Talk:Nirvana (Buddhism)

Order of sections
Hi Dorje108. Well done! One question: usually etymology comes first. And the Sutta Pitaka is the oldest scriptural part of Buddhism. I guess you choose this order of sections for better readability? Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonathan, I am still working through this and I am not sure yet what the final organization should be. But generally I do think it is important to present a clear explanation that can be understood by a general audience--i.e. someone with little prior knowledge of Buddhism. This may become the lead section eventually, but for now, I am still trying to figure this part out--based on the sources that I have noted in the research page above (and some other texts I am looking at). Also, regarding the sections that you have mentioned:
 * Etymology - I am not sure about the sources for this section. The main source is a web page based on the Vedic tradition. I am not sure how relevant that is for interpreting the term within Buddhism. I don't see this description of the etymology in any of the Buddhist sources that I am reading.
 * Sutta Pitaka - I am still trying to figure this section out. Some of this seems to be original research based on primary sources, and some of it I think could be combined into a general explanation.
 * On this note, I think it can be very helpful to have a section "Within the discourses" that simply lists the major discourses and provides a quote from each discourse. But once someone starts explaining what is meant in the discourse (without relying on a secondary source) then we are getting into the area of original research, which is very tricky since different editors can have different interpretations, etc., etc.
 * Anyway, I will keep plugging away at this, and hopefully it will become clearer. :) Cheers, Dorje108 (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Sutta Pitaka section
Hi Dorje108. The Sutta Pitaka section definitiley contains original research. Quite some work to do there, when it is to be reliably sourced... I'll try to do some work there too. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Moksha
Of about a dozen sources I am consulting, only one mentioned the term "Moksha", that is in passing. It seems to be a general term for liberation. Regards, Dorje108 (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Face-smile.svg The same editor who introduced the OR in the Sutta-section is also fond of the term "moksha". But he does have a point, though; the term "liberation" translates several terms: moksha, vimoksha, vimukti and mukti. I guess we usually miss the term, because it's almost always translated. See also:
 * S. Queen & Sallie B. King (eds)(1996), "Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia", p.9
 * Paul Williams (ed)(2005), "Buddhism: The early Buddhist schools and doctrinal history ; Theravāda doctrine",p.147
 * It's almost worth a page on its own! (Oh, it already exists, of course: Moksha.) So I do think it's good to mention these words in this specific note.  Joshua :Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jonathan, could you possibly post some brief quotes from the sources you mentioned above?

Nirvana and nonexistence
Hi everyone, just a heads up. I added a new section, Nirvana and nonexistence, based on an edit I reverted earlier for original research, which turned out to be just some problems with style after the editor who made the edits pointed it out. I'm not sure how clear the section is, but I'm sure you all will sort it out. FenixFeather (talk) 07:10, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. These are constructive additions. I like the idea of presenting a brief summary of the relevant points from the sutras. I'll work more on this section when I get a chance. Cheers, Dorje108 (talk) 02:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Etymology, vimutti
According to Buswell and Lopez, nirvana is the most common term used to describe the Buddhist goal. May be so, but "vimutti" is also an often-used term. I've moved the etymology-section upward; it's pretty common to start an article with the etymology-section. I've merged it with the "moksha"-section, since this term is almost used as a synonym. Better said: 'Nirvana is moksha'. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Nirvana with and without remainder of fuel
I've corrected the terminology here, and removed this miselading quote:
 * "* Damien Keown states: Nirvana takes two forms: the first occurs during life and the second at death. The Buddha attained what is known as ‘nirvana-in-this-life’ while sitting under a tree at the age of 35. At the age of 80 he died, a ‘final nirvana’ from which he would not be reborn."(Keown 2000, Kindle Locations 1013-1016)

"He died" - "The Tathagata is deep etc"; where was the "he"? Let alone "he would not be reborn". To state that there is a person who's is reborn is regarded as a fallacy in most Buddhist traditions. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * What is your source for this? Of course the Buddha is a person, he referred to himself as "I", and others referred to him as He. Sounds like you are confusing the relative with the absolute. The way it's usually put is that he entered parinirvana leaving nothing that could take rebirth again in any future life. A shorter way of saying that is to just say he would not be reborn, but that is what is meant. Robert Walker (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In more detail (see Rupert Gethin, The Foundations of Buddhism)


