Talk:Nirvana/Archive 1

message: I removed "Often considered ineffable, Nirvana may be denoted as a continuity of void processes. " as it is confusing and possibly meaningless, at least without considerable elaboration.
Also killed "However, when teaching his own disciples, the Buddha used nibbana more as an image of freedom. Apparently, all Indians at the time saw burning fire as agitated, dependent, and trapped, both clinging and being stuck to its fuel as it burned. To ignite a fire, one had to "seize" it. When fire let go of its fuel, it was "freed," released from its agitation, dependence, and entrapment -- calm and unconfined. "--There's no point in the history of Indian philosophy about which one could get away with a statement like "Apparently, all Indians at the time x." Nor am I at all sure this was even a particularly common view; fire is pretty well revered in Indian thought, and metaphorically in the realm of philosophy, logic, and theological debate it usually stood in not for entrapment or agitation but for motion and power. 
I also deleted the attribution of one quote to Suttinapatti, as that looks entirely wrong (Sutta Nipāta, perhaps?) to my eye, and a quick google turned up no references to anything of that name.
कुक्कुरोवाच 22:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

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

message: I reverted several changes by User:Usedbook for a couple reasons. First, Nirvana does not literally mean "unbinding". "transcendent and singularly ineffable freedom" is (a) perhaps a little flowery for an encyclopedia and (b) ungrammatical (sentence fragment). I would be opent to changing "culmination" to "goal" with some other restructuring, however.
Nirvana does not connote an indescribable reality etymologically; it is taken to refer to or depict one, but not on the etymological level.
If part of the article is a misunderstanding, we probably shouldn't include it at all. However, it's not clear to me which part is supposed to be a misunderstanding why.
Nirvana's often-asseted ineffability, while valid for inclusion in this article, belongs nowhere near the etymology section. Also, your edits sound like they reflect the teachings of some particular school, in which case they can be included under a special section devoted to that school's interpretations, but I can't do it for you if I don't know what school that is. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 16:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding my recent revert of Usedbook 

message: I experienced it today. It was an amazing feeling, but it felt souless. My body had a feeling it had never had before as my mind reached a new level of awakening. Everything became so clear to me and for a moment I felt as though I had no worries. Everything was so clear that I didn't need to learn anything, remember anything, it felt as though I was a god. Yet that feeling scares me, but let's me know everything will be ok. It scares me because... well I don't know. It just feels as though I have no meaning to life once I know everything. I just can't define the feeling. It was just so new and different. I read more of this article and it just bugs the crap out of me. Oh well.--Cyberman 02:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
:Hehe- Well, the question remains - how do you know what you experienced was Nirvana? (20040302)
::My nirvana is eating oreos while surfing the internet and listening to ragtime music--67.184.163.248 02:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion doesn't seem to be appropriate for a page relating to an encyclopedia article. It also exhibits the misunderstanding of the concept of Nirvana. As Schopenhauer explained, Nirvana is a negative concept. Therefore, Nirvana is not experienced. Nirvana is the absence of experience. It is the absence of the suffering that results from attachment. It is not positive happiness or pleasure. It is the Nothing that follows the end of experience.Lestrade 12:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lestrade, I don't think this discussion concerns the article - it is more to do with a thought of Pachomius'. You are not wrong in terms of your definition - Nirvana is most often defined as a cessation - the cessation of suffering and it's causes. However I disagree with the sentence: "It is the Nothing that follows the end of experience" on two grounds - firstly the capitalisation in Nothing indicates a proper noun which makes it something other than nothing. secondly, Nirvana isn't mere absence - it is the specific absence of suffering (as defined by dukkha) and it's causes. Within the Mahayana traditions experience cannot end (the continuum of mind is everlasting – my understanding of the Theravada interpretation is that the question of the presence or absence of the continuum of mind after Nirvana is something that is not worth thinking about, but I may be mistaken.) – but after Nirvana is achieved (by definition) experience no longer sustains suffering and it's causes. Of course, if you mean in your statement "It is the end of all experience tainted with suffering and it's causes" - then I agree with it. It could be said that Sravakabuddhas are not subject to rebirth - because there is no reason to be reborn; however the case for Samyaksambuddhas and Pratyekabuddhas is not so clear. (20040302 14:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: According to your quote, Schopenhauer argues that Nirvana is a myth/meaningless word. Are we to make that the new intro? "Nirvana is a myth and/or meaningless word used to evade the reality of the denial of the will."—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Nirvana" is a meaningless word in the sense that it is a designation of nothingness. It has no meaning in a positive sense, about positive things, such as the world of experience. Just as "denial," "devoid," and "extinction" are negative concepts, "Nirvana" is a negative concept, but it is the most negative of all negative concepts. Negative concepts only have meaning in relation to positive concepts. Positive concepts represent the experienced world.Lestrade 19:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lestrade, (to be clear) Schopenhauer is not universally considered to be an authority on Nirvana.  So - as long as we prefix any views of Schopenhauer as being nothing more, we won't get lost. Personally, I disagree with Schopenhauer - as would many Buddhists. So, as Schopenhauer is not universally recognised as an authority of Nirvana - and as he is not the author of the term, we cannot make an assertive statement of fact like "As Schopenhauer explained, Nirvana is [...]" We can state, however, something like "Schopenhauer's view of Nirvana is [...] (cite)" (20040302 20:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't follow you? How did you conclude this?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 00:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear User:20040302, the satirist Karl Kraus was born fourteen years after Schopenhauer died. Therefore, it is apodictically certain that he did not influence Schopenhauer. Also, is your spelling of "Krause" a result of your acquaintance with Wikipedian User:Nat Krause? With regard to the concept of Nirvana, Schopenhauer did not have an "idea of transcendency." Rather, he had an idea that it was a state of non-willing or the absence of attachment. One of Schopenhauer's main influences with regard to Buddhism was Henry Thomas Colebrooke. In the Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 1, p. 566, Colebrooke wrote: " Nirvana as an adjective signifies extinct. Its etymology is from va to blow as a wind & the negation nir. It means calm and unruffled. The notion is that of perfect apathy." From such recognized scholars, Schopenhauer derived his definition of Nirvana, which has nothing to do with transcendency.Lestrade 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experience of Nirvana 

