Is there a good reason to call western monks Ajahn?

Organisational work, teaching, Sunday school syllabus, charitable work, outreach, sharing of resources, artwork, etc.
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3142
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Is there a good reason to call western monks Ajahn?

Post by DooDoot » Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:35 am

Volovsky wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:32 am
I'm not about this topic, but an out the reason why you are eager to find faults in my posts.
My posts are on-topic and pertinent. They are unrelated to anything "personal". I regarded the post or view submitted (by you) as faulty because it ignored the matters of "lineage and "benefaction". When it is attempted to make things "pure", pieces of "Sangha" get cut off, like the Ajahn Brahm bhikkhuni matter. Also, I provided another opinion. Don't make it personal. Its a battle of views. MN 122 explains why "Ajahn" is an appropriate title and also explains why a Teacher finds faults. The answers to your questions are found in MN 122.
Volovsky wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:32 am
But anyway, the way Buddha refers to himself is irrelevant. Show me the suttas, where Sariputta or Moggalana were refered by monks or lay followers in some special way, not avuso or bhante or ayasma. (About acariya, I have said it is okay -read carefully. It was used during Buddha time although it is more technical Vinaya sense).
So what Buddha did is "irrelevant" but what Sariputta did is "relevant"? :roll: It seems you did not consider the point I made about "Internet Buddhism" and about teacher-student relationships. It is appropriate for students to call their teacher "Teacher". As for " avuso or bhante or ayasma", surely these words don't have the same meaning or status as each other. Also, in the world, so & so guru and priest and politician is called "Venerable", "Reverend", "His Holiness", "Honorable" ,etc. These words become meaningless. But "Teacher" ("Ajahn") means a lot. My impression is to be called "Ajahn", a monk should actually have some teaching ability. Also, when the Buddha was alive, there was only one Teacher. But today, in the world of myriad sects & cults, there are many teachers. Thus using the term "Teacher" recognises a chosen teacher. For example, why would the term "Bhante" be used for monks of certain cults you disagree with? Personally, I would not call a monk 'Bhante" unless I respected the monk. I have seen on internet forums certain monks join and they get called "Bhante" and then soon after get banned for bad behaviour. Then "friend" is often too informal.
Last edited by DooDoot on Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
Never ordained... not an anonymous-online-bhikkhu or ex-bhikkhu...

User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 2985
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 3:49 am
Location: New Zealand

Re: Is there a good reason to call western monks Ajahn?

Post by Goofaholix » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:46 am

DooDoot wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:35 am
MN 122 explains why "Ajahn" is an appropriate title
Actually it doesn't, it explains why teacher is an appropriate title. It doesn't in any way suggest to use a thai word when otherwise speaking a totally different language, which I think is the crux of the OP.

I don't think anyone would dispute it's ok to refer to a teaching monk as a teacher, nor using the word ajahn when there is a quorum of thai speakers.
“Peace is within oneself to be found in the same place as agitation and suffering. It is not found in a forest or on a hilltop, nor is it given by a teacher. Where you experience suffering, you can also find freedom from suffering. Trying to run away from suffering is actually to run toward it.” ― Ajahn Chah

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 3142
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Is there a good reason to call western monks Ajahn?

Post by DooDoot » Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:55 am

Goofaholix wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:46 am
Actually it doesn't, it explains why teacher is an appropriate title.
Ok. Sure. Thank you Guru Goofa (aka Ajahn Aholix) for the teaching. I'll ponder this POV for a while.
Goofaholix wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:46 am
It doesn't in any way suggest to use a thai word when otherwise speaking a totally different language, which I think is the crux of the OP.
Ok. Sounds reasonable. I think the OP might benefit from considering the "lineage" and "support base". In other words, are Westerners providing the bulk of the financial/material support base for these monks? At least in Australia, the Asian people appear to be the vast majority of the support base. If you immigrate to a cultural desert like Australia you probably want to maintain as much "culture" as possible.
Goofaholix wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:46 am
I don't think anyone would dispute it's ok to refer to a teaching monk as a teacher, nor using the word ajahn when there is a quorum of thai speakers.
Cool. We have some agreement based on wise reflection (yoniso manasikara). :)
Never ordained... not an anonymous-online-bhikkhu or ex-bhikkhu...

User avatar
Volovsky
Posts: 212
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Is there a good reason to call western monks Ajahn?

Post by Volovsky » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:52 am

DooDoot wrote:
Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:35 am
So what Buddha did is "irrelevant" but what Sariputta did is "relevant"?
Buddha was refered by some titles exclusive to him like Bhagavant or Sugata, nobody else in Buddhism can use them. Therefore I asked what was a special way to address his two chief disciples, other than any other monk can be addressed. But you cannot provide any quotation, which doesn't surprise me. Anyway, I have lost interest in you. Cheers.

perkele
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

Re: Is there a good reason to call western monks Ajahn?

Post by perkele » Wed Oct 10, 2018 2:31 pm

retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:02 am
Bhante isn't correct either, because bhante is a first-person form of address, and to speak of Bhante Such-and-Such in the third-person is incorrect.
You mean "vocative" not "first person". The person being addressed in the vocative is always the second person ("you").

Image
retrofuturist wrote:
Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:02 am
My preference is for "Bhikkhu".
I prefer that, too, when speaking of a bhikkhu in the third person. But in the case of a samanera the title sounds a bit diminuitive, because, of course, it is the diminuitive form of samana. So at least in a direct address I would not use the ordination status descriptor.
I find "Bhante" quite okay to use in a direct address, even if it is not used in the vocative case. I.e. addressing a monk with "Bhante" but using grammatical third person when asking or saying things about him. Or even more indirect when whoever is called "Bhante" is somehow present or close, participating in the situation, or at least in some way familiar or known. So a more lax and grammatically incorrect use of "Bhante" which appears to have become somewhat common in some English-speaking (or German speaking, or probably other western language speaking) Buddhist circles, where "Bhante" denotes a monk whose name does not have to be mentioned because the context makes it clear who is meant by it.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests