Bankei wrote:I just found it rather strange that Ananda seems to be singled out. No other monk seems to have received the same or similar treatment and this is odd given Ananda's role in the religion. Also by the time of the council Ananda is an arahat yet is still criticised for his past actions.
How is he singled out? have you read the Suttavibhangha of the vinaya? what about the group of six? or better yet Angulimala, or devadata, both of whom attaine Arahantship?
Enlightenment doesn't nullify the past, nor stop criticism.
but another way to look at it is it serves as a lesson to others, both in the example that everyone is subject to the Vinaya, and as an example of how to deal with this sort of situation.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill
Bankei wrote:I just found it rather strange that Ananda seems to be singled out. No other monk seems to have received the same or similar treatment and this is odd given Ananda's role in the religion. Also by the time of the council Ananda is an arahat yet is still criticised for his past actions.
or devadata
Devadata has not yet become an Arahant (though he will when he escapes hell).
Bankei wrote:I just found it rather strange that Ananda seems to be singled out. No other monk seems to have received the same or similar treatment and this is odd given Ananda's role in the religion. Also by the time of the council Ananda is an arahat yet is still criticised for his past actions.
or devadata
Devadata has not yet become an Arahant (though he will when he escapes hell).
Kevin
Thanks,
Should of checked that one first, I remember being told he became enlightened and is venerated as an example (similare to Angulimala) in some Mahayana depictions of Arahans in the different directions.
but obviously should of checked
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form. John Stuart Mill
Bankei wrote:
]I just found it rather strange that Ananda seems to be singled out. No other monk seems to have received the same or similar treatment and this is odd given Ananda's role in the religion. Also by the time of the council Ananda is an arahat yet is still criticised for his past actions.
I have always wondered the same thing about why the Ven. Ananda is always portrayed as such. I just thought of a possible reason why, however: It was the Ven. Ananda who spent the most time with the Buddha as an attendant, and it is likely that in the early Buddhist sangha he played a central role in passing on the oral tradition because of this. I would think that out of humility and politness, he would have went into more detail in his own faults than he would going into the faults his fellow monks, so it would largely be his faults that would be remembered.
It's just a possibility, and factionalism may have definately played a role, but that's all I have to contribute.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
Well there is probably a part of myth in those accounts of Ananda's difficulties. I hardly imagine an arahant talking to him so harshly as Kassapa is reported to have in the Kassapa Samyutta, and Analayo has demonstrated enough how these conversations reflect more the imagination and likings of the reciters over the centuries than what really happened.
However, looking at the traditional accounts of the stories, it looks like being the Buddha's attendant was both a rewarding and a difficult task, and it seems that his predecessors had left the post because they could not handle all the criticism they were certainly under the fire of [not sure this was a correct English sentence, but you got the meaning]. When we see the conditions he had to become his attendant, they clearly aimed at warding off as much criticism as possible; and they probably had been reasons for the failure of his predecessors:
1. Buddha's clothing, whether new or old, he refuses to wear.
2. When devotees invite the Buddha to receive offerings, he will not go along.
3. When it is not time to see the Buddha, he will not see him. Other than these, he is willing to serve Lord Buddha. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/db_04.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Where knowledge ends, religion begins. - B. Disraeli
This thread is interesting. I shared a poem that seems to be on this a while ago, here. At the time, I thought that it was quite fresh, and insightful on Ko Un's part, but apparently not. I wasn't aware that this issue has been deeply studied by different traditions already.
The attitude towards Ananda, especially what's been shared in this thread, is a bit disturbing for me... not to mention what seems like a kind of nitpicking (more than likely it's just my perception) by the arahants. This doesn't seem to be in spirit of the liberation.
Why is hostility towards Ananda even an issue? Even the Buddha experienced hostility from others and he was the Buddha! I think any negative qualities Ananda had were far out weighted by his positive qualities. One of the things I loved about Ananda is that he was imperfect. It made him much more human.
Hi Digity, this seems to be an issue because of its relation to the ordination of bhikkhunis.
Also, the issue of whether some people actually hated the Buddha, such as Devadatta, I think is also an important one. From my own understanding (or perception) that kind of questioning would be considered absurd in orthodox circles.
beeblebrox wrote:Hi Digity, this seems to be an issue because of its relation to the ordination of bhikkhunis.
Also, the issue of whether some people actually hated the Buddha, such as Devadatta, I think is also an important one. From my own understanding (or perception) that kind of questioning would be considered absurd in orthodox circles.
Hi Beeblebrox. Could you explain what you mean here about the line of questioning being considered absurd?
"If beings knew, as I know, the results of giving & sharing, they would not eat without having given, nor would the stain of miserliness overcome their minds. Even if it were their last bite, their last mouthful, they would not eat without having shared."
Iti 26
Coyote wrote:
Hi Beeblebrox. Could you explain what you mean here about the line of questioning being considered absurd?
Hi Coyote,
That part was unsubstantiated on my part. I apologize.
When I was writing that, what I had in mind was that I've seen some people try to use Devadatta to kind of scapegoat some issues. I thought that this kind of tactic was questionable, and the thing about Ananda sort of reminded me of that.
I got a bit impulsive, and should've taken more care... sorry about that again.
I think everything was fine with Venerable Kassapa. In some passages we see even Buddha using harsh words. So - speaking harsh words doesn't always mean that a speaker has some kind of aversion or whatever.
Good sutta to keep in mind on this occasion:
[3] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be factual, true, beneficial, but unendearing & disagreeable to others, he has a sense of the proper time for saying them.
Bankei wrote:
Thoughts from other traditions also welcome.
Bankei
According to Nāgārjuna's Mahāprajñāpāramitā Upadeśa 大智度論, Mahākāśyapa led Ānanda out of the council by the arm because he was not an arhat. He insisted on purity in the council. However, Ānanda left for awhile to meditate and attain complete liberation (arhatship) before returning. Mahākāśyapa stated all was now well and that there was no animosity between the two men. So, at least in this account, there was no hostility really towards Ānanda because Mahākāśyapa was an arhat and wanted to ensure purity in the council, and after Ānanda remedied the last of his afflictions he was welcomed back in.