When modern people affectionately refer to the Buddha as a “beggar”, it got me wondering if the Buddha is referred (by himself or by others) anywhere as a bhikkhu.
I can’t recall any instance. I know he refers to himself as a brahmin a handful of times, and am almost sure of samana.
It would be interesting to trace where the word bhikkhu first appears…
Posting this in Discussion rather than Q&A because I think there can be some interesting tangents to explore beyond the scope of the specific inquiry.
Paging @REddison because, I’d be surprised if you didn’t have an answer.
I’ve seen it on a few occasions, though I can’t recall anything off the top of my head. It was mostly in texts aimed at outsiders to start explaining what Buddha / Buddhism mean, etc.
Do you see a substantial difference between “mendicant” and “beggar”? Would it be wrong to refer to the Buddha as a “mendicant”, for example?
Vibh. 245. defines a bhikkhu as “bhikkhati ’ ti bhikkhu” among other, more colorful (and perhaps allegorical?) definitions.
There are several allegorical etymologies (definitions) of the word bhikkhu, which occur frequently in the commentaries. All are fanciful interpretations of the idea of what a bhikkhu is or should be, and these qualities were sought and found in the word itself. Thus we mention here the foll. (a) bhikkhu=bhinnakilesa (“one who has broken the stains” i. e. of bad character) VbhA 328; VvA 29, 114, 310; PvA 51. ↔ (b) Another more explicit explnis “sattannaŋ dhammānaŋ bhinnattā bhikkhu” (because of the breaking or destroying of 7 things, viz. the 7 bad qualities, leading to rebirth, consisting of sakkāyadiṭṭhi, vicikicchā, sīlabbata – parāmāsa, rāga, dosa, moha, māna). This def. at Nd1 70=Nd2 477a. – (c) Whereas in a & b the first syllable bhi( – kkhu) is referred to bhid, in this def. it is referred to bhī (to fear), with the further reference of (bh – ) ikkh(u) to īkṣ (to see), and bhikkhu defined as “saŋsāre bhayaŋ ikkhati ti bh.” Vism 3, 16 (saŋsāre bhayaŋ ikkhaṇatāya vā bhinna – paṭa – dharaditāya vā). – A very comprehensive def. of the term is found at Vbh 245 – 246, where bhikkhu – ship is established on the ground of 18 qualities (beginning with samaññāya bhikkhu, paṭiññāya bh., bhikkhatī ti bh., bhikkhako ti bh., bhikkhācariyaŋ ajjhupagato ti bh., bhinna – paṭa – dharo ti bh., bhindati pāpake dhamme ti bh., bhinnattā pāpakānaŋ dhammānan ti bh. etc. etc.). – This passage is expld in detail at VbhA 327, 328. – Two kinds of bhikkhus are distinguished at Ps i.176; Nd1 465=Nd2 477b, viz. kalyāṇa[ – ka – ]puthujjana (a layman of good character) and sekkha (one in training), for which latter the term paṭilīnacara (one who lives in elimination, i. e. in keeping away from the dangers of worldly life) is given at Nd1 130 (on Sn 810).
Websters gives two senses, one mundane and one religious. Personally, I’m not sure I have ever heard it used in the non-religious sense. Certainly when I teach kids/ESL folks no one seems to even know the word.
According to Snp 3.1, king Bimbisara refers to the Bodhisatta as bhikkhu:
SNp3.1:5.1: Tamaddasā bimbisāro,
Bimbisāra saw him SNp3.1:5.2: pāsādasmiṁ patiṭṭhito;
while standing atop his longhouse. SNp3.1:5.3: Disvā lakkhaṇasampannaṁ,
Noticing that he was endowed with marks, SNp3.1:5.4: imamatthaṁ abhāsatha.
he said the following: SNp3.1:6.1: “Imaṁ bhonto nisāmetha,
‘Pay heed, sirs, to this one, SNp3.1:6.2: abhirūpo brahā suci;
handsome, majestic, radiant; SNp3.1:6.3: Caraṇena ca sampanno,
accomplished in deportment, SNp3.1:6.4: yugamattañca pekkhati.
he looks just a plough’s length in front. SNp3.1:7.1: Okkhittacakkhu satimā,
Eyes downcast, mindful, SNp3.1:7.2: nāyaṁ nīcakulāmiva;
unlike one from a low family. SNp3.1:7.3: Rājadūtābhidhāvantu,
Let the king’s messengers run out, SNp3.1:7.4: kuhiṁ bhikkhu gamissati”.
and find where the mendicant will go.’
That’s a valuable thing to note for me. Turkish has no real difference between the two — street beggars and Christian Franciscan mendicants are all called dilenci (one who begs) just the same.
In this case, if I had to differentiate a street beggar from a buddhist monk, I would have no word for it in Turkish, if I wanted to emphasise the alms. Perhaps there might be an arcane Ottoman word, but I doubt there’s anything in public usage.
