![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Paul Williams is a well-known scholar on Mahayana-Buddhism. See his Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 15:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The Nirvana#Mahayana perspectives is almost the same as the Bodhi#Mahayana section. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 07:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This text is too specific for the article on Nirvana; it belongs elsewhere, TMO. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 10:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
According to some scholars, the "Self" discussed in the and related sutras does not represent a substantial Self. Rather, it is a positive language expression of emptiness and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In this view, the intention of the teaching of 'tathāgatagarbha'/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical. [1]
However, this interpretation is contentious. Not all scholars share it. Writing on the diverse understandings of tathagatagarbha doctrine as found in the nirvana Sutra and similar scriptures, Jamie Hubbard comments on how some scholars see a tendency towards absolutism and monism in this Tathagatagarbha [a tendency which Japanese scholar Matsumoto castigates as non-Buddhist]. [a]
Hubbard summarises his research on tathagatagarbha doctrines with the words:
The teaching of the tathagatagarbha has always been debatable, for it is fundamentally an affirmative approach to truth and wisdom, offering descriptions of reality not in negative terms of what it is lacking or empty of (apophatic description, typical of the Pefection of Wisdom corpus and the Madhyhamika school) but rather in positive terms of what it is (cataphatic description, more typical of the devotional, tantric, Mahaparinirvana and Lotus Sutra traditions, and, it should be noted, the monistic terms of the orthodox Brahmanic systems). [3]
This section also is too specific, TMO. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 10:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Reality of the Self
However, in the Nirvana Sutra the Buddha affirms the reality of the Self, declaring that he, the Buddha, is in fact that Self:
Due to various causes and conditions, I have also taught that that which is the self is devoid of self, for though there is truly the self, I have taught that there is no self, and yet there is no falsehood in that. The Buddha-dhātu is devoid of self. When the Tathagata teaches that there is no self, it is because of the Eternal. The Tathāgata is the Self, and his teaching that there is no self is because he has attained mastery/sovereignty [aisvarya]. [4]
In the Nirvāna Sutra, the Buddha states that he will now teach previously undisclosed doctrines (including on nirvana) and that his earlier teaching on non-Self was one of expediency only. Kosho Yamamoto writes:
He says that the non-Self which he once taught is none but of expediency ... He says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down thoughts. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure. [5]
It is fine to write about nirvana according to many religion , but i do feel it is very wrong to condemn and to protray the knowledge as week and inferior to other religion thoughts and is against WP:UNDUE, Please do not do this in wiki and let it be neutral Shrikanthv ( talk) 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
According to Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpochethis is not the only way to interpret the literal meaning of the word Nirvana. He was for many years teaching as Head of the Department for Indo-Tibetan studies at the Visvabharati University at Santiniketan in West Bengal, India. He is an expert in Sanskrit language and told me personally that Nirvana literally mean "without wrong thought", "the word Nirvana consist of 3 Sanskrit words, nir-va-djna, meaning without wrong thought", these were his exact words. I have checked this with several Sanskrit dictionaries and found it to match. He is one of the lineage holders of the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. He is regarded as an indisputable authority on the meaning of the Buddhist Dharma by all schools of Buddhism. The translation or rather explanatory word "blowing out" do not direct one towards understanding of what Nirvana is. In Buddhism one consider the constructed personality built on thoughts as absolute definitions to be the root of Samsara. If the idea of absolute is exchanged with the understanding of all concepts as relative, the "building" of the imaginary personality collapse. Right thought is when you hold a stone and think "stone". I think this view on the literal meaning of the word Nirvana should be changed. In Theravada this "blowing out" is a preferred interpretation but in Tibetan Buddhism, having a much larger representation in the world, the "without wrong thought" view is also used. Tulku Yeshe Trögyal ( talk) 06:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The sentence " volitional formations (Pali: samskaras or sankharas) (structures within the unconscious mind that form the underlying basis for psychological dispositions)" needs a citation. "Unconscious mind" is a western interpretation. See WP:42. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
To the ignorant reader coming to this article for information, the apparently interchangeable use of these two cognates is confusing. If they truly are interchangeable, it would be clearer if only ONE of them could be used in the article. If they are not interchangeable, the differences need to be made clear and discussions of the terms need to be more clearly distinguished. 192.31.106.35 ( talk) 21:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"Not only are that every one are bound but in play, the situation is compared as mimic knots which have such a nature that itself can at its pleasure undo them.[67]"
This sentence is awful. If I had any idea what the author was trying to say I would have edited it but its simply nonsense as written. If anyone knows what this is supposed to mean please rewrite it in acceptable english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.29.44 ( talk) 10:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
@ Dorje108: I think this article is in a desperate need for a clean-up. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The article has been reverted to its status as of February 6th. The new edit by Mr Jonathan asserts that nirvana is a term restricted to Buddhism and has removed a huge amount of useful and well-sourced material. Nirvana, as any first year student of Indian religion knows, is present as a concept in all the Indian religions. Mr Jonathon also claims that moksha is not the same as nirvana, another easily disproved falsehood. For the sceptical I am pasting a definition of nirvana by Gavin Flood, Professor of Hindu Studies and Comparative Religion at Oxford University and Director of The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. The definition comes from the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions edited by John Bowker.
