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: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

Volovsky wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 12:32 amI'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.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Goofaholix
Posts: 4017
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 »

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.
Pronouns (no self / not self)
“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: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot »

Goofaholix wrote: Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:46 amActually 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 amIt 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 amI 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). :)
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

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

Post by Volo »

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: 1048
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

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

Post by perkele »

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.
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

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

Post by pilgrim »

I recognise that western Ajahns continue to call themselves this to embed themselves within the support structure largely provided by Thai immigrant populations. But I am happy to note that the next generation of western teachers do not see this as essential. Bhante Sujato and Akaliko for eg have largely dropped their Ajahn prefix for - Bhante. :namaste:
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
pilgrim wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:19 am Bhante Sujato and Akaliko for eg have largely dropped their Ajahn prefix for - Bhante. :namaste:
Sad, given it's grammatically incorrect and all.

If they're not going to do another language properly, they may as well just do "monk" or "venerable".

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 6:53 pm

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

Post by Dharmasherab »

Let's look at the word 'Ajahn'. Ajahn is a Thai adaptation of the Sanskrit word 'Acarya' which means teacher.
Even in Thailand, the word Ajahn is used for certain types of teachers who are not always monastics. Even among the laypeople where this term is used, they may not be Buddhist or have any commitment towards Buddhism.

So the term 'Ajahn' as an honorific, even though it is used for monastic teachers, on a broader context the term is not limited to teachers who live by a monastic lifestyle. The title of 'Ajahn' is given after a certain number of rains (usually 5 rains) after taking Bhikkhu Patimokkha vows. So the use of 'Ajahn' within the circle of Thai Theravada Buddhist tradition has a specific meaning, and this does not include any other type of individual who is referred to as 'Ajahn' (teachers who are not related to this Sangha).

To give a different example, the term 'doctor' means 'teacher' in its etymology. So etymologically, any kind of teacher can be seen as a 'doctor'. But if we are referring specifically to individuals who have completed medical school in university and being involved in the care of patients and the treatment of diseases of patients, then the term 'doctor' is limited to this context within the circle of healthcare practitioners. So not anyone who have taken up the role of the teacher in any field outside of healthcare/medicine can come to a healthcare setting and call themselves 'doctor' by justifying the etymological meaning.

Going back into Buddhism, the term Ajahn when addressing a monk if used correctly is best used when addressing a monastic who is an actual Ajahn of the Thai Theravada Forest Tradition. For a teacher monastic of Myanmar they use the term 'Ashin' as the Burmese equivalent of 'Acarya'. It may be appropriate to use Ajahn for an Ashin as they may carry a near-identical meaning (even though I do not know if the criteria for becoming an Ashin in Burmese lineages is different from or identical to becoming an Ajahn in Thai lineages).

Generally speaking, if we are not aware of the titles or ranks of a Theravada monastic, not knowing which monastic lineage they descend from or which geographical background they are from, it is best to use non-specific honorifics such as 'venerable sir'. Some even use terms such as 'reverend', however, such terms in the Buddhist world among English speakers are usually reserved for non-monastic ordained individuals. For example, the word 'reverend' is used for Zen priests who are ordained in their lineages but they are non-monastics. Therefore such terms may not be the best when addressing monastic novices (Samanera) or monastic monks (Bhikkhus) of Theravada Buddhism.
“When one does not understand death, life can be very confusing.” - Ajahn Chah
User avatar
Crazy cloud
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 8:55 am

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

Post by Crazy cloud »

How about just ask the monk/nun what he or she prefers?
If you didn't care
What happened to me
And I didn't care for you

We would zig-zag our way
Through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain

Wondering which of the
Buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing
- Roger Waters
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

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

Post by pilgrim »

retrofuturist wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2019 9:00 am Greetings,
pilgrim wrote: Tue Dec 24, 2019 4:19 am Bhante Sujato and Akaliko for eg have largely dropped their Ajahn prefix for - Bhante. :namaste:
Sad, given it's grammatically incorrect and all.

If they're not going to do another language properly, they may as well just do "monk" or "venerable".

Metta,
Paul. :)
I understand that Bhante is originally a vocative term, but very early on, around 100 BCE, the Theravada lineage adapted it to be used as a title as evidenced in the Milinda Panha where Nagasena is addressed as Bhante Nagasena by the king.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27848
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

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

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings pilgrim,
pilgrim wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:04 am I understand that Bhante is originally a vocative term, but very early on, around 100 BCE, the Theravada lineage adapted it to be used as a title as evidenced in the Milinda Panha where Nagasena is addressed as Bhante Nagasena by the king.
You would need to find an example of the king speaking to someone else about Nagasena using that phrasing (i.e. in the third person) for your comparison to hold water.

Is there such an example?

Metta,
Paul. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
pilgrim
Posts: 1679
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 2:56 pm

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

Post by pilgrim »

retrofuturist wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:16 am Greetings pilgrim,
pilgrim wrote: Wed Dec 25, 2019 4:04 am I understand that Bhante is originally a vocative term, but very early on, around 100 BCE, the Theravada lineage adapted it to be used as a title as evidenced in the Milinda Panha where Nagasena is addressed as Bhante Nagasena by the king.
You would need to find an example of the king speaking to someone else about Nagasena using that phrasing (i.e. in the third person) for your comparison to hold water.

Is there such an example?

Metta,
Paul. :)
In the Mahaparinibbana sutta, the Buddha advised that senior monks should be addressed as either Ayasma or Bhante. In the MilindaPanha, Nagasena is addressed in the 3rd person with the more formal Ayasma but in conversation, the King addresses him as Bhante Nagasena. I think the use of Ayasma as a 3rd person ref is sufficient support to also use the less formal Bhante in the same manner.
Post Reply