Samana/ascetic - discussing the meaning with regards to receiving alms

The Watercooler
21

I agree with you on this.

I was under the impression that Buddhist bhikkhus would be aware of the specific meaning of samaṇa and therefore be uncomfortable with its association with the practice of austerities.

However, as you correctly pointed out, bhikkhus can describe themselves any way they wish, and it’s not up to my interpretation of words. I stand corrected on this.

However, I did say my focus was on whether the Buddha would have considered himself a samaṇa, given he was formerly one and then chose to reject it (specifically, the austerity practice). My concern is not about current practitioners and what they wish to call themselves.

I would also agree with you on this. To quote from SN56.11:

“Dveme, bhikkhave, antā pabbajitena na sevitabbā. Katame dve? Yo cāyaṁ kāmesu kāmasukhallikānuyogo hīno gammo pothujjaniko anariyo anatthasaṁhito, yo cāyaṁ attakilamathānuyogo dukkho anariyo anatthasaṁhito. Ete kho, bhikkhave, ubho ante anupagamma majjhimā paṭipadā tathāgatena abhisambuddhā cakkhukaraṇī ñāṇakaraṇī upasamāya abhiññāya sambodhāya nibbānāya saṁvattati.

From this, it is clear the Buddha was talking about the rejection of two extremes, and indulgence in self-mortification (cāyaṁ attakilamathānuyogo) is cited as an example of one extreme.

These two extremes represent the worldly life, which is full of sensual indulgence, and the ascetic life focused on practising austerities.

In my own path, one of my focus is trying to understand and discover more of what this middle path entails. If you have more links on this, I would appreciate it.

22

Hi Christie,

Do you believe that people who do not life like an ascetic, who work, have a family, maybe sometimes take a sauna, indulgence in sensual pleasures? When i observe this, I feel this is an excited and wrong idea about the life of people who are not monastics and ascetics.
There are so many good deeds. So much caring for eachother or for animals in real practical sense and not only in contemplative sense! There is so much noble behaviour, so much compassion, love, wisdom in this very normal life of very normal people. Goodness, purity, holiness is not absent in the wordling. It is very present

1 Like
23

I agree completely. That’s why I feel the Buddha was citing examples of two extremes, and not necessarily the defining characteristics.

I can see why some Buddhists may interpret this literally as the extremes being sensual indulgence and self-mortification. This interpretation would seem to be extremely narrow to me.

A lot of discussion seem to portray lay people and “monastics” ( don’t really like this term but never mind) as binary opposites. You can be one or the other, not both.

I feel the essence of what the Buddha was trying to say was that there is a middle path which is neither. We know he lived the first part of his life as a lay person, and he tried very hard to be an ascetic and felt it did not work for him. He only succeeded in realisation when he decided to adopt a middle approach. I think that is the key that we need to focus on.

24

Have caught up with this thread and will add my 2c worth!
Much of this is semantics from my perspective, and using words, which are projections of the lived experience of the individual rather than “absolute truths” from my perspective. We have discussed male bhikkhus and female bhikkhunis here and in another thread, but I see the Buddha Dhamma as teaching that none of these things actually exist. Male, female, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, humans, monks, middle path are all ‘constructs’ and not absolute. the absolute truths are the 4 noble truths and impermanence, anatta etc. So, if you interpret the middle path to be living a lay life but following a Noble path, thats OK with me, but not exactly how I see it! I am celebate, I think I am pretty generous, I often dont eat dinner and read suttas and meditate (although thats on and off I admit!). So, I am also somewhere inbetween laylife (in the way that is for the majority) but see monastic life as being just an opportunity to “let go” of all the additional stuff I am very much fixated on (my house, car, travelling, eating good food etc) and concentrate on the things I actually hold to be much more important. I see what I am doing as enjoying the best of both worlds…but completely understand laylife is much less likely to lead to awakening. Monastics in Buddhism are not “priests” who are some sort of intermediary to a Higher Being…we are all just unenlightened worldlings suffering in Samsara, but some are more dedicated to escaping than others! This is why I dont agree with you that it is somehow a net negative to support the Sangha, or a mistake for a poor person in a poor country to donate some of their few possessions to assist the Sangha. The Sangha is a critical element to maintaining the Buddha’s teachings and that is a critical element to progression on the path for countless beings and I see that as much greater than poverty, which is just an expression of dukkha.

