From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject iconThis article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


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

Nice work[edit]

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

As far as I know, Parinibbana refers to the Parinibbana of a Buddha or an Arahant, while Mahaparinibbana (the great Parinibbana) refers to the Parinibbana of a Buddha only, specifically the Parinibbana of the last Buddha; Gautama Buddha. This would be from the percpective of original or Theravada Buddhism, maybe in the Mahayana tradition they changed the original meaning as they did with the concepts of Buddha and Bodhisatta.


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

The above is quite wrong. The word is 'parinirvana', not 'paranirvana'. Suddha (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Buddha only teaching 'Self' to Entice Non-Buddhists into Buddhism[edit]

I have added a couple of quotes to indicate that the teaching of a real Self in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra is not just to non-Buddhists but is a basic teaching of the sutra as a whole. Any cursory examination of the scripture will show that the Buddha in this sutra is mainly teaching his own monks and bodhisattvas (rather than non-Buddhist ascetics). Of course, I cannot quote the entire 1,000 pages of the text to prove this point! As Anam Gumnam has correctly indicated, it is rather inaccurate scholarship (to say the least) to suggest that Self is only taught in the MPNS to lure in non-Buddhists. Suddha (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V. "Verifiability, not truth." So your interpretation is not relevant as far as wikipedia is concerned. Mitsube (talk) 05:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Wiki guidelines under Reliable Sources do allow for use of primary sources for reporting the contents of a work ~ an example given is reporting the plot of a play or novel in summary form ~ BUT without adding interpretation. Since there is merely a summary report concerning the contents given here and no interpretation, this does not contravene Wiki guidelines. It is up to you to demonstrate what parts of this section are interpretation, but, as far as I can see, no interpretative opinion is expressed in the reported information here concerning the content. Also, as per Wiki guidelines for such use of primary sources, the summary information can be ascertained easily by any intelligent reader. Williams' simply has not read the text, but lazily regurgitates standard Gelugpa dogma as fact ~ if he had read the text he would have known that his statement is untrue. In fact, I am inclined to challenge the use of Williams here as an authority. Wiki guidelines state that an scholar must have expertise in the specific topic to be regarded as a reliable source. Since Williams has no expertise in this area and does not claim any ~ he specializes in Madhyamika ~ he should not be used as an authority on this sutra.. I have drawn attention to this before with a quote from his own website.-- अनाम गुमनाम 08:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
User Suddha writes "I cannot quote the entire 1,000 pages" ~ why not ? Perhaps you ought to do just that since User Mitsube has his/her biased interpretation of Wiki guidelines and rules. I have not seen anything about maximum footnote lengths. If you give the entire 1000 pages or whatever, then any *intelligent* user will see i) that Williams is just plain wrong AND unreliable, and ii) that there has been no "interpretation" added here ~ just an accurate report of the contents of this sutra.-- अनाम गुमनाम 08:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Anam. I appreciate your comments. I don't know why Mitsube has such a loathing and detestation for doctrines and facts that are clearly presented in these tathagatagarbha sutras - to the extent that he wishes to twist, erase or obliterate them every time they appear on Wikipedia, as far as he possibly can get away with doing so. It is worrying behaviour. I have now restored and expanded the page reference citations to the Nirvana Sutra (English edition) which I had previously given and which Mitsube seems to have removed. These page references (which could be multiplied many times) indicate that the Buddha is not teaching his doctrines to 'non-Buddhist ascetics', but to his monks and outstanding bodhisattvas (according to the sutra itself). Here, I am simply giving a description of the contents of the sutra - which (as you say, Anam) is allowed under Wikipedia rules. I am not giving a 'personal interpretation' (a phrase which Mitsube is wont to throw around whenever he dislikes certain types of information on Wikipedia). Of course, I am sure that Mitsube will remove these references yet again. Yes, perhaps I should put the whole of the Nirvana Sutra into a footnote (might cause the system to