 * "Eventually ‘the remainder of life’ will be exhausted and, like all beings, such a person must die. But unlike other beings, who have not experienced ‘nirvāṇa’, he or she will not be reborn into some new life, the physical and mental constituents of being will not come together in some new existence, there will be no new being or person. Instead of being reborn, the person ‘parinirvāṇa-s’, meaning in this context that the five aggregates of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being cease to occur. This is the condition of ‘nirvāṇa without remainder [of life]’ (nir-upadhiśeṣa-nirvāṇa/an-up ādisesa-nibbāna): nirvāṇa that comes from ending the occurrence of the aggregates (skandha/khandha) of physical and mental phenomena that constitute a being; or, for short, khandha-parinibbāna. Modern Buddhist usage tends to restrict ‘nirvāṇa’ to the awakening experience and reserve ‘parinirvāṇa’ for the death experience."


 * Robert Walker (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice quote, which illustrates my point: "... he or she will not be reborn into some new life [...] there will be no new being or person". Who or what is the "he" or "she" that was previously "reborn"? Does Buddhism say that "the" person is reborn, or does it simply say "there is rebirth"? As far as I know, there is no "person" which continues throughout several lifes. But this also constitutes a basic problem for Buddhism, as noticed in the "karma in Buddhism" article: what is rebirth, if there is not an "entity" that's being reborn? At the other hand: maybe early Buddhism did belief in some perpetual existence: Nirvana, pure consciousness, amrta (deathless). Who knows?  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * As for the source of "the Tathagata is deep":
 * "the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."
 * MN 72, PTS: M i 483, Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta: To Vacchagotta on Fire
 * SN 44.1, PTS: S iv 374, CDB ii 1380: Khema Sutta: With Khema
 * See also Tathāgata.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   12:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * There is lots of material on this in the sources, about what it is that reincarnates. E.g. Walpola Rahula's book What the Buddha taught. I don't think it is for me to explain this, if those sources haven't yet explained it to you. But a hint, you have similar issues in Buddhism about, what is it that continues from your birth when you were a baby to the present day? When you have changed physically in many ways, probably don't have a single atom of your body that was in your body as a baby, and have totally different interests and aims and motivations. Yet as a Buddhist, there is no problem at all using the word "I" to refer to me as I was when I was a baby, or saying that I am the same person. While from one life to another - then we normally have no way to identify who we were in a previous life. But apart from that, situation is rather similar, the sources say more. Robert Walker (talk) 00:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

What is reborn?
This text is unsourced, and problematic:
 * "In the Buddhist view, when an ordinary person dies and their physical body disintegrates, the person's consciousness passes onto a new birth; and the person is reborn in one of the six realms of samsara. However, when a person attains nirvana, they are liberated from ordinary rebirth. When such a person dies, their physical body disintegrates and their consciousness is said to be completely liberated. They are not reborn in the ordinary sense. Their consciousness does not take rebirth into a physical form."

"the person's consciousness passes onto a new birth" - this statement definitely requires a source, as does "the person is reborn". A person who is reborn? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For a first introduction to how Buddhists think about this, check out Walpola Rahula's book What the Buddha taught, chapter 3. Robert Walker (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The experience of nirvana-after-death
Who's going to experience the nirvana without remainder? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   08:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, here's the answer: "That there is no sensation itself is happiness." So, no experience.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * This is one of the Ten indeterminate questions which the Buddha refused to answer, not getting entangled in  debate, responding with a smile and short discourse. If you don't even know that much about paranirvana, why do you feel qualified to make these large scale edits to this article? Robert Walker (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is with the term "experience". See:
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   15:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you say the problem is with the term "experience" then that's clearly a modernist "reinventing Buddhist" approach because it contradicts what the Buddha said in that sutra. So - they take a passage from the sutras, and say that they don't think the sutras record the original teachings of the Buddha, and he didn't teach this. Which of course one can do - but reader should have this made clear to them, and should be told about the sutra passage that contradicts what you are saying, and also it should be made clear to them that this is not Buddhism as it is traditionally understood and taught and as most Buddhists think the Buddha originally taught it. Contemporary Buddhism uses the sutras as its support.


