About Buddhist monastic titles 😕

The Watercooler
22

Not according to the dictionary:

But it is used for nuns occasionally, at least in Sri Lanka. I was told that this is because they are said to have gone beyond gender.

5 Likes
23

Thank you…Bhante. :wink:

5 Likes
24

" I was then rather sternly reminded that the abbot was referred to as “Sayadaw”." I think that person who admonished you was well informed about Burmese mannerisms but ill-informed about Theravada orthodoxy.

1 Like
25

The lay volunteers who manage the meditation/retreat center there (one of whom corrected me in this case) are very devoted, very fortunate to have a sangha of Burmese (Panditarama) monks in residence at the monastery. The abbot, whom I inadvertently referred to as “bhante” is a highly trained and compassionate sayadaw (“royal teacher”, i.e. 20+ years training/practice and mastery of abhidhamma) – and one of the handful of monastics I’ve been privileged to have personal contact with who I am convinced (just intuitively) are ariya.

My casual use of the term “bhante” was conditioned by the practice in a local “Insight Meditation” group where the term is used s/w loosely by lay people – i.e. relative to how “bhante” had been previously defined when I questioned a monk with a couple of decades of experience in Burma, in Mahasi and Pa Auk milieus, namely as a term used by monastics to address other monastics senior to them (which definition also came up here somewhere, if I recall).

Measuring the incident against some notion of “Theravada orthodoxy” doesn’t seem relevant in this situation.

3 Likes
26

Maybe Venerable ‘Mate’!

With metta

2 Likes
27

Whenever I see Phra used in relation to Thai monastics I always think of the French ‘frère’ as in the kids song ‘Frère Jacques’ though from the link above it seems the entomology might not be the same.

6 Likes
28

The etymology of the term frère used in Christian context is traced back to frater, which means brother and is equivalent to sânskrit bhrā́tṛ (भ्रातृ).

6 Likes
29

father is derived from Latin pater (= father)
frère is derived from Latin frater (= brother)

6 Likes
30

Indeed!
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/father

1 Like
31

Most people first learning Thai language think that “farang” (transliteration, I can’t write Thai) means foreigner, but I’ve heard (hearsay only) it more likely comes from “Frank” as in ancient French people. Thai people use it to mean white people specifically and not a generic term for all foreigners.

32

as one of a small group of western students at a temple complex consisting of Mon community people from Myanmar we westerners address the resident sayadaw as bhante. Senior members of the Mon community accept our usage of the term while not making use of it themselves so far as I can determine. I have always understood the term bhante to be completely respectful of monastics in the Theravada tradition while less formal than, say, venerable; however, if I was to write to the sayadaw formally I would address him as venerable unless otherwise advised. It might simply be that he considered the use of the term bhante to be easier for us, although as one of the more recent of his students I’m not sure of his reasoning; but it’s a term I’ve used in many situations in Australia for more than 20 years. It may be that monastics from traditional Buddhist countries residing in the west and teaching lay westerners among their own lay community have needed to make adjustments such as the one I’ve outlined. As well as this, there are many other practices brought to Australia from traditional Buddhist countries that will also need adjustment, if not abandonment.

33

This is great, thanks to everyone who contributed!

I have a question about using titles when writing about a number of different monastics. (I am working on an article surveying Theravada in the US, so my question is practical too!)

In the article, I refer to Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw as such, but I refer to his senior students without the title Venerable - for instance: “Many of Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw’s senior Burmese monastics have toured and taught in the U.S., including Sayadaw U Janaka (Chanmyay Sayadaw), and the late Sayadaw U Pandita and Sayadaw U Lakkhana.” Does this seem adequately respectful of his students, or should they be “Venerable” too? (Also, should there be a period after the U.?)

I also found the titles for Thai monastics a bit confusing, since there is so many variations used by different people at different times. My thought is write [Venerable + the monastic’s most common English name]. For instance, writing “Venerable Ajahn Chah”, “Venerable Ajahn Jumnian” and “Venerable Luang Por Thoon”. Does this seem okay (to call one Venerable Ajahn and the other Venerable Luang Por), or is there a better solution?