creak under the strain, though!). But I am sure that Mitsube would in any case dream up some other non-existent, obstructive Wikipedia rule and say that the Nirvana Sutra is actually wrong about its own teachings (which is essentially what he is already claiming now anyway)! Best regards. Suddha (talk) 09:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The point is that the Buddha is portrayed as describing his using the word "self" in that way as an attempt to win over non-Buddhists. It does not matter to whom the character addresses these things. The authors of the sutra were attempting to make "Buddhism" more attractive to non-Buddhists. That is all. The religious affiliation of the people he is portrayed addressing is irrelevant. Mitsube (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the point is that Williams erroneously claims this. There is no basis in the Sutra for this notion ~ Williams has probably confused the Mahaparinirvana-sutra with Lankavatara-sutra which does has a passage that some interpret thus. Still, now that you have emended the paragraph we are almost there. Now we need to have a balancing reference that corrects Williams' error.-- अनाम गुमनाम 19:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Anam, for your contributions. Williams' point would only have validity a) if the Buddha were shown solely to teach the Self doctrine when addressing non-Buddhist ascetics (whereas he teaches his own monks and bodhisattvas the doctrine of the Self, just as he teaches impermanence to a variety of listeners, including non-Buddhists), and b) if Williams himself had been able to enter into the minds of the compilers of the sutra and divine their intention in speaking affirmatively of the Self, which of course Williams cannot do. For this latter reason, Mitsube's point about the irrelevance of the audience addressed is invalid. However, I accept the Wiki rule of 'verifiability, not truth'. I might just add, though: how does Williams know why this sutra speaks of the Self? How does Mitsube know the same thing? The sutra does not in fact (pace Williams) state that the Buddha only teaches Self to win over non-Buddhist ascetics. This is a misreading of the sutra as a whole. The sutra is around 1,000 pages long. It contains (in its 'apocryphal' section) one short 'scene' where the Buddha teaches the notion of the Self to non-Buddhist ascetics. And on the basis of that, we are supposed to believe that the whole raison-d'etre of the entire sutra vis-a-vis the Self has been found? This is patently absurd. The word 'disproportionality' springs to mind. Until and unless, as I said, we can directly enter into the minds of the compilers of this sutra, speculation about why the sutra teaches A,B or C remains just that - mere speculation. Best regards. Suddha (talk) 00:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is so tiresome to see Mitsube's constant attempts at deleting anything that he does not like and thinks he can manage to erase. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having a section in the Lede which mentions that for the Great Parinirvana Sutra (note the name - note the name - the sutra is actually about Parinirvana!), Parinirvana is the realm of the Eternal, Bliss, Self, and Purity (this is explored more in the body of the article). Mitsube then comes along and has to have his little dig - adding that this mention of Self is only to attract non-Buddhists. This comment is totally unnecessary in an Intro. But since Mitsube did in fact add that comment, Anam Gumnam was then perfectly justified to qualify M's statement with a balancing point. And then Mitsube deletes the whole lot. Isn't it fun to work on Wikipedia?! Regards. Suddha (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yet again Mitsube has seen fit to remove a completely valid point from the Introduction. The whole purpose of the Wikipedia introductions or 'ledes' is to summarise the chief points which are covered more fully in the body of the article proper. Since a major part of the article is about Self, Purity, Eternity and Bliss being features of parinirvana, this deserves mention in the Intro. By the way, am I the only one who feels that the Introduction's dilating upon the 'mahaparinibbana sutta' is rather inappropriate in the lede, since nothing of that sutta is spoken of in the main article itself, so far as I can see?! I personally think the references to the 'Mahaparinibbana Sutta' should either be removed or placed in a different position - later in the article. Some editors might like, incidentally, to take note of the decent editorial behaviour I am suggesting here: we do not simply blot out of existence something which we personally do not find appropriate or relevant - we try to discuss the matter first. Some of us don't attempt to rule and dominate Wikipedia as our own personal fiefdom. Regards. Suddha (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

