For instance, you call Dr. Ikeda “Ikeda-sensei”. This is one of those Japanese honorifics. He would not call you “Irene-sensei” or something of the like. That would be inappropriate in that language.
2 Likes
Yes but when I met Ikeda; he bowed very deeply to me (so the sign of respect was not rigidly asymmetrical as it is described here) and he made everything to make me feel welcome (it was in Japan and I was the only European there). I got the impression that he was acting in the service of members.
By contrast; I get the impression from this discussion that there are very rigid rules as to who should bow to whom in the Sangha; also it would seem that the monks are there not to be of any service to the laity, but to be served (but please correct me if I am wrong).
I mean, please correct me if I am wrong but I get more and more the impression that the main function of lay people in EBT is to be cooks for the monks and/or to provide other gifts to them, always accompanied by deep, submissive bows. The Sangha itself seems layered, with a hierarchy based on seniority and apparently gender(?)
The practice within Soka Gakkai, by contrast, is not to serve Sensei; rather, I would say that Sensei devoted his life to encourage and teach the Members.
But you still call him sensei, a Japanese equivalent of sorts to “Venerable”.
It seems to me to be the same thing. One is a verbal utterance, a gesture with the mouth and throat, one is a gesture with the body.
3 Likes
Well I would reply that there’s a difference between calling someone sensei and having to bow to a male member of the Sangha if you are a woman. The music conductor Toscanini once said that if you begin by bending your body, you’ll end up bending your spirit (he said that in reference to fascism, but interestingly there have been books which made (unfavourable) comparison between Tibet under the Dalai Lama and fascism ).
I would add that Sensei means teacher; so it’s just like using the word Ajahn. I don’t have any problem calling Ikeda teacher, because he’s an excellent teacher, very wise, intelligent and articulate. I would add that I consider him a teacher because of his qualities, and not because he has been a monk for X number of years so that one is called Ajahn automatically (for example to me it feels very odd to call Ajahn someone who gives talks like the one below - the number of years he has been a monk is irrelevant):
1 Like
It seems to me that this is mostly a cultural difference. To the Japanese, bowing is simply a gesture. To many, saying “Venerable”, “Ajahn”, or “Bhante” is simply a gesture as well.
Japanese honourifics are also gendered. Females call males certain honourifics and males call females other ones.
I use “Venerable” myself because I feel awkward mispronouncing foreign words.
2 Likes
I would never impose this on others, but I go out of my way to be as polite as possible to monks I find disagreeable. It is an excersize in taming the ego, for me at least.
6 Likes
Bhikkhunis do not pay respects to sameneras (novices) but the really distressing thing is that they would be expected to pay respects to that same person the day he takes higher ordination (and what’s even worse is that he might expect it!!!) As if some sort of magical change and elevation in status has happened through the mystery and power of full ordination! Just for being a man. This type of thing reinforce erroneous ideas about ‘male superiority’. Yuk!
The good news is it might be changung. I have seen progressive novices paying respects to bhikkhunis at my monastery and it was really nice to see. I also bowed to bhikkhunis as a novice.
I think that mostly people pay respects for their own benefit not for the person receiving it. That’s how I feel when I pay respects to seniors. But for bhikkhunis there is an added dimension of entrenched mysogyny… Personally I request more senior bhikkhunis to NOT pay respects to me. (I’m just a junior bhikkhu and it is not even expected that other more junior Bhikkhus should pay respects although novices will). I’d like to think that eventually the male Sangha will just drop this antiquated show of inequality! I wish that it was purely equal, based on order of rains only for both genders.
Interestingly, monks paying respect to bhikkhunis is a very minor rule breach, but for some reason treated with disproportionate importance. Today many monks break higher classes of rules (like handling money or digging the earth, etc) but when it comes to relaxing or ignoring rules about women monastics, it’s all shock and horror - totally unthinkable!