There is then a section on the Buddhist definition. A notable omission from the entry as a whole is the use of nirvana in Jainism, a religion that is much older (by at least four hundred years) than Buddhism. The Buddha himself studied under Jain teachers and he borrowed quite a few concepts from them.
Therefore the new article is far more POV and WP:UNDUE than what was there already. Regards 81.106.127.14 ( talk) 17:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The Flood quote speaks for itself. It says the 'final goal and attainment in Indian religions'. It does not say 'the final goal in Buddhism'. Hindu scriptures are referenced. Professor Flood alludes to the widespread belief among scholars that the concept predates the life of the Buddha. The words arahant and nirvana were already in use among Jains at the time when the Buddha studied yoga as a young man. So you are telling me that a reference from one of the worlds leading scholars of Hinduism has you unconvinced? You have removed a great deal of useful material kindly donated by many editors over several years. You did the same to the spirituality article not to mention others. That is not a very co-operative or harmonious modus operandus. Also 'Mr' is a polite form of address in anglophone countries. Your editing strikes me as very insensitive. Why are you removing the work of many dedicated contributors? Their insights are invaluable. Also Professor Flood clearly states that nirvana is the same as moksha so why are you going around claiming this is some new age perennialism? Why have you removed the references to Hinduism and Jainism? Are you attempting to rewrite history? What is your objective exactly? 81.106.127.14 ( talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The following text is completely unsourced:
References would be welcome. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
From the Wiki-article:
The PEA says at page 264:
Two remarks here:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The Falun Gong section does not appear to be related to the content of this article. I propose to remove this section. JimRenge ( talk) 11:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The Overview-section states:
Duiker (2006), World History to 1800, Cengage Learning, p.52-53 deals with Buddhism. P.53 says:
It does not say "soteriological goal". I've changed the sentence to "Nirvāṇa is a term used within various Indian religions". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan, I would like to break out Buddhism section into a separate article--namely "Nirvana (Buddhism)". Any objections? This will follow a similar arrangement for other terms which are used in multiple traditions, such as Karma and Samsara. Cheers, Dorje108 ( talk) 14:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've created a research page for this topic: User:Dorje108/Nirvana_research
In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra section the part between "... Self-delusion.[62][63]" and "Positive language" appears to be out of focus in this article. I think this discussion of the self in the MPNS and other Tathagatagarbha sutras does not fit here. The "Positive language" section reiterates content (after the Hodous quote) and could be summarized (2 quotes necessary?).
'At the time this scripture was written, there was already a long tradition of positive language about nirvana and the Buddha.[66] While in early Buddhist thought nirvana is characterized by permanence, bliss, and purity, it is viewed as being the stopping of the breeding-ground for the "I am" attitude, and is beyond all possibility of the Self-delusion.[67][68]
The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, a long and highly composite Mahayana scripture,[69] refers to the Buddha's using the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics.[66][note 17]
The Ratnagotravibhaga, a related text, points out that the teaching of the tathagatagarbha is intended to win sentient beings over to abandoning "affection for one's self" - one of the five defects caused by non-Buddhist teaching. Youru Wang notes similar language in the Lankavatara Sutra, then writes:
Noticing this context is important. It will help us to avoid jumping to the conclusion that tathagatagarbha thought is simply another case of metaphysical imagination."[70]'.
