Talk:Nirvana/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Paul Williams on Nirvana

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)

I figured he was a Buddhist scholar, but I've never heard of him, and even if I had, it doesn't make sense to mention his name in the Nirvana article. My teacher is also a well-known Buddhist scholar, but I wouldn't mention him by name in an article on Buddhism unless it was an article about him or about teachers of his lineage. Also, the point that you quote him on is a very obscure scholarly point, and its inclusion here seems to give his opinion on the topic undue emphasis. Abhayakara (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Eh... I didn't quote him. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Right you are—sorry. I just assumed it was you because you replied on my talk page. Abhayakara (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that Professor Paul Williams is a major scholar of Mahayana Buddhism and has every right to be quoted (although it was not myself who quoted him here). I do also agree, however, that the specific paragraph quoted is a bit recondite and perhaps not suitable in the given context. I personally would not mind if that paragraph were deleted. What do other editors think? Best wishes. From Suddha (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with Williams' book being used as a source. My objection to the paragraph I deleted, which User:Sylvain1972 has restored without explanation, is that (1) it mentions him by name, which is unusual, and, as I said earlier, the specific point being made doesn't seem relevant. Abhayakara (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• I actually agree with Abhayakara on the substantive point of that paragraph's being irrelevant and out of place here. I personally would prefer to see it deleted. On the other point, though, it is not so unusual to quote a scholar's name in a Wiki article: it is not disallowed by the Wiki rules. Anyway, I share Abhayakara's view that the contested paragraph is best deleted. All good wishes. From Suddha (talk) 02:05, 5 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)

Removed disoute on "Self"

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.

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].

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).

Removed another section

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].

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.

• Thanks for your work on this article, JoshuaJonathan. I have restored the Yamamoto quote, however, as it is very pertinent. Don't forget that the Nirvana Sutra is specifically called the Nirvana Sutra, as it is centred on the very nature and attributes of Nirvana. No other Mahayana sutra bears that specific title. Best wishes. From Suddha (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey Suddha. Sorry if my editing is too rigorous. Funny, I hadn't noticed at all the spicific meaning of Nirvana-sytra in this context. Best wishes to you too. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

undue negation of concept of nirvana in Hinduism

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)

• Yes, I think it would be interesting to explore this further. Right now the text doesn't say very much. I've heard scholars say that the distinction between Buddhist and Hindu nirvana is largely one of language and method, not essence, although perhaps you would disagree. In any case, the text as it stands doesn't really leave me with any understanding of the variety of thought on nirvana from a Hindu perspective. Your correction regarding moksha seems to have improved the text, although in my understanding, moksha and nirvana are the same thing, not two different things that come about at the same time; it might be worth clarifying what the distinction is from a Hindu perspective, if possible. Abhayakara (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

It is terrible to see the original article Moksha itself , I have just added some small anecdot on the concept (not presuming mastery over the subject,it would mean that i have been liberated too :) ) Shrikanthv (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Literal meaning wrong, or rather slightly incorrect

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)

This interpretation could be added (instead of changing the interpretation of Nirvana). Have you got written sources? Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I do not have any written sources to this. Much of what is going on in the Buddhist community is mouth to ear, an oral tradition. Tulku Yeshe Trögyal (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I searched for the word "djna" in several Sanskrit dictionaries, but it seems to be unknown. There is, though, the word "abidjna", supernatural powers. "Djna" means "jna", Jnana, knowledge. I also did a Google-search on "nir-va-djna", but it didn't give any relevant hits. Same for "nirvajna". It seems to me that Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche gave an unusual interpretation of "nirvana" aimed at teaching an important Buddhist doctrine. That's good, but without proper sources there is no reason to mention Chhi’mèd Rig’dzin Rinpoche's interpretation in the lead, let alone replace the usual translation/interpretation of "nirvana" as "blowing out". Joshua Jonathan (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This "without wrong thought" etymology is interesting, but Wikipedia requires Reliable Sources. See WP:USERG for an explanation. Keahapana (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Unconscious mind

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)

This one is interesting: William S. Waldron (2003), "The Buddhist Unconscious: The Ālaya-vijñāna in the Context of Indian Buddhist Thought". Apparently the term is being used by modern interpretators. Please be aware that the term "unconscious" is part of a modern discourse. See David L. McMahan (2008), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, p.131. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nirvana/nibbana

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)

As explained in the article, nibbāṇa is simply the (later) Pali form of the Sanskrit word nirvāṇa, and I'm not aware of any distinction being made.

By the way, the etymology section is mostly bunk, baseless amateurish pseudo-etymological speculation in the vein of the Sun Language Theory (granted, ancient Indian grammarians – to whom Sanskrit was already as foreign as the Old English of the Anglo-Saxons is to us, or Latin is to Italians, Pali being a much closer approximation for their native dialects – are guilty of the same, but we don't uncritically use them as sources). I happen to have studied Sanskrit and nirvāṇa, as I suspect all scholarly Western sources agree, is the participle perfect of the verb vā "to blow", composed with the prefix niṣ/niḥ (the instability of the final consonant being due to sandhi assimilation phenomena) "out", and indeed means simply "blown out". There is no negation in there at all, nor is nirvāṇa an infinitive "to blow out" or present participle/verbal noun "blowing out", which is formed in other ways. You can't simply combine "phones" to build a word in Sanskrit; you combine morphemes according to complex rules which have been described by Pāṇini and others. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

"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)

Just remove it. I don't understand it either, and the reference does not give a page-number, so we can't check it. And Google only gives copies from Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Clean-up

@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)

Done. I've removed a lot, mainly because of WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Much info was simply too much, like the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and Falo Gong. Equating "Nirvana" with "moksha" is WP:OR, and typical for a "modern spirituality" which wants to connect everything with all, meanwhile disregarding WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: I'm not 95.94.145.193. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits of Joshua Jonathan

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.