 * And also you are still left with the puzzle - if these teachings don't originate from the Buddha, as some of the authors you prefer say - who did originate them? With the later teachings you can point to e.g. Nagarjunae. But AFAIK, your preferred citations don't give any names as their sources for the four noble truths and the other Buddhist teachings which they claim the Buddha didn't teach. Robert Walker (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Goal of the Buddhist Path
This whole section, plus the quotes from "Etymology", can be summarised as follows:
 * "In the earliest Buddhism, as in contemporary Theravada Buddhism, Nirvana, the blowing out of the fires which propel rebirth in samsara, is the ulitmate goal. (In Mahayana Buddhism, yhe postponement of nirvana, and the liberation of all sentient beings, is the ultimate goal)."

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   09:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

After reworking several sections, I think that "Extinguishing the fires" and "End of rebirth" could be merged. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've merged them to the following, with two extensive notes with quotes:
 * ''"When the fires of attachment (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya), extinquished, liberation from rebirth is attained:


 * ''For as long as one is entangled by craving, one remains bound in saṃsāra, the cycle of birth and death; but when all craving has been extirpated, one attains Nibbāna, deliverance from the cycle of birth and death.[24][note 18]

''The attainment of nirvana has also been given a more worldy interpretation, emphasising its effect in present life. [note 19]"''

I think this should suffice. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Why was this section removed?
Funny, that exactly this info was removed, and replaced with four long quotes.

References

The sourcing is indeed not great, but the info is interesting, and worth a further investigation. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Digging deeper
This site has an interesting comment:
 * "Take your pick! The extraordinary ambiguity of the word nirvana, and which served – and still serves – as a basic premise (i.e. goal) of Buddhist everyday reality and its elimination theory, should really make one wonder why the Buddha did not apply ‘right thinking’ and define the term clearly."

Edward Craig, "Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Index'', lemma on nirvana, notes (p.9):
 * "... since the term is probably pre-Buddhist, its etymology is not necessary conclusive for determining its exact meaning as the highest goal of early buddhism."

And here's an interesting analysis from "Pruning the Bodhi Tree", Paul swanson chapter 1:

Matsumoto has been criticised, but it's clear that the meaning of Nirvana is far from clear. This ambiguity should be reflected, instead of removed. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:14, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, and here's Buswell (2003), p.600:
 * "The quest for the real or original “idea of nirvana” often masks our preconceptions about what is reasonable or desirable in religious doctrine and practice, or, for that matter, what we expect from Buddhism (Welbon). It may be that when we ask: “What is nirvana?” we seek to answer the wrong question. Instead we need to ask: How have Buddhists used the term? With what polemical or apologetic purposes? What human aspirations might these uses reveal? The word’s etymology already reveals the concept’s ambiguity and polysemy."

Funny, isn't it? Again, not "what is it", but "what does it mean?" Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the meaning "to weave", remember the kalachaktra tantra, and the loom which weaves time (or something like that). Which was somehow related to the image of a turning wheel, which is motionless in its centre. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And Lindsay's encyclopedia of Religion', p.6629:
 * "Here the ancient metaphor of nirva¯n: a as “the farther shore” could assume a metaphysical status. In effect, nirva¯n: a could be understood as a permanent state of bliss beyond the world of birth, death, and rebirth. The reaction against such an interpretation influenced the Maha¯ya¯na Buddhist views of enlightenment."

Lindtner, when writing on Schayer's research on earliest Buddhism and traces of brahmanical ideas, also writes about this meaning of "the farther shore", and the implication sof nirvana being some sort of other world. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional sources
Looking for a reference for "(to) weave" I found this source:. Looks interesting. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

And here's another one: Steven Collins, Nirvana and Other Buddhist Felicities. A moderate 700 pages, on the development of the concept of nirvana. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ultimate goal
Eight or so quotes are given here to state that nirvana is the ultimate goal of Buddhism. anybody familiair with Buddhism knows that Mahayana has some different opinions here. I've already added some nuances, but let's look further:


 * 1 to 3 refer to the Buddha, not to Buddhism in general;
 * 4 to 6 are Theravada-teachers;
 * 7 Goleman is dubious; qute influenced by Theravada;
 * 8 Keown is a scholar; he should know better;
 * 9 The Dalai Lama also should know better.

