Talk:Moksha

message: I added Raja marga since it is a central understanding of Hindu thought about moksha and removed shunyata since Hindus and Jains don't believe in nothingness while Buddhists avoid using the term moksha.
----
Should it be noted that the translation for विमुक्ति is vimukti (or vi-mukti if you prefer)? I realize the वि- prefix makes it the more proper term here, just note it in the transliteration.  Khiradtalk 22:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Raja marga

message: Moksha is the central theme in Buddhism. In fact, hindus were unaware of moksha before Buddha. Look at . --Anirudh777 10:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.. I have never heard of this before. But can you point to the exact reference please. The site is a large collection of ebooks, so if you can pull out the ebook that says Moksha is a central theme to buddhist, that would be helpful. Thanks Monkey Brain 15:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moksha central theme in Buddhism

message: This article should include some basic spritual information as well before going into the details to assist the reader...eg 
understanding of what happens when an individual while still possesing a body on earth reaches the point when the last sin their soul bears becomes perfectly balanced by act of good deed...
Now 'soul' means what survives when the 'body' ceases to exist as a living form[and those who believe when they die its just everlasting blackness this topic is of no further interest to you...but i would be very careful what i believe about my soul...]
'Sin' means what the soul/souls that by act of 'unbalanced-self-interest' causes 'disruption, destruction and trauma' on other soul/souls(which by the way is the definition of 'evil'), earns...so, taking an example, a soul cannot commit sin by damaging something that does not have a soul eg rock...unless the amount of rock damaged causes above said to souls...but a soul acting on another soul does earn sin...so 'sin' is a currency that only goes with the 'soul'...
And this topic of moksha or samathi or nirvana...is eastern religion in essense saying if you keep doing good deeds to counter balance the evil in ones soul then it is possible to bring your soul back to balance...albeit a mature old soul. As compared to western religion that says you evil will be balanced in 'hell' through suffering to bring the same balance...again with 'escape clause' of if you beleive in jesus then its all forgiven...again be careful what one believes when it comes to your soul...
And for the budding theologians out there...the most interesting question is this 'what happens at the moment when the last good deed balances the the last evil act in ones soul'...in eastern religion, the belief is that the body can no longer exist with the soul, so the body energies back to its basic elements releasing the soul...as with budda and other swami's...in western religion, when all the evil is balanced by suffering, then the soul can no longer exist in hell and will go back to become one with the body of god, and which in same balance, to complete the cycle which started when a small part of god energy separated to become your soul...,
And the most important of all is the understanding that god does not have a physical form, ie exists as energy...so to understand topics relating to god ie spirituality one must have their spiritual eye ie the 'eye of energies' open first and use it in their daily situations of life eg how does one explain the colour yellow to a blind from birth person...
Sam  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.86.137 (talk) 00:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some basic understanding

message: "The impersonalist schools of Hinduism also worship various deities, but with the idea that such worship is ultimately abandoned - both the worshiped and worshiper lose their individual identities."
That depends which school of Advaita, you're obviously ISKCON all impersonalists are the same to you but there are several different schools of Advaita i.e.
what can be known as 'Reform Advaita' of Sri Ramakrishna even Sri Aurobindo and other modern gurus...
Vishishtadvaita or Ramanuja's school...Ishvaravada Advaita(monistic theism, panentheism
Shaiva Advaita which is also known as Ishv. Advaita...some lose their identities some don't!
Ishvaravada contends that the Supreme(insert whatever name) really exists and is also the absolute and creative forces... The key is total or near-total identification with Brahman the Absolute.
Also pure Advaita Vedanta Sri Adi Shankara's school of complete identification with Brahman though that can depend...It's important to note that one must separate definition of the ego from the idea of individuality...ego is known as 'ahamkara'(I-maker) so one can still exist but completely identify with Brahman..DomDomsta333 (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moksha 