I would then like slightly to modify the non-Self bit that follows, to make it clear that the MPNS teaches non-Self as being NOT Nirvana, and the Self (of the Buddha) as constituting precisely the essence of Nirvana. The MPNS is a particularly important text for a discussion of Nirvana as it is the only Mahayana sutra on a grand scale that has as its named centre of gravity or centre of focus the nature of Nirvana itself, and it presents Nirvana in a very cataphatic light. If you don't mind, I'll delete the sections I've mentioned above and then make the small modifications which I have proposed. Best wishes to you. From Suddha ( talk) 00:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hodous state: ‘The Nirvana Sutra claims for nirvana the ancient ideas of permanence, bliss, personality, purity in the transcendental realm. Yamamoto; .... So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure.[66] Positive language/Yamamoto; .... And it [i.e. the Buddha’s new revelation regarding nirvana] goes on to dwell on the “Great Self”, “Great Bliss”, and “Great Purity” ....
Is three part word. Nis+va mean "blow out", yes... but "na" means "not". So it literally means "out blow not". Lostubes ( talk) 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo proposes to merge Moksha into Nirvana, but has not explained why. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Vana as forest is a strange and uncommon translation. This is clearly a fringe opinion that cites Prabhupada (a primary source from a school that doesn't even utilize the concept of nirvana except to translate the phrase brahma-nirvana in the gita) and the other source is a dead link to a websource. I will remove this as it does not add to the article. Even if this view were held academically or within any group, it does not add to the article and it is unclear what the significance of "away from the forest" would mean here. If you disagree, come talk it out on the talk page before reverting and find better sources than vedanet. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion resources: Buddhist Scriptures
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: please do not replace full journal cites with web sources, as the full cites are stable and verifiable, while we do not know whether the websites are maintained by anyone or have editorial supervision. You can add a second additional link, using archive field feature of the cite journal or book template, after you have verified that the paper in the journal or book and the web link are the same. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 23:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: Please use "lay-url=" or "archive-url=" feature, and do not delete the stable url because that is disruptive, despite your good intentions. I am also concerned that you replacing google books to unknown websites, may be linking this article to websites that may have copyright violation problems. If these websites are shut down, or copyright law enforced on them, we may face dead-url link problems in future. Please leave in the stable url, you can improve the cite by using other fields in cite templates. I welcome any alternate ideas, which allow you to implement your good intentions while addressing future-dead-url and possible copyvio concerns.
On Nirvana Upanishad, we are just saying the word Nirvana is used, and the term "Nirvana" is on all those pages of the cited source. On post-Buddha, Patrick Olivelle provides a list which includes Nirvana Upanishad, then states that it was composed after 300 CE (Asrama Upanishad). Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: I am concerned that, despite my polite reminders, you are repeatedly deleting stable google book url links, and then substituting them with url for websites hosting books that may be violating copyright laws. You may be inadvertently violating WP:ELNEVER policy in this article (and others). Please note that wikipedia policy states, "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." If you have evidence that ahandfulofleaves or another web hosting service is lawfully hosting a copyrighted work, you must present that evidence on this talk page. If you can't present such evidence, I ask that you revert your edits. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: If you tag something, you must explain the tag on the talk page. WP:TAGBOMB is disruptive. You can help prove that you are not being disruptive, with "failed verification" like tags, by explaining on the talk page which source you really checked, what you found to be partially supported and what was unsupported. Please see wikipedia tagging guidelines, "Adding tags without discussion of the tag on the talk page" is not helpful. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 06:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
reason=
parameter for the tag, which I also enclosed to the Edit Summary. I must say, that my Talk Page post wouldn't differ from the former two in any way: if source x does not even mention the concepts y and z, then source x didn't even mention y or z.quote=
parameter to insert the pieces of text that directly support the material.
[7] Quoting multiple pages is alright, but you can make sure by using the aforementioned parameter that all the material is directly supported by the source, even if the sourced material was unavailable to the reader. Material that fails to verify shall be removed. Cheers!
