As a lay person, I wanted to identify with the audience of the suttas, to feel as if the words of the Buddha are also for me, not just for monastics, so I swapped the translation using a script in my browser to explore what it would feel like. The result was as expected: I could relate and connect much better to the words of the Buddha.
However, after continuing to read, in some places I found it disrespectful to equal just any meditator with a mendicant who had truly renounced the householder life. It just didn’t fit, since the latter is a much greater and praiseworthy dedication to the teaching. So, I reverted back to simply “bhikkhu” afterwards. But that brought me back to square one because I don’t identify with that.
What do people here think of this generally? Would you think it is offensive to translate “bhikkhu” as meditator? If in modern times the meaning of it is “monk”, then I will just say — without going into too much detail — that in many (if not most) cases “meditator” is much more worthy of praise.
I find translating “Bhikkhu” as “Meditator” is a terrible idea and a very bad translation. You were right with your first intuition when you said it felt disrespectful towards the monastic Sangha. Stay with that intuition.
Personally, I find it is cringe. I am sorry but the whole Mindfulness Industry ruined the word “meditator” for me.
I agree with Sumana that, it’s not a very good idea to translate bhikkhu as “meditator”. It wasn’t just any meditator who brought the Dhamma to us, but the Sangha of monastics, who abide by so many rules, details, giving up lay life, learning the suttas, vinayas and memorising them, reciting them, writing them down, over and over again, for roughly 2500 years. The buddha is addressing these people.
On the other hand, a meditator just sits on their derrière. Good stuff, but if you can’t understand the cultural significance of those two groups, it might be wise to reconsider what you understand from the Dharma.
In my case, I maintain that Buddha doesn’t speak to me, he is speaking to an audience that lived 2500 years ago in northern India, have very different lifestyle and culture, and also a mendicant.
still, human mind and human problems are the same in every era, there is a lesson there that I can take away, something that I can also apply in my life.
I can very well relate to that feeling. Many years ago I made a similar experiment. While not using a browser script—I hardly knew what a “browser” is at that time—I would read suttas (in German translation) in a book and replace for myself the word “Mönch” (monk) by “Nonne” (nun). And although I wasn’t ordained at that time, hearing the teaching addressed to a person of my own gender made a huge difference. I was aware that this is not a translation.
Or at least, so I thought. Years later I came across this article by Alice Collett and Bhikkhu Anālayo, where they explore that the use of the address bhikkhave (the address form of bhikkhu) is not restricted to male monastics. Unless the discourse is spoken on the uposatha day where the two saṅghas gather separately and no layperson is present, we can assume that the address bhikkhu includes at least monks and nuns, and at times lay people as well. Just everyone who is present, as a “pars pro toto”. The authors present a lot of examples that show that this is how these things are generally handled in Pali.
As an example: Traditionally in English, an audience would be addressed as “ladies and gentlemen”, but if there are some children present, that would be for them as well. (I say “traditionally” because, at least in Germany, on official occasions such an address is nowadays often avoided in order not to discriminate against non-binary people.) In Pali at the Buddha’s time, they would have just said “gentlemen”, and would have meant the exact same thing as when we would say “ladies and gentlemen”.
And there are also examples in the suttas that show that lay people could be present in the audience as well. In MN 7 this is quite explicit: The Buddha addresses the talk to the mendicants, and at the end of the talk, a brahmin, i. e. a layperson, asks the Buddha a question, and the Buddha answers him. We can assume that he had been sitting there all along and listened to the entire talk, for this is what his question refers to.
So I think we can assume that maybe not in all cases, but certainly in some, the address bhikkhave did include both monks and nuns as well as laypeople. In other words: Be assured, the Dhamma is also for you!
I guess different people react to language in different ways. I also don’t have a real problem with translators translating terms in a way I’m unfamiliar with/not in agreement with. I just do the switch in my head. It’s true, too much switching and it might become tiresome and interfere.
As far as the Buddha addressing the bhikkhus… I believe he was addressing bhikkhus. At least in the situation that has been recounted. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t all benefit from the teachings. I mean, when he is addressing something to a specific lay person, surely we can take that to heart even if we aren’t them.
It’s quite likely that there could have been lay people hanging out around the edges of the crowd of monks. I think it’s perfectly fine to imagine oneself sitting there listening along with the bhikkhus and benefiting greatly.
And I apologize to everyone else for the apparently controversial topic I brought up. I’m just trying to learn and am exploring the suttas. As you’ve seen from my OP already, I’ve realized the mistake myself as well, but I’ll have to agree I did like it a lot when I read the word “meditator” in there. That being said, I’d like the intention behind the text to be authentic, without adding fake words in there just because it sounds better to me.
I wouldn’t say it’s specifically controversial. And I don’t think anyone believes you have bad intentions.
But there is a tendency among western converts to sideline monastics. The most common is to call their Tuesday night meditation group a “Saṅgha”. Or lay meditation centers using alms bowls on their donation pages. Or lay teachers who claim that their practice is higher than the monks because they have to endure the difficulties of lay live. Ok, maybe there is some controversy, lol.
I think in some Burmese meditation traditions they tell people that when the Buddha said “bhikkhu” he was referring to everyone who is meditating. I don’t know if there is actual Pali commentary on that. I think it might be related to the Satipatthana sutta. But it’s certainly not EBT.
The way I understand it, the significance of Samyaksambuddhas (as opposed to Private Buddhas) is that they’re able to leave a legacy of monastic community. Otherwise even Private Buddhas attain enlightenment through their own efforts.
So, the Sangha is nothing short of a miracle. We should be indeed careful not to downplay their role.
Yes, you are right in this. I can speak as a sort of “hybrid nun” who is not fully ordained and lives in her father’s house that it is not possible to dedicate myself to the practice as fully as it would be if I were a bhikkhuni in a monastery. For me it’s the best solution, given the circumstances, but I am well aware that my situation is not the same as that of a fully ordained nun.
But I don’t believe that the above mentioned article does have any part in sidelining monastics. The primary aim of the authors is to show the idiomatic use of the terms bhikkhu and bhikkhave as being gender inclusive. That it also may include laypeople in some cases is only a sidetrack. And it does in no way downplay the role of the ordained saṅgha in the life of the dispensation, nor their eminent role in transmitting the Dhamma through the centuries!
It’s okay to discuss topics here, it’s a discussion forum—as long as we all stay respectful anyway. And you certainly haven’t been disrespectful with anything you said.
When the Buddha addresses the monks, it’s like he’s addressing his ideal followers. The ideal disciples of the Buddha, in the end, are monastics right? But whatever the Buddha says to the monks and nuns are more or less applicable to us who stay at home too. The Buddha himself says that the monastics are the best field to sow the seed of Dhamma in, so he sows it there first, because that’s where the fruits tend to ripen the quickest.
SN 42.7 explains this well.
Hello gbbr and all. I was glad to read Sabbamitta’s post, concerning Alice Collett’s and Bhikkhu Anālayo’s article on bhikkhave. They argue that this word in some early discourses should be read as inclusive, meaning that the Buddha is addressing the fourfold assembly of bhikkhus, bhikkuṇīs, upasakas and upasikās. If we translate bhikkhave into English as ‘monks’, it does not read as inclusive in this way. I agree with everyone else, that “meditators” isn’t so good as a translation, but I’ve tried out “practitioners” as an attempt to get across the inclusive feel of bhikkhave. It relies on the idiomatic use of the word “practitioner” to denote someone who practises the Dharma. It definitely doesn’t work to always translate bhikkhu as “practitioner” but sometimes it feels quite natural.
So for instance at the beginning of the Satipaṭṭhāna Sutta (M 10) we read: idha, bhikkhave, bhikkhu kāye kāyānupassī viharati ātāpī sampajāno satimā, vineyya loke abhijjhādomanassaṃ. And one could translate this: ‘Here, monks, in regard to [what is] body a practitioner abides observing the [nature of] body, ardent, clearly knowing, mindful, removing longing and misery in regard to the world.’
