Dear John, Frank and friends,
thanks for the replies. John, I would gladly accept your
disagreement. However, I like to say that my interpretation is very
different from yours. I shall be brief about it. First of all, we
have to treat the discussion of bhikkhu and brahma.na separate.
1. On 'brahma.na'
MN98, which you quoted, is available online:
http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-
Nikaya/Majjhima2/098-vasettha-e1.htm
This is a dialogue between the Buddha and two young brahmins. They
are born brahmins, of course, into families of the highest caste. In
the sutta, the Buddha presented a new definition for 'brahma.na'. I
regard that as the Buddha's attempt to reconstruct a "new world
order", if you like it. It was his way of saying "let's not have a
caste system where people are born into the highest class no more,
let's have a new system where people are elevated into the highest
status according to action/conduct, and I have a description for the
type of a person who fits this new highest standard." As you see,
this is no longer just a 'language' issue (in fact anyone who read
the text /literally/ is not always wrong, most often than not there
is no need to twist the meaning at all), but an issue which also
requires an understanding of the culture and history of India. This
is the wider context of the sutta.
2. on 'bhikkhu'
I did not read Ven. Anaalayo's book you quote. But, in MN10
Satipatthana Sutta, there is no details of the audience. So, it is
really a big question mark as to who the Buddha was addressing.
Therefore I can't further comment on it without the resources and
time to research further.
It is certainly fine when you feel the texts address "very directly"
to you. I can say every Buddhist has had similar experience. That is
a karmic link between the text and the reader. However, that would
make everyone a bhikkhu, would it not? So, my point is really simple.
To avoid confusion, we have to make some distinctions between an
ordained Buddhist "bhikkhu" and a lay householder "bhikkhu". And my
simple proposal is, let the ordained Buddhist "bhikkhu" be
the "bhikkhu", and the lay householder "bhikkhu" just be himself.
3. summary
One other point I like to raise is that what we are discussing is of
a minor issue. The more important point is that we should be
conscious that we are not jumping to conclusion unneccessarily. In
this discussion group, we have seen people arguing the Buddha
supported the "God" idea, "soul" and what not, all because they made
the wrong conclusion, not because they read the texts literally, but
because they came from and headed back into a wrong direction.
metta,
Yong Peng.
--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, John Kelly wrote:
> 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.