This looks like a collection of quotes which have been gathered uncritically, to "substantiate" a too general statement. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   17:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Have no idea at all what you are saying here. Seems you are denying something that a whole bunch of teachers and scholars say, on the basis that they are dubious, or that they are Therevadhan, or that they should know better??? What is the sense in that? Robert Walker (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Basic Buddhism, as also pointed out to you before by Vic: "Nirvana is the highest aim of the Theravada-tradition. In the Mahayana tradition, the highest goal is Buddhahood, in which there is no abiding in Nirvana, but a Buddha re-enters the world to work for the salvation of all sentient beings."
 * Making a statement, and then giving a lot of quotes, does not "prove" that the stamenent is correct. See Karl Popper. It's naive. It's the same behaviour as evangelical Christians: "Look, it's in the Bible, you can read it for yourself!" It's a kind of WP:OR: drawing a conclusion based on your limited selection of sources, meanwhile ignoring the obvious alternatives. What's more: the same "old version" did state that Buddhahood, and working for the salvation of all living beings, is the ultimate goal of Mahayana. How can someone edit this article, put these two contradicting statements in it, and not starting to think "Hey, that's weird. let's find out more!"  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is a confusion, perhaps, of Buddha with Bodhisattva. Bodhisattvas, as I understand it, can make a vow to never enter nirvana until all other beings have reached enlightenment. So they postpone their own enlightenment and keep taking rebirth over and over as Bodhisattvas instead of Buddhas. They do that to help other beings to reach nirvana. And even if you take that vow, you may still reach nirvana rapidly yourself, even though that is not your aim. Robert Walker (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * When the Buddha entered paranirvana, all the schools say that he left no remainder to ever take rebirth again. Even in the Mahayana schools they say this.


 * He taught for many decades after he reached nirvana so was able to continue to engage in the world. All the traditions of Buddhism say that the Buddha reached nirvana beneath the bodhi tree and then gave his teachings after he reached nirvana.


 * In the Mahayana schools then they do say that other Buddhas continue to emanate "nirmanakayas" in the world. But they have realized non self also and reached nirvana - otherwise you couldn't call them Buddhas.


 * The later teachings just go into more detail about how this is possible, how the Buddhas can simultaneously abide in nirvana, and continue to teach in the world, and in some cases, emanate nirmanakayas. Robert Walker (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The dalai Lama states...
The Dalai Lama also states:
 * "The Buddha's Dharma, can be divided to two vehicles, the Hinayana and the Mahayana [...] People with the propensity to follow these two Hinayana vehicles take them up for the sake of their own emancipation as they feel the urgency to first free themselves as quickly as possible from the vicious cycle of existence [...] Even though Hinayanists do not engage in their path intending to obtain Buddhahood, their path is in fact a means for ultimately leading such people to the stage of buddhahood [...] Even though the Hinayana paths do not lead directly to buddhahood, it is taught that followers of the Hinayana do in fact eventually enter the Mahayana and obtain buddhahood." 

I have removed the DL-quote; it's misleading. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   19:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How? Robert Walker (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The DL also notices that there are different Buddhist schools, with different aims. The DL has published so much; you can pick out anything you like from this "Bible" to make your point, and use his authority to give it credibility.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes there are many different Buddhist schools, agreed. What is your point here? What is it that you think is misleading? As for using the Dalai Lama as a source, this particular Dalai Lama is a scholarly Dalai Lama, noted for his understanding of the Tibetan Buddhist sutras and commentaries, especially (previous Dalai Lamas had other interests and aptitudes). He is not a Pope figure, he can't issue proclamations and tell other Buddhists what to believe, nobody can in the Buddhist traditions. He used to have a political role in Tibet, but no longer does as he resigned that role. There is no problem with him as a source here. Robert Walker (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ontological status of nirvana
Seceral subsections could be gathered under a new section, discussing the "ontological status" of nirvana: is "it" an "it"? ('Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's ...!')  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I've added info to this section from Precanonical Buddhism, on the pre-Buddhist influences.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   06:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Copy-edit of Mahayana-section on Buddhahood
I've copy-edited this section, to make it clearer. "Buddhahood" is the more commeon term, as far as I can see. "Non-abiding" is not so relevant as a term or a definition, but as a practice and attitude: back to the marketplace! See also Ten Bulls Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   17:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Qualities of Nirvana and overquote
The qualities of nirvana in this life are nice, but WP:UNDUE and WP:OVERQUOTE. I've retained them, but in notes. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Buddhaghosa
WP:UNDUE details, especially when it's not made clear why Buddhghosa difefred from the earlier teachings. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   17:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quotes from the Pali-canon
I've worked these quotes into the rest of the article; they clarify some other sections, and stand-alone sectins with quotes are discouraged by Wiki-policy. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   05:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Overquote-tag
I'll leave it there for the moment, although the problem has been solved. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   06:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"Radical transformation of consciousness"
I've always found this a strange sentence:
 * "The Buddha's teachings in the Pāli Canon present nirvāṇa as a radical reordering of consciousness."