message: Lestrade, Let me try to be more clear: If we wish to argue about the nature of Nirvana, we have to place it into the context of usage. Schopenhauer had a specialised definition of Nirvana, as do the various schools within Buddhism.
These definitions are heterogenous. I disagree with your statement that either the word "Nirvana" - or for that matter the various referents associated with the word "Nirvana" necessitate any specific meaning. You know that for many individuals the word represents a rock group, so it is NOT apparent that the word "Nirvana" can only have a meaning as a negation of the world. (my emphasis). 
What is apparent is that under your interpretation of Schopenhauer, he asserts a set of ideas concerning Nirvana that require a negation of the world. This is disputed by other philosophers, such as Nāgārjuna who says  
Therefore the views of Schopenhauer and Nāgārjuna are heterogenous. If we study the commentaries of the MMK by Candrakīrti and subsequently Tsongkhapa and the lineage of Prasaṅgika we see that the argument of negation or absence - in the context of sunyata - is concerned solely with essence:
However when we talk of Nirvana - the absence (or cessation) is not of essence, but of dukkha. Nirvana is not the negation of the world, but a continuum of mind that is permanently freed from suffering and the cause of suffering. Of course, the nature of Nirvana is the same as the nature of Samsara (see above) - they are both essenceless - empty of any reifying essence.
Language is more slippery than a fish.  But we can argue that for some people, it makes sense to talk about experiencing Nirvana - as long as it is understood to mean being free from something that cannot reoccur.  We can talk about the experience of having lost our parents to death, so I don't see a specific objection to the idea of experiencing Nirvana, as long as we don't imagine it to indicate a positivistic experience - such as feeling blissed out, or seeing light or something. (20040302 00:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear User:20040302, the satirist Karl Kraus was born fourteen years after Schopenhauer died. Therefore, it is apodictically certain that he did not influence Schopenhauer. Also, is your spelling of "Krause" a result of your acquaintance with Wikipedian User:Nat Krause? With regard to the concept of Nirvana, Schopenhauer did not have an "idea of transcendency." Rather, he had an idea that it was a state of non-willing or the absence of attachment. One of Schopenhauer's main influences with regard to Buddhism was Henry Thomas Colebrooke. In the Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society, Vol. 1, p. 566, Colebrooke wrote: " Nirvana as an adjective signifies extinct. Its etymology is from va to blow as a wind & the negation nir. It means calm and unruffled. The notion is that of perfect apathy." From such recognized scholars, Schopenhauer derived his definition of Nirvana, which has nothing to do with transcendency.Lestrade 13:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schopenhauer - Nirvana - Experience 

message: Is nirvana absolute peace & truth? It certainly is NOT an ideal heaven("nahh" to those who think it is). Will someone actually know when they have achieved nivana. i don't think they will. Goes into deep thoughtfullness. Hmmmmmmm...
:Dodo Birds and Dinosaurs have achieved Nirvana. That is, they are no longer in the world.Lestrade 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lestrade, your naïveté astounds. Nirvana is extinction - but it is qualified - it is the extinction of suffering and the cause of suffering. Your approach to Nirvana reminds me of those who promote a nuclear Doomsday event as the sole road to world peace.  (20040302 08:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary has Nirvana as "the extinction of individual existence, or the extinction of all desires and passions; the attainment of perfect beatitude (blessedness, happiness)". I have to assume, though, that if a person's existence is extinguished and he/she is no longer alive, then there will be no consciousness of the happiness that results from the extinction of desire and passion. Consciousness of the result of Nirvana requires continued existence or life.66.82.9.56 19:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. The concept of Nirvana does not simply mean extinction or extinguishment. Its nothingness, voidness, and emptiness is only in relation to suffering and the desire or willing that causes suffering. Nirvana is therefore a relative absence of something or a relative nothingness.Lestrade 13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to agree - though we need to be careful in our usage of words. The extinguishment of Nirvana must be qualified - but I am not convinced that it is therefore relative, though of course it depends upon the specific meaning of 'relative' in your statement. If you mean it in the sense that it is related to the object that it is absent of, then yes indeed. However if you mean that Nirvana is therefore (somehow) a contingent truth, you are making a mistake. The term Nirvana is a description of a realisation that is not contingent - it is final, absolute, and beyond contingency: However, the term itself belongs to language, and therefore implies a relation to the object that it is free from - in this case Samsara. In Buddhism, the foundational cause of suffering is ignorance. Once again, this has a specific, related meaning - not just ignorance of anything, but specifically ignorance regarding the three marks of existence. It should be noted that the Theravada tradition generally implies that nirvana involves a cessation of the continuum of consciousness, but this view is not definitive (IIRC Buddha said such questions have little value), and the Mahayana tradition generally denies that Nirvana entails the cessation of the continuum of consciousness. (20040302 16:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Thought 