The inclusion of the word ‘monks’ as a translation of bhikkhave makes it clear that the Buddha is talking to the bhikkhus, but translating the next word bhikkhu as ‘practitioner’ brings out how this teaching is directed at bhikkhus as one among the four assemblies of those who practice the Buddha’s teaching. This translation makes the teaching feel more relevant to everyone reading, without losing anything important. I wonder how that lands for readers?
I think this goes too much into interpretation. There were times when the Buddha was explicitly inclusive of everyone. e.g. AN5.57 Ṭhāna. Which isn’t to say that we need to consider all the other times to be exclusive for mendicants. I’m not sure if the Buddha ever said at all that some teachings were only for mendicants. He just spent a lot of time with monks.
Thank you for reminding us of this interpretation of bhikkhave.
I think this usage is similar to the modern colloquial ‘you’ll = you all’ or ‘you guys’.
So, I’d just pretend that I was there at a little corner far away from where the Buddha was sitting but still could see and hear his teaching well. Who knows, @gbbr, you might have been a monk at the time when the Buddha was giving the talks! So, the Buddha was speaking to you!
So, I reverted back to simply “bhikkhu” afterwards. But that brought me back to square one because I don’t identify with that.
This is indeed a knotty translation problem.
First, you are definitely included by the term bhikkhu in some contexts (but not all contexts); here is a rough translation of Buddhaghosa’s commentary to DN22 Mahāsatipaṭṭhānasutta:
“Bhikkhave” is an address to the individuals who receive the Dhamma. 'Bhikkhu’ is a designation for the individuals who fulfil the practice (paṭipatti). Although other gods and humans also fulfil the practice, [the Buddha] said ‘bhikkhu’ because of the pre-eminence of the practice and because it demonstrates the state of being a bhikkhu. For among those who receive the Blessed One’s instruction, the bhikkhu is the most excellent, as he is the fit vessel for every aspect of the instruction; therefore, because of that excellence, he said ‘bhikkhu’. When he is included, the others are also included, just as in the case of a king’s procession and the like, where by mentioning the king, the rest of the retinue is also included. Furthermore, he said ‘bhikkhu’ to demonstrate that whoever undertakes this practice is indeed called a bhikkhu. For one who is practising—whether a deva or a human—is indeed designated as a ‘bhikkhu’.
Second, Sabbamitta’s post, concerning Alice Collett’s and Bhikkhu Anālayo’s article on bhikkhave, demonstrates that there seems to be a Pali idiom whereby a group is addressed (and referred to?) by the most senior member. There’s a hint of that in the above quote about the king’s procession and also in DN27 Agaññasutta where, in note 813 of Walshe’s translation of The Long Discourses of the Buddha (Wisdom Publications), he notes that some texts have the name Vāseṭṭha in the plural; this implies that the Buddha is calling Vāseṭṭha and Bhāradvāja ‘Vāseṭṭhas’ in some texts, Vāseṭṭha presumably being the senior. I don’t know any more that this and would be grateful if someone could provide more examples.
Third, the translations ‘Vāseṭṭhas’ ‘Monks’, ‘bhikkhus’ don’t give a fair impression of what is meant in our less hierarchical society. Bearing in mind that not all monks meditate, ‘meditator’ or ‘practitioner’ seems accurate to me, if that is the context, and I imagine a meditating monk would regard either designation as respectful. Feedback from meditating monks is welcome.
For me, someone choosing the lifestyle and committing to the precepts of a bhikkhu is a mendicant (more literally) or a monastic (more generally). It is not a lay person’s lifestyle, which requires a livelihood of some sort and may also include family-building.
For any number of reasons, a lay practitioner (who meditates) and aspires to become a mendicant does not become a mendicant. That doesn’t mean that we can’t read the Buddha’s teachings as relevant for all; however, it feels like I’m discarding a big chunk of the Buddha’s teachings by equating mendicants with lay practitioners.
We don’t have much access to mendicants where I live. Still, I’ve never felt comfortable switching out terms in the suttas that clearly speak to mendicants (who have taken the precepts). I’ve always spoken to the term bhikkhu as what it literally means while adding “and there were lay followers too.”
This is a helpful discussion and I’m glad gbbr felt the courage to bring it up.
Who knows, 