bhikkhu and brahma.na

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.
>