message: hello , 
is there a difference between the two ? or is nirvana the buddhist term for moksha ? or is moksha a state before nirvana ?
:In brief, they are different and distinct. One cannot meaningfully talk about moksha being a state before nirvana, and one cannot meaningfully state that nirvana is the buddhist term for moksha. (20040302)
my question is : what is the difference ? Hhnnrr 16:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An examination of the 'difference' would involve understanding the nuances and ideas of thousands of schools of thought across several millenia, for two major world religions. However, in brief, for Advaitists, Moksha is oneness without form or being, whereas for Vaishnavites and Shaivites, Moksha means union with God. Buddhist Nirvana avoids at every turn - even linguistically - using the concept of 'oneness' or 'self' or 'Brahma', and in Buddhism, all Gods are subject to rebirth, and are therefore not liberated. (20040302 10:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moksha & Nirvana 

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

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

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

message: User Sangha claims that Nirvana is not negative. This seems to me to be completely wrong. The word "Nirvana" designates a totally negative concept. That concept is "the absence of suffering and its cause, attachment." If a word designates the absence of a positively experienced thing, then it is designating a negative concept. Suffering and attachment are positive experiences. "Nirvana" is such a negative word. Other similar negative words are "void," "nothingness," and "emptiness."Lestrade 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.. I don't understand your views, how is suffering a positive experience? How is emptiness (devoid of views (both good and bad)) a negative? Nirvana is extinguishing (positions/views(kinda)). How is "zero" a negative number? Monkey Brain 04:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is suffering a positive experience? If you feel a sharp pain, that is a positive experience in that the pain is really present. "Positive" means "possessing actual force, being, presence, or existence." On the other hand, "negative" means "the absence of actual force, being, presence, or existence." You must be thinking that "positive" means "good" and "negative" means "bad." Your mathematical question is not relevant to purely verbal concepts and only applies to the terminology of numbers. The meaning of that technical terminology is the result of conventional meanings that mathematicians have agreed upon. Lestrade 13:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah ok. That's an uncommon definition of Negative and Positive. But I now understand your negative(negation) concept of Nirvana and I don't have a problem with that. However others might object to your views. Till then. Monkey Brain 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sangha's Nirvana

message: I intend to delete the paragraph in the article that asserts that Nirvana is a kind of knowledge. Nirvana, being the extinction of suffering and attachment, is not "enlightenment," "pure unobstructed awareness of reality as-it-is," "spiritual knowledge," "awakening," or "perfect gnosis." Nirvana is a condition of non-willing. Nirvana is not a condition of "higher" knowledge. A quick look in the nearest dictionary shows that Nirvana is: 1.(a)the extinguishment of the restlessness and heat of one's emotions; (b) the passionless peace of imperturbability attained through the annihilation of disturbing desires; 2. freedom from pain, worry, and the external world. [Sanskrit: a blowing out (as of a light)]. These are states of non-willing, not states of knowing. Lestrade 12:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you there. Monkey Brain 14:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nirvana is not Knowledge

message: Contrary to what Monkey Brain asserts, Nirvana is not mysticism. All mysticism consists of the feeling of being united with the whole universe. This is true of Hindu, German, Japanese, Tibetan, Chinese, French, Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or any other mysticism. The individual is at one with the whole. On the other hand, Nirvana is the absence of craving, or the denial of the will. As a result of this absence or denial, suffering ceases. Siddhartha associated suffering with craving or willing when he proclaimed his Four Noble Truths. Those truths were realized as a result of his observation of the suffering of other people, in the form of seeing a sick person, an old person, and a dead person. Siddhartha lost interest in the external world as a result of these impressions. He turned against a world that he considered to fundamentally consist of suffering. The whole religion of Buddhism is a search for the way to escape suffering through the cessation of desire and attachment. It has nothing to do with mysticism. 69.19.14.33 17:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Nirvana (Buddhist) is not mysticism. It is pointed out that from Hindu pov nirvana is thought as merging with the universe(brahman). And my understanding is that Buddhism is not about losing the self, but simply understanding the self. And I doubt Siddhartha lost interest in the world, if he did, then he would have simply died without going on for 40+ years of teaching Buddhism to the locals. 71.214.82.119 22:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Buddhism is not "about understanding the self" because Buddhism's main concern is not with knowledge. Buddhism's main concern is with the removal of suffering through the cessation of attachment to worldly things . Did you ever see a statue of the meditating Buddha? Does he look as though he is interested in the external world? To Siddhartha, in focused meditation, the external world, as well as the fire of his own willing, was extinguished (Nirvana). After he extinguished his egoism and attachments, his body continued to live. The cessation of  craving, willing, desiring, and attachment does not immediately result in physical death. 69.19.14.41 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, and to be free of dukkha(suffering) is through "right understanding" of the self right understanding of the nature and right understanding of the connection between the two (dependent orgination), if there is no right understanding and simply want to get rid of dukkha, do you think it's possible? Because of this, right understanding, there is little place for belief in Buddhism. - Statues do not tell any thing, other than what you already preceive things to be. - Right, cessation of dukkha does not mean immediate death. Realization of nature(self) leads to freedom from dukkha, if there isn't a right understanding of the nature of dukkha, then one cannot be completely free from dukkha. If you read closely, Buddhism focus tons of attention on the will. Will to understand, will to stop dukkha, will to meditate. If the goal of the buddhism is to "lose the will/denial of will," then buddhism shouldn't be teaching meditation it should not even be teaching because learning requires the will to learn. 71.214.82.119 17:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nirvana and Mysticism