message: There is some indication that Indian identity politics (which tends to be all-pervasive on Indian religion articles) has shown up in this Moksha article as well. For instance, in the section on the "origins" of Moksha, the claim is that Moksha and related concepts originated with non-aryans and were incorporated into hindusim by brahmins priests. This may or may not be true, and every single source (of the 7 footnotes given) acknowledges the speculative nature of this theory. Yet, the narrative here had presented it as a done deal. I fixed the narrative to include an indication of the speculative nature of this theory with the appropriate phrases ("may have," "the theory is", etc).  - jak.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jak68 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1, 5, and 7 make firm declarations. Altering sourced material within a reference like you did is not allowed. Mitsube (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: For the third time you have added a "may" to Masih's quote. I have no idea what you are talking about regarding Buddhist identity politics. And there have never been any claims of scholarly consensus. Mitsube (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I will note here that you are altering a directly attributed sentence in quotation marks. Regarding your NPOV idea, you are incorrect. I am repeating what the scholars say, as you will see. If you find a dissenting scholar then we can give that view appropriate weight. Mitsube (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Not a single source gives any hint of scholarly dispute. That is your wish, not reality. Mitsube (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason for including all of them is that the entire worldview was borrowed. Saying "moksha" by itself doesn't really make sense. In the Rigveda the situation is the opposite, with one life followed by heaven. Mitsube (talk) 22:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should read WP:V first? Have you read it before? Mitsube (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no violation of WP:V anywhere. Dandekars edits were merely wording related. He left all sources the way they were, and changed a summarised version to a quote. IMO direct quotes are much more reliable than summaries, but as a compromise, could we have the quote with a summary after?Drew Smith What I've done 21:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian identity politics and the Moksha concept 

message: First parapgraph states: "Its meaning is similar to that of Salvation in Christianity..."
This seems wildly inaccurate. The Christian concept of salvation depends on the concepts of sin, original sin, blood atonement, the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus, grace, and other concepts that do not fit with the Dharmic worldview. In addition, most Judeo-Christian beliefs regarding the afterlife are very different from Dharmic beliefs. Christianity has no concept of samsara, the cycle that moksha promises escape from.
Moksha and salvation are only similar in that they are positive endpoints in major religions. The similarities end there. I am going to remove the reference to salvation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.144.87 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar to Salvation? 

message: The current state of the entry makes Advaita seem in some way opposed to Vaishnavism (i.e. "according to advaita" and later "Vaishnava sects follow one of Shuddhadvaita, Vishistadvaita, Dvaitadvaita, Dvaita, or Acintya Bheda Abheda")...which I am fairly certain is not the case - I mean, Bhaja Govidnam, a text about devotion to Vishnu, was written by the founder of Advaita.
Furthermore, the phrase "on the other hand, works of the non-dualistic Hindu school, Advaita Vedanta or Brahmavada has a doctrinal position similar to Buddhism" is nonsensical...Advaita was founded in part as a response to growing Buddhism in India. There are points of similarity, undoubtedly, but at the level of similarity between Advaita and Buddhism, the philosophy shares similarities with several other philosophies, thus either necessitating inclusion of these other philosophies in order to make the term "similarity" not arbitrarily exclusive, or removal of that phrase. Including this point of similarity does not seem to be adding any value to the article. 169.229.76.4 (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So please correct it, if you know about it. I understand that the Advaita concept is for the atma to become one with the Parmatma, but hesitate to correct the entire text/matter in that section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.202.20.18 (talk) 15:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advaita and Vaishnavism 

message: I made a few non-content corrections in the "Achieving Moksha" section.
1) In the sentence ... 
 Though Advaitha philosophy existed from millinimums right from the vedanta, upinishads period and advocated by many saints like Sukha, Sanaka, Goudapada, Govinda Bhagvatpada, AdiShankara is the most famous and profound presenter of Advaitha philosophy.
... the spelling of the word "Advaitha" was changed to "Advaita" so that its spelling remains uniform through the section.
2) At first, I was going to change "millinimums" to "millenia." But the claim itself is subjective, especially since the rest of the sentence refers to a specific period. So I edited the sentence to read "Though Advaita philosophy existed from the period of the Vedanta and the Upanishads (spelling corrected), and was advocated by many saints like Sukha, Sanaka, Goudapada and Govinda Bhagvatpada, Adi Shankara is its most famous and profound presenter."
The corrections are purely for the purpose of proof-reading. I have no intention of making or presenting any content based claims. 
I felt that the topic is important enough to be presented in a serious and proof-read manner.
To the Wikipedia experts...could you please read through the article again and check for minor format corrections? It feels like the article could use some touching up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newbie777 (talk • contribs) 04:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof-reading edits.... 

