirvana is a Relative Nothing

Nirvana is a relative nothingness, not a somethingness. It is nothing in relation to the world of experience, which consists of suffering. Nirvana is a negative absence as opposed to a positive presence. Nirvana is not joy or knowledge or enlightenment or ecstasy. Those are positive (present) conditions. It is very difficult for most people to comprehend the negativity and nothingness of Nirvana. This is because the human brain is made for comprehending positive (present) experiences. (Note: I associate the word "present" with the word "positive" because some people understand the word "positive" as meaning "good or pleasing." Here, the ambiguous word "positive" is meant as "an experience that is present and existing in the mind." It originally comes from the Latin for "having a place or position in the mind.")66.82.9.91 15:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Sitting in Perfect Knowledge

User:216.254.121.169 reverted my edit. I had claimed that Nirvana is not knowledge. However, 216.254.121.169 claims that Nirvana is "the end of 'avidya' or root cause of suffering" and that the "Buddha sits in perfect knowledge." But what, according to Siddhartha, is the root cause of suffering? According to the second Noble Truth, attachment or desire is the root cause of suffering. So, Nirvana is the end of attachment or desire, and as a result, the end of suffering. The Buddha is not sitting in perfect knowledge. The Buddha is sitting in perfect apathy as a result of his previous perfect knowledge. If the article claims that the Buddha's Nirvana is, itself, perfect knowledge, then it is grossly misleading all readers.69.19.14.15 20:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

False Etymology

The article section entitled "Nirvana Buddhist Commentaries" contains information that completely misrepresents Nirvana. The correct etymology of the word, as is commonly known, is that it is derived from the Sanscrit nirwā, which means "to blow out" (as in a candle flame). Readers who believe this deleterious section of the article will be exposed to completely false information that will surely harm their understanding.Lestrade 13:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

In his The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. 41, Schopenhauer described the equivalence between Nirvana and denial of the will. Both designated the absence of attachment and therefore the absence of suffering. They are both the absence of willing, not the presence of knowing. He included a footnote that indicates to us how the word would be understood by a reader in 1844, according to the available literature.

The etymology of the word Nirvana is given in various ways. According to Henry Thomas Colebrooke (Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. I, p. 566), it comes from va, “to blow” like the wind, with the prefixed negative nir; hence it signifies a lull or calm, but as an adjective it is “extinguished.” Obry, Du Nirvana indien, p. 3, says: Nirvanam en sanscrit signifie à la lettre extinction, telle que celle d’un feu. (“Nirvana in Sanskrit literally means extinction, e.g., as of a fire.”) According to the Asiatic Journal, Vol. XXIV, p. 735, it is really Nerevana, from nera, “without,” and vana, “life,” and the meaning would be annihilatio. In Robert Spence Hardy’s Eastern Monachism, p. 295, Nirvana is derived from vana, “sinful desires,” with the negative nir. Isaac J. Schmidt, in his translation of the History of the Eastern Mongolians, p. 307, says that the Sanskrit Nirvana is translated into Mongolian by a phrase meaning “departed from misery,” “escaped from misery.” According to the same scholar’s lectures at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, Nirvana is the opposite of Samsara, which is the world of constant rebirths, of craving and desire, of the illusion of the senses, of changing and transient forms, of being born, growing old, becoming sick, and dying. In Burmese the word Nirvana, on the analogy of other Sanskrit words, is transformed into Nieban, and is translated by “complete vanishing.” See Father Vincenzo Sangermano’s Description of the Burmese Empire, translated by Tandy, Rome 1833, § 27.

Lestrade 13:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Pie in the Sky When You Die

Now the introduction claims that Nirvana is a state of deathlessness, or the "unconditioned," which results from living a virtuous life. So we are looking at Nirvana through the spectacles of monotheism. The creator God rewards his creations with immortality if they have been good. Instead of being both the mere absence of attachment and subsequent suffering, Nirvana is now wonderfully brought into correspondence with the beliefs of Western Judaism and its offshoots Islam and Christianity. The original teachings of Siddhartha are totally ignored. Wikipedia, as a result, contributes to the revision of Buddhism.Lestrade 13:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Hinduism and Nirvana

The Hinduism page refers to Nirvana in connection with the Hindu pursuit of Moksha. However, on this page Nirvana is described only as a Buddhist concept. There needs to be an explanation of any distinction (if any) between the two religions regarding the concept of Nirvana. There should not just be a link at the bottom to Hinduism. That does not cover it. Also, this being the English version of Wikipedia, there should not be a lot of foreign text (near the bottom of the page).

Yes, this is absolutely wrong. "Hindu" texts are full of references to Nirvana, , and there's no such distinction as "Moksha is Hindu concept and Nirvana is Buddhist". deeptrivia (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't the terms Nirvana and Moksha interchangeable. Gizza^Chat ^© 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Nir Va Djna / Nirvana according to Chhimed Rigzin Rinpoche

I am a student of a highly accomplished and learned Rinpoche in the Nyingma tradition and stumled uppon this page, my teacher told me that the word Nirvana is actualy 3 words Nir Va Djna and litteraly mean "withouth wrong thought", I have taken a look in the sanskrit diktionary and verified this.

This interpretation is also fully in line with the teachings of Buddhism on meditation and post meditation and the life of a mendicant. Further with this interpretation in mind one can properly understand many aspects of the life of accomplished Buddhists and the spiritual road according to Buddha.

It also clears up some ideas that many people in the west has due to poor understanding of Buddha Dharma when it first was introdused, mainly the thought that Nirvana is the same as extinguising of life. That it would be something like nothingness. As someone here wrote it is the blowing out of the neurotic feelings of hate, wanting and indifference.

Sorry about my poor English. Nils

Nils, Nirvana means extinction or extinguishment, as in the blowing out or snuffing of a candle's flame. It represents the loss of the fire of desire, attachment, will, and craving (and consequently, suffering). It is thus a negative concept in that it designates the absence of something positively felt.Lestrade 14:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Text to be merged

From The Path to Nirvana (please give credit to the authors of that page if using this material):

Introduction

This article is about buddhist meditation practices. For other uses of the term, see Nirvana (disambiguation).

In the religion Buddhism, Meditations carry a higher weight in One's practice to attain Nirvana. But, Dana, giving Alms and Shila, observing at least the basic five disciplines (Panchasheela, in Pali) are also vital for One's practice.

In the Maha Satipattana Sutta in Digha Nikaya, the Buddha describes Success of Four Pattana Meditations as: “One who is honest to himself and practice this four Pattana Meditations without a delay, he should be willing to achieve Arahat or Anagami level, in seven days to seven years in time which would ultimately direct to Nirvana”

The Buddha always said: "One who is willing to attain Nirvana, has to understand Four Noble Truth. These Noble Truth is the key to attain Nirvana, without proper understanding of Suffering, Cause of Suffering, Relief of Suffering and the way to end Suffering, These are the four Noble Truth."

Dana, Sila, Samadhi, Pagngna

Dana & Sila practices generate thoughts, (Punya Karma, in Pali), that would create well-being within Samsara. One to give away things, which oneself earned through hard effort might know an easy task. In order to complete Dana Punya Karma, one has to give Alms without a thought of any return.

Observing Sila, or Shiksha, requires much more effort than Dana. Sila is also a Punya Karma, however, basic discipline in oneself would create a powerful platform for such person to attain Nirvana.

The Buddha said: "One who knows that oneself is not breaking these five root disciplines, shall not fear to live anywhere"

Refer Article on Panchasila

Four Sathipattana Meditation

The most important Meditation practices laid by the Buddha are Four Sathipattana Meditations. These four different meditations guide one's mind to understand reality behind the connection between the Mind and the Body. It is increases the Wisdom of dividing Nāma and Rūpa, Nāmarūpa Paricceda Gnāna. By word meaning, Sathipattana means being in Mindfulness.

Kayanupassana (Contemplation on the Body)
Vedananupassana (Contemplation on Feelings)
Cittanupassana (Contemplation on Thoughts)
Dhammanupassana (Contemplation on Dhammas)

Pattana and Anupassana carries the same meaning. All beings associate some kind of a body, Kāya in Pali, and humen associate or link up with a body which is made up with Patawi (Feeling of Hardness), Āpo (Feeling of Liquidity), Thejo (Feeling of hot or mild temperature) and Vayo (Feeling of Air).

Kayanupassana meditation starts from understanding the true nature of body. The body is the beginning of all sarrow, anger, unwise, likeness, and ultimately Suffering.

