# Talk:Aṅgulimāla

Did Angulimala attain Nirvana upon his death? The current article is a little vague on this point. Ewlyahoocom 14:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to the Pali Canon, Venerable Angulimala attained arahatship or sainthood and has passed away into Nirvana. The article focuses too much on his violent past and not enough on his final destination. Dhammapal 07:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
This article is biased against Angulimala. According to the reverted article link below, the Buddha said “his evil deeds have been overwhelmed by good kamma and his mind has been completely rid of all defilements." Dhammapal (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The article does not explain the causes of Angulimala’s behavior and his transformation, giving only one sentence:
“After hearing this, Angulimala changed his ways, vowed to cease his life as a brigand and joined the Buddhist order.”
Please read my reverted external link (I don’t get a pop-up only a Yahoo advertisement): Angulimala: A Story of the Power of Compassion
Dhammapal 02:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
But thats the thing, it really did go down like that. While it's all well and good to call bias and such, where Buddhas teachings were concerned, he REALLY was that convincing. Remember, nobody had heard of any of this crap before. People did things like mutilate themselves in order to reach a spiritual elightenment. While the "outrunning while walking" story can't physically be true (unless he was a really crap runner or was just too far away he percieved it differently), he actually did just straight away accept the Buddha. Otherwise he would have killed him. The historicity of Angulimala points to him existing and being responsible for those deaths, then suddenly converting and stopping killing when Buddha finds him. Even if it was just Buddha sitting down with him and explaining his teachings for a few hours, Buddah really did just meet with him and suddenly change his views on killing. And thats what makes it so damn remarkable. 124.169.79.1 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Actually, most of what you've said is false.  According to legend, the Buddha was only one of many.  In any case, these stories were never meant to be taken literally, but metaphorically.  People forget that outlandish stories make for memorable stories, and the more outlandish, the easier it is to retell them over time, from generation to generation.  Keep in mind how long it took for these stories to be written down, and you get the picture. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
The article states: "A ruthless killer who is redeemed by a sincere conversion to Buddhism, he is seen as an example of the redemptive power of the Buddha's teaching and the universal human potential for spiritual progress, regardless of one's background."
The only thing which I think is unequivocally incorrect with this statement is the claim of a "sincere conversion to Buddhism". There was no Buddhism at the time of the Buddha, only a Sangha after his teaching began and if that's what is meant then better to say that. If the enlightenment of Angulimala is what's meant then say that. The Buddha was very clearly recorded in the Suttas as not being interested in creating any kind of Buddhism as his legacy, only that his teaching continue for the two Sāsanas which he foresaw.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WideEyedPupil (talk • contribs) 01:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC) 

This concerns POV tag cleanup.  Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it.  This permits discussion and consensus among editors.  From WP tag policy: Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.  Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements.  This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags.  No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nuff said. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a very interesting article--well written and well organized and thorough.  I have never heard this story before and think this is a valuable contribution here on Wiki. I wish I was qualified to do a real review for, you but I simply don't think I know enough and don't have the tools or the experience here on Wikipedia. You set a pretty high standard and there is no way I could measure up!  I could sort of informally go over the prose if you wanted--which is overall great of course--but that hardly seems fair since what you need is a real review.  You would probably have to walk me through it more than the other way around!  I told Gerda Arendt how great you were.  I wish there was a review process, I would give you glowing praise.  Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

If you are interested in some random comments, I can do that. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
And if you wanted to walk me through it and teach me how to do a review, I'd be willing--if that wouldn't be like reviewing yourself. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the compliment. I don't think it was one of my best reviews for my part, but okay. As for doing your own review of a GA nominee article, you can find detailed instructions at WP:GA?. Try to use a template which helps for you, and don't forget that GA does not include more layout stuff than just those five sections mentioned in this guideline page. I would recommend you to get familiar with the process, so you will learn more about writing articles, and will find it easier to find other reviewers when you nominate a new article for GA. I hope this suffices. Try to understand WP:GA? first, I'd say.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 21:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not see how anyone could have done a better job than you did. If it was not one of your better ones--well--then you're good ones are hard to imagine! It was long and difficult--no section went untouched.  You did the kind of job that makes me think you are almost as responsible for how good it is as I am--and I wrote --no rewrote and wrote--almost the entire blinkin' thing! I really wish I could return the favor here. I will definitely do that reading. Thank you for everything. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding at the end--but 99% was easy and positive, right? It's been a truly great experience meeting and working with you. I genuinely hope this is not the end of our relationship. Good luck with this!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
No problem, Jenhawk777—no hard feelings. Your article was very long, and your writing style idiosyncratic. Combined with my perfectionism, that made for a long review. However, your review wasn't actually that many days (about 10), because you responded quite quick. There are reviews that last much longer because people are very busy, or just postpone it all the time. --Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 12:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay--now you have to explain what you mean by idiosyncratic.  Unusual?  Peculiar?  You mean my long compound— German — sentences don't you?  Hahaha! Well I want you to know that after working with you I am becoming more careful about that.  No run-on sentences for me anymore--no sir!  Well...  maybe one or two just for variety... :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
You're reviewing comments now?  :-) You really are a perfectionist.  That's okay--I live with one.  I thought you requested that I come and look at your article that needed reviewing, so I was responding to the request for review--hence the title. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
The question mark means: is this going somewhere?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 21:10, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh! What I saw was this: section header is confusing.  I thought you had typed that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea if this 'person' was a  historical, living and breathing human, or is just a figment of mythos. This article neds to be rewritten or eliminated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.249.146.8 (talk) 01:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC) 

Care to explain more? It cannot be eliminated as he is a notable figure in Buddhist belief, that's like saying eliminate the pages on Abraham or John the Baptist. You will have to explain what needs rewriting. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

This looks like a future FA in my opinion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr. Blofeld. Would you care to assess if I nominate it?--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 08:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham I want to clarify this passage: "This version makes it look as though Aṅgulimāla's killing is justified". Does it mean to say the killings (plural) by Aṅgulimāla become as if justified? Otherwise I don't see how the preceding passage makes the killing of Aṅgulimāla look justified. HaEr48 (talk) 02:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. The story from the past life makes Aṅgulimāla's violence a response to the injustice he was subjected with himself in a previous live. However, this is only one version of the story, and Bareau only mentions one textual tradition that contains this story. Regardless, I have rephrased it now and I hope it is clearer.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 08:44, 27 March 2020 (UTC) Pinging.--Farang Rak Tham  (Talk) 08:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)