11 Likes
Could you explain how paying respect of seniors, independently of their wisdom and qualities, but just because they are seniors, is beneficial to you? The way I see it, every time you pay respect to someone you are convincing yourself a little bit more that the person, and what they say, are truly wise and worthy of respect. So if the person has been in robes for many years but speaks and teaches nonsense, you will have a tendency to respect the nonsense they teach. I am not sure I expressed myself clearly but I described a psychological mechanism that I have often observed (one’s acts, even the symbolical ones, will end up affecting how one thinks and what one believes).
Just like you say that it’s absurd to believe that some sort of
overnight, it’s also pretty absurd, in my opinion, to think that if someone is your senior by a few years (what are a few years relative to the time-scale of samsara?) it’s a good thing to ‘pay your respects’ to them, independently of their mental qualities.
But I would be very interested in understanding your rationale for it.
Finally, your idea that paying respect is for the benefit of the one who pays respect, does not seem totally consistent with your arguing against the rule that women should pay respect to men just because of gender. If the person paying respect is the one truly benefiting form the practice, then perhaps you should go ahead and support the practice of bhikkhunis bowing to junior monks - that will be (according to your argument) beneficial to the bhikkhunis! 
Hi @irene, your points are all good and it’s a worthy conversation to have. Firstly I would say if someone doesn’t want to pay respects then they shouldn’t. If they don’t like the person’s teaching or qualities then there is no point in paying respect in body, if respect is not in ones mind.
In a monastery environment we pay respects to our elders because they have preserved the teaching and have provided requisites for us and stayed in robes a long time, plus many other things worthy of respect. They teach us to chant, how to wear robes, act as mentors and have sustained the monastic path for us. So it is about us being humble and seeing ourselves as a tiny part of a great lineage. Even someone who has undesirable qualities is also likely to have some admirable qualities too, so we pay respects to those, too. Some monks are not good teachers but might be friendly, or knowledgable or helpful etc. So that’s the rationale inside a monastery. But mostly it is just simply about ‘form’ and in a way that is totally ok in that it doesn’t always have to be personal, or deeply meaningful, but rather, merely a ceremonial gesture, which has a role of sorts in a cultural environment like a monastery.
I think the key to understanding this apparent contradiction is that it moves from being a personal thing (which is how I meant my words) and instead become a systematic tool of oppression agsinst women, where they are always in a lesser, subservient position and never the other way around. If the person being payed respects thinks that they are entitled to it, superior or special somehow - this goes against the teachings! If Bhikkhus expect bhikkhunis to bow to them regardless of their seniority it’s problematic for equality - as many posts here have pointed out. The idea of paying respect to seniors is a beautiful and humble practice but the issue here is that women have been regarded as inferior and so the respect has gone only one way to the Bhikkhus and never the other way.
For monks, paying respect to male seniors it’s a small thing, but for nuns this issue is complicated by a long history of exclusion, subjugation and interference by men based purely on gender. This needs to be addressed. That is why I advocate equality in paying respects.
Hope that helps!
5 Likes
Thank you for your detailed answer, I appreciate your taking the time One last thing. Would it be correct to infer from the last sentence that, by the same token, lay people are considered, relative to the monks and nuns,
[quote=“Akaliko, post:50, topic:10578”]
always in a lesser, subservient position and never the other way around
[/quote
since they are always expected to pay respect to the Sangha and it’s never the other way round?
1 Like
Lay people pay respects because of the degree of renunciation that monastics have and out of respect for continuing the tradition of a spiritual path.
As monks and nuns we understand that lay people are not paying respects to us purely as individuals but rather because of the robes we are wearing, because we are part of a Sangha that keeps the tradition alive.
We are just people, not better or worse than lay people. Just different. We are trying our best to preserve and realise the teachings and it’s those qualities people pay respect to. It benefits them because this act acknowledges the importance of the dhamma in their eyes, reminding them of qualities that monastics are supposed to represent, like contentment, frugality, compassion, kindness, meditation practice, and so on. These things are rare in the world and can inspire us all.
Ok have to go. But it’s been nice thinking about these things. Incidentally I’m the other monk in the video you posted! 