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

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

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

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

message: The Hinduism page refers to Nirvana in connection with the Hindu pursuit of Moksha. However, on this page Nirvana is described only as a Buddhist concept. There needs to be an explanation of any distinction (if any) between the two religions regarding the concept of Nirvana. There should not just be a link at the bottom to Hinduism. That does not cover it.
Also, this being the English version of Wikipedia, there should not be a lot of foreign text (near the bottom of the page).
Yes, this is absolutely wrong. "Hindu" texts are full of references to Nirvana, , and there's no such distinction as "Moksha is Hindu concept and Nirvana is Buddhist". deeptrivia (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aren't the terms Nirvana and Moksha interchangeable. GizzaChat © 23:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism and Nirvana 

message: I am a student of a highly accomplished and learned Rinpoche in the Nyingma tradition and stumled uppon this page, my teacher told me that the word Nirvana is actualy 3 words Nir Va Djna and litteraly mean "withouth wrong thought", I have taken a look in the sanskrit diktionary and verified this. 
This interpretation is also fully in line with the teachings of Buddhism on meditation and post meditation and the life of a mendicant. Further with this interpretation in mind one can properly understand many aspects of the life of accomplished Buddhists and the spiritual road according to Buddha.
It also clears up some ideas that many people in the west has due to poor understanding of Buddha Dharma when it first was introdused, mainly the thought that Nirvana is the same as extinguising of life. That it would be something like nothingness. As someone here wrote it is the blowing out of the neurotic feelings of hate, wanting and indifference.
Sorry about my poor English.
Nils
:::Nils, Nirvana means extinction or extinguishment, as in the blowing out or snuffing of a candle's flame. It represents the loss of the fire of desire, attachment, will, and craving (and consequently, suffering). It is thus a negative concept in that it designates the absence of something positively felt.Lestrade 14:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nir Va Djna / Nirvana according to Chhimed Rigzin Rinpoche 

message: Today, in the External links section of the article, User:218.168.198.174 added the URL link  explanation of Nibbana according to dmc . This link leads to a webpage that equates Nirvana with Enlightenment (Bodhi). In spite of the fact that it is agreed that Nirvana means Extinction, everyone believes that Nirvana means Enlightenment. It is obvious to me that Nirvana is the absence of attachment, willing, craving, and desire. Nirvana is not the presence of a kind of knowledge, it is the absence of a kind of willing. Enlightenment (knowledge ot the Four Noble Truths) can lead to Nirvana, but enlightenment itself is not Nirvana. It is also obvious to me that it is futile to continue to try to express this in oppposition to overwhelming ignorance. So, if the Wikipedia audience wants to think that Nirvana is Enlightenment, then so be it.Lestrade 14:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is obvious to you?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Sorry. I'm a bit of a newbie with the editing. There appears to be the words "Chicken is good" at the bottom of the see also paragraph. I cant seem to be able to remove it. Anybody else want to try?
*It looks like the vandalism was removied a few days ago.  I'm not sure why you are still seeing it.  Also, remember to sign talk pages with ~~~~.  Welcome to wikipedia, and happy editing.   eric 05:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism that I cannot remove

message: :Where there is nothing; where naught is grasped, there is the Isle of No-Beyond. Nirvāṇa do I call it -- the utter extinction of aging and dying.
What text does this quotation come from? I'd appreciate the pali or sanskrit original, because "the Isle of No-Beyond" seems too vague as a concept...Dilbert 18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Isle of No-Beyond

message: There should be one available for this article. e.g. Nirvana (band)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.146.138.55 (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there should be a disambiguation page for the word; ask anyone what they think of first when they hear the word: the band, or the Buddhist "state of mind"? I think the majority who search Wikipedia for "Nirvana" are probably looking for the former. --Krakko 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

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

message: I had moved the Nirvana page to Nirvana (Buddhism) and redirected Nirvana to DAB page. It seems that insistence on restoring these changes are just to adhere “Some long established status quo” which was a status quo by default. Also the allegation by davidpatrick that “this issue was never discussed or no one had objected to it before hand” is not true, as evident on the discussion pages. Two people had raised this issue 
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nirvana_%28state%29&diff=170927374&oldid=169004900 
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nirvana_%28state%29&diff=175657678&oldid=172099964
…and one had had bothered to discuss it with them or reply so long as they did not act on it. When I acted on it, suddenly someone wakes up to defend “the long established statusquo.”
Let me provide reasons for why Nirvana be renamed as Nirvana (Buddhism) and redirected Nirvana to DAB page –
*Nirvana is also a Jain concept. Probably Buddhists borrowed it from Jainas. Hence Nirvana should point out to “both” Jainsim and Buddhism concepts. But this article Nirvana is pre-dominantly a Buddhist concept so Nirvana (Buddhism) is an ideal name for it, just as there is a separate article for Nirvana (Jainism) and both are at par.
*Many are looking for Band or music when they search for Nirvana and obviously get confused. For some one from India, Nirvana obviously is a philosophical concept. But think of the westerners and those, who are not familiar with Indian (and Asian) philosophical concepts. Hence Nirvana should be a DAB page. Let people be free to choose which meaning they want and not impose any meanings on anyone.
It should be noted wikipedia is not about “Status quo”. If that were the case, then, each and every edit would be reverted back. Even the featured articles are edited mercilessly. Also note that consensus can change – WP:CCC --Anish (talk) 09:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