Nirvāna

The final goal and attainment in Indian religions.

In Hinduism, nirvana is the extinguishing of worldly desires and attachments, so that the union with God or the Absolute is possible. According to S.K. Belvalkar, the term originated in Kāla philosophy before the advent of Buddhism. In Mahābhārata nirvana is serene peace (santi, 12. 196. 6, 341. 8) and satisfaction (susukhi, 3. 126. 15). In Anugītā 4. 11, it is described as 'a fire devoid of fuel'. In Bhagavad-gītā it seems to be contrasted deliberately with the Buddhist understanding, because it is described as the attainment of Brahman ('He who forsakes all objects of desire and goes about without cravings, desires or self-centredness attains serene peace.... Staying in this state, even in his last hour, he attains brahmanirvāṇa', 2. 71 f.), and the yogin is described not (as in Buddhism) as a candle blown out, but as 'a candle flame away from a draught which does not flicker' (6, 19) The attainment of nirvana is thus mokṣa"

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)

Please refrain from terms like Mr Jonathan; I will easily take it as a personal attack, for which you already have a reputation.

Regarding your quote: I don't understand how you read and interpret sources, but this one says exactly the opposite of what you are claiming: "In Bhagavad-gītā it seems to be contrasted deliberately with the Buddhist understanding."

For the rest, one (misunderstood) quotation is not enough justification for the inclusion of the unsouced and undue original research, a large part of which was probably added by you in your various incarnations.

@Tengu800: @Dorje108: @Aoidh:, could you please comment here? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:21, 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)

Large parts were unsourced c.q. original research c.q. undue, altogether constituting an unreadable and non-informative article. You can see the explanations in the edit-summaries. One Flood-quote is not enough to support all the rest. And Flood does not say that "nirvana is the same as moksha", he says "The attainment of nirvana is thus mokṣa". It may sound the same to you, but it is a subtle rephrasing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

English is your second language and having tidied up many of your edits it is clear that you struggle with grammar, idiom and syntax. As a native speaker who went to a top British university and who has been invited to lecture on Indian religions by the IAHR I can tell you that 'Nirvana is thus moksha' means that nirvana is synonymous with moksha. To be more accurate "Nirvana is the peace of mind that is acquired with moksha" as the previous article correctly stated. It is not defined as a term from Buddhism just as love is not defined as a concept from Christianity. You removed the references to Jainism saying that moksha is a term from Hinduism but actually moksha is a term from Jainism as well. There are solid reasons to conjecture that moksha may well have originated as a concept in Jain circles because Jainism is hundreds of years older than Buddhism. Anyhow the point is that nirvana is a concept from Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism and almost certainly predates the Buddha's lifetime. Therefore why the POV lead? Why the removal of any reference to Hinduism and Jainism? Is it the same reason that you say that dharma transmission developed early in the history of Chan as 'a means to gain credibility' rather than a seal of authenticity which is the generally held point of view within Zen circles. You prefer the word of a man who openly admitted that he was not a practitioner of Zen himself (John McCrae) rather than the consensus of practitioners who know Zen from the inside. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, I'll be able to focus more on this article over the next couple of weeks. Regarding the above discussion, I suggest creating a separate article for Nirvana in Buddhism. Most the the articles that link to this page are Buddhism-related articles, so if we create a "Nirvana (Buddhism)" page, it would take some effort to update those links, but it is probably worth it in the end. (I was pondering this even before I read the discussion above.) FYI, Gethin's text has a very thorough explanation of Nirvana (in Buddhism, of course) which I would like to use as the basis for further edits/additions. Best regards, Dorje108 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Dorje108: thanks for responding! Might be a good idea.

@81~14: here you go again:

• "English is your second language and having tidied up many of your edits it is clear that you struggle with grammar, idiom and syntax" - that's apersonal attack; this is irrelevant here.
• "As a native speaker who went to a top British university and who has been invited to lecture on Indian religions by the IAHR I can tell you" - you're boasting, as so many times before.
• "You prefer the word of a man who openly admitted that he was not a practitioner of Zen himself (John McCrae) rather than the consensus of practitioners who know Zen from the inside" - Wikipedia is based on WP:RS, not on first-person accounts, and representing those sources accurately; a point you still don't understand.

@Mark.muesse: Mark, could you comment here as well?