A further point: I don't understand (or perhaps I do) why Mitsube is so insistent on 'historical accuracy' in connection with the contents of the Parinibbana / Parinirvana sutras. The fact is that we don't know if any of the teachings in either of those texts are 'historically accurate' - and the same thing applies, by the way, to the life of the Buddha. Also, the article is about the Buddhist concept of parinirvana - which has nothing to do with 'historical accuracy' per se. I think all this talk about 'historical accuracy' and suchlike is merely an attempt (exceedingly rare and uncharacteristic in Mitsube's case, of course) to fling mud at certain Mahayana doctrines. Regards from Suddha (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Revised Introduction[edit]

This article is not about the relative merits of two similarly named but dissimilar texts. It is about parinirvana. I have attempted to revise the introduction to reflect this. I have also hinted at the two aspects of this topic which need to be dealt with: the Buddha's parinirvana as a historical event ~ what do the early texts say happened? And, what is the nature / significance of parinirvana in the various schools? There is some material from one strand of Mahayana, but nothing from pre-Mahayana sources nor from Yogacara or Madhyamika. Yogacara views, in particular, are quite extensive. The user is not well served if these are not covered, but instead of attending to the necessary, certain people squabble about a couple of specific texts in a childish game of one-upmanship.-- अनाम गुमनाम 19:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, Anam. I think the Intro is now much more balanced. But will it remain as you have written it? I have my doubts. I wonder why that should be? Umm, I wonder ..... Best regards. Suddha (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The early texts give specific reasons for their reticence, which seem to have been ignored by the authors of the MPNS, unless it is an exercise in "skillful means", which seems likely. Namely, according to modern arahants, nirvana is totally different from the conventional world, so it is indescribable. Thus descriptions of it are inaccurate, even more so when there are no skandhas present. The functioning of the skandhas of the living arahant could indeed and are described. Some scholars have said that the Buddha did not know what happens to an arahant after death. Mitsube (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not sure what the above is supposed to address, but it is also well known that the earliest texts also attempt to describe it with many positive attributes. As for the MPNS, if you had bothered to read it you will have noticed that the word "beyond the grasp of thought" (acintya) appears over and over again. It also explained at length, as you surmise, that the true nature of parinirvana is beyond the reach of any words or examples. It is also stated, with these provisos, that unenlightened beings may benefit from such descriptors. Also, for your information, the MPNS regards ALL of the Buddha's teachings and his various activities as upaya. This positiion seems to agree with many other Mahayana sutras. I get the feeling that I am addressing somebody who reacts to the MPNS according to mere hearsay (or, at best, a very cursory glance), like those who rushed to condemn "The Satanic Verses" and its author without actually having bothered to read the book. Still, what else can one expect from somebody who has stated on several occasions that the truth does not interest them, just the corroboration of a reference for any statement.-- अनाम गुमनाम 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There is practically nothing in the early texts about parinirvana, in accordance with what I wrote above. Much of what I have read in the MPNS comes across as standard religious dogma, which no doubt appeals to some people, and that is why it was written. Mitsube (talk) 23:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the opening sentences of this article are also faulty and not even accurate in the limited terms of Pali Buddhism ~ no distinction is made between anupādi-sesa-parinibbāna and sopādi-sesa parinibbāna. The idea that "parinibbana" tout court signifies the post-mortum state of a Buddha is mistaken ~ the terms "nibbana" and "parinibbana" are basically synonymous ~ see . The "post mortum" sense of parinirbbana can only be distinguished contextually. You are therefore gravely mistaken if you think that there is "practically nothing in the early texts" about "parinibbana / nibbana".
You also contradict yourself when you say that what you have read in the MPNS "comes across as standard religious" dogma, when previously you have been going to great lengths to assert that the MPNS espouses an anomalous or minority viewpoint. Which is to be be? And you mean that Aniruddha's description in the Pali MPS of the Buddha's last moments is not dogmatic ?? It clearly follows a very precise dogmatic formula ~ no better nor worse than anything the MPNS has to say about the nature of parinirvana.
Moreover, the general Mahayana (shared by MPNS) view of "anupādi-sesa-parinibbāna" is quite different to the Theravadin version ~ it is not for you to make any value judgements here about them.-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Parinirvana, in scholarly discourse, refers to the death of the Buddha. By dogma I mean "views", of which early Buddhist is largely devoid, and the presence of which in a teacher signals lack of enlightenment according to the Buddha (including views of Self), but later Buddhist texts may be rife with them (if texts are taken literally), possibly including some Theravada literature. Mitsube (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Regarding upaya, in the early texts it is not the same as in the Mahayana. In the early texts it refers to skill as a completely honest teacher. For example, in one passage in the Sutta Nipata a Brahmin who has mastered the sphere of nothingness comes to the Buddha, and instead of teaching him the jhanas, the Buddha shows him how to use the sphere of nothingness to attain liberation. In the Mahayana it seems to have sometimes become "the Truth doesn't matter."
Regarding the MPNS (which you seem to regard as simply filling in details left out in the early material), the eternalist views propounded there are exactly the kind refuted the Buddha in the early texts, quite explicitly. For example, in the Alagaddupama Sutta (M I 135-136), the Buddha says that those people who believe in permanent Self "worry about something that is non-existent." The sense of (permanent) "I am" is dependently originated in the cognitive apparatus. With no sense of "I am", there is no Self. Self means "I". The arahant says "Above, below, everywhere set free, not considering 'this I am.'" For an account of someone with a high level of attainment coming face to face with the essence of Self feeling, believing herself to be enlightened, and then being taught that she was not yet enlightened, and subsequently becoming enlightened, read the new book "Mae Chee Kaew." It is a very good read even apart from the dhamma being taught. Mitsube (talk) 05:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of the above concerns your personal opinions, to which you are welcome. I think your understanding of Mahayana itself and its relationship with preceding Buddhisms is incomplete. However, can I put you right on one thing which seems to have corrupted your approach to me. You say "which you seem to regard as simply filling in details left out in the early materials". No, I don't ~ are you confusing me for some other users ? Let me make clear for once and for all, my only interest in Mahayana is as a professional textual scholar. I make no value judgements about the validity of its contents ~ I am not even a Buddhist ~ but I feel strongly that it should be represented accurately here and elsewhere, based on the latest academic findings, but I find very frequently that here it is not treated objectively, but instead subjected to various subtle and not so subtle attempts to trivialize it or devalue it, in a centuries old game. As for your statement I have quoted above, what I actually think is that all Buddhist material almost from day one after the Buddha's death was reactive to what preceded it. This is obvious to anybody who has done stratigraphical work on Buddhist texts. Mahayana both uses earlier material, critiques it, reacts to it and interprets it. The same applies for all other schools of Buddhism. Can you manage to reprogram your brain now ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
You added "deals solely with the nature and implications of parinirvāṇa and liberation (mokṣa), and other doctrinal topics" as a factual statement, and on the talk page indicated that this makes sense because the early texts don't say much about it, clearly the work of a devotee. Mitsube (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Mitsube seems to be saying that Anam Gumnam claimed that the early texts 'don't say much about parinirvana' - but surely Anam is saying the opposite, that there is in fact quite a bit of positive characterisation of parinirvana/nirvana in the early Buddhist texts. Or have I misread either Anam Gumnam or Mitsube?Suddha (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

