This 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
This article is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.
OpposeIf there should be a merger, then it would be of Nirvana into Moksha. Which is not a good idea, since the topica are related, but not the same. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
They both mean the same. Having a separate page for different words meaning same thing creates confusion. Hence I initiated the merge. Also, someone please add an archive bot on this page. Its so long with ancient duscussions. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Although they appear to be similar, both terms come from different religion and need to maintain their individuality. Also, there are slight differences between Moksha and Nirvana. Arun Kumar SINGH(Talk) 09:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Nirvana is to extinguish while moksha is mukti-liberation. The two terms describe different concepts that are only interchangeable to an outsider. Nirvana is to leave the cycle of samsara and has very specific connotations within a buddhist perspective of the ultimate goal. Moksha is a much broader term for liberation that can take on many forms and is used in nearly all dharmic philosophies referring to widely different versions of it. That said: different pages on Moksha should probably be merged (Moksha in Jainism should be a section in Moksha). And Nirvana should be merged with Nirvana in Buddhism (with Buddhism becoming a section title in the Nirvana article).Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose I will make it simple, death is not pre-requisite for "Nirvana" while death is prerequisite for "Moksha". Nirvana means extinguishing worldly sins like anger, greed, lust, jealousy, desire etc. Nirvana is a stage of the living body. While according to Vedic concept Moksha is merging of the "soul (aatma)" with Brahman or source of all existence. So, for attaining Moksha we must die, our soul will do rest of work, but we can attain Nirvana while living. So these are 2 different concepts and can't be merged. --Human3015TALK 22:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Question Just one questions to those opposing this proposal. Is the reason you giving depicted in the Nirvana article also? Reading the Nirvana article gives a reader the impression that it's another term for Moksha or salvation. If there's a difference, please make this article depict that clearly. The article in its present form can be easily merged with moksha or nirvana (buddhism) -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count) 22:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
yes, this article do need changes, specially in lead section. Still it doesn't matters what articles says, try to understand basic difference in these 2 concepts.--Human3015TALK 23:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
In Jainism (the concept I am aware of) both means the same. As regards other religion I relied on the information provided by this article. Hence nominated for a merger. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count) 23:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The comments made here gives a depiction that it means omniscience in Buddhism. However I'm still confused what is its meaning in Hinduism -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo(talk·contribs·count) 23:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Above someone mentioned that Moksha (Jainism) should be merged with Moksha. I will again "Oppose" this. All of these are major religions of the world and major concepts of all these religions deserves separate articles. Jainism and Vedic "Moksha" may look like same, but again stick to the basics, Jainism is heterodox religion while Vedic religion is Orthodox. You may debate on "Heterodox" and "Nastik" are not same words. Anyway, I just want to say that, all of these religions may look like same, they are related but different religions and their concepts needs separate articles. --Human3015TALK 23:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, yes, Jainism. Yes, that explains. Nirvana seems to have various meanings; I think it's okay to have separate articles, also for the meaning of Nirvana in Jainism. I don't think that some kind of exact definition, akin to the natural sciences, is possible here; so be it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
The idea behind having one moksha article and one nirvana article is pretty simple. Moksha is the concept of liberation which varies a LOT between different forms of hinduism, jainism, and other dharmic faiths. Having a single article on the topic of moksha is not to say Jainism is the same as Hinduism but instead to put all the different conceptions of Moksha in one place. This creates a fuller understanding of Moksha in Jainism as opposed to Moksha in Vedanta or Moksha in Bhakti which also don't need their own pages. Otherwise we could easily have twenty different Moksha pages (much like our proliferation of 'tattva' or 'tatva' pages. The same idea with Nirvana. No one is saying that Jainism is the same as Hinduism, but that an encyclopedia should keep all relevant information on a topic in one place so a layman doesn't read about one version of moksha and think of it as universal. Nirvana however is quite distinct from moksha as it refers specifically to a karma/samsara based universe which is not even an aspect of all Moksha-based faiths (some don't even include reincarnation). Some groups would use both terms interchangeably, but most traditions would make a distinction or only use one. Nirvana is clearly a specific conception of moksha from samsara and/or causality. This is analagous to ducks being a specific kind of bird. You wouldn't merge the duck page into the bird page, but you would likely put several types of duck on the duck page and several types of birds on the bird page, including ducks. So with many different versions of Nirvana, it seems sensible to put them all in one place to be readily compared across multiple traditions. And the same for the Moksha page which could mention Nirvana as a conception of Moksha, without needing to absorb the Nirvana page. And again: merging the broader concept of Moksha into the more specific Nirvana is completely illogical, like merging the candy page into the chocolate page.Iṣṭa Devatā (talk) 01:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
That depends on which school of Buddhism we are talking about. You can go on endlessly making differences between terms, but really I don´t see any relevant divergence in meaning between Moksha and Nirvana. Indeed I would add Brahmanirvana to the list. Mauna22 (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
BTW I would like to suggest that those attached to a particular religion (that deals with these terms) would stay away from the debate due to WP:PPOV. Mauna22 (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The fact that someone says something in good faith, doesn´t mean it is not biased.
