Talk:Maudgalyayana

Merge suggestion

I have suggested to merge the new article about his Paranibbana into this article. Neither is very long, and some of the info in the death section here is redundant. Rigadoun (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Support I agree. There's no reason why his paranibbana should be in a seperate article- there's not enough material to justify separating them. --Clay Collier 00:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I am in the process of writing more about him, and the article will end up being quite large. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, I oppose merging. I do, however, support making the titles of the articles match.—Nat Krause^{(Talk!·What have I done?)} 07:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're extending the article, it might be worth your while to check out the entry in the Plai Proper names dictionary (see link on page), which is in public domain and can be copied into here.Greetings, Sacca 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Parinibbana of Mahamoggallana into Maudgalyayana S Khemadhammo (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

---

By 2017 Wikipedia standards, YellowMonkey's article Paranibbana of Mahamoggallana is not that large, and has no secondary sources whatsoever. I think a merge with the current article is still warranted and I therefore reopen the discussion.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, formerly known as Blnguyen who commented above, never really added anything to the article after I put the original merge suggestion, and has now not been active for six years. I still agree with the merge. If he does ever return to expand it, or anyone else wants to, it's easy enough to make a new page. I still support. Rigadoun (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that's two people supporting. Thanks. Anyone else?--S Khemadhammo (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Go for it. --Spasemunki (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Super powers?

Is there really evidence for these outlandish claims in the Buddhist tradition? babbage (talk) 23:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not evidence, @Babbage:. But they are described as part of the tradition by secondary sources, and therefore should be mentioned.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal with regard to honorifics

A continuing problem found in Buddhist articles on the English Wikipedia, is the usage of the honorifics, which is inherent to Indian religious traditions. For the current article, as well as any early Buddhist disciple article, i propose to use the word Thera at the end of the name, which is common in the early Buddhist texts. This way, the name of the disciple can be distinguished from any laypeople with similar names, do justice to Buddhist practice in describing the disciples, without losing the neutral tone of the article. Thus, Maudgalyayana Thera instead of just Maudgalyayana, or most venerable Maudgalyayana.--S Khemadhammo (talk) 20:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Isolated content

I have removed the following content from the article, as I was not able to integrate it with the rest of the article. If anyone wants to try and reintegrate, please feel free to paste and rewrite.

• The Buddha also entrusted Maudgalyāyana with other tasks than teaching: the Commentary to the Dhammapada states that Maudgalyāyana supervised the construction of the Migaramatupasada monastery.
• In other stories, he showed his strength in more mundane matters: there is a Sanskrit account of Utpalavarṇā (Pali: Uppalavaṇṇā) trying to seduce Maudgalyāyana. He resisted her, however, and persuaded her to ordain as a bhikṣuṇī (nun).

--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The two sources cited can be found in the article.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Great

Great work on this article, very detailed. Perhaps you'd like to take a look at Sariputta and Ananda, both major disciples of the Buddha whose articles need some help. Javierfv1212 (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I will, Javierfv1212. But I am currently working on Faith in Buddhism and Buddhist devotion, which takes most of my time. After that, I will return to the disciple series. Any suggestions for this Maudgalyayana article?--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maudgalyayana/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

General

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.

Looks like good edits!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is a bit short for the article; it should be at least three paragraphs.

Fixing. I'll be back.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Why say "Sakyamuni Buddha" in the lead? A reader who is non knowledgeable about Buddhism will assume this is somehow different from "Buddha" -- a different aspect, perhaps. Do we need this?

 Fixed--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Not required for GA, but [1] is a dead link.

 Fixed, found updated link.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Suggest linking "merit" to merit (Buddhism).: Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Heritage

• Footnote 119 links to Daily Mirror, but as far as I can tell the cited website is an unrelated news site.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Meeting the Buddha

• which is considered an ancient element: an element of what? Of the texts?

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• who is walking to receive alms: what does this mean?

Wikilinked. Will this suffice?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• You give the name change, but then refer to the two as Upatiṣya and Kolita again.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• At that time, drowsiness is obstructing him from attaining.: missing word?

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Aśvajit's brief statement...: this discussion seems to come out of nowhere; it's not until most of the way through the paragraph that we see a connection to Maudgalyāyana. I think the connection should be apparent in the first sentence of the paragraph. As it stands the first sentence implies the "brief statement" has already been mentioned; making it "A brief statement by Aśvajit, known as ..." would fix that. And I think some attempt has to be made to explain what it says, though it sounds as if that will be difficult.

Not sure if this still needs fixing, since it seems to have been fixed already. I tweaked it a bit by adding the first words in English.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Śāriputra and Maudgalyāyana

• in all Buddhist canons, Maudgalyāyana and Śāriputra are recognized as the two main virtuous disciples. This fact is also confirmed by archaeological findings: sounds a bit odd, as if we were saying that archaeological findings confirm they were the two main virtuous disciples. I assume what's meant is that archaeological findings confirm that they have been recognized as such. It's hard to prove a negative ("no others have been thus recognized in the past") so I'm a bit sceptical of the definite phrasing here. What does the source say?

 Fixed. Will this suffice?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• The caption The Buddha gave Maudgalyāyana the responsibility to train Rahula, the Buddha's son doesn't tell us who is who in the picture.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Continuing review

Making the Udāyana image

• that the Buddha's paid a visit to the Trāyastriṃśa Heaven: shouldn't this be "Buddha", not "Buddha's"? And if this is present tense, it should be "Buddha pays".

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• It could also be they originate from a common narrative: I don't know what this is trying to convey.

 Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Death

• The account of his death switches between present and past tense. You use present tense for most of the account of his life, but I think it would be OK if you want to switch to past tense for his death, though present would work too. Either way it needs to be consistent.

 Fixed, i think.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Maudgalyāyana often teaches about the visits...: this and the following sentence are in present tense, which is awkward because they're in the past with respect to the account of his death. If you decide to use past tense for his death, this needs to be past perfect: "had often taught"; if you go with historic present, then it's less obvious but I think past perfect is still right, since the tense relationship is the same.

Is this okay now?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Relics

• which resulted in controversy and a struggle for power: vague. If this is a reference to the following paragraph, I'd just cut it; no need to foreshadow.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

What's left

Almost everything is fixed. "Walking for alms" doesn't seem natural English phrasing to me, but this is GAN, not FAC, so it can stay.

Tweaked.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just one point left to address:

• "confirmed by archaeological findings": still seems wrong. How can archaeology confirm something like this? Can you tell me what the source says?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This source is French. On page 416 it says:

III. LES SOURCES ARCHÉOLOGIQUES

L'Iconographie de Sâriputra

Elle nous apporte peu de renseignements de valeur et se contente de confirmer la position prééminente des deux disciples-chefs.

This translates as

III. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SOURCES

The Iconography of Sariputra

It brings us little valuable information and just confirms the pre-eminent position of the two chief disciples.

Migot simply takes this as a given. Archaeological findings refers to reliefs or statues showing the two main disciples accompanying the Buddha, standing by his side or otherwise attending him. Or as Migot explains on the next page, in a section on Tibetan iconography: Les images de Sâriputra y sont fréquentes ; il figure généralement comme assistant du Buddha, en compagnie de Maudgalyâyana, mais rien ne permet de les distinguer., or in English The images of Sariputra are frequent; he usually figures as an assistant of the Buddha, in the company of Maudgalyâyana, but there is nothing to distinguish them.

I have now rephrased the sentence.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

That does it for me; promoting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mike!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:45, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image of relief (moved from Talk:Faith in Buddhism)

That particular relief would be considered 3D. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

But in this case the copyright has lapsed, obviously. So it can be used. Am I right, Nikkimaria?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes - you will just need to make sure to include a valid copyright tag for both the photo and the relief. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright, thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, how do I proceed? I can't find the information on how to add an entry or section for the depicted work. Is there an information page about this somewhere? Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

sorry to ping you again.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're asking here - you can edit the description page of an image to add additional copyright tags, and simply indicate which applies to what. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

So simply make two sections in the description. I was asking because I thought it was required to make another page. Okay.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 14:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Article title

The article was moved (without discussion) from Moggallana to Maudgalyayana in 2010. I'm not familiar with other schools of Buddhism, but is "Maudgalyayana" actually the common form of the name as used by the majority of references cited in the article? If not, it should be renamed back to follow the Pali form. --Paul_012 (talk) 18:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason given for the 2010 move (here) was "The page "Moggallana" should be renamed to "Maudgalyayana". The name "Moggallana" is a Pali name, which is used only in one school of Buddhism. Maudgalyayana", in contrast, is the Sanskrit name use)." I'm only familiar with the Chinese, which is not relevant here, so I'm just asking if this was a good reason.ch (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of Sanskrit being preferred over Pali in Buddhist discourse, but, as mentioned, I'm only familiar with Theravada Buddhism. If most reliable sources discussing the subject are in a Theravada context, though, that may be grounds for preferring the Pali version per WP:COMMONNAME. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that the article was originally created at Maudgalyayana and moved to Moggallana in 2009. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Following the sources used in the article, the Sanskrit spelling Maudgalyayāna is used more than Pali Moggallāna, especially in modern scholarship, though both are used in the sources. Unfortunately, Pali isn't given the same value these days as it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Aniccam vata sańkhāra...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:46, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Some comments

1. In the Heritage section, the sentence "In South-East and East Asia, Maudgalyāyana is honored as a symbol of filial piety and psychic powers." reads like he is a symbol of filial piety and psychic powers in both Southeast and East Asia. Is this what is intended? The rest of the text seems to say that the filial piety symbolism is mostly limited to East Asia.
2. Also, in the Relics section, it isn't clear when the relics were given to the Victoria and Albert Museum. Was this shortly after they arrived in Britain, or in the 1930s, just before the protests? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have been so bold as to add numbers to your comments.

1. You are right in that the sources only mention East Asia—thanks for the catch. There may be other sources in the article that also mention Southeast Asian countries in this regard, but I would have to spent considerable time to check this. Rephrased now.
2. After arrival. Fixed.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Prince Rahula and Buddha.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Translations of Maudgalyayana - Korean

Just wondering if the translation is Korean or not. 68.94.33.176 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

hatnote

{{otheruses|Moggallana}} needs to be readded. Incoming links at dab pages [in this case: Moggallana] need to be listed as outgoing links. Iterresise (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't see why it should. There is no expectation of bi-directionality. While 'Moggallana' is an alternative name for 'Maudgalyayana' and therefore it should be listed at the Moggallana disambiguation page. But none of the other entries at that disambiguation page are known as 'Maudgalyayana' -- a reader arriving at 'Maudgalyayana' would be very unlikely to be looking for something else named 'Moggallana'. older ≠ wiser 11:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Other uses/doc states: "This template creates a note directing the reader to the disambiguation page related to the page it is included in". Maudgalyayana's name in pali is "Moggallāna" as stated in the first sentence. If you have some sort of guideline or policy to support your statement, I could agree with omitting the hatnote. Iterresise (talk) 12:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:NAMB and Template:Other uses/doc#When not to use this template. older ≠ wiser 14:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)