As for your citations of early Buddhist texts, they do not prove anything. It is well know that the Pali canon contains many contradictory views. It does not matter to me in the least whether you adduce a sutta "disproving" this or that about Mahayana. In my view, the Pali suttas were, for the most part, composed by groups of people pushing this or that view, based ona small handful of ideas that had been preserved from the Buddha's lifetime (smaller than you might imagine). The same applies to Sarvastivadin texts, Mahayana texts, Tantric texts and so forth, They are all relative and have no intrinsic probative value ~ to me this argument of yours is like saying Shakespeare is a more veridical playwright than Marlowe. Some textual scholars specialize in Shakespeare and prefer him to Marlowe, and others vice versa. What is more intersting is how they interelate and borrow from each other and other sources.-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I doubt that the doctrine of dependent origination and the three marks of existence were later fabrications. The orthodox teachings on anatta are the mainstream scholarly view on what the actual Buddha actually taught: "the "orthodox" (Buddhist and, surely, scholarly) position: the Pudgalavādins have got it wrong; early Buddhist texts do indeed deny the existence of a "metaphysical Self" (i.e., an unchanging, substantial, personal entity) but nonetheless allow the existence of an empirical, conventional self or personality." [1]. If you would rather believe in pious fiction than these insights into human existence that is your loss. Mitsube (talk) 02:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I think, Anam, that your above points are extremely good. I would like to see you keep your section in the text where you say of the MPNS that it: ' solely with the nature and implications of parinirvāṇa and liberation (mokṣa), and other doctrinal topics.' That is relevant to some points that are made in the body of the article on the nature of parinirvana. Naturally I am aware that it is not yourself who is deleting your own work! Best regards. Suddha (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted passage[edit]