The Buddha always said:

"Pagncha Upadanaskadha Dhukkha"

"One's birth, sickness, death and all affairs along life is suffering. Whatsoever feeling, or thought generated by mind during One's interaction with world or mind through these six bases is Suffering"

Enlightenment Again

Today, in the External links section of the article, User:218.168.198.174 added the URL link explanation of Nibbana according to dmc . This link leads to a webpage that equates Nirvana with Enlightenment (Bodhi). In spite of the fact that it is agreed that Nirvana means Extinction, everyone believes that Nirvana means Enlightenment. It is obvious to me that Nirvana is the absence of attachment, willing, craving, and desire. Nirvana is not the presence of a kind of knowledge, it is the absence of a kind of willing. Enlightenment (knowledge ot the Four Noble Truths) can lead to Nirvana, but enlightenment itself is not Nirvana. It is also obvious to me that it is futile to continue to try to express this in oppposition to overwhelming ignorance. So, if the Wikipedia audience wants to think that Nirvana is Enlightenment, then so be it.Lestrade 14:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

It is obvious to you?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Nat Krause, what is your definition of Nirvana and Bodhi?Lestrade 17:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

I don't have a definition of them. How did their nature become obvious to you?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 17:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of Nirvana and Bodhi comes from a prolonged reflective study of books that were written about those concepts. In those books, I have learned that Bodhi may result from recognition of the Four Noble Truths. As a result of this recognition, Nirvana may follow as an absence of attachment that is accompanied by a simultaneous absence of suffering. This is in opposition to the common assumption that Nirvana is, itself, enlightenment.Lestrade 17:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Naturally, I can neither endorse nor criticise the conclusions you have reached through your own reflective study. However, it has practically nothing to do with what should appear in an encyclopedia.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

False Definitions

In the "Overview" section, Nirvana is said to be the "cessation of becoming" in which there is "no longer any coming and going." This is false because Nirvana is merely the cessation of attachment, craving, wanting, or willing, not the cessation of becoming. (Negative pleasure, or the absence of positive pain and suffering, is a result of Nirvana.) Becoming, as contrasted to being, is change, or the attribution of different successive predicates to one subject. Also, there is in the section "Nirvana and Samsara," a false dichotomy of Samsara/Nirvana. This dichotomy is not correct because Samsara is the world as it appears, which would be correctly opposed to the world that is known as being something other than a phenomenal appearance. Correct dichotomies that concern Nirvana would be Attachment/Nirvana, Suffering/Nirvana, or Craving/Nirvana. The word "Nirvana" designates a very simple concept: apathy, or the absence of desire. Yet, this concept is made ambiguous and false because so many people want to define it as something that it is not, such as enlightenment, being, wisdom, immortality,etc.Lestrade 00:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Vandalism that I cannot remove

Sorry. I'm a bit of a newbie with the editing. There appears to be the words "Chicken is good" at the bottom of the see also paragraph. I cant seem to be able to remove it. Anybody else want to try?

It looks like the vandalism was removied a few days ago. I'm not sure why you are still seeing it. Also, remember to sign talk pages with ~~~~. Welcome to wikipedia, and happy editing. eric 05:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Isle of No-Beyond

Where there is nothing; where naught is grasped, there is the Isle of No-Beyond. Nirvāṇa do I call it -- the utter extinction of aging and dying.

What text does this quotation come from? I'd appreciate the pali or sanskrit original, because "the Isle of No-Beyond" seems too vague as a concept...Dilbert 18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

There should be one available for this article. e.g. Nirvana (band) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.138.55 (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree there should be a disambiguation page for the word; ask anyone what they think of first when they hear the word: the band, or the Buddhist "state of mind"? I think the majority who search Wikipedia for "Nirvana" are probably looking for the former. --Krakko 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Page rename reverted

I have been asked to restore status quo on the page name pending discussion. Consensus should be reached before changing the name given the fact this is a major subject. 23skidoo (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I had moved the Nirvana page to Nirvana (Buddhism) and redirected Nirvana to DAB page. It seems that insistence on restoring these changes are just to adhere “Some long established status quo” which was a status quo by default. Also the allegation by davidpatrick that “this issue was never discussed or no one had objected to it before hand” is not true, as evident on the discussion pages. Two people had raised this issue

…and one had had bothered to discuss it with them or reply so long as they did not act on it. When I acted on it, suddenly someone wakes up to defend “the long established statusquo.”

Let me provide reasons for why Nirvana be renamed as Nirvana (Buddhism) and redirected Nirvana to DAB page –

Nirvana is also a Jain concept. Probably Buddhists borrowed it from Jainas. Hence Nirvana should point out to “both” Jainsim and Buddhism concepts. But this article Nirvana is pre-dominantly a Buddhist concept so Nirvana (Buddhism) is an ideal name for it, just as there is a separate article for Nirvana (Jainism) and both are at par.

Many are looking for Band or music when they search for Nirvana and obviously get confused. For some one from India, Nirvana obviously is a philosophical concept. But think of the westerners and those, who are not familiar with Indian (and Asian) philosophical concepts. Hence Nirvana should be a DAB page. Let people be free to choose which meaning they want and not impose any meanings on anyone.

It should be noted wikipedia is not about “Status quo”. If that were the case, then, each and every edit would be reverted back. Even the featured articles are edited mercilessly. Also note that consensus can change – WP:CCC --Anish (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

1) This is not about maintaining the "long-established status quo" just for the sake of it. Of course that is not what Wikipedia is about. But with an article that for a long time has been considered a PRIMARY article - this is about respecting that there have been very good REASONS for the long-established status quo - and mulling those reasons carefully and seeking a consensus for a change in an article name rather than simply making that change unilaterally on one person's whim. It's also instructive to consider the chronology behind the sudden and unilaterally-decided change.

2) Let's deal with two separate issues. How and why this change happened - and whether there had been any SIGNIFICANT demand for it.

And then the merit of the change itself.

Let's follow the chronology of this.

A) First of all this issue was raised very briefly ONCE in November.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nirvana_%28state%29&diff=170927374&oldid=169004900

By a person who we discover logged on one time anonymously - made a single comment on this issue - didn't sign it - and has never ever appeared on Wikipedia again. Hardly a seasoned Wikipedian...

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/137.146.138.55

B) Then - Anish decides that he/she has a point of view - to which he/she is certainly entitled - that there is a SECONDARY philosophical concept that is ALSO called "Nirvana" - that is apparently different to the predominant understanding of Nirvana as a Buddhist concept. Fair enough.

Since the article that deals with the philosophical concept does not claim that it is exclusively a Buddhist concept - it might seem logical to most people that he/she should add additional material to the original article that conveys his/her understanding. That would actually be very helpful. It would expand everyone's understanding of the concept. And make clear that there are two separate traditions of Nirvana as a state of mind.

But - and he/she is of course entitled to do what he/she wants - instead decides that rather than add information about this secondary meaning of the philosophical concept into the article in which most people might think it belongs - he/she will instead create a brand new article all about this secondary meaning. Again - he/she is entitled to do that - even if others might feel that it would more properly start off as a section within the existing article - and THEN see if it should split off into two separate articles.

Having created an article that he/she names Nirvana (Jainism) on December 4th, Anish then UNILATERALLY decides without any discussion that - of the now TWO articles about Nirvana as a philosophical concept - that the main article that has been the PRIMARY article - should no longer be the primary article on his/her whim. (Even though it was NOT exclusively about Buddhism). No seeking of consensus among those who have been editing the main Nirvana article since September 2002.

Since he/she has created a new article in December 2007, the very existence of this brand new article (to which he/she happens to be the sole contributor) merits the unilateral renaming of what has stood as the PRIMARY article for over FIVE YEARS without any complaints - to Nirvana (Buddhism).

And THEN of course if that article now has a qualifier in its name... well!!!! it can no longer be a PRIMARY article. And if it is no longer a PRIMARY article - well gee whiz - I guess the word "Nirvana" now has to go to a disambiguation page so that this brand-new article (only one contributor) can have parity with the PRIMARY article that has been there for over five years. As though the new article is instantly of the same import and significance. And of course the PRIMARY article is now of LESS import. Hmmmmm....

In the light of all this - the argument put forward about needing to disambiguate from the band of the same name (there are actually two bands with that name) might seem to many people to be a rather convenient red herring. No one is really "confused". There is a very clear DAB notice at the top of the page. There are large numbers of fans of the Seattle band called Nirvana. Those fans who visit or edit on Wikipedia have long accepted that the original meaning of the word (which dates back over THREE THOUSAND YEARS) and which means something very important indeed to MILLIONS of people throughout the world is an important concept that has rightly stood as the PRIMARY article. With a very clear disambiguation text at the top of the page. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest. And it's not about people of just one age group or from one strata of pop culture. It's an encyclopedia.

That "Nirvana the philosophical concept" versus "Nirvana the band" argument is a red herring. And it's an issue that could easily be addressed if needs be. But I won't bother to do so here and now because this issue is clearly not about that. It's about whether there really should be a separate article about the Jainsim strand of Nirvana - or if it should be part of the article that has existed for five years.

If there is a full consensus that there really should be a separate article about the Jainsim strand of Nirvana - then so be it. And there should be a clear DAB at the top of the page. But that would NOT warrant taking away the PRIMARY article status that has been accorded to that article for over five years. Wikipedia exists to advance knowledge and understanding - not personal agendas. Davidpatrick (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Since our friend Davidpatrick has started with chronology of events, let me start with it. Since he/she prefers to use convention of he/she, while he/she could have used second person pronoun while replying to me, I will also follow his/her convention, rather than risk another long drawn lecture on it. I had avoided personal attacks and name calling, but he/she seems to have no scruples in using words like “whims” and “personal agenda” However, I am impressed by his/her capacity to speak for millions of lovers of Nirvana Band. In this chronology, he/she has conveniently missed out his/her own misdeeds.