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced text

The following text is completely unsourced:

"In general terms nirvāṇa is a state of transcendence (Pali: lokuttara) involving the subjective experience of release from a prior state of bondage. This is the result of a natural re-ordering of the mind and body via means of yogic discipline or sadhana. According to the particular tradition, with the experience of nirvāṇa the mind (Buddhism) or soul (Jainism) or spirit (Hinduism) has ended its identity with material phenomena and experiences a sense of great peace and a unique form of awareness or intelligence that is called bodhi in Buddhism, Kevala Jnana in Jainism, kaivalya (Asamprajnata Samadhi) in Yoga.

It has several other names as well. Hinduism uses the terms Aikantya, Apamarga, Brahma-upalabdhi, Sahaj, Sakshatkara, Sayujya, Videhalcivalyam and Yogakshemma, while Buddhism also uses the term Bodhi. Because nirvana represents an advanced form of samadhi or jhana Hinduism acknowledges it as Nirvikalpa Samadhi, Buddhism, as Ceto-vimutti Samadhi and Jainism as Asamprajyat Samadhi. Mukti is sometimes elaborated on as Atyantiki Mukti, Samipya Mukti (or Salokja Mukti), and Sadrisya Mukti."

References would be welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism

From the Wiki-article:

"A person reaches moksha as nirvana is attained. Source:Hindson, Ed; Caner, Ergun (2008). The Popular Encyclopedia of Apologetics: Surveying the Evidence for the Truth of Christianity. Harvest House Publishers. p. 264. ISBN 978-0-7369-2084-1."

The PEA says at page 264:

"The complete and utter release from all desire is the Hindu concept of salvation, identified earlier as moksha. When a person achieves moksha, they have reached nirvana. Nirvana, the fifth key element in Hinduism, is the state of nothingness, which is the Hindu goal for eternal existence. Upon ceasing to exist, the individual becomes part of this god-essence."

Two remarks here:

• Page 264 is misquoted in the Wiki-article; the sequence is exactly the reverse.
• "the state of nothingness, which is the Hindu goal for eternal existence" - what a weird formulation...

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Falun Gong and Nirvana?

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)

I fully agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Do you have other suggestions? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Overview - Hinduism

The Overview-section states:

"Nirvāṇa is the soteriological goal within the Indian religions, Hinduism (Duiker (2008) p.52-53)

Duiker (2006), World History to 1800, Cengage Learning, p.52-53 deals with Buddhism. P.53 says:

"Nirvana, which, as in Hinduism, is a form of release from the wheel of life."

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)

Nirvana (Buddhism)

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)

Looking forward to your proposal. Just do it! (but leave some content here too.) Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Research page

FYI, I've created a research page for this topic: User:Dorje108/Nirvana_research

Far out! If this gives a hint of what you've got in mind, and if it becomes comparable to Four Noble Truths, then it is indeed a good idea to create a separate page. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of self in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra

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?).

The following "Quotations" section is definitely not related to Mahayana and should be moved but I have no idea how this text might be integrated without disturbing the flow of text. JimRenge (talk) 13:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd already removed a large part of the text on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. I think Suddha added this part; maybe he'd like to participate in discussing if this part can be shortened. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hello Joshua Jonathan and Jim Renge - good to hear from you. I would be OK with deleting the following parts from the section you mention (they were originally placed there by a notoriously intolerant editor on Wiki who obsessively attacked or denigrated any positive portrayal of Nirvana/Self in Buddhism; fortunately that 'editor' has long since disappeared):

'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)

Hi Suddha! Good to hear of you too! I'm really that you didn't write this part; but I recognized your topic of interest of course. Go ahead with the changes; I'm looking forward to it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Great to get your input, as always, Joshua Jonathan. I have now made the changes to that part of the article, as suggested. I must say, in passing, that I continue to be impressed by all the clarifying work you have contributed to the Buddhism articles here on Wikipedia. Jim Renge, too, is doing excellent work. It is a pleasure to collaborate with two such reasonable, knowledgeable and urbane editors! Warm wishes to you both. From Suddha (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello Suddha, thanks for summarizing and improving this section.

I think reiteration is an important element in teaching but may be less helpful in an encyclopedia.

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” ....

Do you have a proposal how to avoid these reiterations? Best regards JimRenge (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hello JimRenge. Thank you very much for your sensible comments. Yes, there is a degree of unwarranted repetition here. I myself would not be averse to deleting the whole 'positive language' section - that would go a long way towards removing duplication of ideas. The other two quotes can remain, as they look at the issue under slightly different aspects. Would you, therefore, object if I deleted the 'Positive Language' section? Perhaps Joshua Jonathan would be OK with such deletion too? Regards - Suddha (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Suddha: Thanks for your constructive proposal. Removing the whole 'positive language' section would be a good solution. Best regards JimRenge (talk) 11:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Deletion done! Thank you again, JimRenge, for being such a reasonable person with whom to do editorial business (I wish all editors on Wikipedia were as tolerant and consensus-minded as yourself!). All my best wihes to you. From Suddha (talk) 11:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, Joshua Jonathan. Warm regards from Suddha (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Literally?