Jayaguru-Shishya (
talk)
18:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)@Jayaguru-Shishya: Stop lecturing and giving unsolicited advice when it is you who has repeatedly misunderstood the policies and violated (but later admitted and corrected) WP:Copyvio etc. You and I must follow community agreed guidelines, not your personal confusion, because this is not Jayaguru-pedia. I asked you, "Which wikipedia policy page states that "direct support" mean "the content should not be directly supported in multiple sentences or pages of a source, and only directly supported in a single sentence"? But you ignored my polite question. If you remove material from this article, that is directly supported and verifies on multiple pages, the content will be reinstated. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: You are being strangely disruptive. WP:OR policy defines OR as "reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the source". If the source or source's context explains that liberation = nirvana, no self = anatta, then it is not OR to rewrite or clarify this. For example, the following two statements are equivalent and accurate non-OR quotes from the WP:OR policy page,
It is absurd to assert that adding a clarifying "[OR]" above in Quote2 is some form of original research. The context of WP:OR policy page clearly establishes that "This" is referring to OR". You have done something similar here in this article. If you read the context of Williams source, it is abundantly clear that no self = anatta, liberation = nirvana, etc. There is no "reaching or implying new conclusion" there. There is indeed "direct support" in the source, if you bother to read the multiple pages I cite to provide the context. We cannot copy-paste entire pages as quote because of wikipedia's WP:Copyvio policy. We must summarize, explain, clarify in our own words. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 06:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
[...]
for the gaps in quotations. Can we reach a compromise in this regard, what do you think?
Jayaguru-Shishya (
talk)
20:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)@Jayaguru-Shishya: There is no modification of direct quotations. Something inside a square bracket does not modify the quote. It simply clarifies it. A square bracket is the standard way to clarify the context of a quote, with fair use, without Copyvio. These two quotes are practically identical, with the second clarifying the context with square brackets.
Are you seriously saying Williams source does not state "not Self = Anatta" on page 56 onwards? Are you seriously saying that the "not Self" in the quote on page 61 does not refer to Anatta? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: I have reviewed WP:SOURCE. It is about establishing the reliability of sources. It is not about page numbers. I am puzzled by your edit warring. You have again deleted page numbers 56-61 from Williams & Tribe source, pages that provide the context to the reader. Your edit summary points to WP:SOURCE. Please explain your edit, because your behavior feels like innocent misunderstanding, or possibly disruption and WP:TE. Perhaps, you can clarify by providing a quote from WP:SOURCE, or some other wikipedia policy page, that states that "multiple pages from reliable scholarly sources should not be cited or relied upon"? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 16:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
References
He makes no mention of discovering the True Self in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. As we have seen, the Buddha explains how liberation comes from letting-go of all craving and attachment simply through seeing that things are not Self anatta. That is all there is to it. One cuts the force that leads to rebirth and suffering. There is no need to postulate a Self beyond all this. Indeed any postulated Self would lead to attachment, for it seems that for the Buddha a Self fitting the description could legitimately be a suitable subject of attachment. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Buddha thought there is some additional factor called the Self (or with any other name, but fitting the Self-description) beyond the five aggregates.
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: As I explained, pages 56-61 provide the context, and help any interested reader to get to the relevant context discussion faster. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! Ms Sarah Welch, I'd like to ask you two questions with respect to the sources we have at the article. First, you added David Lorenzen as the author of the book, [19] but I wasn't quite able to verify that from the source. You see, neither the book nor the book info mentioned David Lorenzen. [20] Second, you added to the reference on "Oxford Dictionaries" a publication year, 2012. [21] That was neither supported by the source.
So, perhaps I did just miss something, or where did you locate those pieces of information on the sources? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This page confusingly fluctuates between the sanskrit term nirvana and the pali term anatta, sometimes appearing in the same sentence together. The page should use one or the other for its main vocabulary, and mark those words that askew that standard as being in Pali or Sanskrit. Since the page is titled Nirvana, it would make sense to replace the Pali anatta with sanskrit anatma for consistency as would be expected in any academic work.