There is not one but two people who raised this issue to him he/she never bothered to reply or atleast leave a word. Even my discussion would have met the same fate. However my edits raised his/her hackles.
The band issue itself was not the main issue (I am not interested in it), it was an additional point that I put forth for consideration. But he/she has devoted major part of his essay on it and then calls it a red herring……wow…talk of red herrings of red herrings !!!
I didn’t know there is a concept of primary and secondary articles on wiki.
In his/her hurry to establish his precious “long established status quo” he/she deleted the references of Jainism from Dab page also. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nirvana_%28disambiguation%29&diff=175763998&oldid=175726130
It is doubtful whether he/she is trying for consensus; as soon as his/her “agenda” was solved he/she removed the discussion tag for renaming the page. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nirvana&diff=177036053&oldid=177008208

As he/she harangues on whims and personal agendas of others, it is quite evident who is imposing his whims and personal agendas.

Since he/she has also tried to analyze my intentions, certain clarifications are needed. Quite frankly, I never thought of adding the Jainism concept in the “PRIMARY” article of Nirvana because: –

In renaming Nirvana as Nirvana (Buddhism) and having another article on Nirvana (Jainism), I was following the convention used in other Indian philosophical concepts. To quote a few examples :-
- Karma – Karma in Hinduism, Karma in Buddhism, Karma in Jainism
- Dharma – Dharma (Buddhism), Dharma (Jainism)
It is quite evident when someone reads the Nirvana article, it speaks from predominantly Buddhism view point. Even Dab page identifies it as a Buddhist concept; hence it was better to rename it as Nirvana (Buddhism) rather than separating it into two separate sections for Jainism and Buddhism. I though this will avoid any conflict with some editors who may have developed this article as a fully Buddhist concept.

Alas, how was I to know that these edits in good faith will be turned into a super exciting conspiracy to threaten the “long established status quo”(five years, I have been told), to make PRIMARY ARTICLE as secondary article and to reduce the import of the philosophical concept, to make Wiki as popularity contest ….and…. what not.

In the light of all this, I have following suggestion to make- In line with the Karma, Ahimsa, Dharma articles, Nirvana can remain as the general philosophical article (PRIMARY ?) with sections on Buddhism and Jainsim and if any on Hindusim. There can be separate articles like Nirvana (Buddhism) and Nirvana (Jainism) that explain the respective concepts in more detail. Comments are invited to establish consensus.--Anish (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

1) One uses the second person pronoun when writing to just one individual – as one does on someone’s talk page. When writing on the article’s talk page – one is writing to everyone who might read it. So it would be wrong to use the second person as though it was a personal correspondence.

2) I have refrained – and will continue to refrain - from personal attacks. When an article that has held primary article status (a recognized Wikipedia concept) has its title and status unilaterally changed without any warning, any discussion, any seeking of consensus, just moments after the same person has created another article that is the premise of the NEED for the change – one might be forgiven for describing it as a whim. However, if this unilateral move was pre-planned – I am happy to withdraw the word “whim” and describe the unilaterally executed change as pre-meditated.

3) Anish has freely written about his/her agenda in edit summaries, on this page and on my Talk Page. And should not be condemned for having one. Lots of people have an agenda. Anish’s agenda may well be a very valid one. Anish believes that the current article about Nirvana doesn’t do justice to the Jainism aspect of Nirvana – and has the agenda to change it. That is fine and valid. And it is valid to describe it as an agenda.

4) I don’t “speak for millions of lovers of Nirvana Band” – nor do I purport to. I simply conveyed the empirical observation that large numbers of people who like the band have edited the article about the band and have not had the temerity to advance the notion that the group they admire – though immensely popular – should have parity with “Nirvana” as the primary article for the word. I’m guessing that they agree that an article about an historically and spiritually important 3,000 year-old philosophical concept takes some precedence (both chronologically and encyclopedically) over a wonderful rock band that lasted for 6 years.

5) There were a grand total of two people who have written about this in the last few weeks. One was an anonymous editor who posted a single unsigned comment on Wikipedia on this topic in November, left and has never returned to Wikipedia. The second was an occasional editor who has never edited any pages to do with any of the meanings of Nirvana – whose primary edits are to his/her own Talk Page. (With a couple of edits about Kim Basinger and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles action figures‎.) The latter person had no comment on the Buddhism vs Jainism aspect but simply offered the observation that more people might be looking for a pop group than a philosophical concept. Which is why there has always been a very clear DAB notice at the top of the article. That has not resulted in fans of the rock band complaining that they couldn’t find the article about the band.

6) The raising of the rock band issue did appear to be a red herring. And it certainly confused the issue. If it is not an issue to Anish – then it should be left out of this discussion altogether so that it doesn’t cloud the real issue raised by Anish.

7) I accept that Anish didn’t know that there was a concept of Primary Articles. I only discovered the concept when there was a similar situation a while back. In my case, before acting, I took the time to research the Wikipedia guidelines about article naming protocols – which is advisable to do before making major changes.

8) There has been no wholesale deletion of references to Jainism from the DAB page. There were two overly-long descriptions of the two strands of Nirvana in the DAB notice – which as my edit summary expressed – I felt could be abbreviated to provide: “clearer wording for people unfamiliar with the intricate details of the concepts”

DAB notices are not the place to offer intricate details – but simply to disambiguate the words. Anish is welcome to change the descriptions but should adhere to Wikipedia recommendations about DAB notices that they should simply be very basic navigational guides – not summaries of the articles.

9) The tag for renaming the page had been placed there by ME – calling for it be renamed from “Nirvana (state)” BACK to plain simple “Nirvana” - and only because I had had some technical difficulty in reverting the changes made by Anish. When an Administrator restored the original title – this obviated the need for the tag that had been placed there by ME. So I simply removed the tag that I had placed there! And of course I recorded that in my Edit Summary: “("Move" proposal no longer needed as original article name was restored by an Admin.)“ How removing the tag that I personally had placed there – after the change I'd requested had been effected by an administrator - is relevant to anything defeats me!

10) Because we are told to “Assume Good Faith” – that is what I will do. I think that Anish is simply trying to ensue that a valid aspect of Nirvana is not overlooked. And I think that he/she is absolutely entitled to do that.

I think that Anish is wise in following the suggestion that I made earlier. Namely that if Anish thinks that the current article is too skewed towards Buddhism and does not give sufficient attention to Jainism – then that aspect SHOULD be added into the existing article. With clear headings to delineate the differences. I truly doubt that there would be any controversy about that – as long as Anish provides sources – which he/she has already done in the “Nirvana (Jainism)” article. The Nirvana article does not say that Nirvana is exclusively a Buddhist philosophy.

It may well be that ALL the information that is required can be incorporated into the one article.

Secondary articles to describe more complex aspects can certainly be created if necessary. Though the titles would probably be more specific than “Nirvana (Jainism)” eg – a secondary article might be titled “History of Nirvana in the Jainist tradition” or “Key principals in Jainism Nirvana”

11) Anyway – Anish concludes with the following:

In the light of all this, I have following suggestion to make- In line with the Karma, Ahimsa, Dharma articles, Nirvana can remain as the general philosophical article (PRIMARY ?) with sections on Buddhism and Jainsim and if any on Hindusim

That seems to accord with what I suggested above – namely:

Since the article that deals with the philosophical concept does not claim that it is exclusively a Buddhist concept - it might seem logical to most people that he/she should add additional material to the original article that conveys his/her understanding. That would actually be very helpful. It would expand everyone's understanding of the concept. And make clear that there are two separate traditions of Nirvana as a state of mind.

I salute Anish for endorsing my earlier suggestion. I endorse Anish’s endorsement of my suggestion. We now have consensus! Davidpatrick (talk) 19:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Yikes!

First of all, the article doesn't mention Nirvana's rol in Hinduism, or belong to a Project Hiduism. Two- (now, correct me if I'm wrong PLEASE!) the symbol shown for Project Jainism is facing the wrong way; taht is the Nazi version of the Swastika (?), not the one of peace. (Right-Nazi, Left-Peace) I think this should be edited by the Project editor. And someone should insert a healthy amount of information about the Hindu Nirvana, especially since Buddhism originated from Hinduism and modified the belief in a Nirvana. I know that on the Wikipedia page for Swastika, it shows the Hindu symbol, not tilted, and the Nazi one, tilted, but I think this is only showing one way to tell the two apart. I'm really not sure, so please start a new category on my discussion page. I am open to new information p.s. Nirvana- Nirvana is the final goal in Hinduism, and is the union between a person or people and the universe, and the release from reincarnation, another belief of Hindus and Buddhists. This was also seen as the final goal of the Eightfold Path, the “laws” of Buddhism. --Divya da animal lvr (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction-/addition of the article

In view of the above consensus, the article may the restructured in the following manner. The lead section to be suitably modified to show that it is a Buddhist as well as a Jainist concept.