In other words:
Option A: say you gave everything you owned to a poor person, then you starved to death and that poor person started a business and became rich. In the grand scheme of the universe…so what? Trillions of beings would continue to swirl around Samsara for trillions of eons again and again, sometimes you are the beggar, sometimes you are the rich person, in an infinite time consciousness does your one moment in time matter one jot?
Option B: say you gave one bowl of rice to a bhikkhuni and she strived diligently and achieved enlightenment and taught 20 people before she died and they achieved one of the four stages of enlightenment…isnt that a (literally) immeasurable far superior outcome from the perspective of Samsara? There are now 20 sentient beings who will soon ever suffer again…for eternity. Even the chance of this is infinitely more valuable than anything else you could possibly do in your life, other than achieving enlightenment yourself.

This isnt an argument to say you must ordain, or you must give dana to monastics…just that how you perceive anything is a construct of your lived experience, not as absolute a truth as it might seem, and from the option A and B described above, if the Buddha’s teaching is right (and I think it is, but admit I might be wrong), then from THAT perspective Sangha are important and supporting Sangha is important and lay people who follow the path are also important and how we label any of these sentient beings is not so important as long as there are some of them around throughout history…the more the merrier! :slight_smile:

2 Likes
25

The supposed association between samaṇaship and attakilamathānuyoga is really quite a weak one. It certainly doesn’t consist in the latter being an essential feature of the former. It consists merely in the fact that certain samaṇa communities (notably the Jains) and certain individuals (notably the Bodhisatta) were committed to the view that self-torture was salvific and so conducted themselves in line with this view. Samaṇa communities and individual samaṇas who were not committed to this view conducted themselves in other ways. C’est tout!

In the suttas the Buddha is called a samaṇa by his disciples (and never balks at their doing so) and instructs his disciples to call themselves samaṇas:

“Vāsettha, all of you, though of different birth, name, clan and family, who have gone forth from the household life into homelessness, if you are asked who you are, should reply: ‘We are samaṇas, we are sons of the Sakyan.”
(DN27)

Yes, I think that’s a pretty uncontroversial reading.

One further point of interest in your quote is the third word: bhikkhave. The Buddha is addressing his audience as “bhikkhus” even before their conversion when they are still committed to the view that self-torture is salvific. Now in English we’re in the habit of referring to the pre-converted pañcavaggiyas as “the five ascetics”. But this word “ascetic”, though descriptively accurate of the pañcavaggiyas, is not actually a translation of any Pali term that’s applied to them. In Pali the pañcavaggiyas are always called the pañcavaggiya bhikkhus even where the textual narrative relates to their pre-conversion days when they were still committed to a wrong view and a fruitless practice. Needless to say, the use of this designation is not to be taken as implying some association between bhikkhuhood and self-torture. Similarly with the term samaṇa…

3 Likes
26

Thanks for sharing, I appreciate your perspective and it’s great to hear that you are trying to live according to the precepts as much as you possibly can, and also trying to adopt a middle path.

A few minor corrections:

Not quite, although I understand why you might think so. I have actually “renounced” (in my own way) so I don’t consider myself a “lay person” but neither do I consider myself a “monastic”. This is my interpretation of the Buddha’s “middle path”.

Part of it is letting go of a desire for worldly possessions and wealth which as you pointed out many of us are fixated on. This is both easier and harder than I thought - telling my parents not to leave any inheritance for me and living below the poverty line is easy, but I still get cravings every now and then for silly things. Also harder is letting go of a desire for status and a sense of importance, which we get from working and earning money. I still sometimes wish I was back working, I really enjoyed my job and interacting with people.

