Talk:Ānanda

Another translation for Ananda

I was taught another translation for the word Ananda.

Ananda is a circle of positivity.
Joy, Bliss, Love, and Peace.
Without Joy, you cannot experience Bliss. Without Bliss, you cannot experience Love. Without Love, you cannot experience Peace. Peace brings Joy.

I like this article, but it reads as though it comes from a sutra! Surely a bit of historical ambiguity should be mentioned? A bit more of where we learn of him, ie from many sutras, and the likelihood of inaccuracies? I don't want to edit it as I don't feel qualified, but I think we should remember that people come to wikipedia looking for fair representations of facts.

Glory be upon Ananda! -ALEXXXTH

Removing material taken nearly verbatim from "Access to Insight"

Below, on the left, is a paragraph from this current article juxtaposed with, on the right, similar text from Hecker (1980/2006) (retrieved from "Access to Insight" (ATI) at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel273.html):

In view of the abundance of praise, recognition and privileges Ānanda received, mutterings of envy and resentment might have been expected, but this was not the case at all. Ānanda had so occupied subordinating his entire life to the Dhamma that fame had no influence over him. He knew that all that was good in him was due to the influence of the Teaching, and so avoided pride. One who is never proud has no enemies and is not the subject of envy. If someone turns inward completely and keeps away from any social contact, as Ānanda's brother Anuruddha did, then it is also easy to be without enemies. But Ānanda had daily contact with a large number of people with regard to diverse matters, yet he had no enemies or rivals, and his relationships with others were without conflict or tension.

In view of this abundance of praise, recognition and privileges, mutterings of envy and resentment could have been expected. But this was not the case at all. He was a man who had no enemies. This rare advantage had not come to him without a cause, but had been enjoyed by him not only in this life but also in many previous existences. Ananda was so much taken up by subordinating his entire life to the Dhamma, that fame could not touch him and make him proud. He knew that all that was good in him was due to the influence of the Teaching. When seen in this way, there can be no pride. One who cannot be proud, has no enemies, and such a one does not meet with envy. If someone turns inward completely and keeps away from any social contact, as Ananda's brother Anuruddha did, then it is easy to be without enemies. But if someone like Ananda, who had daily contact with a large number of people with regard to diverse matters, lives without enemies, without rivals, without conflict and tensions, it borders on a miracle. This quality is truly a measure of Ananda's uniqueness.

This copy was done in good faith, not appreciating the difference between WP's need for GFDL-compliance and ATI's generous but non-GFDL-compliant copyright. However, given the different WP and ATI policies, this copied material as it currently stands might be indicative of a potential copyright violation. Thus, to avoid such a violation, I am deleting the aforementioned paragraph from this article. If someone would like to wordsmith the deleted paragraph and then tag it with a reference to the Hecker article, I would welcome and applaud this. I hope my action here is not seen as faulty. With metta, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's another nearly verbatim copy (WP on left; Hecker, 1980/2006, on the right):

During the period he was the Buddha's attendant, though he was still a "learner" and "one in the higher training", no thoughts of lust or hate arose in him; this is seen as implying that his close connection with the Buddha and his devotion to him gave no room for these.

During this period, though he was still a "learner," "one in the higher training," no thoughts of lust or hate arose in him; the implication being that his close connection with the Buddha and his devotion to him gave no room for these.

So again, I'm going to delete this text to avoid a copyright violation. Again, if anyone with more skill than myself would like to rephrase and appropriate reference-tag this text, I would applaud your effort. Best wishes, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 03:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is an enhanced version edited by Bhikkhu Bodhi (in quotes) from page 143 of “Great Disciples of the Buddha”:

<quote>But Ananda, the intermediary between the Buddha and his many devotees, constantly exposed himself to the malice and resentment of the captious-minded. <end quote> Thus the sheer fact that he lived without enemies, without rivals, without conflict and tension, borders on a miracle.”

Dhammapal 04:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

MN?