message: This article has the following issues:
# Some sections are missing - the historical development of the concept of moksa, objections raised by scholars such as the 2nd century Nagarjuna etc
# Lacks summary of the key peer reviewed scholarly publications on moksa, such as by van Buitenen, Ingalls, etc.
# It hints some margas/traditions have their own view about moksa, but does not explain. These sub-sections need more substance and explanation.
I will try to address these issues. If someone has plans to address this, or has objections to the above, please post. It will save me some effort. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues and missing sections 

message: I made the following changes to this article:
#Expand lede per WP:LEAD. The lede should summarize the main article.
#Re-arrange per wiki's manual of style. I have tried to incorporate some recent suggestions. Definitions section now precedes the History section.
#Nāgārjuna is most known for his contributions to Buddhism. He is also credited with scholarly work on Hindu texts and concepts, particularly Nyaya school of Hinduism. See this Stanford University resource. I have placed Nagarjuna's challenge where it is most relevant.
#Remove web link to a part of David Loy's thesis into David Loy's peer reviewed journal article. They are not same.
#Other minor changes.
If someone has objections, let us discuss it here. Kind regards, Mark.muesse (talk) 11:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections; I like your edits. But I have re-inserted the related terms (vimoksha etc.). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  As per WP:BEGIN, we are rewriting for a non-expert and need to specify the context. Moksha is irrelevant to Islam or Chinese philosophy. The context should be in the opening sentence.--Redtigerxyz  Talk  17:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-arrangement and lede

message: User:Joshua_Jonathan, The phrase "new movements" is misleading. Jainism and Buddhism are derived from the Sramana tradition. Research has shown that the Sramana tradition in general, and Jainism, in particular, are older than previously thought. GC Pande in his book Studies in the Origins of Buddhism refers to the Sramana tradition as being of "pre-Aryan origin". I suggest that the term "new movements" be replaced by "movements".    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samitshah1 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: older than the Vedic religion, that is, older than ca. 1500 BCE? I doubt it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Zimmer and Jacobi are very old colonial era Indologists, too old a reference to be WP:HISTRS. We need to stick to the mainstream scholarship from the post-colonial era, on this. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: New Movements

message: here are my comments on your edits, as announced at User talk:Disha08#Moksha.
At User:Disha08/sandbox, you wrote that there is a "content gap" at this article, and that there people who are unsure about the difference between nirvana and moksha. Well, that's a good starting point. 
The lead already contains some info on the (non)use of the term "moksha" in Buddhism; this could be copied to the relevant section.
There is a separate article on :Nirvana; did you read it? You have now added info on "nirvana" to "moksha"; unnecessarily, since the Nirvana-article already covers the topic. It's enough to mention that nirvana is somehow equivalent to momsha, but not exactly the same. 
Instead, you added inaccurate info. The first section contains the sentence
Technically that's correct, thougb the English formulation is incorrect; it should be "Nirvana is liberation from suffering." Yet, that also requires explanation: how is it liberatiin, from which suffering? It is liberation from the attachment to fleeting phenomena; freedom from automatic responses; yet, not freedom from sickness and pain...
The Quiles article is useless as a source; 39 years it has been refefenced zero times... Nirvana as metaphysical knowledge; no wonder it has not been cited.
Your additions on nirvana in Theravada and Mahayana at best added info which was already there; less than best, it added non-sensical text using incorrect, and sometimes incomprehensible, English.
Regarding the difference between moksha and nirvana: it was already stated that moksha and nirvana are related, but not exactly the same. So, this adds nothing new. The difference between Hinduism and Buddhism regarding atman and anatman is relevant, but not sufficiently explained.
I'n sorry for you, but I'm going to revert all of your edits... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:32, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  disha08 edits 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I was under the impression Nirvana means 'to be extinguished' and not 'extinction' Msfirexx (talk) 08:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Extinguished' vs. 'extinction'