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)

• See Nirvana#Etymology. The -na ending is apparently not the na that means “not”, but rather the past participle ending. The three-part theory is mentioned in Nirvana#Folk_etymologies. Note that “folk etymology” refers to an etymology that many people may be familiar with, but that is not actually grounded in linguistic research. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal: Moksha into Nirvana

Capankajsmilyo proposes to merge Moksha into Nirvana, but has not explained why. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If there should be a merger, then it would be of Nirvana into Moksha. Which is not a good idea, since the topica are related, but not the same. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What's the difference between the two Joshua Jonathan? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 04:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please start with an explanation why you want to merge them anyway. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

They both mean the same. Having a separate page for different words meaning same thing creates confusion. Hence I initiated the merge. Also, someone please add an archive bot on this page. Its so long with ancient duscussions. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Although they appear to be similar, both terms come from different religion and need to maintain their individuality. Also, there are slight differences between Moksha and Nirvana. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Another proposal is merging Nirvana with Moksha as given by Joshua Jonathan. There are multiple articles on wikipedia for this concept. Nirvana, Moksha, Nirvana (Buddhism), Moksha (Jainism) and Salvation, Christian salvation and Collective salvation. This creates confusion. I propose a single article containing all of it in summary and then 1 article each for every religion. Alternatively, at least each of these articles should atleast point to a single article containing this concept in all the religions. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 10:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Nirvana is to extinguish while moksha is mukti-liberation. The two terms describe different concepts that are only interchangeable to an outsider. Nirvana is to leave the cycle of samsara and has very specific connotations within a buddhist perspective of the ultimate goal. Moksha is a much broader term for liberation that can take on many forms and is used in nearly all dharmic philosophies referring to widely different versions of it. That said: different pages on Moksha should probably be merged (Moksha in Jainism should be a section in Moksha). And Nirvana should be merged with Nirvana in Buddhism (with Buddhism becoming a section title in the Nirvana article).Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I will make it simple, death is not pre-requisite for "Nirvana" while death is prerequisite for "Moksha". Nirvana means extinguishing worldly sins like anger, greed, lust, jealousy, desire etc. Nirvana is a stage of the living body. While according to Vedic concept Moksha is merging of the "soul (aatma)" with Brahman or source of all existence. So, for attaining Moksha we must die, our soul will do rest of work, but we can attain Nirvana while living. So these are 2 different concepts and can't be merged. --Human3015^TALK  22:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Brilliant, though not entirely correct: Jivanmukti. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Question Just one questions to those opposing this proposal. Is the reason you giving depicted in the Nirvana article also? Reading the Nirvana article gives a reader the impression that it's another term for Moksha or salvation. If there's a difference, please make this article depict that clearly. The article in its present form can be easily merged with moksha or nirvana (buddhism) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 22:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

yes, this article do need changes, specially in lead section. Still it doesn't matters what articles says, try to understand basic difference in these 2 concepts.--Human3015^TALK  23:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In Jainism (the concept I am aware of) both means the same. As regards other religion I relied on the information provided by this article. Hence nominated for a merger. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 23:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The comments made here gives a depiction that it means omniscience in Buddhism. However I'm still confused what is its meaning in Hinduism -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 23:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Above someone mentioned that Moksha (Jainism) should be merged with Moksha. I will again "Oppose" this. All of these are major religions of the world and major concepts of all these religions deserves separate articles. Jainism and Vedic "Moksha" may look like same, but again stick to the basics, Jainism is heterodox religion while Vedic religion is Orthodox. You may debate on "Heterodox" and "Nastik" are not same words. Anyway, I just want to say that, all of these religions may look like same, they are related but different religions and their concepts needs separate articles. --Human3015^TALK  23:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Jainism. Yes, that explains. Nirvana seems to have various meanings; I think it's okay to have separate articles, also for the meaning of Nirvana in Jainism. I don't think that some kind of exact definition, akin to the natural sciences, is possible here; so be it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Absolutetly agree with @Capankajsmilyo: Mauna22 (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• The idea behind having one moksha article and one nirvana article is pretty simple. Moksha is the concept of liberation which varies a LOT between different forms of hinduism, jainism, and other dharmic faiths. Having a single article on the topic of moksha is not to say Jainism is the same as Hinduism but instead to put all the different conceptions of Moksha in one place. This creates a fuller understanding of Moksha in Jainism as opposed to Moksha in Vedanta or Moksha in Bhakti which also don't need their own pages. Otherwise we could easily have twenty different Moksha pages (much like our proliferation of 'tattva' or 'tatva' pages. The same idea with Nirvana. No one is saying that Jainism is the same as Hinduism, but that an encyclopedia should keep all relevant information on a topic in one place so a layman doesn't read about one version of moksha and think of it as universal. Nirvana however is quite distinct from moksha as it refers specifically to a karma/samsara based universe which is not even an aspect of all Moksha-based faiths (some don't even include reincarnation). Some groups would use both terms interchangeably, but most traditions would make a distinction or only use one. Nirvana is clearly a specific conception of moksha from samsara and/or causality. This is analagous to ducks being a specific kind of bird. You wouldn't merge the duck page into the bird page, but you would likely put several types of duck on the duck page and several types of birds on the bird page, including ducks. So with many different versions of Nirvana, it seems sensible to put them all in one place to be readily compared across multiple traditions. And the same for the Moksha page which could mention Nirvana as a conception of Moksha, without needing to absorb the Nirvana page. And again: merging the broader concept of Moksha into the more specific Nirvana is completely illogical, like merging the candy page into the chocolate page.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

That depends on which school of Buddhism we are talking about. You can go on endlessly making differences between terms, but really I don´t see any relevant divergence in meaning between Moksha and Nirvana. Indeed I would add Brahmanirvana to the list. Mauna22 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• BTW I would like to suggest that those attached to a particular religion (that deals with these terms) would stay away from the debate due to WP:PPOV. Mauna22 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Please assume WP:GOODFAITH. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that someone says something in good faith, doesn´t mean it is not biased.

