Revision as of 16:20, 10 December 2007 editDavidpatrick (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,572 edits →Requested move← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:46, 10 December 2007 edit undoDavidpatrick (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,572 editsm "Move" proposal no longer needed as original article name was restored by an Admin.Next edit → | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{move|Nirvana}} | |||
{{WikiProject Buddhism | {{WikiProject Buddhism | ||
|class=B | |class=B |
Revision as of 18:46, 10 December 2007
Buddhism B‑class | ||||||||||
|
Philosophy: Religion / Eastern Unassessed High‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Jainism B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Archives |
Schopenhauer
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)Lestrade
- 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).
The word Nirvana is made up of tree words, Nir Va Djna and litteraly mean "withouth wrong thoughts", according to Buddha Dharma the changing of a wrong context into a skillfull context will automaticaly give rise to right view of the world as it is, ThathaGarba - "as it is with qualities", and permanent Buddha hood is reached.
- 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)Lestrade
Disambiguation
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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages for "Nirvana" are probably looking for the former. --Krakko 05:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Page rename reverted
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)
Requested move
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/search/?title=Talk:Nirvana_%28state%29&diff=170927374&oldid=169004900
- http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?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)
1) This is not about maintaining the "long-established status quo" just for the sake of it. Of course that is not what Misplaced Pages is about. But with an article that for a long time has been considered a PRIMARY article - this is about respecting that there have been very good REASONS for the long-established status quo - and mulling those reasons carefully and seeking a consensus for a change in an article name rather than simply making that change unilaterally on one person's whim. It's also instructive to consider the chronology behind the sudden and unilaterally-decided change.
2) Let's deal with two separate issues. How and why this change happened - and whether there had been any SIGNIFICANT demand for it.
And then the merit of the change itself.
Let's follow the chronology of this.
A) First of all this issue was raised very briefly ONCE in November.
By a person who we discover logged on one time anonymously - made a single comment on this issue - didn't sign it - and has never ever appeared on Misplaced Pages again. Hardly a seasoned Wikipedian...
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/137.146.138.55
B) Then - Anish decides that he/she has a point of view - to which he/she is certainly entitled - that there is a SECONDARY philosophical concept that is ALSO called "Nirvana" - that is apparently different to the predominant understanding of Nirvana as a Buddhist concept. Fair enough.
Since the article that deals with the philosophical concept does not claim that it is exclusively a Buddhist concept - it might seem logical to most people that he/she should add additional material to the original article that conveys his/her understanding. That would actually be very helpful. It would expand everyone's understanding of the concept. And make clear that there are two separate traditions of Nirvana as a state of mind.
But - and he/she is of course entitled to do what he/she wants - instead decides that rather than add information about this secondary meaning of the philosophical concept into the article in which most people might think it belongs - he/she will instead create a brand new article all about this secondary meaning. Again - he/she is entitled to do that - even if others might feel that it would more properly start off as a section within the existing article - and THEN see if it should split off into two separate articles.
Having created an article that he/she names Nirvana (Jainism) on December 4th, Anish then UNILATERALLY decides without any discussion that - of the now TWO articles about Nirvana as a philosophical concept - that the main article that has been the PRIMARY article - should no longer be the primary article on his/her whim. (Even though it was NOT exclusively about Buddhism). No seeking of consensus among those who have been editing the main Nirvana article since September 2002.
Since he/she has created a new article in December 2007, the very existence of this brand new article (to which he/she happens to be the sole contributor) merits the unilateral renaming of what has stood as the PRIMARY article for over FIVE YEARS without any complaints - to Nirvana (Buddhism).
And THEN of course if that article now has a qualifier in its name... well!!!! it can no longer be a PRIMARY article. And if it is no longer a PRIMARY article - well gee whiz - I guess the word "Nirvana" now has to go to a disambiguation page so that this brand-new article (only one contributor) can have parity with the PRIMARY article that has been there for over five years. As though the new article is instantly of the same import and significance. And of course the PRIMARY article is now of LESS import. Hmmmmm....
In the light of all this - the argument put forward about needing to disambiguate from the band of the same name (there are actually two bands with that name) might seem to many people to be a rather convenient red herring. No one is really "confused". There is a very clear DAB notice at the top of the page. There are large numbers of fans of the Seattle band called Nirvana. Those fans who visit or edit on Misplaced Pages have long accepted that the original meaning of the word (which dates back over THREE THOUSAND YEARS) and which means something very important indeed to MILLIONS of people throughout the world is an important concept that has rightly stood as the PRIMARY article. With a very clear disambiguation text at the top of the page. Misplaced Pages is not a popularity contest. And it's not about people of just one age group or from one strata of pop culture. It's an encyclopedia.
That "Nirvana the philosophical concept" versus "Nirvana the band" argument is a red herring. And it's an issue that could easily be addressed if needs be. But I won't bother to do so here and now because this issue is clearly not about that. It's about whether there really should be a separate article about the Jainsim strand of Nirvana - or if it should be part of the article that has existed for five years.
If there is a full consensus that there really should be a separate article about the Jainsim strand of Nirvana - then so be it. And there should be a clear DAB at the top of the page. But that would NOT warrant taking away the PRIMARY article status that has been accorded to that article for over five years. Misplaced Pages exists to advance knowledge and understanding - not personal agendas. Davidpatrick (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Categories:- B-Class Buddhism articles
- Unknown-importance Buddhism articles
- Unassessed Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- Unassessed philosophy of religion articles
- High-importance philosophy of religion articles
- Philosophy of religion task force articles
- Unassessed Eastern philosophy articles
- High-importance Eastern philosophy articles
- Eastern philosophy task force articles
- B-Class Jainism articles
- Top-importance Jainism articles