Dear Yong Peng,
I respectfully disagree with some of the points you make below.
> It is not that suddenly everyone can be a brahman (when not born as
> one) or a bhikkhu (when not ordained as one).
What I was intending to say in my previous post is that there are
different meanings that the Buddha gives to words like 'bhikkhu' and
'brahma.na' depending on context the narrower literal meaning and a
wider expanded meaning which is a reflection of the Buddha's own
special genius.
There are many examples of this in the Canon. Have a look in
particular at MN 98 (M ii 119, which is duplicated at Sn 120):
"Na caaha.m `braahma.na.m' bruumi - yonija.m mattisambhava.m;
`Bhovaadi' naama so hoti - sace hoti sakiñcano.
akiñcana.m anaadaana.m - tamaha.m bruumi `braahma.na.m'."
"And I don't call someone `Brahmin', according to the mother's womb
from which he is born,
Nor he who is addressed `Sir', if he is full of worldy attachment.
He who is not attached, not grasping him I call `Brahmin'."
And this continues in many verses of similar sentiment. So clearly
the Buddha is saying that anyone can be a 'brahmin' in this wider
sense that he is using.
Similarly for the word 'bhikkhu'. Ven. Anaalayo in his wonderful
recent book "Satipa.t.thaana: The Direct Path to Realization", on
p.275-6, says "These instances clearly show that the word 'monks'
(bhikkhave), used in the Satipa.t.thaana Sutta by the Buddha as a form
of address to his audience, was not intended to restrict the
instructions to fully ordained monks." And then he has a footnote to
this comment which says, "Ps I 241 explains that in the present
context 'monk' includes whoever engagges in the practice."
So, as you can see, there is support for my view in the commentaries
both ancient and modern.
Certainly, when I read the Pali Canon, and the many, many texts
addressed to bhikkhus, I know in my heart that the majority of these
are addressed very directly to me too, a married layman, and of course
there are others that I read that are clearly only applicable to the
ordained sangha.
With metta,
John
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, "Ong Yong Peng" <pali.smith@...> wrote:
>
> Dear John and friends,
>
> thanks. I support the idea that 'bhikkhu' be left untranslated if a
> person is not happy with 'monk' and cannot find anything more
> suitable. In fact, the words 'bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, samanera, samaneri,
> sikkhamana, upasaka and upasika' are not translated in Chinese
> Sutras. I am quite happy with 'monk' though, but I agree the word has
> many other connotations in the English usage.
>
> As for the "expanded" meaning of 'bhikkhu' in Dhammapada, I wonder
> what the commentaries say. I understand you write with the best
> intentions, but I have a different interpretation. The following is
> my personal opinion.
>
> I do not think that in the Bhikkhuvagga (chapter 25) of the
> Dhammapada, the Buddha is using the term bhikkhu for laypeople. He is
> simply making a contrast for the expectations of a bhikkhu (his
> ordained disciple). Similar things can be said of a brahman. For
> example, a brahman is always a brahman, no matter how bad he is, you
> can't 'sack' a brahman. The reverse applies for a non-brahman.
> However, as the Buddha would say, a person should not be called a
> brahman, to enjoy the benefits and priviledges of being one, just by
> birth, but by his conduct. This is, in a way, an indication of the
> Buddha's opposition of any caste system, in any form. Still, the
> Buddha stopped short of championing for its abolition. It is very
> oriental, but it's uniquely Buddhist, within it we find the teaching
> of "seeking a balance".
>
> Along the same line, the Buddha says in the Bhikkhuvagga what
> qualifies a 'bhikkhu'. In addition to abandoning the family life,
> putting on the saffron robes, adhering to hundreds of precepts, a
> bhikkhu should be such and such to be really a bhikkhu. On the other
> hand, a person of such and such is worthy to be bhikkhu if he is not
> yet one.
>
> It is not that suddenly everyone can be a brahman (when not born as
> one) or a bhikkhu (when not ordained as one). Of course, the idea of
> becoming a brahman is no longer appealing in modern society, unless
> you are a chauvinist or an /apartheidist/. The prospect of becoming a
> bhikkhu is still appealing to many today, but one still has to shave
> his head, take up the precepts and put on the robes.
>
>
> metta,
> Yong Peng.
>
>
>
> --- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly wrote:
>
> The one thing I disagree on is "monk" being the best translation.
> That has too many other connotations in English usage. I think now
> that leaving it untranslated is best of all, and in fact that's what
> Bhikkhu Bodhi does in all his modern translations - "Connected
> Discourses of the Buddha", "In the Buddha's Words". And another
> reason I like it is that bhikkhu can very often be expanded in
> meaning in the suttas to mean any serious Buddhist practitioner (lay
> or monastic), just as the Buddha expands the meanings of ariyan,
> brahman, samana, etc. E.g., see chapter 25 (Bhikkhu vagga) of the
> Dhammapada.
>