For example you seem so concerned about the fact that most of the information about Ramana Maharshi in Ramana´s article comes from devotees: do you assume bad faith in that case? Best Mauna22 (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• So by reading all comments it is quite clear that there is speedy oppose for merging "Nirvana" and "Moksha", though 2-3 users are in favour of merging Moksha of Jainism and Hinduism but that can be different discussion because our main discussion was on merging "Moksha" with "Nirvana". And it seems there is no consensus for this merge. One user claiming that "opposers" of the merge are maybe biased or POV pushers, but it is not really valid point. Me and Joshua both opposed this merge but you can see below my comment(where I opposed merge above) Joshua replied that "I'm not entirely correct". Means we both are opposing this merge but we are not blindly supporting each other, so here is no issue POV pushing. No one here can claim that they are very expert to comment exactly on "Moksha" and "Nirvana" but we are commenting on the basis of sources and basic common knowledge, and these two things deserves separate article. This is not a RFC, I don't know if someone will close this discussion or not, thats why I'm making concluding type remarks. There is no use of continuing this discussion, even those who are supporting merging of all Moksha related articles they are also opposing merge of "Nirvana" and "Moksha". Only valid point came out of discussion is debate about merging Moksha (Jainism) and Moksha, and I think we should start a merge discussion on talk page those articles and can discuss that instead of wasting time on this merge. Thank you.--Human3015^TALK  07:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've one more comment: it was only last year that I found out that "moksha" also applies to Buddhism. Till then, I'd never read this term in any Buddhist literature. And I've been studying Buddhism for 25 years, so that may be an indication... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ya, your experience is appreciated, maybe many users here have age equal to your experience. But main thing is that you too opposed this merge. Other thing is that, there are nearly 30 schools of Buddhism, various schools may have their own logics. Some schools worship Buddha as deity while other considers deity worshiping is against Buddhism. So how we can confirm which is true Buddhism or mainstream Buddhism? Still concept of Nirvana is nearly same in every school. Surely it deserves separate article.--Human3015^TALK  08:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If by “one user” do you meant me, first I don´t see “opposers” here, and secondly I am not assuming some people “are maybe biased or POV pushers”. In fact I didn´t assume anything about anyone here: I meant what I said.

If you are attached to a particular religion that means you have at least a basic set of beliefs that come from that specific religious-view. Otherwise you wouldn´t call yourself buddhist, christian or whatever, right? Religious beliefs are “beliefs” and are “personal”. I think is but sensible to ask people attached to religions in relation with this particular debate to step aside.Mauna22 (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose These are related concepts, but not the same. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: I am totally separated from the issue but have read enough to know several things. 1)- It is not a good idea to try to converge two words from different cultures that do not mean the exact same thing. The logic of the "Oppose" does present enough evidence to close as "no consensus" to merge. 2)- A polite request to editors not to participate is against policy. Concensus: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.". A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. To "request" editors that might have particular knowledge to not participate would be a form or Reverse canvassing that could likely result in vote stacking. Every snowflake is unique means we can have articles closely related but different enough to warrant independence.

We can not "assume" that because someone has a particular belief they can not constructively contribute or that their belief would somehow be unduly biased. Of course it might be biased. That is the idea and should not be hindered. My only interest in these forms of dharma is knowledge. Hinduism and Buddhism hold different views and the presentation of words that seem the same may not be the case. If it was as simple as that we could merge all non-theistic religions with theistic religions. One definition of religion is "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.". Otr500 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Vana as forest

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)

I left the mention from the Abhidharma to vana as forest, though I'd imagine the source mentions it and dismisses it. But that is still adequate grounds to keep it. I removed the folk etymology heading and removed the seemingly OR conclusion of 'na' - not. This appears more readable, especially as the etymology section was surprisingly long and jumbled. I won't be surprised to see a bhakta revert this in favor of their vedabase link. Remember Prabhupada was a great bhakta, but is not usually considered a reliable sanskrit scholar. Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Discussion resources: Buddhist Scriptures

Google Books URLs

@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)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch! And sorry for my late response, I've been busy as a bee lately! Anyway, I was involved in a discussion that took place earlier considering the use of Google Books,[1][2], and it escalated into an RfC. according to which there was no problem for using them. Indeed, we have our own policy, WP:BOOKLINKS, guiding the usage. Moreover, it helps the users to verify the material more easily.

The fear of future link rot, while it's well addressed, it considers each one of our web sources; not just the Google Books ones. To fight that, we have various alternatives available, such as the Wayback Machine (which you are probably already aware of) and its ability to save the sites we want. Anyway, link rot is a problem considering all of our web sources, not just the Google Books. It is not a problem considering only this source; it's a problem considering all of our sources.