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

message: In view of the above consensus, the article may the restructured in the following manner. The lead section to be suitably modified to show that it is a Buddhist as well as a Jainist concept.
#Nirvana in Buddhism
##Overview 
##and 
##in Buddhist commentaries 
##in the MahāpariSūtra 
##Paths to in the Pali canon 
##Quotations 
#Nirvana in Jainism
##Overview
##Description of to  of Mahavira
#See also 
#Notes 
#External links
If there is a Hindu concept for to , one more section may be added. Comments are invited. --Anish (talk) 11:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconstruction-/addition of the article

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

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

message: Much of the article seems to be unsourced interpretations of Buddhist ideas. there seems to be no basis for supposing that Buddhists would agree on them. Peter jackson (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The identity of samsara and nirvana is completely wrong. One should not try to "transcend" them through meditation. The whole point of nirvana is that it is unconditioned and perfect, nothing transcends it. The n. vs. s. idea is that dukkha is empty and so it is never inherent. So the situation you're in only has suffering if you are not enlightened. Otherwise there is no suffering. That's the whole point. Mitsube (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interpretation 

message: What is "The Self-realisation" that he is referring to? Capital S Self-realization is a very unBuddhist idea (though self-mastery is not). I think the context of the quote would be needed. Can someone provide it? Mitsube (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am truncating it and placing it here. The phrase "which was striven after" needs to be explained. I suspect that it was the pre-Buddhist yogis who were doing the striving and their goal was then transmuted, and that is what the quote says. If someone provides the context we could include the full context. Mitsube (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guenther quote in intro 

message: As layman with regards to Buddhism I just read this article and I wonder whether some sentences reflect a buddhistic point of view instead of the required neutral point of view.
Example:
"This peace, which is in reality the fundamental nature of the mind, is revealed when the root causes of the afflictive states are dissolved." -- Is "in reality" objective and neutral? Who claims that this statement is true and real?
Thanks in advance for your comments --84.143.96.72 (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in the "Nirvana in Buddhism" section so it's in the context of Buddhism. I think it looks like it's explaining the Buddhist perspective. You can make this clearer if you want. Mitsube (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Much, if not most, of the material in the article reflects the opinions of some Buddhists. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: A few articles use the word Nibbana and those redirect to Nirvana when wikified. This is fine etymologically but should there be some mention of the slight differences in tradition to the concepts in conjunction to the form of the word used with the different cultures who brought the term into different forms of Buddhism and Hinduism?
What made me think of this was that on page xviii of '777 revised' by Aleister Crowley, who was a rather educated man of the different traditions of mysticism and religion, he writes of an argument he had with Allan Bennett in 1904. It was about Buddhist terminology, and how supplementing it with Hindu terms would cause confusing as, I trust he was erudite enough to have perceived some large distinct difference, he brought forth the example that "We should at once be lost in endless discussions as to whether Nibbana was Nirvana or not: and so on forever."
I'm assuming there must be a basis for distinction, though similar and he surely knew of their equivalent etymology, that one may add to the article how the one of that other etymology has qualities distinct and bound in concept to the other word through cultural usage rather than just translation. Of course, he also writes of how "The Jesus of the Synoptics and the methodists" is distinct in conception from the "savage and morose Jesus of the Evangelicals" and "the gentle Jesus of the Italian children" and etc. However I'm of the thinking that where there is attested doctrinal recorded differences in the different Christian sects conception of him that they are indeed, from an encyclopedic perspective, different enough to themselves too be touched on in their respective articles in much the same way. Nagelfar (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nibbana is the Pali version, Nirvana is the Sanskrit version. In the Buddhist context, they mean the same thing. Other religions might employ the word(s) to mean different things. Mitsube (talk) 07:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nibbana 

message: User:Mitsube has chosen - not for the first time, I might add - to delete highly relevant, accurate and sourced material (which I have now restored), on this occasion relating to the question of whether the Buddha totally denies the Self (atman) in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. Mitsube gave partial information, derived from a secondary source, indicating that the Self is actually denied by the Buddha in this scripture. I then completed the context by adding (without distorting commentary) the Buddha's concluding words on this matter (from the same scriptural passage that Mitsube was evidently keen for readers to be aware of). This is not 'original research' or 'selective' quoting - as Mitsube stupidly claims: it is simply sound, balanced and sensible editing.
Mitsube points me in the direction of "Original Research" rules on Wikipedia and implies that I have breached them (not least through my quoting from a primary source). But when we look at those rules, we do not find one word to support such censorship as Mitsube practises of germane and sourced material which I have added. I have simply completed the point which the Buddha makes at that juncture in the Nirvana Sutra - to the effect that he, the Buddha, is the Self. To leave it as Mitsube left it is to give one-sided representation of the issue at hand. The rules indicate that as long as one does not distort the original statement or put various bits and pieces of information from one's source together to make one's own personal conclusion, but one merely and accurately re-states the content of the quoted source, then one is not doing original research. In fact, Wikipedia actually states that this 'is good editing'.
What Mitsube is really about - as is so obvious to anyone who knows his intolerant and deletional mania on Wikipedia - is to try to utilise everything within his power and beyond it (including dreaming up non-existent Wikipedian rules about not being allowed to quote from a primary source) to censor facts to which he has a quite irrational aversion. Suddha (talk) 07:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In the highly metaphorical sutra, which is full of contradictions, commentary is vital. I have already asked you to stop insulting me. Let me remind you of that request. If you find that the quotes from the Canon require interpretation then feel free to remove them. Mitsube (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship of 'Self' Passage by User:Mitsube 