10 Likes
Let me recycle what I said in a different topic as a possible answer to the topic’s opening question:
A truthful and overarching categorical statement on whether a bhikkhuni should or not adhere to the external demonstration of respect and etiquette such as the bowing to bhikkhus cannot be made.
From perspective of EBTs and cultivation of eightfold path, all that can be said is that in the right circumstances of cultivation of right view and right intent, for example, such actions are very likely to support not only the cultivation of the other factors of the path but as well progress towards its goal.
Hence, it is up to specific bhikkhunis to reflect on that and if they see that act as not conflicting with their task at hand, i.e. cultivation of the path, and then take the course of action they see fit.
2 Likes
Hi Thang,
In the Vinaya Piṭaka whenever the word ‘bhikkhu’ comes up for definition eleven different meanings are given, while the Abhidhamma’s Vibhaṅga gives a longer list of no fewer than eighteen meanings. If we combine the two lists, eliminating the repetitions, we get a total of twenty different senses of the word. Of these twenty, the first three are what we might call the ‘legalistic’ or ‘vinayaically relevant’ meanings:
- Ehi bhikkhū’ti bhikkhu – a bhikkhu [who is fully admitted through having been summoned by the Buddha with the words:] ‘Come, bhikkhu!’
- Tīhi saraṇagamanehi upasampanno’ti bhikkhu – a bhikkhu fully admitted by going to the three refuges.
- Samaggena saṅghena ñatticatutthena kammena akuppena ṭhānārahena upasampanno bhikkhu – a bhikkhu through being fully admitted by a saṅgha in acquiescence through an incontrovertible and valid proceeding that is rendered an enactment at the fourth pleading.
1 and 2 refer to earlier methods of ordaining bhikkhus which were later superseded by 3. These three are what the word ‘bhikkhu’ most commonly means, both in the Suttas and in modern usage in Buddhist countries. In certain compounds, such as ‘bhikkhusaṅgha’ and ‘bhikkhubhāva’ it carries these meanings and no other.
As for the other seventeen, these are the non-legalistic or figurative or vinayaically irrelevant senses of the word. By that I mean that the persons denoted may also be bhikkhus in the vinayaically relevant sense, but not necessarily. If a sāmaṇera, for example, is a ‘wearer of spoiled cloth’, then he may be termed a ‘bhikkhu’ in that sense of the term, but it doesn’t mean that he is a bhikkhu in any of the vinayaically relevant senses given above. Though these seventeen greatly outnumber the three above, in practice their use in the texts is much less common. They are:
- Samaññāya bhikkhu – a bhikkhu by designation.
- Paṭiññāya bhikkhu – a bhikkhu by claim.
- Bhikkhatī’ti bhikkhu – a bhikkhu because he begs.
- Bhikkhako’ti bhikkhu – a bhikkhu because he is a beggar.
- Bhikkhācariyaṃ ajjhupagato’ti bhikkhu – a bhikkhu because he has consented to the almsround.
- Bhinnapaṭadharo’ti bhikkhu – a bhikkhu because he is a wearer of spoiled cloth.
- Bhindati pāpake akusale dhamme’ti bhikkhu – a bhikkhu because he breaks evil unwholesome dhammas.
- Bhinnattā pāpakānaṃ akusalānaṃ dhammānaṃ bhikkhu – a bhikkhu owing to the brokenness of evil unwholesome dhammas.
- Odhiso kilesānaṃ pahānā bhikkhu – a bhikkhu because of the limited abandoning of defilements.
- Anodhiso kilesānaṃ pahānā bhikkhu – a bhikkhu because of the unlimited abandoning of defilements.
- Sekkho bhikkhu – a trainer bhikkhu.
- Asekkho bhikkhu – a non-trainer bhikkhu.
- Nevasekkhanāsekkho bhikkhu – a bhikkhu who is neither a trainer nor a non-trainer.
- Aggo bhikkhu – a bhikkhu who has reached the acme.
- Bhadro bhikkhu – a bhikkhu who is an auspicious one.
- Maṇḍo bhikkhu – a bhikkhu who is la crème de la crème.