Oh, that’s a good find Ayya, thank you! Not quite the Buddha, but we’re getting there.
Close call! I’m not sure it’s specifically about the Buddha himself; seems like the poem is describing any bhikkhu. But given the context of the sutta, indeed, it’s understandable that Buddha doesn’t exclude himself from the context.
English is my only language and I’ve only been aware of the word mendicant in the context of Buddhism. Personally, I’ve never heard of or thought of mendicant as a beggar, but rather a way of life for the seekers who wandered that land at that time.
I’m under the impression that in the suttas, wandering mendicants of all sorts of varieties were regarded by the general population as admirable and respected and worthy of giving alms to in order to support their spiritual aspirations. On the other hand, a beggar would be more like a person unable to work or function, or perhaps a bum unwilling to work, looking for sustenance.
Perhaps when modern people refer to the Buddha as a beggar, they aren’t aware of the cultural aspects of that ancient time.
A bhikṣu (m., fem. bhikṣuṇī) is literally “one who habitually begs for alms (bhikṣā)”. The action must be habitual, as in a lifestyle for sustenance. Someone who begs occasionally, or for something that one doesnt need, or if the act of begging is something which doesnt define one’s identity, is not a bhikṣu. The process of begging in native Indian context is when someone goes to the front door of a house, knocks and begs/asks “bhikṣāṃ dehi” the householder for alms. Typically bhikṣā is food for immediate consumption, but not invariably.
The Sanskrit verbal root bhikṣ (to beg) appears to be a direct Indo-European cognate of the English verb “begs”, and from this verb (saḥ bhikṣate = “he begs”) are derived several words that are related to the act of begging (bhikṣaṇa) - like subhikṣa (“having an abundant supply of food”), durbhikṣa (scarcity, famine, distress) and a plethora of compounds formed from them.
An ascetic philosopher monk (whether Buddhist or not - most bhikṣus in the Buddha’s era weren’t Buddhists) may be called a bhikṣu whether one literally begs everyday or not, however its use as an epithet in later times describes an idealized lifestyle rather than a literal need to beg for every meal to survive. SN7.20 provides an instance where a brahmin non-buddhist bhikṣu refers to both himself as well as the buddha as being bhikṣakas (a bhikṣaka is one who begs for bhikṣā and therefore has the same etymological sense as bhikṣu). The end of SN12.28 provides a string of adjectives by which a bhikṣu may distinguish themselves from other bhikṣus by their qualities.
This is a most interesting example, not only because the brahmin referring both to himself and the Buddha as a bhikkhaka, but because the brahmin then says he’s now an upāsaka of the Buddha:
So there seems to be an interesting thing going on. I thought upāsaka invariably referred to lay followers. So, lay people might’ve considered themselves as bhikkhus at the time?
Thanks for the interesting notes and the suttas. Pretty interesting to consider bhikkh and beg being cognates!
“This is the last of lifestyles, mendicants, namely relying on alms. “Antamidaṁ, bhikkhave, jīvikānaṁ yadidaṁ piṇḍolyaṁ.
The world curses you: ‘You beggar, walking bowl in hand!’ Abhisāpoyaṁ, bhikkhave, lokasmiṁ: ‘piṇḍolo vicarasi pattapāṇī’ti.
Yet earnest gentlemen take it up for a good reason. Tañca kho etaṁ, bhikkhave, kulaputtā upenti atthavasikā, atthavasaṁ paṭicca;
So, it seems piṇḍolo not bhikkhu was the term closer to the (somewhat) insulting English word “beggar.”
I don’t think this is yet settled. In Indo-European studies, the etymology of bhikkhu is straightforward and generally uncontested, while that of beggar remains highly debated. The difficulty lies in the fact that the Proto-Indo-European root of beggar can’t be identified until its Proto-Germanic form is established. Yet on this point, scholars have proposed competing theories without reaching consensus. There is not even agreement on whether the verb to beg emerged first or was a backformation from the noun (like sculpt from sculptor).
The Russian-born philologist Anatoly Liberman has written extensively on the subject.
I’m sorry to disappoint, but I don’t have one. I can’t immediately think of any sutta passage where the Buddha calls himself a bhikkhu or is called so by others. That’s not to say that there might not be one, but it’s not a question that I’ve ever researched.
In the AN8:30 lecture today, Bhante Bodhi said that in this passage, the Blessed One actually implied “Bhikkhu” as himself when he said this:
‘This teaching is for the secluded, not those who enjoy company.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? It’s for a mendicant who lives secluded. But monks, nuns, laymen, laywomen, rulers and their chief ministers, monastics of other religions and their disciples go to visit them. With a mind slanting, sloping, and inclining to seclusion, withdrawn, and loving renunciation, that mendicant invariably gives a talk concerned only with sending them away. ‘This teaching is for the secluded, not those who enjoy company.’ That’s what I said, and this is why I said it.