message: Nirvana corresponds to Schopenhauer's concept of denial of the will. It can be positively called deliverance or salvation, but is actually a relative, negative concept' meaning nothingness. In its application to the world as experienced by an observer, it is the absence or non-existence of birth, disease, old age, and death and their related suffering due to craving or attachment. This is in extreme contrast to the interpretation of Nirvana as a positive concept, that is, as a condition of happiness, joy, pleasure, eternal life, enlightenment, knowledge, and so forth. Lestrade 00:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jorge Borges wrote an article entitled "The Dialogues of Ascetic and King," included in his book Selected Non-Fictions. In the article, he cites the writing of Heinrich Hackmann, who published Chinesische Philosophie in 1927. Hackmann narrated a statement by the brahmin Bodhidharma to China's Emperor Wu of Liang. "Good works, he said, can lead to good retributions, but never to nirvana, which is the absolute extinction of the will, not the consequence of an act." (Emphasis added) This is an example of the equivalence between Nirvana and Schopenhauer's Denial of the Will. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.79 (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nirvana means "extinguished," as in a candle that is "not lit." It is a negative concept designating the absence of the fire of passion, will,  and desire.Lestrade 23:56, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Hey Mitsube! I think this article is appropriate for that category, largely because Nirvana (like God in negative theology) is so commonly defined by what it is not. The quotations of Gautama Buddha cited in the article are excellent examples of that. The other articles in the category Nothing are not restricted to the absence of anything but in many cases to local, relative, or conditioned absence. Jbening (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nihilism is explicitly and vociferously rejected by the Buddha as an obstacle to liberation. Eternalism and nihilism are the extremes between which the Buddha showed a middle way and this is stated explicitly in the texts. Nirvana is never expressed as annihilation. The category is completely inappropriate. Mitsube (talk) 00:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see from other discussions on this page that you are the petty tyrant of Nirvana, so I'm going to take it on the arches. Cheers! Jbening (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean, but I will say again that nothing-ism is a significant heresy from the Buddhist standpoint. Mitsube (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Nothing" category

message: The article is wrought with fraud for a variety of identifiable reasons. Nirvana definitely is indicative of egress from any 'hereafter' or succession of afterlives, but is clearly NOT the cessation of suffering and it is NOT a purifying process. You were PLENTY pure enough to have achieved the attainment, Nirvana, and your absolution thereafter is uncontroverted! The word nirvana may mean "blowing out" but it isn't the place or the purview of some pontificating droid to interpret that as "the blowing out of the fires of greed, hatred and whatnot". God doesn't want us to pay homage to graven images! It only takes so much devoutness before absolution is granted, and after that it's clear sailing -- hell, be a bum or a couch potato, smoke like a chimney, be virtuous or whatever -- it's downhill. 
Some hopeless fuddy-duds believe in reincarnation and/or eternal life. They freely give their credence, and tacitly their blessing, to the unmitigated application of witchcraft ...on God's Green Earth! Woe and sorrow to those hapless misguided vermin! For SHAME!
They're right about one thing though: Nirvana is an attainment that one achieves. Unfortunately, heretofore, none were so brazen as to publicly claim the attainment, even when rightly won; so they inevitably wallowed spellbound in some mystic mire/bubble forever, and evil was only strengthened the more, arghh! and no one ever got one bit the wiser about The Way the Truth the Light. That was the Devil causing those lapses. 
Ah, but one individual was built for the purpose of standing tall and is eminently worthy to enlighten. Take a look at my single-page blurb at http://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs/nirvana and suggest how to integrate those TRUTHS into the article. The PDF is at http://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs/nirvana/what_is_nirvana.pdf. Have a look at my other directories too, http://placido.u21.0web-hosting.com/kavs, though I didn't author the piece about Administratium.
No, I'm not 'watching' this page, or the article. Bahhh!
I disavow all underworld and use of the term "I" in all writings. There's no such animal.
ETP (talk) 14:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ascendent (58) speaks of Nirvana firsthand 

message: Nirvana is not a positive concept. It does not mean the presence of joy, enlightenment, or knowledge. It is a negative concept. It means the absence of desire and will, and, as a consequence, the absence of pain and suffering. Since humans are used to thinking in terms of positive, present things, it is difficult or impossible for them to think about negatives. (Try to think about the negative absence of any object. You will inevitably think about its positive presence.) That is why there are so many people who can only ascribe positive attributes to the concept of Nirvana. They must think of Nirvana as joy, happiness, knowledge, enlightenment, etc. The Buddha used the concept of Nirvana because it means extinction or extinguishment, as in a candle's flame that is blown out.Lestrade (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is definitely the most important aspect. The idea of emptiness, or absence, is an interesting one to explore. This is a pretty light read that has useful metaphors from the study of the true vacuum in physics that might help people wrap their heads around it a little better. You are definitely right to mention the idea. I'm not sure the best way to find sources and work it into the article. There certainly are some Buddhist sources available on this.  Mitsube (talk) 01:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that link was interesting. That authors interpretation of vacuum of the physical, the difference between the voids of mind, matter, the two real & false states of each, and the end claim all are very similar to the western dialectic as Giovanni Gentile conceived it in his Actual Idealism philosophy. (the Wikipedia article is poor at conveying the philosophy, I will have to get into it again, this has almost inspired me to). Though, he bases his philsophy entirely on western tradition, from Protagoras to Plato to Hegel and does so really well with no influence from the east at all. Yet ends up with basically the same exact doctrine as your pdf link laid out. Nagelfar (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: One must practice to test these interesting theories. Mitsube (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nirvana is also used in a positive sense. In fact there are many poetic descriptions of it in the Pali canon such as param, santa, visuddha, panita, santi, akkhara, adruva, sacca, ananta, accuta, sassata, amata, and many more. You might, for starters, look up nibbana in The Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary. 72.152.104.180 (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Positive/negative