The following excerpt shows how confusing this is:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nirvana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—
InternetArchiveBot (
Report bug)
14:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Paul Williams is a well-known scholar on Mahayana-Buddhism. See his Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 15:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
The Nirvana#Mahayana perspectives is almost the same as the Bodhi#Mahayana section. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 07:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
This text is too specific for the article on Nirvana; it belongs elsewhere, TMO. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 10:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
According to some scholars, the "Self" discussed in the and related sutras does not represent a substantial Self. Rather, it is a positive language expression of emptiness and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices. In this view, the intention of the teaching of 'tathāgatagarbha'/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical. [1]
However, this interpretation is contentious. Not all scholars share it. Writing on the diverse understandings of tathagatagarbha doctrine as found in the nirvana Sutra and similar scriptures, Jamie Hubbard comments on how some scholars see a tendency towards absolutism and monism in this Tathagatagarbha [a tendency which Japanese scholar Matsumoto castigates as non-Buddhist]. [a]
Hubbard summarises his research on tathagatagarbha doctrines with the words:
The teaching of the tathagatagarbha has always been debatable, for it is fundamentally an affirmative approach to truth and wisdom, offering descriptions of reality not in negative terms of what it is lacking or empty of (apophatic description, typical of the Pefection of Wisdom corpus and the Madhyhamika school) but rather in positive terms of what it is (cataphatic description, more typical of the devotional, tantric, Mahaparinirvana and Lotus Sutra traditions, and, it should be noted, the monistic terms of the orthodox Brahmanic systems). [3]
This section also is too specific, TMO. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 10:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Reality of the Self
However, in the Nirvana Sutra the Buddha affirms the reality of the Self, declaring that he, the Buddha, is in fact that Self:
Due to various causes and conditions, I have also taught that that which is the self is devoid of self, for though there is truly the self, I have taught that there is no self, and yet there is no falsehood in that. The Buddha-dhātu is devoid of self. When the Tathagata teaches that there is no self, it is because of the Eternal. The Tathāgata is the Self, and his teaching that there is no self is because he has attained mastery/sovereignty [aisvarya]. [4]
In the Nirvāna Sutra, the Buddha states that he will now teach previously undisclosed doctrines (including on nirvana) and that his earlier teaching on non-Self was one of expediency only. Kosho Yamamoto writes:
He says that the non-Self which he once taught is none but of expediency ... He says that he is now ready to speak about the undisclosed teachings. Men abide in upside-down thoughts. So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure. [5]
It is fine to write about nirvana according to many religion , but i do feel it is very wrong to condemn and to protray the knowledge as week and inferior to other religion thoughts and is against WP:UNDUE, Please do not do this in wiki and let it be neutral Shrikanthv ( talk) 08:08, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
According to Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpochethis is not the only way to interpret the literal meaning of the word Nirvana. He was for many years teaching as Head of the Department for Indo-Tibetan studies at the Visvabharati University at Santiniketan in West Bengal, India. He is an expert in Sanskrit language and told me personally that Nirvana literally mean "without wrong thought", "the word Nirvana consist of 3 Sanskrit words, nir-va-djna, meaning without wrong thought", these were his exact words. I have checked this with several Sanskrit dictionaries and found it to match. He is one of the lineage holders of the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. He is regarded as an indisputable authority on the meaning of the Buddhist Dharma by all schools of Buddhism. The translation or rather explanatory word "blowing out" do not direct one towards understanding of what Nirvana is. In Buddhism one consider the constructed personality built on thoughts as absolute definitions to be the root of Samsara. If the idea of absolute is exchanged with the understanding of all concepts as relative, the "building" of the imaginary personality collapse. Right thought is when you hold a stone and think "stone". I think this view on the literal meaning of the word Nirvana should be changed. In Theravada this "blowing out" is a preferred interpretation but in Tibetan Buddhism, having a much larger representation in the world, the "without wrong thought" view is also used. Tulku Yeshe Trögyal ( talk) 06:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The sentence " volitional formations (Pali: samskaras or sankharas) (structures within the unconscious mind that form the underlying basis for psychological dispositions)" needs a citation. "Unconscious mind" is a western interpretation. See WP:42. Joshua Jonathan ( talk) 08:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
To the ignorant reader coming to this article for information, the apparently interchangeable use of these two cognates is confusing. If they truly are interchangeable, it would be clearer if only ONE of them could be used in the article. If they are not interchangeable, the differences need to be made clear and discussions of the terms need to be more clearly distinguished. 192.31.106.35 ( talk) 21:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
"Not only are that every one are bound but in play, the situation is compared as mimic knots which have such a nature that itself can at its pleasure undo them.[67]"
This sentence is awful. If I had any idea what the author was trying to say I would have edited it but its simply nonsense as written. If anyone knows what this is supposed to mean please rewrite it in acceptable english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.29.44 ( talk) 10:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
@ Dorje108: I think this article is in a desperate need for a clean-up. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 22:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The article has been reverted to its status as of February 6th. The new edit by Mr Jonathan asserts that nirvana is a term restricted to Buddhism and has removed a huge amount of useful and well-sourced material. Nirvana, as any first year student of Indian religion knows, is present as a concept in all the Indian religions. Mr Jonathon also claims that moksha is not the same as nirvana, another easily disproved falsehood. For the sceptical I am pasting a definition of nirvana by Gavin Flood, Professor of Hindu Studies and Comparative Religion at Oxford University and Director of The Oxford Centre for Hindu Studies. The definition comes from the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions edited by John Bowker.