This article quotes MN 90 without identifying the source. What is MN? Does it stand for Majjhima Nikaya? If so, it should be linked there. I'd do it myself, but I'll leave it for someone actually familiar with the subject, so as to avoid making a false assumption, a mistake. Thanks. LordAmeth (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is the Majjhima Nikaya. I've changed how the sutta is referenced, and linked the others mentioned in the article. It's a fairly common reference format in books about Buddhism- DN for Digha Nikaya, MN, AN for the Anguttara, SN for the Samyutta. There are also abbreviations for the books of the Khuddaka Nikaya- Snp for Sutta Nipata, Thag for Theragatha, Thig for Therigatha, etc. Not sure if all of them are collected anywhere; I think it's a Pali Text Society convention. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to fix this. I know every discipline has its standard abbreviations... but they're just not known or easily understandable to those outside the loop, so a link at the very least is a wonderful thing. Thanks again. LordAmeth (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Image removed

Sorry. I wasn't assuming good faiths when removing the image of Richard Wagner, and hence the edit summary. But honestly, I don't think it's appropriate since MOS:IMAGES states clearly that Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding. In this case, Richard Wagner is just one of several thousands of artists who did some artworks about Ananda (i.e. not significant) and his image itself neither relates to Ananda nor aids to understanding. To me, it is just weird to have a Western artist's image on a Buddhist Arahat's page, in the same way as it would be weird to have a Xi JinPing's painting on Jesus page because Xi said something about Christianity. 24.172.241.150 (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

24.172.241.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), the section is about Ven. Ānanda in culture and art, and secondary sources mention Wagner in this regard. I would prefer an image of the actual opera of Harvey, but lacking that, i used the portrait of Wagner. I don't see why it is problematic to involve western people in a subject like Ven. Ānanda. The secondary, academic sources quoted mention how Wagner and Tagore were influenced by Ven. Ānanda—I have not found any mention of other artists or notable people who have used the story. Buddhism has significantly influenced German and British people in the 19th century, e.g. Schopenhauer, the theosophists, etc, and it so happens an entire academic book was written about Buddhism and Wagner, with multiple chapters about Ven. Ānanda, as cited. Whether you like or dislike a "white person's painting" in an article about the Ven. Ānanda is irrelevant.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

See also WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

24.172.241.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), I give you until tomorrow to respond here, before I revert your changes.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

IMHO the picture gives too much weight to Wagner in this article. I also recommend to remove the text about Wagner in the lede - also because it appears to give too much weight to Wagner in this article. JimRenge (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I can understand where you are coming from, JimRenge, but I would argue that referring to Wagner and Tagore in the lead and in imagery helps to see how an otherwise merely historical subject still affects modern culture. If you notice, the popular culture section of the article is not just a random list of trivia, but a section with integrated prose, that shows how modern interpretations of Ānanda's life have modified the story. This is in according to WP:POPCULT. If we agree that the section is appropriate and relevant, than why not summarize it with a sentence in the lead and an image or two?

I think that we, as people who edit mostly Buddhist articles should be careful not to edit articles with too much of a purist approach, either doctrinal or cultural. Religion and the stories in which religion is expressed are bound to be affected and altered depending on time and region. It is important that we do not deny the modern aspects, as well as the western aspects, in interpreting Buddhism, even though they are shocking to the purist mind. When I saw a fragment of Harvey's opera about Ānanda's life, it looked rather odd to me, rather far removed from the historical accounts and imagery. Nevertheless, Wagner used translations of Buddhist scripture, and Harvey's Wagner was the first opera to my knowledge that had singers sing in Pāli. And again, as stated above, the secondary sources do describe Ānanda's stories and Wagner's interpretations.

That said, in response to your concerns of undue emphasis and also in response to 24.172.241.150's apparent concerns of whitewashing the topic (making it too much about Caucasians), I am willing to rewrite the sentence in the lead to include Tagore as well. I can also adjust the imagery to also include Tagore, or only have an image from Tagore.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, this article appears to be well-sourced, neutral and comprehensive. I just wanted to share the impression that the mentioning of Wagners draft in the lede seemed somehow distracting. There was no violation of any policy or guideline. My purist tendencies are generally limited to sourcing and text source integrity. I am glad that our fellow editor did not complain about the other "white" person in one of the pictures. Cheers JimRenge (talk) 23:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Lol, indeed! Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Please note that I already adjusted the lead btw.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I assume you intend to use the Wagner draft as a hook for DYK. JimRenge (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of a hook yet. It is a possibility, although I might also go for the enlightenment in "none of the four poses", i.e. Ven. Ānanda becomes enlightened halfway between sitting and lying down. Ven. Ānanda's life is so miraculous, I could think of many hooks. Wagner could be one of them, but to be honest, I hadn't thought of it yet.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Category

@Farang Rak Tham: regarding this revert, the article does not mention that Ānanda is specifically a patriarch of Zen Buddhism so the article does not belong in Category:Zen patriarchs. If Ānanda is a patriarch of Buddhism in general the article should be put in a more general category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, I've put the article in a more general category now, though there is still the question as to whether the footer should be removed as well, since there is does not appear to be a general patriarch template.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)