Nirvana in Buddhism
Overview
Nirvāṇaand saṃsāra
Nirvāṇain Buddhist commentaries
Nirvāṇain the MahāpariNirvāṇaSūtra
Paths to Nirvāṇain the Pali canon
Quotations
Nirvana in Jainism
Overview
Description of to Nirvāṇa of Mahavira
See also
Notes
External links

If there is a Hindu concept for to Nirvāṇa, one more section may be added. Comments are invited. --Anish (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Random

The foreign word listing at the beginning is excessive and cumbersome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.70.230 (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Pali

It is incorrect for English Wikipedia to give Pali words in nagari script as if that were the script for Pali. It's not; it's one of several, & by no means the commonest. Pali words should be given in our alphabet, in accordance with standard practice in English-language publications. Nagari is perfectly OK in Hindi Wikipedia of course. Peter jackson (talk) 11:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Interpretation

Much of the article seems to be unsourced interpretations of Buddhist ideas. there seems to be no basis for supposing that Buddhists would agree on them. Peter jackson (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The identity of samsara and nirvana is completely wrong. One should not try to "transcend" them through meditation. The whole point of nirvana is that it is unconditioned and perfect, nothing transcends it. The n. vs. s. idea is that dukkha is empty and so it is never inherent. So the situation you're in only has suffering if you are not enlightened. Otherwise there is no suffering. That's the whole point. Mitsube (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Guenther quote in intro

What is "The Self-realisation" that he is referring to? Capital S Self-realization is a very unBuddhist idea (though self-mastery is not). I think the context of the quote would be needed. Can someone provide it? Mitsube (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I am truncating it and placing it here. The phrase "which was striven after" needs to be explained. I suspect that it was the pre-Buddhist yogis who were doing the striving and their goal was then transmuted, and that is what the quote says. If someone provides the context we could include the full context. Mitsube (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

"The notion of Nirvana is a transcendental postulate, which can only be proven psychologically/subjectively, not scientifically. Yet all highest and final goals lead towards it; indeed, it appears even to constitute the very commencement of the entire spiritual life ...With the reaching of Nirvana the Path has come to its end and reached its goal. The Self-realisation which was striven after and which here becomes Reality, signifies the ideal personality, the true human being." (Guenther, The Problem of the Soul in Early Buddhism, Curt Weller Verlag, Constanz, 1949, pp. 156-157).

POV?

As layman with regards to Buddhism I just read this article and I wonder whether some sentences reflect a buddhistic point of view instead of the required neutral point of view.

Example: "This peace, which is in reality the fundamental nature of the mind, is revealed when the root causes of the afflictive states are dissolved." -- Is "in reality" objective and neutral? Who claims that this statement is true and real?

Thanks in advance for your comments --84.143.96.72 (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's in the "Nirvana in Buddhism" section so it's in the context of Buddhism. I think it looks like it's explaining the Buddhist perspective. You can make this clearer if you want. Mitsube (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Much, if not most, of the material in the article reflects the opinions of some Buddhists. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this as well, and was thrown by it. If no one objects, I am going to try a restyling in the near future. Felosele (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Restoring this article as Primary topic

This article is obviously the Primary topic for the word "Nirvana" under Wikipedia guidelines and has been for the longest time. Even the most ardent fan of the grunge band understands and acknowledges that a 3,000 year-old philosophical concept that has importance throughout the world is the Primary topic. With a DAB notice to direct young fans of the band who hadn't realized that the concept existed for three millennia prior to Kurt Cobain's birth. A comparative newbie - with good intentions I'm sure - moved the article and added the descriptive . I have tried to revert the move but have run into tech. problems with overlapping re-directs etc. This may need an Administrator to restore the status. And to sort out the DAB page etc. Sorry that the revert got snarled up. Davidpatrick (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Has now been restored by User:Lethe. So thank you. Davidpatrick (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Nibbana

A few articles use the word Nibbana and those redirect to Nirvana when wikified. This is fine etymologically but should there be some mention of the slight differences in tradition to the concepts in conjunction to the form of the word used with the different cultures who brought the term into different forms of Buddhism and Hinduism?

What made me think of this was that on page xviii of '777 revised' by Aleister Crowley, who was a rather educated man of the different traditions of mysticism and religion, he writes of an argument he had with Allan Bennett in 1904. It was about Buddhist terminology, and how supplementing it with Hindu terms would cause confusing as, I trust he was erudite enough to have perceived some large distinct difference, he brought forth the example that "We should at once be lost in endless discussions as to whether Nibbana was Nirvana or not: and so on forever."

I'm assuming there must be a basis for distinction, though similar and he surely knew of their equivalent etymology, that one may add to the article how the one of that other etymology has qualities distinct and bound in concept to the other word through cultural usage rather than just translation. Of course, he also writes of how "The Jesus of the Synoptics and the methodists" is distinct in conception from the "savage and morose Jesus of the Evangelicals" and "the gentle Jesus of the Italian children" and etc. However I'm of the thinking that where there is attested doctrinal recorded differences in the different Christian sects conception of him that they are indeed, from an encyclopedic perspective, different enough to themselves too be touched on in their respective articles in much the same way. Nagelfar (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Nibbana is the Pali version, Nirvana is the Sanskrit version. In the Buddhist context, they mean the same thing. Other religions might employ the word(s) to mean different things. Mitsube (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Censorship of 'Self' Passage by User:Mitsube

User:Mitsube has chosen - not for the first time, I might add - to delete highly relevant, accurate and sourced material (which I have now restored), on this occasion relating to the question of whether the Buddha totally denies the Self (atman) in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Mitsube gave partial information, derived from a secondary source, indicating that the Self is actually denied by the Buddha in this scripture. I then completed the context by adding (without distorting commentary) the Buddha's concluding words on this matter (from the same scriptural passage that Mitsube was evidently keen for readers to be aware of). This is not 'original research' or 'selective' quoting - as Mitsube stupidly claims: it is simply sound, balanced and sensible editing. Mitsube points me in the direction of "Original Research" rules on Wikipedia and implies that I have breached them (not least through my quoting from a primary source). But when we look at those rules, we do not find one word to support such censorship as Mitsube practises of germane and sourced material which I have added. I have simply completed the point which the Buddha makes at that juncture in the Nirvana Sutra - to the effect that he, the Buddha, is the Self. To leave it as Mitsube left it is to give one-sided representation of the issue at hand. The rules indicate that as long as one does not distort the original statement or put various bits and pieces of information from one's source together to make one's own personal conclusion, but one merely and accurately re-states the content of the quoted source, then one is not doing original research. In fact, Wikipedia actually states that this 'is good editing'. What Mitsube is really about - as is so obvious to anyone who knows his intolerant and deletional mania on Wikipedia - is to try to utilise everything within his power and beyond it (including dreaming up non-existent Wikipedian rules about not being allowed to quote from a primary source) to censor facts to which he has a quite irrational aversion. Suddha (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. Mitsube's total lack of even-handedness and his bias is manifest in the fact that he utters not a squeak of protest against the whole 'Quotes' section in the 'Nirvana' article - even though those quotes from primary sources are not properly or fully referenced at all. No shouts of 'you cannot quote from primary texts' issuing from Mitsube's mouth here. Now, I wonder why .... Suddha (talk) 08:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It transpires that Mitsube did not finally delete the quote after all (although at first he did) - just moved it and unnecessarily meddled with its contextualisation. My apologies for thinking (understandably, given M's mania for deleting material he doesn't like) that M. had deleted the material altogether. Suddha (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In the highly metaphorical sutra, which is full of contradictions, commentary is vital. I have already asked you to stop insulting me. Let me remind you of that request. If you find that the quotes from the Canon require interpretation then feel free to remove them. Mitsube (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not previously asked me to stop insulting you - you are, as so often, confusing me with another editor. Also, the Nirvana Sutra is not per se a 'highly metaphorical sutra' - except in those instances where the Buddha deliberately and avowedly uses similes or metaphors to make his point. When he does not do this, he is stating fact - not metaphor. The teachings on the Buddha as the Self are nowhere in the Nirvana Sutra presented as mere metaphor. That is a Mitsubean dream - quite baseless. Suddha (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Schopenhauer

Nirvana corresponds to Schopenhauer's concept of denial of the will. It can be positively called deliverance or salvation, but is actually a relative, negative concept' meaning nothingness. In its application to the world as experienced by an observer, it is the absence or non-existence of birth, disease, old age, and death and their related suffering due to craving or attachment. This is in extreme contrast to the interpretation of Nirvana as a positive concept, that is, as a condition of happiness, joy, pleasure, eternal life, enlightenment, knowledge, and so forth. Lestrade 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Jorge Borges wrote an article entitled "The Dialogues of Ascetic and King," included in his book Selected Non-Fictions. In the article, he cites the writing of Heinrich Hackmann, who published Chinesische Philosophie in 1927. Hackmann narrated a statement by the brahmin Bodhidharma to China's Emperor Wu of Liang. "Good works, he said, can lead to good retributions, but never to nirvana, which is the absolute extinction of the will, not the consequence of an act." (Emphasis added) This is an example of the equivalence between Nirvana and Schopenhauer's Denial of the Will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.79 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

The word Nirvana is made up of tree words, Nir Va Djna and litteraly mean "withouth wrong thoughts", according to Buddha Dharma the changing of a wrong context into a skillfull context will automaticaly give rise to right view of the world as it is, ThathaGarba - "as it is with qualities", and permanent Buddha hood is reached.