message: I am not convinced that the distinction between Nirvana as a cessation and the experience of Nirvana is yet being adequately dealt with in the article. 
As I understand it, within the Pali and the Tibetan traditions, Nirvana is permanent (not-changing, not-ending) because it is an absence. (If it were a product, then it would be impermanent).  Whereas consciousness is not permanent (it is a product), but it's stream is everlasting.
Nirvana as a cessation does not mean that it is a mere void - just as anatta is not a mere void.  The cessation that Nirvana is qualified with is specifically suffering.  There is no suffering left.  There is a cessation of suffering. There can be no return to suffering. (The third noble truth). Comments? (20040302 (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are actual connotations of permanence, see for example . Mitsube (talk) 05:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nirvana vs Experience of Nirvana 

message: 'Nirvāna is meant specifically - as pertains gnosis - that which ends the identity of the mind (citta) with empirical phenomena. Doctrinally Nibbāna is said of the mind which "no longer is coming (bhava) and going (vibhava)", but which has attained a status in perpetuity, whereby "liberation (vimutta) can be said".'
I find the above passage impenetrable. Can someone who understands what it is saying clarify it? Thanks. 58.6.102.204 (talk) 05:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: An Obscure Passage

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

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

message: There's a sentence in the second paragraph of this section that I think could be safely deleted, resolving one  mark and clarifying the whole section.   The text currently reads as follows:
:The Theravāda school makes the antithesis of Samsara and Nibbāna the starting point of the entire quest for deliverance. Even more, it treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal, which is precisely the transcendence of Samsara and the attainment of liberation in Nibbāna. Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahāyāna schools, which also start with the duality of Samsara and Nirvana, is in not regarding this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality. From the standpoint of the Pāli Suttas, even for the Buddha and the Arahants suffering and its cessation, Samsara and Nibbāna, remain distinct.
The problematic sentence is this one:
:Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahāyāna schools, which also start with the duality of Samsara and Nirvana, is in not regarding this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality.
This isn't really true, at least in my understanding.   What is true is what was expressed in the previous paragraph: that the distinction between Nirvana and Samsara is real, but is an aspect of the deceptive truth, not the ultimate truth.    I would suggest changing the second paragraph as follows:
:The Theravāda school makes the antithesis of Samsara and Nibbāna the starting point of the entire quest for deliverance. Even more, it treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal, which is precisely the transcendence of Samsara and the attainment of liberation in Nibbāna. Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahāyāna schools, which also start with the duality of Samsara and Nirvana, is in not regarding this polarity as an aspect of deceptive truth.  From the standpoint of the Pāli Suttas, even for the Buddha and the Arahants suffering and its cessation, Samsara and Nibbāna, remain distinct.
The reason I didn't just make this change is that my knowledge of Theravada is very limited, and no citation is provided for the last sentence in the paragraph, so I can't go to the source to check the validity of my change.   Is there someone who understands the Theravada aspect of this question sufficiently to make a proper edit?   Am I completely off-base here?   Thanks for considering this. Abhayakara (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for drawing attention to this. There is actually some canonical precedent for the kind of statement that there is no difference between nirvana and samsara (though the Canon does not use the concept of two levels of truth). I will put this in soon. I have recently read it in a textbook. Though it is also in Kalupahana's exegesis of Nagarjuna's MMK. Mitsube (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks!   I'm curious to see what you come up with! Abhayakara (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Both the Theravāda and Mayāyāna schools makes the antithesis of samsara and nibbāna the starting point of the quest for deliverance. The Mahāyāna schools treat this polarity as a preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality. The Theravāda school, however, treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal: the transcendence of samsara and the attainment of liberation in nibbāna. From the standpoint of the Pāli Suttas, even for the Buddha and the Arahants suffering and its cessation, samsara and nibbāna, remain distinct.
I haven't actually changed much of the phrasing—I just re-ordered it so that it could be appreciated in bite-sized chunks, rather than having to be digested as a whole.   I hope this is helpful; please let me know if it is not. Abhayakara (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nirvana and Samsara 

message: We don't normally capitalize "enlightenment."   Yet throughout the article, Nirvana and Samsara are capitalized.   These are not proper nouns—not names of places.   So it really doesn't make sense to capitalize them.   I've de-capitalized Nirvana, Samsara and Moksha, and I'm about to go in and de-capitalize Nibbana as well (I noticed that I'd missed it in the previous pass).   I don't know what the motivation was in capitalizing these terms.   You could justify it on the basis that they are "holy concepts" or some such thing--even though Samsara is suffering, it is also one of the four noble truths, and hence could be treated that way.   But I don't think it adds clarity to do so, and this is an encyclopedia, not a Buddhist commentary, so I think lowercase is the right way to go.
Oops, the above edit was mine. Abhayakara (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

