Talk:Parinirvana

message: Note: in April, 2006, this article was merged with mahaparinirvana. Please see the complete edit history of that article here. In summary, it was written almost entirely by User:TonyMPNS, with only peripheral changes by other editors. In addition, wrote the merged version of the article, originally placing it on Talk:Mahaparinirvana. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: Theres only so much I can do because I'm not prescicely clear on the differences between Parinirvana and Nirvana. Can you say a bit more on that if you can? I'll do a bit of checking myself. Cheers, Sam Spade 05:03, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice work

message: should be पर (para) not pari. This is the first time I hear of "pari" instead of "para". Search in a dictionary!--Esteban Barahona (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  spelling 

message: I have added a couple of quotes to indicate that the teaching of a real Self in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is not just to non-Buddhists but is a basic teaching of the sutra as a whole. Any cursory examination of the scripture will show that the Buddha in this sutra is mainly teaching his own monks and bodhisattvas (rather than non-Buddhist ascetics). Of course, I cannot quote the entire 1,000 pages of the text to prove this point! As Anam Gumnam has correctly indicated, it is rather inaccurate scholarship (to say the least) to suggest that Self is only taught in the MPNS to lure in non-Buddhists. Suddha (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:V. "Verifiability, not truth." So your interpretation is not relevant as far as wikipedia is concerned. Mitsube (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Wiki guidelines under Reliable Sources do allow for use of primary sources for reporting the contents of a work ~ an example given is reporting the plot of a play or novel in summary form ~ BUT without adding interpretation.  Since there is merely a summary report concerning the contents given here and no interpretation, this does not contravene Wiki guidelines.  It is up to you to demonstrate what parts of this section are interpretation, but, as far as I can see, no interpretative opinion is expressed in the reported information here concerning the content.  Also, as per Wiki guidelines for such use of primary sources, the summary information can be ascertained easily by any intelligent reader.  Williams' simply has not read the text, but lazily regurgitates standard Gelugpa dogma as fact ~ if he had read the text he would have known that his statement is untrue.  In fact, I am inclined to challenge the use of Williams here as an authority.  Wiki guidelines state that an scholar must have expertise in the specific topic to be regarded as a reliable source.  Since Williams has no expertise in this area and does not claim any ~ he specializes in Madhyamika ~ he should not be used as an authority on this sutra..  I have drawn attention to this before with a quote from his own website.-- अनाम गुमनाम 08:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User Suddha writes "I cannot quote the entire 1,000 pages" ~ why not ?  Perhaps you ought to do just that since User Mitsube has his/her biased interpretation of Wiki guidelines and rules.  I have not seen anything about maximum footnote lengths.  If you give the entire 1000 pages or whatever, then any *intelligent* user will see i) that Williams is just plain wrong AND unreliable, and ii) that there has been no "interpretation" added here ~ just an accurate report of the contents of this sutra.-- अनाम गुमनाम 08:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

text: The point is that the Buddha is portrayed as describing his using the word "self" in that way as an attempt to win over non-Buddhists. It does not matter to whom the character addresses these things. The authors of the sutra were attempting to make "Buddhism" more attractive to non-Buddhists. That is all. The religious affiliation of the people he is portrayed addressing is irrelevant. Mitsube (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the point is that Williams erroneously claims this. There is no basis in the Sutra for this notion ~ Williams has probably confused the Mahaparinirvana-sutra with Lankavatara-sutra which does has a passage that some interpret thus.  Still, now that you have emended the paragraph we are almost there.  Now we need to have a balancing reference that corrects Williams' error.-- अनाम गुमनाम 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddha only teaching 'Self' to Entice Non-Buddhists into Buddhism 

message: There seems to have been a lot of editorial clashes and confusion resulting over the past hour on this article.  Could people please use the appropriate Wiki flag to show that they are currently editing to avoid the misunderstandings that can arise in this way.-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not been at all confused. What were you confused about? Mitsube (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Between making an edit and explaining my reasons in the Talk Page, there were three edit clashes.  You seem to have reacted to my edit actions without reading my comments.  I would call that confusion ~ but who can fathom the convoluted workings of the Mitsube mind !  -- अनाम गुमनाम 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial Clashes

message: I moved this portion from the article to the discussion page, because its tone and approach are problematic and antagonistic. To begin with, it is clearly synthesis, taking facts about Buddhism, and then using them to debate a point about a Self, which was not understood by the Wikipedia contributor. If he/she were familiar with the Lankavatara Sutra or the Mahayana Nirvana Sutra, then he/she would know that the "Self" described in these sutras is not the same as the "Self" of Hinduism. In a Buddhist context, Self refers to exactly the absence of self, and precisely to impermanence, emptiness, suchness, and Nirvana. However, this impermanence, emptiness, and suchness is provisionally viewed as eternal in some respect, just as Nirvana was characterized in these terms in early Buddhism. It is the same with the Tathagatagarbha doctrine, where misinformed people assume that it is substantialist, or that the Tathagatagarbha is some phenomenon. These naive views are flatly contradicted by the Mahayana sutras themselves in very clear terms. Again, it is important that people actually understand the doctrines being discussed, before assuming that "school X is deviating from the original teachings," when the sutras in question explain everything very clearly. Unfortunately, it takes a broad and honest mind to actually endeavor to study texts or doctrines that you might not normally associate yourself with. Tengu800 (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antagonism re: Self 

message: The article has a bug : Buddha Gautama reached Parinirvana 14 days after the Nirvana : At his death he had the Mahaparinirvana.
 Manbu (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parinirvana and Mahaparinirvana 

message: It would be better to have widely respected monks from several different traditions with added context on the differing perpectives between them.  80.217.93.153 (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Having a Contemporary Scholar Describe Parinirvana is a bad choice