Nirvana means "extinguished," as in a candle that is "not lit." It is a negative concept designating the absence of the fire of passion, will, and desire.Lestrade 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

I'm admittedly no expert, but I have a feeling that this whole article is absed on the western misunderstanding of nirvana as some kind of heaven. I had teh impression manly from some college courses and especially from a lecture I heard form a buddhist mucky-muck of some sort that Nirvana means extinction ie non existence. The speaker in question even said that since the practice of buddhism is to eliminate in your self all desire (even pointedly teh desire to be free from desire) it was utterly wrong for westerners to think that nirvana means some kind of state of eternal bliss, as the disire for such would be entirely alien to buddhism. I do have the imprssion that hinduism might seek this eternal bliss business described in the article(ie free from pain & desire, rather than free from being) In any case it seems polluted by the equally wrong notion that teh term reincarnation is used in the west to describe souls going from life to life. Rather the soul dies and (to use his metaphor which I'd heard before) while not getting on any airplane to go to another life does check in baggage (obviously this i a pre-911 metaphor) which a new and differernt soul picks up. That baggage which you bequeath to another soul is your Karma, which calls that new soul into being. When the karma is extinguished no new soul replaces you. That is nirvanna. But agin that just what i've read. But if true this entire article is a westernized newage (rhymns with sewage) take and not truely Buddhist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The state of the arahant before and after death is discussed at Tathagata#Beyond range. Mitsube (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

"Nothing" category

Hey Mitsube! I think this article is appropriate for that category, largely because Nirvana (like God in negative theology) is so commonly defined by what it is not. The quotations of Gautama Buddha cited in the article are excellent examples of that. The other articles in the category Nothing are not restricted to the absence of anything but in many cases to local, relative, or conditioned absence. Jbening (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Nihilism is explicitly and vociferously rejected by the Buddha as an obstacle to liberation. Eternalism and nihilism are the extremes between which the Buddha showed a middle way and this is stated explicitly in the texts. Nirvana is never expressed as annihilation. The category is completely inappropriate. Mitsube (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I see from other discussions on this page that you are the petty tyrant of Nirvana, so I'm going to take it on the arches. Cheers! Jbening (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but I will say again that nothing-ism is a significant heresy from the Buddhist standpoint. Mitsube (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The ascendent (58) speaks of Nirvana firsthand

The article is wrought with fraud for a variety of identifiable reasons. Nirvana definitely is indicative of egress from any 'hereafter' or succession of afterlives, but is clearly NOT the cessation of suffering and it is NOT a purifying process. You were PLENTY pure enough to have achieved the attainment, Nirvana, and your absolution thereafter is uncontroverted! The word nirvana may mean "blowing out" but it isn't the place or the purview of some pontificating droid to interpret that as "the blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred and whatnot". God doesn't want us to pay homage to graven images! It only takes so much devoutness before absolution is granted, and after that it's clear sailing -- hell, be a bum or a couch potato, smoke like a chimney, be virtuous or whatever -- it's downhill.

Some hopeless fuddy-duds believe in reincarnation and/or eternal life. They freely give their credence, and tacitly their blessing, to the unmitigated application of witchcraft ...on God's Green Earth! Woe and sorrow to those hapless misguided vermin! For SHAME!

They're right about one thing though: Nirvana is an attainment that one achieves. Unfortunately, heretofore, none were so brazen as to publicly claim the attainment, even when rightly won; so they inevitably wallowed spellbound in some mystic mire/bubble forever, and evil was only strengthened the more, arghh! and no one ever got one bit the wiser about The Way the Truth the Light. That was the Devil causing those lapses.

Ah, but one individual was built for the purpose of standing tall and is eminently worthy to enlighten. Take a look at my single-page blurb at http://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs/nirvana and suggest how to integrate those TRUTHS into the article. The PDF is at http://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs/nirvana/what_is_nirvana.pdf. Have a look at my other directories too, http://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs, though I didn't author the piece about Administratium.

No, I'm not 'watching' this page, or the article. Bahhh!

I disavow all underworld and use of the term "I" in all writings. There's no such animal.

ETP (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Positive/negative

Nirvana is not a positive concept. It does not mean the presence of joy, enlightenment, or knowledge. It is a negative concept. It means the absence of desire and will, and, as a consequence, the absence of pain and suffering. Since humans are used to thinking in terms of positive, present things, it is difficult or impossible for them to think about negatives. (Try to think about the negative absence of any object. You will inevitably think about its positive presence.) That is why there are so many people who can only ascribe positive attributes to the concept of Nirvana. They must think of Nirvana as joy, happiness, knowledge, enlightenment, etc. The Buddha used the concept of Nirvana because it means extinction or extinguishment, as in a candle's flame that is blown out.Lestrade (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

That is definitely the most important aspect. The idea of emptiness, or absence, is an interesting one to explore. This is a pretty light read that has useful metaphors from the study of the true vacuum in physics that might help people wrap their heads around it a little better. You are definitely right to mention the idea. I'm not sure the best way to find sources and work it into the article. There certainly are some Buddhist sources available on this. Mitsube (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that link was interesting. That authors interpretation of vacuum of the physical, the difference between the voids of mind, matter, the two real & false states of each, and the end claim all are very similar to the western dialectic as Giovanni Gentile conceived it in his Actual Idealism philosophy. (the Wikipedia article is poor at conveying the philosophy, I will have to get into it again, this has almost inspired me to). Though, he bases his philsophy entirely on western tradition, from Protagoras to Plato to Hegel and does so really well with no influence from the east at all. Yet ends up with basically the same exact doctrine as your pdf link laid out. Nagelfar (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

One must practice to test these interesting theories. Mitsube (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nirvana is also used in a positive sense. In fact there are many poetic descriptions of it in the Pali canon such as param, santa, visuddha, panita, santi, akkhara, adruva, sacca, ananta, accuta, sassata, amata, and many more. You might, for starters, look up nibbana in The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary. 72.152.104.180 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Nirvana vs Experience of Nirvana

I am not convinced that the distinction between Nirvana as a cessation and the experience of Nirvana is yet being adequately dealt with in the article. As I understand it, within the Pali and the Tibetan traditions, Nirvana is permanent (not-changing, not-ending) because it is an absence. (If it were a product, then it would be impermanent). Whereas consciousness is not permanent (it is a product), but it's stream is everlasting.

Nirvana as a cessation does not mean that it is a mere void - just as anatta is not a mere void. The cessation that Nirvana is qualified with is specifically suffering. There is no suffering left. There is a cessation of suffering. There can be no return to suffering. (The third noble truth). Comments? (20040302 (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC))

There are actual connotations of permanence, see for example [1]. Mitsube (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Restored Section on Nirvana and Great Nirvana

I have restored a small section that distinguishes 'nirvana' (which is said to be like eating only a little food after one is hungry) from 'great nirvana', which Mitsube irrelevantly labelled 'insulting' and removed, even though it comes from Dr. Kosho Yamamoto and, ultimately, from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra itself. Mitsube says the source is 'unverifiable'. Just because Mitsube happens not to have this (now out-of-print) monograph by Dr. Kosho Yamamoto on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra does not make it 'unverifiable'. There is no rule in Wikipedia that says: 'no out-of-print material may be cited'. Show me such a rule! Suddha (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For one, the material is indeed insulting to the Buddha, and there is no need to include the disparaging comparison to his teaching. For another, WP:V requires that material be verifiable. I have not been able to find the book anywhere but the American library of congress. That is surely unreasonable. Mitsube (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not you personally find particular cited facts 'insulting' or not is a matter of complete indifference to Wikipedia. It is entirely irrelevant what YOU feel about sourced facts. Secondly, you are simply wrong about a source's difficulty of access being unreasonable. The policy states:

'The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources: some online sources may require payment, while some print sources may be available only in university libraries.' Your arguments have no validity whatsoever, and it is your zest for deleting well-sourced material that (as so often) is entirely 'unreasonable'. Suddha (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This is an exceptional case, in which the source is simply not accessible. And why is that? This book is getting far too much coverage in wikipedia as it is. Mitsube (talk) 01:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