When it comes to the non-Google Books sources, I don't see a WP:COPYVIO problem when the book has been published online for free distribution by the publisher. For example, Patrul Rinpoche (1998), it is released by the very organization.

Although we might not disagree perfectly on this question, please have patience with me. I am intended to revise a few more sources, and I really appreciate the work you have done in order to improve the article lately. If it wasn't for that, I wouldn't be doing what I'm doing. :-) Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: You removed Google Book links, and replaced it with commercial/inappropriate links, as you did here. Please do not do so. Indeed, additional lay-url links as well as wayback/archive links are welcome. I appreciate your cooperation and effort. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, thanks for the notice. When I replaced the Google Books source with a Sikkim University source, the book was all available and displayed the quoted page. However, the site seems to be down at the moment, so I restored the original link.[3] The link was not a commercial one, though.

For most, I have replaced Google Books links with more specific Google Books links, i.e. ones that offer a direct access to the source. This is also according to WP:BOOKLINKS, where direct, page-specific links are used in the examples as well. However, the guideline doesn't talk anything about lay-url links or archive-url links (e.g. Wayback Machine). Archive-urls are used for content that has been rescued from the Internet archives when the original source is no longer available. So if you are worried about link rot with the Google Books preview mode, archive-url hardly is the solution as it should offer the stable, existing link to the source. Besides, we won't be losing the other source related information, such as author, title, publisher, date, ISBN, or even a possible quote. So in that sense, no need to be concerned.

Anyway, thanks for reporting the dead link! I've now restored the original one. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

More specific google book url links are most welcome. Thank you for your explanation and efforts. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

url links and WP:Copyvio policy

@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)

Ms Sarah Welch, you are right. The source indeed seems like a WP:COPYVIO. I was searching for an alternative source that could provide with a direct access to the material via Google, and I must have mistaken that the source was provided by an organization directly linked to the publisher (which is the case with many Buddhism/Hinduism related material). After taking a closer look, however, it seems that the site is distributing lots of material with questionable rights. Thanks for the notification, I have now removed the questionable source.[4] Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Further tagging

@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)

Hi, Ms Sarah Welch. Sorry, I didn't consider that necessary since the tag was placed directly after the reference, clearly separated from the other possible references provided for the same piece of text. I also defined the 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.

Well, I thought it would be actually more polite to tag the problematic content first instead of deleting it straight away, so the original editor can fix the issues. After all, there'd be nothing wrong if that is the case with the source/content. Besides, as far as I understand, the tags should not be removed until the disputes have been resolved.

Anyway, I think it'd be stupid to edit war over tags. I know you are working hard for the article, and I placed those tags to help you instead of merely removing all the content. I do think, though, that the quality of sources is more important than the quantity, and adding three sources for half a sentence is a WP:OVERKILL. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Multiple sources are good, as I explained above. Yes, you do need to explain the tag on the talk page, because I find your edit summaries misleading and repeated false allegations of "failed verification". In every case so far, the source does verify the clause it is placed after, or all of the text, at least after the sentence was broken up and restated. If you explain the tag on the talk page, include what you were able to verify and what is bothering you, we can consider proposals for rewording and collaborate together to improve the article. Right now, your WP:TAGBOMBS are misleading and unproductive. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, it seems we have a different approach here. I placed those tags so we can "collaborate together to improve the article", as you put it. I did this instead of removing the material straight away, actually. What you said about "misleading and unproductive", I can understand your comment better now on the basis of what you said in the section above,[5] Talk:Nirvana#OR claims. You might not have noticed, but the Williams (2000) reference was (and still is) pertaining to page 61, whereas you quoted page 54 in order to prove me wrong. I was right, however, when I stated that the given source (Williams 2000; 61) did no verify the material. I am not obligated to read the whole book to see if the material has any support; the WP:BURDEN is on the editor adding the material.

Anyway, according to WP:SOURCE: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." This does not mean: "please feel to quote page 61 when you are actually referring to page 54". Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: The article does use sources that directly support the material presented, some on a single page, some with context over several pages. There is no OR, when we faithfully summarize the remarks and the context of a source. I feel you have been repeatedly ignoring copyright violation policies of wikipedia, and harassing with WP:TAGBOMB, rather than attempting to properly read the cited sources to cooperate and verify and together build content. You are not reading the sources, just adding tags with absurd edit summaries, such as when I add page number range for context, you mock with edit summaries about specifying several pages. Please stop this disruption in this article. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, I can assure you that I have read the quoted sources word-to-word, otherwise I would not have added the tags in the first place. And as I said earlier in this thread: "I thought it would be actually more polite to tag the problematic content first instead of deleting it straight away, so the original editor can fix the issues." According to WP:SOURCE: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made.". This hardly means including twelve pages to support half a sentence.[6]

If you feel that I have violated WP:COPYVIO, WP:HARASS, or WP:NPA (by my "mocking Edit Summaries"), please feel free to file a case at WP:ANI. I hope, however, that you could see that I am here to collaborate with you, nothing else. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