- Sāro bhikkhu – a bhikkhu who is one with essence.
Now to address the points in your post…
The AN’s Etadaggavagga doesn’t state that they were sāmaṇeras. On the contrary, it calls them etadagga bhikkhus:
“Etadaggaṃ, bhikkhave, mama sāvakānaṃ bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhākāmānaṃ yadidaṃ rāhulo.
In the case of Rāhula, though we know that he started as a sāmaṇera we have no grounds for supposing that he was declared etadagga while he was still a sāmaṇera. In the case of Cūḷapanthaka and the two Revatas we don’t even know if they started as sāmaṇeras for the EBTs hardly supply any biographical details. But for discussion’s sake, suppose that Rāhula and the rest were in fact still sāmaṇeras at the time of the etadagga pronouncement, then it would have been in one of the vinayaically irrelevant senses, e.g., 11 or 13, that they were here called ‘bhikkhus’
The status and role of sāmaṇeras is no doubt subject to considerable regional variation. It does seem that in the eyes of the Sri Lankan laity the distinction between them and bhikkhus has far less significance than it does in SE Asian countries. It isn’t unusual in Sri Lanka for a man to opt to remain a sāmaṇera all his life for one reason or another, like the late Walpola Rāhula. Nonetheless, what is “generally considered” in Buddhist countries isn’t necessarily an accurate reflection of what is normative in Buddhist texts.
I don’t see how such a conclusion could be drawn from it. The Buddha starts by laying down a rule that applies to all anupasampannas (which includes sāmaṇeras):
“Whatever monk should lie down in a sleeping-place with one who is not ordained for more than two or three nights, there is an offence of expiation.”
Later, on an occasion when there’s a shortage of accommodation Rāhula has nowhere to sleep because the bhikkhus are scrupulous in observing the above rule. After the Buddha finds Rāhula sleeping in the latrine he relaxes the rule, allowing bhikkhus to share their accommodation with unordained people for 2-3 nights. The relaxation applies not just to sāmaṇeras but to all male anupasampannas, i.e., to laymen too. And so if you’re going to conclude from this episode that sāmaṇeras are “part of the bhikkhusaṅgha”, then consistency would require that you classify laymen too as part of the bhikkhusaṅgha, for they too may stay in a bhikkhu’s room for 2-3 nights.
As noted above, accommodation can be shared with laymen. Food and medicine can in fact be given to laypeople, with one or two restrictions (e.g., a bhikkhu can’t make his livelihood by prescribing medicines). The giving away of a bowl and the giving away or sharing of robes with a sāmaṇera is indicative merely of what sāmaṇeras and bhikkhus have in common, namely, they are both pabbajitas, person gone forth and in the same sāsanā.
Yes, it may be. And it may even happen that a gathering of, say, ten bhikkhus and ten sāmaṇeras gets referred to as a “gathering of bhikkhus”. But this would be an example of one of the vinayaically irrelevant senses of ‘bhikkhu’. In the above list it would be an example of number 4, “a bhikkhu by designation”. As the Vinaya Atthakathā defines it:
Samaññāyā ti paññattiyā vohārenāti attho, samaññāya eva hi ekacco ‘bhikkhū’ ti paññāyati. Tathā hi nimantanādimhi bhikkhūsu gaṇiyamānesu sāmaṇerepi gahetvā ‘sataṃ bhikkhū sahassaṃ bhikkhū’ ti vadanti.
A “bhikkhu by designation” means by a concept, by everyday speech; for it is only by being designated so that it be made known that someone is a bhikkhu. Likewise when in an invitation and the like bhikkhus are being counted, counting even the sāmaṇeras they say “a hundred bhikkhus, a thousand bhikkhus”.
(Vin-a. i. 239)
6 Likes
Attached is a file containing the explanation of the Vibhaṅga’s 18 terms in the Dispeller of Delusion, Ñāṇamoli’s translation of the Sammohavinodanī. The two meanings omitted from the Vibhaṅga’s list are the “Ehi bhikkhu! bhikkhu” and the “bhikkhu ordained through going to the three refuges”, but these are both pretty self-explanatory.