There is then a section on the Buddhist definition. A notable omission from the entry as a whole is the use of nirvana in Jainism, a religion that is much older (by at least four hundred years) than Buddhism. The Buddha himself studied under Jain teachers and he borrowed quite a few concepts from them.
Therefore the new article is far more POV and WP:UNDUE than what was there already. Regards 81.106.127.14 ( talk) 17:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The Flood quote speaks for itself. It says the 'final goal and attainment in Indian religions'. It does not say 'the final goal in Buddhism'. Hindu scriptures are referenced. Professor Flood alludes to the widespread belief among scholars that the concept predates the life of the Buddha. The words arahant and nirvana were already in use among Jains at the time when the Buddha studied yoga as a young man. So you are telling me that a reference from one of the worlds leading scholars of Hinduism has you unconvinced? You have removed a great deal of useful material kindly donated by many editors over several years. You did the same to the spirituality article not to mention others. That is not a very co-operative or harmonious modus operandus. Also 'Mr' is a polite form of address in anglophone countries. Your editing strikes me as very insensitive. Why are you removing the work of many dedicated contributors? Their insights are invaluable. Also Professor Flood clearly states that nirvana is the same as moksha so why are you going around claiming this is some new age perennialism? Why have you removed the references to Hinduism and Jainism? Are you attempting to rewrite history? What is your objective exactly? 81.106.127.14 ( talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
The following text is completely unsourced:
References would be welcome. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
From the Wiki-article:
The PEA says at page 264:
Two remarks here:
Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The Falun Gong section does not appear to be related to the content of this article. I propose to remove this section. JimRenge ( talk) 11:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The Overview-section states:
Duiker (2006), World History to 1800, Cengage Learning, p.52-53 deals with Buddhism. P.53 says:
It does not say "soteriological goal". I've changed the sentence to "Nirvāṇa is a term used within various Indian religions". Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:44, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jonathan, I would like to break out Buddhism section into a separate article--namely "Nirvana (Buddhism)". Any objections? This will follow a similar arrangement for other terms which are used in multiple traditions, such as Karma and Samsara. Cheers, Dorje108 ( talk) 14:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I've created a research page for this topic: User:Dorje108/Nirvana_research
In the Mahaparinirvana Sutra section the part between "... Self-delusion.[62][63]" and "Positive language" appears to be out of focus in this article. I think this discussion of the self in the MPNS and other Tathagatagarbha sutras does not fit here. The "Positive language" section reiterates content (after the Hodous quote) and could be summarized (2 quotes necessary?).
'At the time this scripture was written, there was already a long tradition of positive language about nirvana and the Buddha.[66] While in early Buddhist thought nirvana is characterized by permanence, bliss, and purity, it is viewed as being the stopping of the breeding-ground for the "I am" attitude, and is beyond all possibility of the Self-delusion.[67][68]
The Mahaparinirvana Sutra, a long and highly composite Mahayana scripture,[69] refers to the Buddha's using the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics.[66][note 17]
The Ratnagotravibhaga, a related text, points out that the teaching of the tathagatagarbha is intended to win sentient beings over to abandoning "affection for one's self" - one of the five defects caused by non-Buddhist teaching. Youru Wang notes similar language in the Lankavatara Sutra, then writes:
Noticing this context is important. It will help us to avoid jumping to the conclusion that tathagatagarbha thought is simply another case of metaphysical imagination."[70]'.