How does "direct support" hardly mean not summarizing or relying on multiple pages? 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". You have corrected the Copyvio situations you created, so we are fine on that. Yes, if you delete sourced content and edit war, we certainly will be at ANI. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, there shouldn't be any WP:COPYVIO problems as long as you don't copy all of the text you are quoting. Instead, you might use the 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)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch! Actually, I answered your question but it you must have understood the opposite of what I was saying. Indeed, I said that: "Quoting multiple pages is alright...,"[8] That's what I've been doing even myself, for example in this edit. I also think you took a step into the right direction with this edit, where you provided quotations from various pages on the book (pp. 59-60; p. 136; pp, 58-59). This is what I meant. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:20, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

OR claims

@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,

Quote: "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

Quote2: "This [OR] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

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)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch. I checked the source, and indeed the source does not even mention anatta. You actually added the term into a direct quotation of the source,[9] even though we should quote the source as it is, without adding any self-introduced content to the quote. I think one area where we fail to understand each other is this: this is not what you know or what I know about the meaning of Pali concepts, this is about whether the source is able to directly verify the material in our encyclopedic article. As you and I might be well-aware of the meaning of a concept like anatta, an average reader who has never heard the term is unable to make that connection. So in the end, it's all about Wikipedia:Verifiability. And the source in question does not even mention the whole term. Besides, do we really need three sources to verify for half a sentence? Especially when Collins (1990) already verifies the material. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: The source clearly states anatta is "not self", etc. in pages preceding page 61. The section is titled Not-Self (anatman; Pali: anatta) on page 56, and the term anatta is used many times by this source thereafter, thus it [not Self = anatta] is directly supported in Williams and Tribe. Verify anatta in the source on page 56 onwards here. Your allegation that the source "does not even mention anatta" after asserting "I checked the source" above seems like WP:TE dishonesty or incompetence from you. The words in any source or quote have meaning in the context the author uses them. And yes, claims about "unheard-by-average-reader" concepts such as anatta and nirvana are best supported with multiple sources for verifiability, because they establish the view is broadly held/mainstream view and provides the reader with additional references to learn more. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the current reference is pertaining to page 61,[10] and you are talking about page 56 here? Before blaming me of incompetence, perhaps you could find competence to refer to the exact page that directly supports the material? According to WP:SOURCE: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." Additional material should be located at the Further reading section, as in the other articles.

I know you are working hard to improve the article, and I wouldn't be watching the progress so closely unless I thought you were doing a good job. One thing you might to consider, however, is that the quality of sources if far more important than the quantity of sources, i.e. one good source is more than enough. This is to say, three sources for half a sentence - the first source quoting 2 pages, the second one quoting 4 pages, and the third one quoting 1 page - seems quite WP:OVERKILL to me. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: I have added pages 56-61 to the source. It does directly support the content, and it is you who does not understand the WP:OR and WP:Copyvio policies of wikipedia. OR is "reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources", and we do need to rewrite in your own words. Don't allege OR if you haven't read the source. The more constructive approach is explain your tag/concern on the talk page with "I read page 61 of source Y, I see support for this and this, but I wonder where the support is for that part". Thank you. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

On multiple sources, I am surprised by your arguments. Just one source invites editors to presume it is one scholar's opinion, and it sometimes leads to "According to XYZ" type corrections. Second (and third) sources establish that the stated part is more than one scholar's opinion. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch. I am okay with multiple sources, as far as they directly support the material, as stated by WP:SOURCE. Indeed, I have revised the source, and the page 61 of Williams (2000) does not verify the material added. I also brought up a problem, according to which quoting three sources and seven pages for half a sentence seems quite an WP:OVERKILL. In response, you added 5 pages more,[11] making the total count of pages twelve. According to WP:SOURCE, however: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." The current references are not directly supporting the material.

Direct quotes are something that never should be touched; we should leave them as they are. Modifying the direct quotations on the basis of how one interprets the things to be is certainly original research.[12] It doesn't matter whether one is right or wrong, but not to modify the quotes is something we absolutely have to adhere to.

You can just quote the page that verifies the material, and if it's scattered among multiple pages, you can always use [...] 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.

Quote1: 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. 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.

Quote2: He [Buddha] makes no mention of discovering the True Self in the Anattalakkhana Sutta. As we have seen, the Buddha explains how liberation [nirvana] 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.

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)

Ms Sarah Welch, the current reference is pertaining to page 61.[13] I re-checked the source and indeed, it does not even mention anatta; you actually modified the quote and added it there by yourself.[14] Whereas you and I might be well-aware of the meaning of Pali concepts like anatta, an average reader who has never heard the term is unable to make that connection. Not just the source you insist on adding fails to verify, we already have the Collins (1990) source that verifies the material.

You said you added the Williams (2000) source for providing context. If it does not directly support the material, however, we should include it to the Further reading section instead of the body of the article. I have now moved the reference to Nirvana#Further reading,[15] cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: You are being dishonest again, because you allege "I re-checked the source and indeed, it does not even mention anatta". The source is Williams (2000) and it mentions anatta many times. Page 61 relies on the context set in the section that starts on page 56, with the title Not-Self (anatman; Pali: anatta), and the discussion in the section not only mentions anatta, Williams (2000) source states that anatta is "not Self". Pages 56-61 do directly support the content. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:44, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, the current reference is pertaining to page 61,[16] not page 56. If the material is verified by a different (range of) page(s), shouldn't you change the given page(s) in that case? You can also take quotations from multiple pages to support the material. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Misuse or misunderstanding WP:SOURCE on Williams & Tribe (2000)?