And for their students, again I drop the title of venerable and just write “Ajahn Pasanno”, “Phra Anandapanyo”, etc. - is that adequately respectful?

One hope of the article is building bridging between Asian American communities and so-called “mainstream” / American Vipassana movement communities, so I want to be particularly careful to heed the proper usage of honorifics. Any guidance from @sujato @Vimala @pilgrim or others would be much appreciated!

34

I don’t think there are any rules to this but the Thai titles are used in that cultural context whereas the prefix Venerable is used in the western context so usually, we use one or the other but not both. so for eg Ajahn Passano or Venerable Passano. Similarly for the Burmese, the use of Sayadaw by itself appears adequate.

35

Thanks @pilgrim - but that doesn’t quite add up for me. I was told specifically to refer to “Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw” as such when first mentioning his name, and then, in subsequent mentions – elsewhere in the article – to write just “Mahasi Sayadaw” would be okay.

This usage seems to keep in alignment with other formal contexts, such as author credits. See for instance this list of Ajahn Chah books, where author is sometimes listed as “Venerable Ajahn Chah”. Likewise the author credit for Mindfulness in Plain English is “Ven. Henepola Gunaratana”.

(More speculatively - adding Venerable in addition to Ajahn, Bhante, etc., in this names may be a way of designating the title “thera”? I know a “mahāthera” is rendered in English as “Most Venerable”. Which… could answer my own question - perhaps if the monastic has ten years beyond their higher ordination, then adding that extra “Venerable” is the right thing to do…?)

36

Hi Sgns, all the examples you gave from your article in the usage of honorific titles were to my mind perfectly adequate and appropriate, if anything there was more than the normal ‘gārava’ Pāḷi for respect, with the additional Venerable In front of the ‘ajahn’ or ‘sayadaw.’ As the reference was to really senior monks like Ven.Mahasi sayadaw and Ven. Ajahn Cha it’s understandable that maybe the relavant groups asked that there be a Venerable at the front, not all monks are the same regarding their preference in the use of honorofics, but it was not lacking in decorum in any way for sure.

1 Like
37

Thank you @Bhante_Darma, your comments are certainly helpful!

1 Like
38

Yathā kho panānanda, etarahi bhikkhū aññamaññaṃ āvusovādena samudācaranti, na kho mamaccayena evaṃ samudācaritabbaṃ. Theratarena, ānanda, bhikkhunā navakataro bhikkhu nāmena vā gottena vā āvusovādena vā samudācaritabbo. Navakatarena bhikkhunā therataro bhikkhu ‘Bhante’ti vā ‘Āyasmā’ti vā samudācaritabbo
(Tathāgatapacchimavācā)
After my passing, mendicants ought not address each other as ‘reverend’, as they do today. A more senior mendicant ought to address a more junior mendicant by name or clan, or by saying ‘reverend’. A more junior mendicant ought to address a more senior mendicant using ‘sir’ or ‘venerable’. (The Buddha’s Last Words DN16)

1 Like
39

Are any of these terms (e.g. Bhante) vocative – so that they’re used for addressing someone (like in the 2nd person), but theoretically not used for referring to someone (in the 3rd person)?

Bhante: 4 definitions says,

bhante : (voc. of bhadanta) Reverend Sir; O lord.

Does that matter at all or does everybody use it non-vocatively as well?

I mean, I guess I might write about “Ven. Sujato’s translation”, but not, “Bhante Sujato’s translation” – referring to him – though I could write “Bhante” to address him.

1 Like
40

In English we’d easily say, “Where’s Bhante now?” Or “Hang on I’ll just ask Bhante?” given that just one monk were around.

2 Likes
41

It doesn’t matter. The fact that bhante is an exclusively vocative form in Pali doesn’t mean that one is obliged to use it only vocatively in English.

As far as I’ve been able to trace it, the English practice of using bhante in the third person seems to have been started in India by Olcott and the Theosophists and then made widespread by the Ambedkarite Buddhists. Its arrival in the West was probably via Sangharakshita’s FWBO and/or Sinhalese monks who had spent time in India and adopted the Ambedkarite convention.

5 Likes