'The principle of verifiability implies nothing about ease of access to sources' - states the policy. Please don't invent Wikipedia rules or nuances. Just follow the policy that is given. And do not let personal feelings (in this context, religious-partisan and irrelevant feelings of 'insult') influence your editing. Suddha (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Prima-facie the theory by Dr. Yamamoto seems to fall under Wikipedia Fringe theories policy to which undue weightage is being given. The question is not whether you can cite an out of print books or not. (Although citing from out of print obscure books which no one can verify is bound to be suspect) If this theory is not fringe theory then there ought to be more scholarly references that back up Dr. Yamamoto's theory and which can be easily verified by others. But this does not seem to be the case here. If we start giving importance to each and every fringe one time theories then it will mess up entire wikipedia. --Anish (talk) 07:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the discussion. I agree that undue weight is the issue here. If the "nirvana" vs. "great nirvana" idea is really notable it should be given corresponding coverage in secondary literature, not just in one out-of-print, extremely rare book written by a man who for better or worse must have devoted years of his life to translating this sutra. Mitsube (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea of 'Great Nirvana' is not a 'theory' of Dr. Yamamoto's - fringe or otherwise. Dr. Yamamoto is simply quoting what the sutra says. And the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is hardly 'fringe' within East-Asian Mahayana Buddhism. Additionally, the great Tibetan lama-scholar, Dolpopa, speaks of Great Nirvana when he writes: 'The Mahaparinirvana Sutra ... pronounces that the ultimate noumenon, the great nirvana, is other-empty in the sense of not being empty of itself' (Mountain Doctrine, tr. by Prof. Jeffrey Hopkins, p. 597). Since the Mahanirvana Sutra is by definition about "Great Nirvana" (hence its title), it is relevant in an article on Nirvana to quote what the Buddha in this major sutra says on the topic. Suddha (talk) 08:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You are just muddying the waters. There is a Pali sutta with the same name which is obviously not about "great nirvana" as opposed to "nirvana". Does the Hopkins source contrast nirvana with "great nirvana"? Mitsube (talk) 06:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The title of the Pali Maha-parinibbana-sutta should probably be parsed as the Maha "parinibbana-sutta" and not the "Maha-parinibbana" sutta ~ it's the sutta which is "maha" in contrast to the shorter versions (culla) outside of the Digha-nikaya. This is a quite normal interpretation with such titles. But this obviously does not apply in the case of the Mahayana Maha-parinirvana maha-sutra. -- अनाम गुमनाम 16:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Mitsube, I do agree that the very concept of Nirvana v/s Mahanirvana does not make sense simply because Nirvana itself is the ultimate ideal. There is nothing above it. The prefix “maha” is often simply added to emphasize this superlative concept. Secondly Suddha, if it were really “hardly fringe” then you will be able to come up with a number of verifiable secondary sources on this concept. A single source out of print reference will always be a suspect. Please review WP:REDFLAG. Extra-ordinary claims does need extraordinary references. This is simply my point. --Anish (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

So are you seriously suggesting that Dr. Yamamoto is lying or deluded when he writes of there being a distinction between Nirvana and Great Nirvana (or Mahaparinirvana) in the Nirvana Sutra? Dr. Yamamoto was an authority on that particular sutra. If you don't believe him, then believe the original sutra. I can easily quote from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra itself to confirm that there is a distinction made there between Nirvana and Mahanirvana. But I fear that you have both made up your own minds and that nothing that I do add or do not add in the way of evidence will make the slightest bit of difference to you. It is sad that certain editors on Wikipedia dismiss something as wrong or incorrect simply because they themselves are working from a very narrow knowledge-base. Have you not even heard of the famous Lotus Sutra's diminution of the 'nirvana' concept as previously taught (before the time of the Lotus Sutra)? Have you not heard how, very famously, the Lotus Sutra states that that nirvana, previously spoken of, was actually not the real nirvana at all and was just a temporary resting-place? This has nothing to do with what you or I believe. It has to do with what texts say. The Nirvana Sutra likewise sees two types of Nirvana - that of Buddhas (in which the Eternal, the Self, Bliss, and Purity are fully seen): this is called 'Mahanirvana' or "Mahaparinirvana"; the other 'ordinary' nirvana (as we might term it) is that of sravakas and pratyekabuddhas where, for example, the Self is not seen. I can quote from the sutra if you like - but I can see already in advance that that will be a waste of my time. You just don't want this distinction regarding Nirvana to be registered in the Wikipedia article on Nirvana. How sad! But just in case you do have an open mind, here is one passage (out of several) from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra (Chapter: 'On Highly Virtuous King') where the Buddha makes a distinction between Nirvana and Great Nirvana (or Mahaparinirvana):

"Noble son. There is 'Nirvana', but that is not Maha-nirvana [Great Nirvana]. Why is Nirvana not Maha-nirvana? The elimination of the afflictions [kleshas] without having seen the Buddha-dhatu [Buddha Nature] is called 'Nirvana', and not Maha-nirvana. Thus, because one has not seen the Buddha-dhatu, there is no permanence nor Self, though there is bliss and utter purity. Hence, even though the afflictions have been eliminated, this should not be called 'Maha-nirvana'. When one has seen the Buddha-dhatu and eliminated the afflictions, that is called 'Maha-parinirvana'. Because of having seen the Buddha-dhatu, it is stated to be permanent, Self, blissful, and utterly pure, and therefore that elimination of the afflictions is stated to be Maha-parinirvana.' (YamamotoPage edition, Mahaparinirvana Sutra in 12 Volumes, London, 2000, Vol. 7, p. 64). This direct quote from the sutra, as I said, clearly shows a distinction between two types of Nirvana. There are more examples of this in the sutra, but this should be sufficient to prove the point.Suddha (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is all quite interesting and may or may not belong to this article. But still this does not address our concern of reliable references. To reiterate my point:"... if it were really “hardly fringe” then you will be able to come up with a number of verifiable secondary sources on this concept. A single source out of print reference will always be a suspect. Please review WP:REDFLAG. Extra-ordinary claims does need extraordinary references."--Anish (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

'May or may not belong to this article'?! The article is about Nirvana. And the only Mahayana sutra that is called the Nirvana Sutra and which is centrally about Nirvana says what I quoted Dr. Yamamoto as writing. Of course this notion of two modes of Nirvana has a place in the article. Why not? 'Extraordinary claims'?! I have given you the actual quote from the sutra, for Goodness' sake! You don't need further secondary sources to back up Yamamoto's claim, when the sutra itself says what Yamamoto says it does (that there is Nirvana and Great Nirvana). And please, Mitsube, don't say that we cannot quote primary texts: of course we can (no rule says we cannot); we can even summarise primary sources(but not create our own interpretation of them - which I am not doing here). In any case, I have given a secondary source (and the rarity of that book is totally irrelevant). I have also given you the primary source (the sutra, which is the 'extraordinary reference' you require - plus referred to the Lotus Sutra) - and still you senselessly argue that this notion of two types of Nirvana has no place in the article. Why should the Wikipedia-reading public be debarred from receiving such information? It is relevant and of interest (even you, Anish, say that this is 'quite interesting'). But as I predicted, I am just wasting my time on this issue, it is clear. I had expected nothing less from Mitsube, but I had hoped for a rather more balanced and intelligent response from you, Anish. Best regards - Suddha (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I am astonished, but perhaps should not be, that two of the editors here are seemingly unfamiliar with the commonplace Mahayana idea that there are two levels of attainment, distinguished here as plain [Pari]nirvana & Maha-parinirvana. The idea is well-known in East Asian Buddhism, as well as in some schools of Tibetan Buddhism, even if Western scholars have not seen fit to write extensively about this distinction using these terms. Western scholars have not written about lots of things that were important to Buddhists in the past ~ have you seen much about the Samadhi-raja-sutra, one of the most widely quoted Mahayana sutras in the past ? Outside the limited English-speaking world, we have, for example, the entry in the huge Chinese Buddhist encyclopedia, the Dingfuobao, on "Maha-parinirvana": 大般涅槃:（術語）梵語摩訶般涅槃那Mahāparinirvāṇa，譯言大入滅息，或大滅度，大圓寂入等。大者美滅德之稱，滅者，滅煩惱滅身心之義，息者安息之義，度者，超度生死之義，圓寂者圓滿功德寂滅相累之義，入者歸於滅也。大乘義章十八曰：「摩訶般涅槃那，磨訶為大，大義有六。（中略）槃，此翻為入，入義有之。（中略）涅槃，此翻為滅，滅煩惱故滅生死故名之為滅，離衆相故大寂靜故亦名為滅。那者名息，究竟解脫永蘇息故。息何等事？息煩惱故，息生死故，又息一切諸行事故。」涅槃玄義上曰：「摩訶此翻為大，般涅此翻為滅，槃那此翻為度，是為大滅度也。」四教儀集註上曰：「大卽法身，滅卽解脫，度卽般若，卽三德祕藏也。」華嚴經疏鈔五十二曰：「疏涅槃正名為滅，取其義類乃有多方，總以義翻稱為圓寂，以義滿法界德備塵沙曰圓，體窮眞性妙絶相累為寂。鈔梵云摩訶般涅槃那，具翻為大圓寂入，謂那卽入義，應迴在入。（中略）總以義翻者卽唐三藏等，在義周圓。」

Japanese Buddhist dictionaries have similar material.-- अनाम गुमनाम 18:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your insightful input, Anam. As always, your genuinely scholarly knowledge (not just potted Wiki-knowledge) is greatly appreciated. The irritating thing about the above discussion is that firstly the other editors are not satisfied with a secondary source; then the primary scripture is deemed insufficient. What does one do in these circumstances? There is also the nasty sense that certain people (I don't mean Anish here) are doubting one's own editorial integrity and honesty (when there are no grounds for such doubts) - as if one were inventing quotations, when it is simply the ignorance of certain other editors which is causing the problem. I could of course quote further passages from the Nirvana Sutra which also dilate upon the difference between Nirvana and Maha-nirvana/ Mahaparinirvana - but why should I waste my time on this, when the validity of Yamamoto's point has already been established? Thank you again for your valuable contribution to the discussion. All best regards. Suddha (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that buddha-nature is only potential buddhahood and that it is not present now except as a potential? I can fine a tonne of references that say otherwise but they are all a tiny bit ambigious. Anyway that's how the article reads at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.10.45 (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I believe it means different things to different people and in different texts. In the most developed forms of Tibetan Buddhism it comes to just mean the mind's knowing quality, from what I've recently read. In other texts it can have other meanings. And the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra does state that it exists as a potential. So probably the most useful thing to find would be a source mentioning that there is a range of uses of the term. But any reliably sourced material is good at least to consider. Mitsube (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the material you added, but if we could have some explanation as to just what Dogen means by "buddha-nature" that would really help. Mitsube (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks I'll mull over what precisely to do. I have a 2ndary source on the buddha nature ordered but am not very confident e.g. what Dogen thinks. He writes chapters on the Buddha-Nature but maybe not in terms that I can entirely relate to: it is a state of mind and body; it is reality (of e.g. grass and trees, the mind and body) as it is in the present...