I would then like slightly to modify the non-Self bit that follows, to make it clear that the MPNS teaches non-Self as being NOT Nirvana, and the Self (of the Buddha) as constituting precisely the essence of Nirvana. The MPNS is a particularly important text for a discussion of Nirvana as it is the only Mahayana sutra on a grand scale that has as its named centre of gravity or centre of focus the nature of Nirvana itself, and it presents Nirvana in a very cataphatic light. If you don't mind, I'll delete the sections I've mentioned above and then make the small modifications which I have proposed. Best wishes to you. From Suddha ( talk) 00:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Hodous state: ‘The Nirvana Sutra claims for nirvana the ancient ideas of permanence, bliss, personality, purity in the transcendental realm. Yamamoto; .... So he will now speak of the affirmative attributes of nirvana, which are none other than the Eternal, Bliss, the Self and the Pure.[66] Positive language/Yamamoto; .... And it [i.e. the Buddha’s new revelation regarding nirvana] goes on to dwell on the “Great Self”, “Great Bliss”, and “Great Purity” ....
Is three part word. Nis+va mean "blow out", yes... but "na" means "not". So it literally means "out blow not". Lostubes ( talk) 16:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Capankajsmilyo proposes to merge Moksha into Nirvana, but has not explained why. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Vana as forest is a strange and uncommon translation. This is clearly a fringe opinion that cites Prabhupada (a primary source from a school that doesn't even utilize the concept of nirvana except to translate the phrase brahma-nirvana in the gita) and the other source is a dead link to a websource. I will remove this as it does not add to the article. Even if this view were held academically or within any group, it does not add to the article and it is unclear what the significance of "away from the forest" would mean here. If you disagree, come talk it out on the talk page before reverting and find better sources than vedanet. Iṣṭa Devatā ( talk) 23:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Discussion resources: Buddhist Scriptures
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: please do not replace full journal cites with web sources, as the full cites are stable and verifiable, while we do not know whether the websites are maintained by anyone or have editorial supervision. You can add a second additional link, using archive field feature of the cite journal or book template, after you have verified that the paper in the journal or book and the web link are the same. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 23:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jayaguru-Shishya: Please use "lay-url=" or "archive-url=" feature, and do not delete the stable url because that is disruptive, despite your good intentions. I am also concerned that you replacing google books to unknown websites, may be linking this article to websites that may have copyright violation problems. If these websites are shut down, or copyright law enforced on them, we may face dead-url link problems in future. Please leave in the stable url, you can improve the cite by using other fields in cite templates. I welcome any alternate ideas, which allow you to implement your good intentions while addressing future-dead-url and possible copyvio concerns.
On Nirvana Upanishad, we are just saying the word Nirvana is used, and the term "Nirvana" is on all those pages of the cited source. On post-Buddha, Patrick Olivelle provides a list which includes Nirvana Upanishad, then states that it was composed after 300 CE (Asrama Upanishad). Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 03:25, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: I am concerned that, despite my polite reminders, you are repeatedly deleting stable google book url links, and then substituting them with url for websites hosting books that may be violating copyright laws. You may be inadvertently violating WP:ELNEVER policy in this article (and others). Please note that wikipedia policy states, "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." If you have evidence that ahandfulofleaves or another web hosting service is lawfully hosting a copyrighted work, you must present that evidence on this talk page. If you can't present such evidence, I ask that you revert your edits. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: If you tag something, you must explain the tag on the talk page. WP:TAGBOMB is disruptive. You can help prove that you are not being disruptive, with "failed verification" like tags, by explaining on the talk page which source you really checked, what you found to be partially supported and what was unsupported. Please see wikipedia tagging guidelines, "Adding tags without discussion of the tag on the talk page" is not helpful. Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 06:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
reason=
parameter for the tag, which I also enclosed to the Edit Summary. I must say, that my Talk Page post wouldn't differ from the former two in any way: if source x does not even mention the concepts y and z, then source x didn't even mention y or z.quote=
parameter to insert the pieces of text that directly support the material.
[7] Quoting multiple pages is alright, but you can make sure by using the aforementioned parameter that all the material is directly supported by the source, even if the sourced material was unavailable to the reader. Material that fails to verify shall be removed. Cheers!