Bhikkhu.pdf (1.1 MB)
5 Likes
Ooops it’s a small world! It’a a bit embarrassing; couldn’t tell from your picture and the video. Anyway it would have been worse if you had been the monk giving the talk 
Btw thanks for the interesting exchange and for taking the time to answer my posts. Best wishes.
3 Likes
Sorry, but that monk could just as well be on this forum too. What was it that you found objectionable in the entirety of this talk? Did you, perhaps, expect him to deliver a talk entirely without defilements creeping into it?
Those questions probably lead a little too far off-topic and can perhaps can be set aside.
3 Likes
It was meant to be humorous remark but apparently it wasn’t. Yes you are right that monk could be on this forum. It is difficult to answer your question whilst practicing right speech since you are asking me to say what I find objectionable in that talk, but I thank you for the opportunity for the exercise.
I have seen a few of his talks and here are some points I object to: in a meditation talk he talked about self affirmation, whereas Buddhism is about abandoning the sense of self; in the video in question he refers to the Rothschilds as ‘maniacs’ with ‘greedy little fingers’, and has a series of other insults for wealthy and powerful people. I don’t consider the Rothschilds (or Jeff Bezos, the world’s richest man, who just gave a 2 billion donation for education) as maniacs; I understand that they followed the wrong path to find happiness, and were deluded in thinking that wealth and power are the sources of a happy life. So they don’t deserve insults and hostility, but perhaps compassion.
Since we were talking of the question of calling someone a ‘teacher’, I would also add that often his sentences do not appear to be totally coherent, there seem to be problems in his syntax, so I don’t find him pedagogical at all.
I hope I was able to express a few of my objections using right speech. I would also like to add that perhaps constructive criticism might be useful to him if he is indeed on this forum: I have met someone who had lived as a lay person in that monk’s monastery (some people I’ve met at the few monasteries I’ve been seem to have been to all of them) and he made several criticisms in hushed tones, I personally don’t think this kind of thing is healthy, if there is an objection it’s better for everyone if it is openly expressed (I don’t see why it should be taboo to openly disagree with a monk - but perhaps it is in EBT?).
Anyway having written this long answer to your question I have seen @Aminah 's post with which I also agree, this going a bit off topic, but since you asked me a question and I have written the answer, I think I will post it anyway.
2 Likes
One should also note that in ancient times what we now call mysogyny was normal. As the Theravada School is very conservative they are reluctant to change behaviours as recorded in the Early Buddhist Texts.
In my opinion, whether you are a Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni or Samenera, paying respect by bowing is a means of negating your ego and pride or arrogance. It is probably better to be non-judgemental by paying respects to everyone who is senior in Vasas, regardless of status. That way you follow what the Sutta/Vinaya (note that I’m only vague on Vinaya) prescribes and add a bit that is not prescribed.
1 Like
misogyny: Origin mid 17th century: from Greek misos ‘hatred’ + gunē ‘woman.’
Hatred may normal, occuring in humans without an identifiable beginning. It remains a defilement according the Dhamma AFAIK.
However, using a modern culturally disputable term to characterize “ancient times” seems problematic.
Norms are a fundamental concept in the social sciences. They are most commonly defined as rules or expectations that are socially enforced. Norms may be prescriptive (encouraging positive behavior; for example, “be honest”) or proscriptive (discouraging negative behavior; for example, “do not cheat”). The term is also sometimes used to refer to patterns of behavior and internalized values. Norms are important for their contribution to social order. Governments (and other hierarchies) and markets are argued to contribute to order, as are individual prosocial motivations. But the norms enforced through groups and networks also play an important role. Norms have long been used to explain behavior, but in recent years, scholars have increasingly focused on explaining norms themselves—in particular, their emergence and enforcement.
misogyny is a norm i reject, for myself, for teaching, as a possible spiritual discipline. It cannot create respect or equanimity. Imo it is a poison.
1 Like