It doesn't; it presents it as a"cooling down." I checked the source, and it's not what it says. It's about the Theravadin's understanding of nirvana, and the possibility of a vijnanavada-interpretation. I've corrected it diff:
 * "According to Peter Harvey, the Theravada-tradition tends to minimalize mystical tendencies, but there is also a tendency to stress the complete otherness of nirvana from samsara. The Pāli Canon provides good grounds for this minimalistic approach, bit it also contains material suggestive of a Vijnavada-type interpretation of nirvāṇa, namely as a [[:Transformations of consciousness#Eight Consciousnesses|radical transformation of consciousness."

Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   07:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

CS1 Date errors
It's throwing date errors (see this and that) because of dates like 1995-B. I spend most of my time in a more technical world, so I'm unfamiliar with complex citation schemes like the one used by this page. Consequently, I'm not sure how to fix this.

Anyone else know how? --Mathieu ottawa (talk) 09:21, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Nirvana (Buddhism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140406193511/http://vwsp.eu:80/tathagata/nirvana/amngs.htm to http://www.vwsp.eu/tathagata/nirvana/amngs.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070509005227/http://www.hkims.org:80/documents/Nibbana%20by%20Bhikkhu%20Bodhi.pdf to http://hkims.org/documents/Nibbana%20by%20Bhikkhu%20Bodhi.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:18, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Nirvana (Buddhism). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090806044051/http://www.bswa.org:80/modules/icontent/index.php?page=107 to http://www.bswa.org/modules/icontent/index.php?page=107
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100616002503/http://buddhistethics.org/4/gethin1.html to http://www.buddhistethics.org/4/gethin1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Nirvana (Buddhism). 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140406193511/http://www.vwsp.eu/tathagata/nirvana/amngs.htm to http://www.vwsp.eu/tathagata/nirvana/amngs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:15, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

The meaning of Nirvana is "Imperturbable serenity of mind "
This article, NIRVANA has failed to give concise meaning of NIRVAN ( Sinhala-නිර්වාන ,නිවන ) in the first instance. The meaning of Nirvana is Imperturbable serenity of mind ,tranquility or stillness of mind which can never be excited or disturbed. The definition given by load Buddha is (අකුප්පා + චේතෝ + විමුක්ති, Akuppa +chetho+ wimikthi),it means Imperturbable serenity of mind . This article gives wrong impression about Nirvana. -- Rs  Ekanayake  14:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC) the words blowing out,extinguishing,liberation does not give the meaning of NIRVANA.it is ridiculous. i am not going to find any reference but i know it is cpmpletly wrong. therefore i know wikipedia is wrong-- Rs  Ekanayake  15:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! On what basis are you saying that the citations from the suttas and from the numerous buddhist scholars is wrong? Are you saying the Buddha did not use "nirodha" as a synonym for nirvana? Are you saying he didn't use the synonym "the cool" for nirvana? Its all in the Nikayas...so how do you interpret those passages? Javierfv1212 15:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Ultimate goal
The article first says: but later says: Isn't this a contradiction? Bhikshu neeraj (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Nirvana is the goal of the Buddhist.
 * Nirvana is the ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism...
 * In the Mahayana tradition, the highest goal is Buddhahood, in which there is no abiding in Nirvana.

Soteriological
The adjective Soteriological makes ones stomach turn. GigaGerard (talk) 13:32, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Ref errors
this is probably not a fair request, but a few years back this edit of yours broke a couple of notes. Would mind attempting to repair it? I'd try it myself, but I don't mess around with note groups enough to know how those work.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * It is a fair request. I will look inot it. Not promising anyhhing, there are some flaws in the software. I may have learned a way to fix the problem. User-duck (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Turns out the note definitions were removed from an included template 15 July 2024. Your info was helpful in finding the root cause. Glad to have helped. User-duck (talk) 02:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like this was even another layer more complicated than I'd realized. Nice job taking care of it.&#32;-- Fyrael (talk) 02:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)