@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)

Hi there, Ms Sarah Welch. You must have misunderstood my point; as I have said earlier, "Quoting multiple pages is alright...,"[17] That's what I've been doing even myself, for example in this edit. What I was pertaining to, was that the quotation should directly support the material added to the article - be it one single phrase on one page, or multiple fragments on multiple pages. I also think you took a step into the right direction with this edit, where you provided quotations from various pages on the book (pp. 59-60; p. 136; pp, 58-59). This is what I meant.

Deleting page numbers 56-61? Well, as you put it, those pages were merely for providing "context". That's not, however, about directly supporting the material; that's more about WP:FURTHER reading. For that very reason I even moved the Williams (2000) source to the Further reading section.[18] I hope this helped to clarify! Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: As you know, you have been subject to several discretionary sanctions for past disruptions. You are not being constructive in your responses regarding your edit to this article, and are (mis)using WP:SOURCE for disruption. I feel you have not explained yourself. The WP:SOURCE does not apply here, and you have failed to explain your edit summary given an opportunity. I suggest we add those pages back, because any quote has meaning only in the context it is made. Pages 56-61 provides that context, and directly supports the content and the paragraph in the article. "Further reading" section is not pertinent here, because that section is just a list of publications to help the reader learn more about the subject, per WP:FURTHER. The further reading section does not help the reader quickly locate the pages for the context for the extracted quote. We need the page numbers because that is the context of Williams & Tribe source, and because that is the context of the paragraph in this article where it appears. I give you one more chance to make a cogent explanation, as to which wikipedia policy or guideline is violated by citing pages 56-61 as context, in this way? It only helps the reader, hurts nothing. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

References

Ms Sarah Welch, while I think it's not very classy to bring up user behaviour related content to the article Talk Pages (which are indeed meant for article content-related matters), I will answer you shortly:

1. The first link you brought up, did you see up the result in the article in question? I brought the problem myself to the administrative knowledge, and I was also backed up by other experienced editors, such as Cullen328. What we did argument for, actually became the new status quo of the article.
2. The second link you brought up, indeed, the emotions have must got have heated up. I admitted that, however, and there was no sanctions implemented.

Indeed, notifying about discretionary sanctions, even though one hadn't done anything wrong, is a normal procedure in Wikipedia. When it comes to the Williams (2000) source, however, can you provide a quotation from each page you are quoting? If not, why do you want to include them to the reference anyway? Well, that'd solve the problem straight way. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@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)

Question about the "Mittal & Thursby (2004)" and the "Oxford Dictionaries (n.d.)" sources

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)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: Unbelievable. You really are not looking at the source. But you are deleting what I add after doing a google search such as "the+hindu+world+David+Lorenzen", then alleging that "You see, neither the book nor the book info mentioned David Lorenzen"!! FWIW, David Lorenzen's name is on page vii, and at the top of page 208 of the Mittal & Thursby (2004) source. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch, so you are telling me that Lorenzen is the author of this book, but it's not mentioned in the author details, nor in the book cover or the first pages of the book before the introduction? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

@Jayaguru-Shishya: See page vii last two lines, and at the top of page 208 of the Mittal & Thursby (2004). You will see David N. Lorenzen is the author of the relevant chapter and pages. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ms Sarah Welch: "Unbelievable. You really are not looking at the source."[22] Actually, I am looking at the source, but it's a Google Books source, and it isn't displaying any of the pages or allowing navigation through the pages. Perhaps you could provide the chapter in question in order to help to navigate through the book?

You know, we have this proverb in the Finnish language: "Kuin perseeseen ammuttu karhu", which'd mean in English: "Like a bear which has been shot in the ass."[23][24] Please don't be one ;-) Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Pali and Sanskrit

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:

"Hinduism has the concept of Atman, which is the soul, self;[59][60][61] it asserts that Atman exists in every living being, while Buddhism asserts through its anatta doctrine that there is no Atman in any living being.[62][63] Nirvana in Buddhism is "stilling mind, cessation of desires, and action" unto emptiness, while nirvana in post-Buddhist Hindu texts is, states Jeaneane Fowler, also "stilling mind but not inaction" and "not emptiness", rather it is the knowledge of true Self (Atman) and the acceptance of its universality and unity with metaphysical Brahman."
the opposite of atman is anatman or the opposite of atta is anatta; you cannot mix and match.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@Iṣṭa Devatā: Why not use the most common English term used in the reliable sources for these concepts (Anatta and Atman is what the sources predominantly use)? This is English rendering, after all. Were it "Sanskrit-language wikipedia" or "Pali-language wikipedia", I would agree with you. We need to stick with the reliable sources. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724060138/http://seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/ms/nibbana_the_mind_stilled_I.pdf to http://seeingthroughthenet.net/files/eng/books/ms/nibbana_the_mind_stilled_I.pdf

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:39, 26 July 2017 (UTC)