Again, this is not what I think. I did question whether there was an overall net deficit of karma in Buddhist countries from the practice, due to specifics of the practices in those countries which I won’t go into, but I have no issues with people supporting the Sangha.

In my case, due to my financial situation, I don’t feel I can give material support, but I can support in other ways. I have done years of full time volunteering, so I like to give back to the community. @sujato has asked me to contribute my expertise (which isn’t much) to SuttaCentral, and I hope to someday. I am currently writing a Pali textbook, which I have made available open source. I have also contributed other open source projects (very minor ones, I’ve only learnt coding in the last few years, so I am very inexperienced).

As for your comment on “absolute truths” I think we need to thread carefully here. Although the Abhidhamma talks about the “ultimate reality” (paramattha) this is not found anywhere in the sutta piṭaka and the 4 noble truths are not normally referred to as “absolute” truths.

The reason we need to be careful is that according to the Buddha nothing we experience is “absolute” - it’s all conditional. Which is not to say there is no such thing as absolute truths, it’s just that we often mistake the impermanent for the permanent so I try to stay away from using such terms.

Anyway, my best wishes to you and your journey.

27

Although attakilamathānuyoga is only one of many ascetic practices, and not necessarily practiced by all, the word samaṇa itself is associated with austerities. For reference, samaṇa comes from the Sanskrit śramaṇa meaning “seeker, one who performs acts of austerity, ascetic” (Monier-Williams) and the root śram , meaning “to exert effort, labor or to perform austerity”

I also note the text says “Yo cāyaṁ kāmesu kāmasukhallikānuyogo …” and “yo cāyaṁ attakilamathānuyogo …”

This is important. My translation is that the Buddha is referring to the two extremes “such as the pursuit of sensual pleasures with desire” and “such as the practice of self harming (tiring) acts” (my translation), and therefore the Buddha are listing these as examples of the the two extremes, and not necessarily the only characteristics.

Yes, but note the Buddha qualifies the usage of the word samaṇa in DN27:

‘Ke tumhe’ti—puṭṭhā samānā ‘samaṇā sakyaputtiyāmhā’ti—paṭijānātha.

So his followers should call themselves ascetics who are Sakyan followers. This qualification is important, the word samaṇa can be used generically to denote all those who have renounced and following a spiritual path. The qualification is to note that Buddhist disciples are renunciates who have chosen a specific path, and not necessarily the same path as other ascetics.

It’s probably important to note that the suttas are not a literal transcription of what the Buddha actually said. They have been transformed and homogenised over the years to optimise the texts for memorisation.

Mark Allon in his book “The Composition and Transmission of Early Buddhist Texts
with Specific Reference to Sutras” notes that the text of the suttas appear “highly structured, carefully crafted” with a careful choice of words, strings of grammatical parallel units and the ordering of words in waxing number of syllables.

In other words, the words used in the suttas are highly unlikely to be the words actually used by the Buddha, although one would hope they have managed to preserve as much of the original intention and meaning as possible.

In this context therefore, I would suggest the use of the word bhikkhave (as an ālapana or vocative) is probably anachronistic. As you pointed out, the five ascetics at this stage are just ascetics, and the use of the term bhikkhu is normally associated with those ordained in the Sangha, which at that time would not have been established yet.

28

In the suttas where ‘samaṇa’ is being used in its dhammically valorized sense, it is certainly associated with austerity (tapas), but it’s austerity of the kind that the Buddha approves, i.e., that which doesn’t amount to self-torture.

When used as a general term of social description, ‘samaṇa’ has no necessary association with any sort of austerity beyond the bare fact that one is living as a homeless renunciate.

4 Likes
29

Yes, samaṇa is often used in a generic term to refer to all renunciates, and in this sense it does not necessarily carry a meaning of austerity practice.

I do understand that the references to samaṇa in Buddhist literature are in the generic sense.

However, I personally am uncomfortable with applying that word, which has such a rich meaning in classical Indian literature. But, as you’ve pointed out, that’s just me and others can use the word as they please.