Jayaguru-Shishya (
talk)
18:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)@Jayaguru-Shishya: Stop lecturing and giving unsolicited advice when it is you who has repeatedly misunderstood the policies and violated (but later admitted and corrected) WP:Copyvio etc. You and I must follow community agreed guidelines, not your personal confusion, because this is not Jayaguru-pedia. I asked you, "Which wikipedia policy page states that "direct support" mean "the content should not be directly supported in multiple sentences or pages of a source, and only directly supported in a single sentence"? But you ignored my polite question. If you remove material from this article, that is directly supported and verifies on multiple pages, the content will be reinstated. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: You are being strangely disruptive. WP:OR policy defines OR as "reaching or implying a conclusion not stated by the source". If the source or source's context explains that liberation = nirvana, no self = anatta, then it is not OR to rewrite or clarify this. For example, the following two statements are equivalent and accurate non-OR quotes from the WP:OR policy page,
It is absurd to assert that adding a clarifying "[OR]" above in Quote2 is some form of original research. The context of WP:OR policy page clearly establishes that "This" is referring to OR". You have done something similar here in this article. If you read the context of Williams source, it is abundantly clear that no self = anatta, liberation = nirvana, etc. There is no "reaching or implying new conclusion" there. There is indeed "direct support" in the source, if you bother to read the multiple pages I cite to provide the context. We cannot copy-paste entire pages as quote because of wikipedia's WP:Copyvio policy. We must summarize, explain, clarify in our own words. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 06:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
[...]
for the gaps in quotations. Can we reach a compromise in this regard, what do you think?
Jayaguru-Shishya (
talk)
20:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)@Jayaguru-Shishya: There is no modification of direct quotations. Something inside a square bracket does not modify the quote. It simply clarifies it. A square bracket is the standard way to clarify the context of a quote, with fair use, without Copyvio. These two quotes are practically identical, with the second clarifying the context with square brackets.
Are you seriously saying Williams source does not state "not Self = Anatta" on page 56 onwards? Are you seriously saying that the "not Self" in the quote on page 61 does not refer to Anatta? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: I have reviewed WP:SOURCE. It is about establishing the reliability of sources. It is not about page numbers. I am puzzled by your edit warring. You have again deleted page numbers 56-61 from Williams & Tribe source, pages that provide the context to the reader. Your edit summary points to WP:SOURCE. Please explain your edit, because your behavior feels like innocent misunderstanding, or possibly disruption and WP:TE. Perhaps, you can clarify by providing a quote from WP:SOURCE, or some other wikipedia policy page, that states that "multiple pages from reliable scholarly sources should not be cited or relied upon"? Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 16:53, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
References
He makes no mention of discovering the True Self in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. As we have seen, the Buddha explains how liberation comes from letting-go of all craving and attachment simply through seeing that things are not Self anatta. That is all there is to it. One cuts the force that leads to rebirth and suffering. There is no need to postulate a Self beyond all this. Indeed any postulated Self would lead to attachment, for it seems that for the Buddha a Self fitting the description could legitimately be a suitable subject of attachment. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Buddha thought there is some additional factor called the Self (or with any other name, but fitting the Self-description) beyond the five aggregates.
@ Jayaguru-Shishya: As I explained, pages 56-61 provide the context, and help any interested reader to get to the relevant context discussion faster. Ms Sarah Welch ( talk) 21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! Ms Sarah Welch, I'd like to ask you two questions with respect to the sources we have at the article. First, you added David Lorenzen as the author of the book, [19] but I wasn't quite able to verify that from the source. You see, neither the book nor the book info mentioned David Lorenzen. [20] Second, you added to the reference on "Oxford Dictionaries" a publication year, 2012. [21] That was neither supported by the source.
So, perhaps I did just miss something, or where did you locate those pieces of information on the sources? Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 19:34, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This page confusingly fluctuates between the sanskrit term nirvana and the pali term anatta, sometimes appearing in the same sentence together. The page should use one or the other for its main vocabulary, and mark those words that askew that standard as being in Pali or Sanskrit. Since the page is titled Nirvana, it would make sense to replace the Pali anatta with sanskrit anatma for consistency as would be expected in any academic work.
The following excerpt shows how confusing this is:
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nirvana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—
InternetArchiveBot (
Report bug)
14:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).