I have deleted a passage to which Mitsube seems very attached, but I believe my reasons are valid. As I have stated before, this statement therein is just factually untrue, even though there seem to be some references to back it. This is not a matter of opinion or "interpretation" ~ it just is not in the text. The entire narrative of the MPNS takes place in the morning of the Parinirvana. The is clear from the opening paragraph of the text. No earlier incidents from previous days and months are mentioned. I suspect that the two authors of the two references have confused the Mahayana MPNS with the Sanskrit Sarvastivadin Mahaparinirvana-sutra, for whic such statements could be true. If User Mitsube wants to challenge this, I think we should take it to arbitration as it is a rather unusual case for which Wiki rules do not make provision as far as I can see, though I suspect that the use of palpably factually erroneous references is not encouraged in Wikipedia. How would a statement and a reference asserting the view that the sun rises in the west be treated ? -- अनाम गुमनाम 01:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I re-deleted the passage because of an edit clash before the above was posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anam Gumnam (talkcontribs) 01:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand what that you disagree with the reliable source. You said this before. Mitsube (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't disagree ~ they are just plain wrong. It is not a matter of opinion. I know it will pain you to do so, but, your references nonwithstanding, could you possibly have a look through a copy of the Mahayana MPNS and tell me were you find any of these supposedly historical events mentioned ? If not, lets get somebody with experience to arbitrate on this issue.-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: What it means is that the "reliable source" is not reliable.-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I can leave your latest edit for the time being. But you know as well as I do that the MPNS does not teach "standard Mahayana doctrines". Far from it ~ its teachings were highly innovative. Would you object greatly if I deleted "standard" ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

He mentions illness and last meal only, do you claim that these are absent from the MPNS? The last day is part of period leading up to the death, so even if it only mentions the last day, the statement is correct. Also there is no footnote saying what passage Williams is looking at for the sentence about non-Buddhist ascetics in either edition, where are you getting this? Mitsube (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I would object if you were to again remove that sourced statement. You are the first person I have read claim that the teachings of the MPNS are "highly innovative", but given your edit history I am not surprised to read it. If you find a reliable source stating this then we can include both views with attribution. Mitsube (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected that Mitsube, of all people, would have been happy to see the MPNS labelled as 'innovative'. But perhaps that is too positive a term in M's eyes. I don't think many people, however, would object to that description of the sutra, within the framework of more 'conventional' Buddhist suttas and sutras. Regards. Suddha (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

