I have been a Theravada Buddhist for about eight years. So, yes, I’ve been taking Five Precepts for quite some time.
All I wanted to know, was if a wife of a monk was able to feed herself and her child without her ex-husband help. If he was from a rich family, she certainly was allright, and I’m glad to know it.
If honestly, the atmosphere at this forum seems quite hostile to me. I’ve asked a quite reasonable question (and I wasn’t the first) and got a few replies in which people basically tell me that I’m too stupid and uneducated to understand the wisdom of the sutta - instead of just telling me that there was no danger for the woman and the child.
There is nothing wrong with compassion and nobody can prove me overwise, I’m sorry.
Yeah, I read through the responses and some do seem oddly pointed and personal. It’s kind of borderline against the forum policies in that we aren’t supposed to be discussing personal practice, so giving unsolicited personal advice is strange.
I’d recommend to just ignore those comments.
As other have said it’s a challenging sutta. The fact that others have expressed similar feelings as you make that clear. For me personally (without a knowledge of the commentary) I have to give the Buddha the benefit of the doubt and assume that there is some back story that supports the monks actions.
Thank you!
For me the challenging part was not knowing if the woman and her child had the help they need. But, as the commenters above had stated, they probably had, so it’s ok.
Now I understand that it was probably a plot to try and make her ex-husband to go home. And in that case his actions were totally understandable and commendable: you do not react to emotional manipulation if you want it to end.
So, I have no further problems with that sutta. This is all I had to know.
I am personally glad you are able to resolve this issue to your satisfaction, and I am sorry to hear that you have been bothered by some of the “atmosphere” and attitude of some of the posters.
I sometimes feel some of the more “challenging” suttas, such as this one, can be enormously beneficial in helping one clarify finer points of the teaching. In this sutta, knowing the proper context of the story does help resolve the difficulty (if we believe the context, of course). To me, this sutta highlights the enormous sacrifice that one makes in a decision to “go forth”, not only to oneself but to those close to oneself and dependants. Sometimes we have to make difficult decisions that may be heartbreaking and we need to fully convince ourselves what the reasons are and live with those reasons.
Anyway, I wish you the best in your continuing journey.
In the sutta the name of the bhikkhu Saṅgāmaji (Sanskrit: saṃgrāma-jit) means ‘victor in a battle’ (saṃgrāma = battle; -jit = victor) which appears to be a epithet indicating royal status if taken literally.
Also the phrase “khuddaputtañhi, samaṇa, posa man” uttered by his wife (which is translated as "I have a little child, ascetic, so please provide for me.” or as “I have a little son, ascetic, you must take care of me.”) is not the sense that I get from reading the Pali.
The phrase is cognate to Sanskrit “kṣudraputraṃ hi, śramaṇa, poṣa imam” (this little boy, almsman - you yourself raise/nurture him). In other words, she was asking him to be a good father for the kid by returning to the lay-life (presumably she was assuming that he had deserted her due to some marital discord and wouldn’t abandon the child - or would have feelings of longing for the child and would therefore return to lay life at least out of love for the child). The last word in the phrase (imam) was referring to the kṣudraputram (both of them being accusative to indicate that they were referring to the same thing) and not to herself. So she wasn’t asking him to support her materially.
The word that I read as imam was probably read as mām (pali ‘maṃ’, which would have meant “me”) by the translators, but I think it is unlikely it means that. Also the imperative ‘poṣa’ is normally used for nourishing/raising children/young, not for supporting a wife so she can live more comfortably.
Yes, I think you’re right, I’ll adjust my translation accordingly. However, if imaṁ had been elided we would expect a lengthened vowel preceding, which may explain why Pali translators did not read it that way. But notice the variant phrase just below:
“eso te, samaṇa, putto; posa nan”ti
Naṁ (a variant of taṁ) plays exactly the same role in the sentence, and doesn’t require emending the final vowel of posa. We should read naṁ throughout.
It’s quite a common trope in old myths that a child would be left at a temple to be raised there (See: Enkidu). There are several examples of this trope in the Jatakas, so it is clearly not beyond the pale that the ex-wife would imagine he would do that.
I briefly discuss this sutta in my essay on the udana:
There are several suttas in the Udana that speak of these issues and they make better sense together, as a theme developed through the collection.
Ud1.8: an unwanted child is coldly rejected; this is disturbing, provoking a reaction, and forcing us to ask why.
Ud 2.6: a wanderer tries to find medicine for a pregnant wanderer giving birth, but because of his renunciate status, can only do so in ways that harm himself and don’t help the woman. This answers the former question: renunciates are not equipped to raise children and end up hurting more than helping.
Ud 2.8: the Buddha helps ease a troubled pregnancy through the power of his blessing, showing the proper way for a renunciate to help by spiritual and emotional support.
Bear in mind, all these narratives are late, and include quite a few … unrealistic elements!
Gert, I am so sorry that this happened, and you are quite right, this is unacceptable behavior. There are, sadly, many people who think they know much, yet have not even learned how to communicate kindly. This is not what the Dhamma is for, and certainly not what this forum is for. We try to moderate as best we can, but we are not always able to act swiftly enough.
Thank you so much, Bhante. I’m sorry, I really shouldn’t say “Forum atmosphere”, because many people here were very polite and helpful to me.
It was harsh of me and I apologise to fellow forum posters.
posa 'naṁ in pāli is = poṣa-enam in Sanskrit - and enam is used (as a variant of accusative etam) to refer to a person/thing already previously mentioned (as eso/eṣaḥ). In the instrumental similarly enena can be used instead of etena (for a thing previously mentioned)