30

Now that it’s been established that despite one objector, we can indeed continue to use the term Samana—which was applied by the Buddha, is found in the EBTs, and has been utilised by Buddhist cultures for thousands of years—maybe the @moderators could split this thread, as it has departed significantly from the original topic.

11 Likes
31

Thank you for all these explanations Bhante Dhammanano. We on this forum are very fortunate that so many well-practiced and well-having-studied (I suddenly wish for a Pali-seque gerund in English) monks drop in to share the wisdom of many years with us new followers.

:pray:

13 Likes
32

It has been brought to my attention that my concern about monks potentially over-emphasising the “asceticism” of Buddhism is in fact not new or unique. Max Weber raised very similar concerns in his book " The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism" and described it as a religion which is “asocial” with “asceticism rejecting the social world” but also “other-worldly” and “individualistic.”

Greg Bailey and Ian Mabbett in their book “The Sociology of Early Buddhism” addresses this by hypothesising that Buddhism was partially a response to emerging urbanism in India at the time of the Buddha and that Buddhism is in fact a dynamic process that is dependent upon the social and economic context of the society, and that there are multiple versions of Buddhism over time. This view is also articulated by B.G. Gokhale using slightly different terminology.

The three distinct phases of Buddhism can be described as:

  1. an original (“asocial”) version of Buddhism as an ascetic quest embodied as individualistic practice by a renunciate to attain Nibbāna
  2. a system of teachings based on the dhamma and establishment of a monastic community (sangha) with it’s social context between monks and lay people
  3. a transformation phase in which Buddhism is seen as a spiritual and social movement that has the capacity to transform the society

My original post is really about describing my concerns about the current status of Buddhism in Buddhist majority countries. Of course, in here my thoughts are not new either. I have been alerted that many of my concerns were in fact articulated by Tai Xu, the Chinese monk who between the two World Wars and invented what he called “Humanistic Buddhism” which Thich Nhat Hanh renamed “Engaged Buddhism.”

Humanistic Buddhism is extremely popular today and is practised by the Fo Ghuang Shan order. Perhaps not coincidentally, the largest temple in Australia (where I live) and arguably the largest temple in the Southern Hemisphere is the Nan Tien Temple aligned to Fo Ghuang Shan, and they even have a meditation and dharma centre literally 10 minutes walk from my home. As I passed through it today, I was reminded that they were offering classes in Humanistic Buddhism.

Whilst I understand that some individuals in this forum are keen to promote their personal views of Buddhism as the norm or even majority view, it is heartening to know that other views exist and perhaps may even be dominant in some countries.

Anyway, I hope this postscript may serve as a useful reminder to ourselves to be tolerant of different views. Buddhism does not mean to same thing to everyone and we all have to find our own path in ultimate realisation.

1 Like
33

also has a branch monastery near you. They’re even having a “day of mindfulness” event tomorrow if you’re interested:

2 Likes
34

Thanks very much, I was not aware of the Mountain Springs Monastery.

Whilst I see a lot of alignment of my views with socially engaged Buddhist movements, I am not ready to embrace them just yet.

For the time being, I would still like to pursue my own path. I actually believe the early Buddhist teachings do have a social core to them, as evidenced by Buddha’s advocacy of a “middle path” and avoiding the extremes of asceticism. Potentially this has been “corrupted” (or at least deemphasised in the suttas) over the years by those who favour the attractions of an ascetic life and therefore leading to the “asocial” view of Buddhism.

What I would like to do is to strip the early Buddhist teachings to the core, and try to avoid all the layers that have been added over the years. To me, the Visuddhimagga represents what’s wrong with Theravada Buddhism today (along with the Vinaya) - it is overly complex and prescriptive, with too much focus on meditation states and and attainments. If we look at the stories of early arahants, none of them went through these supposed steps and stages, so I need to rediscover what the path really is.

35

Thank you. I have been meaning to respond to this, and to thank you for your gift, but I wanted to actually understand the sutta first and reflect on it.