You really should source this content. Just copy the style in the other reference tags. Mitsube (talk) 01:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone has added some more Dogen to it, so I'll likely find page numbers for what I added in the next few days. Thanks for that!

hey I probably will dig out my references for this sorry for my tardiness. i added a sentence to Sudhana's that *I*think* is relevant to his discussion on sentient beings and buddha nature etc.. if you think it's, well it's surely not quite original research [?] but if it disturbs the content of that section then just remove! best.

An Obscure Passage

'Nirvāna is meant specifically - as pertains gnosis - that which ends the identity of the mind (citta) with empirical phenomena. Doctrinally Nibbāna is said of the mind which "no longer is coming (bhava) and going (vibhava)", but which has attained a status in perpetuity, whereby "liberation (vimutta) can be said".'

I find the above passage impenetrable. Can someone who understands what it is saying clarify it? Thanks. 58.6.102.204 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

direct knowing is gnosis right? so they're saying that nirvana is not phenomenal but permanently free from "unrest" - what dukkha technically means before its popularization as 'suffering'. i believe. see the central conception of buddhism by stcherbatsky p40. it's an old book but i do recommend it - got me interested in reading about buddhism! best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.10.45 (talk) 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First use

Hello Arjun. The source doesn't actually mention Jainism, so I am removing this bit. Also, somewhat confusingly, the Jain texts are actually not as old as the Buddhist ones. One of the Jain sects says that they had older scriptures that were lost, which could be. Also I don't think that ideas about Buddhist influence on Hinduism belong in the intro, do you? Regards, Mitsube (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect

The search term "nirvana" should automatically redirect to the band as I bet it is the reason most common searched for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.236.127 (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't do bets, and bands are much more ephemeral than religious concepts that have been around for thousands of years. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana and Samsara

There's a sentence in the second paragraph of this section that I think could be safely deleted, resolving one ^{[citation needed]} mark and clarifying the whole section. The text currently reads as follows:

The Theravāda school makes the antithesis of Samsara and Nibbāna the starting point of the entire quest for deliverance. Even more, it treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal, which is precisely the transcendence of Samsara and the attainment of liberation in Nibbāna. Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahāyāna schools, which also start with the duality of Samsara and Nirvana, is in not regarding this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality^{[citation needed]}. From the standpoint of the Pāli Suttas, even for the Buddha and the Arahants suffering and its cessation, Samsara and Nibbāna, remain distinct^{[citation needed]}.

The problematic sentence is this one:

Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahāyāna schools, which also start with the duality of Samsara and Nirvana, is in not regarding this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality^{[citation needed]}.

This isn't really true, at least in my understanding. What is true is what was expressed in the previous paragraph: that the distinction between Nirvana and Samsara is real, but is an aspect of the deceptive truth, not the ultimate truth. I would suggest changing the second paragraph as follows:

The Theravāda school makes the antithesis of Samsara and Nibbāna the starting point of the entire quest for deliverance. Even more, it treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal, which is precisely the transcendence of Samsara and the attainment of liberation in Nibbāna. Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahāyāna schools, which also start with the duality of Samsara and Nirvana, is in not regarding this polarity as an aspect of deceptive truth. From the standpoint of the Pāli Suttas, even for the Buddha and the Arahants suffering and its cessation, Samsara and Nibbāna, remain distinct^{[citation needed]}.

The reason I didn't just make this change is that my knowledge of Theravada is very limited, and no citation is provided for the last sentence in the paragraph, so I can't go to the source to check the validity of my change. Is there someone who understands the Theravada aspect of this question sufficiently to make a proper edit? Am I completely off-base here? Thanks for considering this. Abhayakara (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing attention to this. There is actually some canonical precedent for the kind of statement that there is no difference between nirvana and samsara (though the Canon does not use the concept of two levels of truth). I will put this in soon. I have recently read it in a textbook. Though it is also in Kalupahana's exegesis of Nagarjuna's MMK. Mitsube (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! I'm curious to see what you come up with! Abhayakara (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Not having seen anything since August, I took a second look at the text, and concluded that the problem was that I had failed to understand what the text was intended to communicate, rather than that the text was communicating something incorrect. Understanding what the text intended to communicate, but recognizing that it is difficult to understand, I rephrased it as follows:

Both the Theravāda and Mayāyāna schools makes the antithesis of samsara and nibbāna the starting point of the quest for deliverance. The Mahāyāna schools treat this polarity as a preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality. The Theravāda school, however, treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal: the transcendence of samsara and the attainment of liberation in nibbāna. From the standpoint of the Pāli Suttas, even for the Buddha and the Arahants suffering and its cessation, samsara and nibbāna, remain distinct.

I haven't actually changed much of the phrasing—I just re-ordered it so that it could be appreciated in bite-sized chunks, rather than having to be digested as a whole. I hope this is helpful; please let me know if it is not. Abhayakara (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization

We don't normally capitalize "enlightenment." Yet throughout the article, Nirvana and Samsara are capitalized. These are not proper nouns—not names of places. So it really doesn't make sense to capitalize them. I've de-capitalized Nirvana, Samsara and Moksha, and I'm about to go in and de-capitalize Nibbana as well (I noticed that I'd missed it in the previous pass). I don't know what the motivation was in capitalizing these terms. You could justify it on the basis that they are "holy concepts" or some such thing--even though Samsara is suffering, it is also one of the four noble truths, and hence could be treated that way. But I don't think it adds clarity to do so, and this is an encyclopedia, not a Buddhist commentary, so I think lowercase is the right way to go.

Oops, the above edit was mine. Abhayakara (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The New Etymology Section

In my view, this new etymology addition is quite inappropriate. It presents an arcane, sectarian, scholastic analysis of the term, while completely disregarding the standard, well-accepted etymology current in the academic world. It is totally unhelpful for users ! Additionally, all the references, as far as I can see, are unacceptable since none are from recognized scholarly sources. I suggest rapid deletion of this. Any other views? -- अनाम गुमनाम 02:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh my! To answer your general objections, if it is reverted, does it improve more than we can edit what exists? Please, we are unable to make progress without a specific edit or a specific controversy in mind. If how you characterize the section's features is true (You say "all", "totally", "completely", and "none".), then I commend your restraint.

My view is that sectarianism is important for sections of etymologies to enable scholastic neutrality, and that all etymologies are arcane. Perhaps your wise judgment may define the best audience? — Cpiral Cpiral 08:43, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

A better approach to this page

I'm sure every traditions here has their own commentaries which define nirvana. Using those will save us a lot of haggling over how we present this concept and its history. Aero13792468 (talk) 20:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

High school?

I suspect someone may have tampered with the opening paragraph - I'm pretty sure Nirvana has never been defined as failing high school. Don't have time right now to fix that, though... James Casey (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. Deleted it. But you could have easily done it your self instead of taking trouble of writing this note.--Indian Chronicles (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Etymological cleanup

I removed some uncited or unclear material from the etymology section.

I would propose a new section "===Other interpretations ===" for the removed, (highlighted below) material if it passes discussion here. Else-wise, I'm fine leaving it all out for the reasons explained below the highlighted passages.

In Pali "v a n a" becomes "v a t i".

This is not really etymology, but transcription (although there is a slight connection between the two).

A literal Latinization of nirvana is de-spiration, not transitively, but as a fire ceases to draw.^[1]

Spiration is literally the act of breathing, so clearly, nirvana as "de-spiration, but not transitively" must be viewed rhetorically. "Breath" is a metaphor, since nirvana is not literally a breathless state, but a living one. The word play on spiration involves the inspiration aspect of breathing as motivation of the self, and the expiration aspect of breathing as death of the self. The word play on "transitive" is also evident. "To breath" is already "not a transitive verb". (It is an intransitive verb.) To stress this implies that "the self", (the doer and object of doing of all intransitive verbs) is not the doer of the de-motivation or the death-of-self. Finally, spiration could refer to spirated or "spirally twisted", so de-spiration could refer to the cessation of making an endless spiral, as does the appeal above to the "weaving" interpretation of the endless knot.