For example you seem so concerned about the fact that most of the information about Ramana Maharshi in Ramana´s article comes from devotees: do you assume bad faith in that case? Best Mauna22 (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
So by reading all comments it is quite clear that there is speedy oppose for merging "Nirvana" and "Moksha", though 2-3 users are in favour of merging Moksha of Jainism and Hinduism but that can be different discussion because our main discussion was on merging "Moksha" with "Nirvana". And it seems there is no consensus for this merge. One user claiming that "opposers" of the merge are maybe biased or POV pushers, but it is not really valid point. Me and Joshua both opposed this merge but you can see below my comment(where I opposed merge above) Joshua replied that "I'm not entirely correct". Means we both are opposing this merge but we are not blindly supporting each other, so here is no issue POV pushing. No one here can claim that they are very expert to comment exactly on "Moksha" and "Nirvana" but we are commenting on the basis of sources and basic common knowledge, and these two things deserves separate article. This is not a RFC, I don't know if someone will close this discussion or not, thats why I'm making concluding type remarks. There is no use of continuing this discussion, even those who are supporting merging of all Moksha related articles they are also opposing merge of "Nirvana" and "Moksha". Only valid point came out of discussion is debate about merging Moksha (Jainism) and Moksha, and I think we should start a merge discussion on talk page those articles and can discuss that instead of wasting time on this merge. Thank you.--Human3015TALK 07:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I've one more comment: it was only last year that I found out that "moksha" also applies to Buddhism. Till then, I'd never read this term in any Buddhist literature. And I've been studying Buddhism for 25 years, so that may be an indication... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Ya, your experience is appreciated, maybe many users here have age equal to your experience. But main thing is that you too opposed this merge. Other thing is that, there are nearly 30 schools of Buddhism, various schools may have their own logics. Some schools worship Buddha as deity while other considers deity worshiping is against Buddhism. So how we can confirm which is true Buddhism or mainstream Buddhism? Still concept of Nirvana is nearly same in every school. Surely it deserves separate article.--Human3015TALK 08:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
If by “one user” do you meant me, first I don´t see “opposers” here, and secondly I am not assuming some people “are maybe biased or POV pushers”. In fact I didn´t assume anything about anyone here: I meant what I said.
If you are attached to a particular religion that means you have at least a basic set of beliefs that come from that specific religious-view. Otherwise you wouldn´t call yourself buddhist, christian or whatever, right? Religious beliefs are “beliefs” and are “personal”. I think is but sensible to ask people attached to religions in relation with this particular debate to step aside.Mauna22 (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose These are related concepts, but not the same. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: I am totally separated from the issue but have read enough to know several things. 1)- It is not a good idea to try to converge two words from different cultures that do not mean the exact same thing. The logic of the "Oppose" does present enough evidence to close as "no consensus" to merge. 2)- A polite request to editors not to participate is against policy. Concensus: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.". A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. To "request" editors that might have particular knowledge to not participate would be a form or Reverse canvassing that could likely result in vote stacking. Every snowflake is unique means we can have articles closely related but different enough to warrant independence.
We can not "assume" that because someone has a particular belief they can not constructively contribute or that their belief would somehow be unduly biased. Of course it might be biased. That is the idea and should not be hindered. My only interest in these forms of dharma is knowledge. Hinduism and Buddhism hold different views and the presentation of words that seem the same may not be the case. If it was as simple as that we could merge all non-theistic religions with theistic religions. One definition of religion is "an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.". Otr500 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)