1. What Ming-Wood says is: "While it also relates some of the well-known episodes of the final months of the Buddha Śākyamuni, notably his illness and the last meal offered by Cunda" which is rather sloppy but correct inasmuch as he mentions the illness and last meal. This is what I have been saying all along: the MPNS only deals with a few of the events of the last day of the Buddha's life. If Ming-Wood was a more particular scholar, he might have written "of the final day". However the person who wrote the Wiki sentence which I challenge for accuracy has missed out the second part of Ming-Wood's statement, thus completely changing the meaning. This sort of selective quoting is all too typical of some people around here. Change the sentence to reflect what Ming-Wood actually says, and I would have no objection.
2. In my copy of his book, Williams' marks that passage with Footnote 7, which we find on p281. There he states that he has derived his material from versions of that passage by Ruegg, Yamamoto and Liu. Ruegg and Liu both give the correct Taisho page reference, while it can be deduced from Yamamoto easily. This issue raises a couple more points. The person who authored that bit of Wiki distorts Williams's statement and takes it out of context. What he actually says is that the MPNS concept of Self is fluid and is explained variously in different parts of the MPNS. This is quite accurate, although the ideas expressed about the Self to the heterodox brahmins only occurs once in the entire MPNS and even then I think that this passage is open to other interpretations. If the passage in Wiki is written to reflect all of what Williams says from p98-100 of his "Mahayana Buddhism", a quite different and more accurate evaluation pf the Self concept in the MPNS emerges. But again, in their haste to present the MPNS in a particular light, certain people as usual have used reference materials quite selectively.
Another point, it is clear from his footnotes that Williams has based most of his account of the MPNS Self concept on Ruegg and others. This means that Williams is basically a tertiary source and as such should be avoided as a reference ~ he is not a specialist in this area but has derived his account from others. If I were such a fanatical stickler for Wiki guidelines, I would start deleting all the material based on Williams, as well as many other non-specialist references like Warder so beloved of somebody else.
3. If you have not read that the MPNS is innovative, then you have read very little about the MPNS, let alone the text itself. So you think the attribution of permanence, purity, self and bliss to the Buddha and Parinirvana, the buddha-dhātu / tathāgata-garbha doctrines, the attacks on śūnyatā, the damnation of the icchantikas and so forth are "standard Mahayana" ?
But as I have said before, most of the Wiki material about the MPNS and its doctrines will need radical revision over the next few years as the Stanford University MPNS Project group starts publishing their findings ~ goodbye to all your flakey "references". I hope you are around to see the changes.-- अनाम गुमनाम 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
In neither edition of the Williams book available on google books does he put a footnote after the statement in which he states that the Self teaching is to attract non-Buddhist ascetics. Which edition are you looking at? Regarding your attack on Ming-Wood, the Buddha's illness predated the day of his death. The exact way the illness is mentioned could indeed implicitly refer to prior weeks. It is good that you now admit that the MPNS does indeed refer to historical events, contrary to your claim posted to the main article previously. Mitsube (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
That's the difference between you and me I suppose: you jjust trawl through the selections Google chooses to make available, while I buy the books. The copy I have is "Mahayana Buddhism ~ The doctrinal foundations", Routledge 1989, ISBN 0-415-02537-0. The footnote is marked on p99 line 12, and the footnote itself is p281 ll 7-9.
As for the mention of the illness, it is not dealt with in any specific way that could be construed as refering to the puported historical account. All that happens is that various speakers bewail the fact the the Buddha apparently has a mortal body which is subject to the frailties of old age and sickness, which the Buddha acknowledges but says are illusory. This would hardly qualify in the sense that you imply. I have come to the conclusion over the months that you have some kind of cognitive or neural difficulty that, among other things, prevent you from understanding clearly what you read and the connotations thereof. Do you have some kind of ASD by any chance ? Your style of discourse seems to display many of the key symptoms.
I have been quite consistent in my assertion that the MPNS does not deal with any events from "the prior months and days" before the day of the parinirvana, which is a black and white fact. The entire MPNS takes place on the day of the parinirvana, and the only event that is of any importance is this ensuing parinirvana and the issue of who is to give the Buddha his last meal. So your triumphalist comment that "It is good that you now admit that etc etc". You just do not seem able to accept that I might just know a tiny bit more about this text (and others) than you will ever do. I had thought that this kind of behaviour on your part was wilful, but I now realize that in fact you really cannot help yourself and you are probably unaware of the frequent peculiarities of your interaction with Wikipedia. Anyway, if you leave those parts of the Parinirvana article alone now, I think have reached a modus vivendi. I shall however be working on the preamble of the article and other parts as time allows, since, as I have indicated, they are quite inadequate and misleading. I am surprised that you have not done anything yourself constructively along these lines -- but, no, actually I am not at all surprised.-- अनाम गुमनाम 00:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How interesting .... Suddha (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you have learned more about from the sources I have used, namely this edit summary [2] shows your ignorance of the non-Buddhist part of all this, you later changed your objection to something else. Also I could be forgiven for triumphalism now that you have changed your tune regarding "does not cover the historical event of the parinirvāṇa itself nor any of the other preceding or subsequent incidents, but instead deals solely with the nature and implications of parinirvāṇa and liberation (mokṣa), and other doctrinal topics." [3], which you now know to be untrue (and please avoid such endorsements as in the second clause in the future). Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the footnote, while I congratulate you on owning the book, as you can see there is no footnote to the sentence in question, which is on page 100, not page 99. You should have looked at what I posted. I have no further objection to your text regarding the place of composition of that part, but your claims that it contradicts the other parts is in fact interpretive original research, and I will remove it as such. Mitsube (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Are you aware that in the early texts the Buddha is said to have mastered both "self and not-self"? Mitsube (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Editorial Clashes[edit]

There seems to have been a lot of editorial clashes and confusion resulting over the past hour on this article. Could people please use the appropriate Wiki flag to show that they are currently editing to avoid the misunderstandings that can arise in this way.-- अनाम गुमनाम 01:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not been at all confused. What were you confused about? Mitsube (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Between making an edit and explaining my reasons in the Talk Page, there were three edit clashes. You seem to have reacted to my edit actions without reading my comments. I would call that confusion ~ but who can fathom the convoluted workings of the Mitsube mind ! -- अनाम गुमनाम 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Antagonism re: Self[edit]

While in early Buddhist thought nirvana is characterized by permanence, bliss, and purity, it is viewed as being the stopping of the breeding-ground for the "I am" attitude, and is beyond all possibility of the delusion of Self.[1][2]

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


  1. ^ Peter Harvey, The Selfless Mind. Curzon Press, 1995, page 53.
  2. ^ Dan Lusthaus, Buddhist Phenomenology. Routledge, 2002, page 126, and note 7, page 154.

Parinirvana and Mahaparinirvana[edit]

The article has a bug : Buddha Gautama reached Parinirvana 14 days after the Nirvana : At his death he had the Mahaparinirvana.

Manbu (talk) 13:17, 8 February 2019 (UTC)