An encyclopedia is not generally employing rhetoric (the ancient art of persuasion), but straight social "facts"; however, since this is etymology, there is plenty of freedom in object abstraction concerning the word's possible development. I am not qualified to make the explanation of about the passage, although I laid out here my logical psyche, my metaphors of inspiration as motivation and expiration as death. But the same might also say if the Latinization of Nirvana is "de-radix", the following rhetoric. Since etymologically "radix" is related to "eradicate", to pull up from the root to destroy; but hey, radix is a Roman word meaning root. And since "radix" is what mathematicians call "base", then to de-radix is to de-base the base. (Mathematicians also call the number raised to a power a "base", and self-raised power is to know is a no-no.) Radix made the "radish", a root-ish vegetable. A root of an function is where the function crosses zero, Nirvana. The function of the world roots me out. Etc. De-spiration? C'mon. "Radiculopathy" is a medical pathology at the root of a nerve.

It is also said that the spoken vana does not refer to a forest. The actual "vana" of nirvana is claimed to have a long "a" sound and a dental consonant "n" sound, whereas the vana that refers to a forest has a short "a" sound and cerebral or retroflex consonant "n" sound. This is believed to make the two words vana significantly different, and gives cause to question speaking about Nirvana using the forest analogy. ^{[citation needed]}

That is the best rewrite of the "contribution" that I can do with that before it (maybe) goes back into the article. — Cpiral Cpiral 06:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Nirvana in Buddhism: OR template.

Lots of assertions with no sources, cites or anything. I accept that these views are generally accurate, but that doesn't make them WP. Can someone source them accurately? Likewise, I am becoming increasingly wary of the conflatoin of all the many views of the various Mahayana traditions, let alone the Theravada tradition! (20040302 (talk))

I posted the URL of Buddhist scriptures at the top of this discussion page. I wonder if there is yet a template for "discussion resources and references"? — Cpiral Cpiral 03:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Etymology section

The pace of improvements that moved parts of the etymological section around is increasing along with drastic moves over the recent hours. Please begin to use this talk page.

As a watcher of Nirvana and contributor to the etymology section, I am trying to "improve or move information within Wikipedia rather than delete."

The "insane" sentence that was removed because it was "insane"? Thank you for informing me that it is unclear. I have been researching what I meant by that sentence, and at this point it is this:

The concept of nirvana was born in Hinduism [2] and the concept of etymology was born of this religion's study by the first grammarian, Yaska. For thousands of years the words had developed, and by 6 BCE Yaska began his work, systematizing the meaning of such words. There is even a Grammerian school of Hinduism that is classified as othodoxy. There may be many interpretations of the etymology of Nirvana because Hinduism is the oldest religion father many reinterpretations, it is only fitting that we use the earliest.

Well? — Cpiral Cpiral 20:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That's still gibberish, and irrelevant to this article; see WP:COATRACK. The rest of the "etymology" section is sourced to weak and non-reliable sources, the equivalent of fansites, rather than to scholarly sources; thus, I argue it should be removed, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll review it with your criticism in mind. — Cpiral Cpiral 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

And what is not sourced to weak and non-reliable sources, is speculation and original research and synthesis, which has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Those will become my onis as well. I re-assume the good faith I had and can only hope to rediscover there. If no support is found, there or elsewhere, good job for deletion. — Cpiral Cpiral 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It's currently being discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Nirvana. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ack — Cpiral Cpiral 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The subsection "Phonetics" (currently restored) has three sources. None seem to be fansites.

[2] is from Myokoin Temple. It is an official temple, designated by an authority, founded by a reverend, and associated with another temple in Belgium. A reverend studying there became an ordained priest. There were two resident priests there at the time of the quoted source.
[3] vedabase.net, is from the official web site of the authority Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
- See http://vedabase.net/n/na.
- See http://vedabase.net/v/vana.
[4] www.vwsp.eu, Is from a web site hosting vast literature concerning Buddhism. I have not proven that is premised on sound doctrine, nor can I define "vast", but it is devoted to Buddhism in Ireland, and it is based in Ireland. Google search engine turns up 290,000 revelations on it. e.g. that it is sourced (cited) from WikiHow, and that its also mentioned in numerous blogs and other related websites including "Trueknowledge" Google key words for this webcite are:"buddhism", "nirvana", "dictionary".

Note that the etymological information in Nirvana#Abhidharma_.28Buddhism.29 used to be in the Etymology section, but there was some work done by User:Snowcream on 16 October 2011 that moved it out. — Cpiral Cpiral 17:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits to introduction

I hope my recent edits didn't cause more problems than they fixed; if they did, please don't hesitate to revert them. I am concerned that the recent edits by User:Dienekles may be representing Hindu cosmology from a Buddhist perspective; what he says there matches exactly my understanding of the presentation on form and formless realms from the Abhidharmakosha, which is a Buddhist text. If the Hindu texts say the same thing, that's really cool, but I hope someone who knows something about this can validate this part of the introduction. There is no citation there, so I couldn't go check for myself. My edits were simply intended to reorganize the introduction for better flow and structure—I think it got a bit unwieldy after User:Dienekles' edits. Abhayakara (talk) 19:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid that the massive removal of referenced material is utterly unacceptable. If an editor wishes to add new, referenced material, that is fine; but that does not give him or her license to delete valuable, referenced material that has stood in the article for a long time. I hope that the deleted material will swiftly be replaced - especially that relating to the distinctive presentation of Nirvana as found in the Nirvana Sutra. Thank you for your co-operation. 00:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)Suddha (talk) 00:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove that material, so I can't really put it back—you'd have to ask User:Dienekles. The new stuff does look fairly decent, but you're absolutely right that it seems like a lot of interesting old material was removed. However, the material was written in a very academic language, and was a bit difficult to follow. Lots of sectarian terminology was used where plain english would have been better.

Unfortunately, the new information appears to be from a different sect, which creates two new problems. First, by removing one set of material from one sect and replacing it with material from another, the editor has been, as you say, quite inconsiderate. And second, supposing that both the new material and the old were valid, simply putting back the old isn't sufficient—what we would wind up then would be a real mess.

Either we need to have two separate sections that are sectarian, or we need to figure out a way to merge the presentations. I think the latter choice is a better one, but probably quite difficult, and I don't have time to do it. Based on the silence with which the bold edits were made, I suspect User:Dienekles isn't going to do it either. Is there some way we can work together on this? I don't think it's right to just revert it—the new material seems valid, but I completely agree with you that the edit ran roughshod over good material. and we can't simply accept the new state of the article as a fait accomplis. Abhayakara (talk) 01:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Abhayakara. Thank you for your very balanced, well-considered and fair response. Incidentally, I was not accusing your good self of removing all that material! Basically, I agree with you: I think the new material is valid - but that we need to retain the earlier material too. Like yourself, I am terribly busy at present, but I hope in the not too distant future to re-incorporate the earlier information in a separate section. That might be a good way forward. I know that you favour a more amalgamational approach, and I would certainly support that too, if you or I (or any other editor) has time. Time is our great enemy! Anyway, if you don't object, I'll try, bit by bit, to add some of the earlier material to a new section. You see the time-wasting problems that reckless editing by a new contributor can cause? I think that it is very impolite and inconsiderate to remove whole swathes of referenced material, which some of us spent many days collating and adding to the article. I do wish some Wikipedia contributors would show more respect towards other editors, some of whom have been involved with these articles for many years. Anyhow, thanks again, Abhayakara, for your kind response. Best wishes to you. From Suddha (talk) 02:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think what you have done is a good short term solution, and I will try to help clean it up when I have time. It's frustrating when edits like this happen, but that's Wikipedia. If it's any comfort to you, I find this article quite relaxing compared to what I usually work on. Thanks for restoring the deleted text! Abhayakara (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Grounds or levels

Another question that comes up for me when I read this is, in the Mahayana section, why the translation "grounds" is given for "bhumis," instead of the more usual "levels." I think for the average wikipedia reader, using a stilted term like "grounds" here is going to make the article harder to understand. it's true that "bhumi" is often translated as "ground" in the context of offering the mandala, but like many Tibetan words, it has different meanings in different contexts. Here I think "levels" is more appropriate, and it seems that quite a few lineages (e.g., FPMT) agree with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhayakara (talk • contribs) 23:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, Abhayakara. The Sanskrit term does literally mean 'soil' or 'ground', but in actual practice what it denotes is 'level' or 'stage' of Bodhisattva development. Regards. Suddha (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Theravada

Hello everyone. I read the article and I came here to find info about the Theravada school, however there's anything, or may be a less info about it. The only thing I noticied about it, it's that is very widespread in Mahayana theme, and that doesn't give a true perspective about the complete theme that span the whole theme. Greetings. Gtr. Errol (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

^ Etymonline.com, 1836, from Skt. nirvana-s "extinction, disappearance" (of the individual soul into the universal), lit. "to blow out, a blowing out" ("not transitively, but as a fire ceases to draw;" a literal Latinization would be de-spiration), from nis-, nir- "out" + va "to blow" (see wind (n.)).

[1] Etymonline.com, 1836, from Skt. nirvana-s "extinction, disappearance" (of the individual soul into the universal), lit. "to blow out, a blowing out" ("not transitively, but as a fire ceases to draw;" a literal Latinization would be de-spiration), from nis-, nir- "out" + va "to blow" (see wind (n.)).

[1]