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

message: I suspect someone may have tampered with the opening paragraph - I'm pretty sure Nirvana has never been defined as failing high school. Don't have time right now to fix that, though... James Casey (talk) 13:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for pointing out. Deleted it. But you could have easily done it your self instead of taking trouble of writing this note.--Indian Chronicles  (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: High school?

message: I removed some uncited or unclear material from the etymology section. 
I would propose a new section "===Other interpretations ===" for the removed, (highlighted below) material if it passes discussion here.  Else-wise, I'm fine leaving it all out for the reasons explained below the highlighted passages.
In Pali "v a n a" becomes "v a t i".
This is not really etymology, but transcription (although there is a slight connection between the two).
A literal Latinization of nirvana is de-spiration, not transitively, but as a fire ceases to draw.Etymonline.com, 1836, from Skt. nirvana-s "extinction, disappearance" (of the individual soul into the universal), lit. "to blow out, a blowing out" ("not transitively, but as a fire ceases to draw;" a literal Latinization would be de-spiration), from nis-, nir- "out" + va "to blow" (see wind (n.)).
Spiration is literally the act of breathing, so clearly, nirvana as "de-spiration, but not transitively" must be viewed rhetorically.  "Breath" is a metaphor, since nirvana is not literally a breathless state, but a living one.  The word play on spiration involves the inspiration aspect of breathing as motivation of the self, and the expiration aspect of breathing as death of the self.  The word play on "transitive" is also evident. "To breath" is already "not a transitive verb". (It is an intransitive verb.) To stress this implies that "the self", (the doer and object of doing of all intransitive verbs) is not the doer of the de-motivation or the death-of-self.  Finally, spiration could refer to spirated or "spirally twisted", so de-spiration could refer to the cessation of making an endless spiral, as does the appeal above to the "weaving" interpretation of the endless knot.
An encyclopedia is not generally employing rhetoric (the ancient art of persuasion), but straight social "facts";
however, since this is etymology, there is plenty of freedom in object abstraction concerning the word's possible development.
I am not qualified to make the explanation of about the passage, although I laid out here my logical psyche,
my metaphors of inspiration as motivation and expiration as death. But the same might also say
if the Latinization of Nirvana is "de-radix", the following rhetoric.
Since  
etymologically "radix" is related to "eradicate", to pull up from the root to destroy; 
but hey, radix is a Roman word meaning root. 
And since "radix" is what mathematicians call "base", 
then to de-radix is to de-base the base.
(Mathematicians also call the number raised to a power a "base", and self-raised power is to know is a no-no.)
Radix made the "radish", a root-ish vegetable. 
A root of an function is where the function crosses zero, Nirvana.  The function of the world roots me out.  Etc.
De-spiration?  C'mon. "Radiculopathy" is a medical pathology at the root of a nerve. 
 
It is also said that the spoken vana does not refer to a forest.  The actual "vana" of nirvana is claimed to have a long "a" sound and a dental consonant "n" sound, whereas the vana that refers to a forest has a short "a" sound and cerebral or retroflex consonant "n" sound. This is believed to make the two words vana significantly different, and gives cause to question speaking about Nirvana using the forest analogy. 
That is the best rewrite of the "contribution" that I can do with that before it (maybe) goes back into the article.
— CpiralCpiral 06:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymological cleanup 

message: Lots of assertions with no sources, cites or anything. I accept that these views are generally accurate, but that doesn't make them WP. Can someone source them accurately?
Likewise, I am becoming increasingly wary of the conflatoin of all the many views of the various Mahayana traditions, let alone the Theravada tradition!  (20040302 (talk))
:I posted the URL of Buddhist scriptures at the top of this discussion page.  I wonder if there is yet a template for "discussion resources and references"? — CpiralCpiral 03:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nirvana in Buddhism: OR template. 

message: The pace of improvements that moved parts of the etymological section around
is increasing along with drastic moves over the recent hours.  Please begin to use this talk page.
As a watcher of Nirvana and contributor to the etymology section,
I am trying to "improve or move information within Wikipedia rather than delete."
The "insane" sentence that was removed because it was "insane"?
Thank you for informing me that it is unclear.   I have been researching
what I meant by that sentence, and at this point it is this:
The concept of nirvana was born in Hinduism
and the concept of etymology was born of this religion's study
by the first grammarian, Yaska.  For thousands of years
the words had developed, and by 6 BCE Yaska began his work,
systematizing the meaning of such words.
There is even a Grammerian school of Hinduism that is classified as othodoxy.
There may be many interpretations of the etymology of Nirvana
because Hinduism is the oldest religion father many reinterpretations,
it is only fitting that we use the earliest. 
  Well? — CpiralCpiral 20:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's still gibberish, and irrelevant to this article; see :WP:COATRACK. The rest of the "etymology" section is sourced to weak and non-reliable sources, the equivalent of fansites, rather than to scholarly sources; thus, I argue it should be removed, but am willing to be persuaded otherwise. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:39, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll review it with your criticism in mind.  — CpiralCpiral 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

text: And what is not sourced to weak and non-reliable sources, is speculation and original research and synthesis, which has no place here. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Those will become my onis as well.  I re-assume the good faith I had and can only hope to rediscover there.  If no support is found, there or elsewhere, good job for deletion. — CpiralCpiral 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

text: It's currently being discussed at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Nirvana. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ack — CpiralCpiral 03:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology section 

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

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