I believe this sutta is an example on what Prof. Richard Gombrich referes to as a sutta " delivered with what Pali calls pariyāya"

What is pariyāya? To quote from Prof. Gombrich’s book “What The Buddha Taught”

Literally, this word means “way round” and so “indirect route”, but it refers to a “way of putting things”.

Pariyāya refers to metaphor, allegory, parable, any use of speech which is not to be taken literally.

The use of pariyāya in the suttas is linked to the technique of “skill in means” (Sanskrit: upāya-kauśalya), and refers to the way the Buddha infuses new meaning into accepted terms.

So in this case, the word samaṇā has been very cleverly redefined from “ascetic practicing austerities” to someone who is practicing the Buddha’s teachings - i.e. someone who “completely understands desire”

The Buddha uses this approach to bend his opponents into supporting his views, and convince “traditional” ascetics that they should practice according to his teachings.

I don’t think the sutta is applicable in reverse, ie. used by a Buddhist practitioner to justify equating themselves to as ascetic, as this would seem to go against the middle path in the fourth Noble Truth. The Buddha is careful to instruct his disciples to qualify themselves as “ascetics who are followers of Buddha” rather than just ordinary ascetics.

In the same way, Buddha also refers to himself as a “true brahmin” in a similarly ironic way, to indicate that a brahmin should be defined by what they believe in, and not by their birth. This should not be taken as encouragement for Buddhist practitioners to start calling themselves brahmins.

36

Once again, I believe you are getting hung up on the English word ‘ascetic’.

Why not allow Buddhist monastics to use the words they feel comfortable with, and have taken the time to explain why they do so?

It’s not clear to me why you wish to redefine what Buddhist practice is and should be for others.

1 Like
37

I think I have already stated several times everyone is entitled to their own views. I am writing the above primarily for my own benefit, so I can trace what I’ve learnt.

The interpretation of suttas from the context of pariyāya is new to me, and I have you to thank for pointing me towards this. I certainly hope to use this technique to interpret other suttas in the future.

Understanding the meanings of words in the context of the suttas is important, because it is so easy for us to misinterpret what the Buddha really said if we didn’t fully understand the context of the words he used.

For example, Prof. Joanna Jurewicz of the University of Warsaw was able to show that the structure of the Dependent Origination chain is meant as a commentary on Vedic cosmogony, and the first four links in the chain replicate the Rg. Veda, and similarly the Buddha’s use of the word “kamma” to reflect ethical intention is a commentary on the Brahmin use of kamma to refer to ritualistic practices.

So I hope you will forgive me, I am not just “hung up” on the word samaṇā, I am very focused on the historical context of all the words in his teachings.

38

A rather strong condemnation, sadly.

1 Like
39

It’s only a condemnation if there is hatred motivating it. Not everyone may interpret the middle path the same way. I see it as the Buddha warning us to avoid both extremes (sensual life and the ascetic life). One could take a narrow view that as long as we don’t practice self-mortification we are avoiding the extreme.

But if we read this in the context of other suttas, it seems to me the Buddha is saying a Buddhist practitioner is one who renounces ordinary life, and in that sense is an ascetic, but practices the teachings of the Buddha, instead of the austerities that ascetics normally practice. In this, the Buddha is primarily contrasting his teachings with his main “competitor” Jainism.

There are those that argue the Buddha was also advocating a more “social” aspect to the middle path, that it necessarily also involves interaction with and giving to society and not the typical seclusionary or individualistic path taken by ascetics. I have an open mind about this, and would probably like to explore further before I have a definite view.

40

Regarding the ethics and implications of giving and receiving alms, few years ago I visited an alms ceremony in Luang Prabang, Laos. Monks at dawn (05:30) collect alms of rice or other foods from villagers and tourists. If monks received too much rice and foods, they just returned it back in another bowls or plates at the location immediately.

But this is just a ceremony of the alms-givers and receivers in the sense of religious culture. The majority of the alms-givers are tourists.

1 Like