4

Here is a quote from MN 26:

One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'

So I said to them,

'Don't address the Tathagata by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma.

I can understand why the Tathagata might not be addressed by name; but why not as "friend"?

Perhaps similarly, from the Maha-parinibbana Sutta:

And, Ananda, whereas now the bhikkhus address one another as 'friend (āvuso)', let it not be so when I am gone. The senior bhikkhus, Ananda, may address the junior ones by their name, their family name, or as 'friend'; but the junior bhikkhus should address the senior ones as 'venerable sir (āyasmā)' or 'your reverence (bhante)'.

What's the need for, what's the benefit of, the "reverent" form of address? Or what's the harm, if any, in the "friendly" mode of address?

If you can, I'd appreciate answers:

  • From canonical sources (e.g. suttas or commentary)
  • From post-canonical sources (e.g. later, or modern, articles or dhamma talks)
  • From personal experience
  • and/or which apply to lay people (when addressing monks, or teachers or other venerables)

Edit:

I think that ruben202's answer is ample evidence that it is so, in the culture and in the suttas and other scriptures.

I'm not sure I understand why, though. For example:

  • A venerable is a friend -- or are they not?
  • Is the behaviour (or mode of address) mere ritual?
  • Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose, some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind or karma, or even for the venerable?

I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another benefit is that it might be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen without yet knowing); is another obedience for some good reason?

The whole question seems to me a bit associated with some identity-view and so thicket-of-views.

The only answer I can think of is a reference to the sutta (reference required) where the Buddha said that people need some teacher or leader, and he (having none) would take the Dhamma as his -- but that's speculation, whereas I'm asking for answers based on references or experience.

  • (This is an attempt to reword this question.) – ChrisW Feb 14 '18 at 10:06
  • Maybe the question is better put when adding an "if..." to the "should", or more direct: If one wants a useful releasing answer, useable for many cases, one does good to object a certain effect, aim, to it, so that it might not to much subject of possible misunderstood and possible wrong reinterpreted. One might try also to give a "self-answer" like beloved by the side-owner and giver but it might not for the joy of those here feeling in charge of administrate, so properbly good if they are asked for leave in advanced. – Samana Johann Feb 14 '18 at 11:20
  • It just came to mind, maybe worthy to give it a thought: does it make any sense to ask among people where not one actually practices apacāyana, no single real refuge can be traced and disrespect is actually the reason for gathering without leader and in improper manner? Are questions mundane, under equal, not merely just for gain and orientation, not a little for growth? Why might there be a different between just friends and venerable ones, and if, how could friends (not skilled nor trained, merely annoyed of a certain skill) solve the issue? – Samana Johann Feb 15 '18 at 0:20
3

Controlling the process lead to every goals

When the course of study are very hard to graduate, or when the work very hard to take the goals, the teacher/manager need the very strict & many enough rules to control the process work follow in the plan to goals.

The 7 goals of buddhism are the hardest job in the world: 1. keeping own advantage, 2. keeping social advantage, 3. keeping public advantage, 4. keeping present advantage, 5. keeping future advantage, 6 going to anupādisesa-nibbāna, 7. keeping the buddha's teaching for the public advantage in the future until 5,000 years old. This 7 goals appeared in many sutta, such as in 10 purposes of monastic legislation.

That is the reason why the buddha, the dhamma's manager, gave 91,805,036,000 rules, just in vinaya-pitaka, for the monks. Also, 63,000 dhamma-khandha in suttanta and abhidhamma, included āvuso/bhante in this question. I still not included their ancient commentary, which is larger than the present commentary.

Guru, teacher, means respect, doing hard

There are upajjhācāra-vatta for the student in VN mahāvagga, mahākhandhaka, which do service the teacher more than āvuso/bhante calling.

Student need intimacy and trust to learn the hardest teaching

I often see in the movie that when some student very respect to some professor, they will use "professor" word to call the professor.

Why? They realize that the professor will love them and give them all of his knowledge.

This is still going nowadays.

Teacher maybe not arahanta

Tipitaka allowed the un-enlightener, who graduated bhikkhuparisūpaṭṭhāpaka-course, to teach the new monk. So, he can hate/angry his student, because he is not anāgāmi-ariya. When the teacher bias like that, just a little impolite word can let him stop the teaching. When the teaching is not taught like that, the buddhism will go to the end.

All reason above connect together in kammṭṭhānagahaṇaniddesa

The path of purification, kammṭṭhānagahaṇaniddesa.

The right culture give the previous right master, the previous right master give the next right master

The explanation from the previous generation to the next generation, will specify the future.

If Einstein didn't describe his complicated formula, who can understand his complicated formula?

Tipitaka and commentary are very hard than Einstein's formula. Because even we understand Einstein's formula, we may not understand the whole concept of tipitaka and commentary, even tipitaka and commentary often said "the buddha taught very clear, very beautiful syntax". But why we still confuse in tipitaka and commentary meaning. Why?

Because we still not trust enough in the previous teacher, such as commentary--the tipitaka-memorizer, to learn from them step by step.

For the example of problem, nowadays, people believe in reading study system, then they try to read tipitaka and commentary by themselves. But tipitaka and commentary began in oral reciting study system. So when the readers try to read by themselves, they will miss many meaning and relativity of words/phrases/sentences/paragraphs/suttas/canons. Because reading study system and reciting study system are very difference in many dimension, such as structure, referencing, definition-doing, etc.

So, when the reader just read, they will miss many core of tipitaka and commentary.

How about the thailand in a book compare to thailand in travelling? Is the travelling give the traveler deeper dimensions, right? That is the difference between just the reading and the reality experience. Reading can give you a summary of tipitaka and commentary, but reciting can give the deeper information, quicker understanding, easier study, and more.

This is the reason why the monks still keep the oral study system follow ordering of buddha in vinaya-pitaka, through 2600 years. It doesn't mean we
just only recite follow the order, but actually we found the truth that reciting study system is the better way to study tipitaka and commentary. For the example, thailand discarded reciting study system about 100 years ago in colony war, today I have to ask the very deep question about pāli canon from burmese master, which the reciting study system still going on, because no one in present thailand can understand my question with my description, even my teacher who already read the whole translated tipitaka and commentary. But the burmese pali tipitaka memorizer who study from his previous teacher, can understand my question without any description.

why? The right culture give the previous right master, the previous right master give the next right master, which thai loose them 100 years ago.

  • @chrisW I know it is very idiot, to invite you to read the lately added text at the end of answer again. But I actually can not complete it by once time writing. It is very complicated to explain, so I have to take many times to author each heading. – Bonn Feb 15 '18 at 3:20
  • 1
    Thank you for your effort. I think you identified several good reasons. – ChrisW Feb 15 '18 at 8:02
4

Junior monks have to greet senior monks as "venerable sir" and lay people have to greet monks as "venerable sir" (and not as "friend" or by name) because this is part of the culture of respect and reverence in Buddhism, and South Asian culture in general, both in ancient and modern times.

It is part of the whole package of reverence to parents, teachers and elders. Of course, in the modern day, this is changing due to exposure to culture of other parts of the world.

Below are some examples from suttas and vinaya:

In AN10.16:

“Bhikkhus, these ten persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of merit for the world. What ten? The Tathāgata, the Arahant, the Perfectly Enlightened One; a paccekabuddha; the one liberated in both respects; the one liberated by wisdom; the body witness; the one attained to view; the one liberated by faith; the Dhamma follower; the faith follower; and the clan member. These ten persons are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, an unsurpassed field of merit for the world.”

From AN8.59:

Monks, there are these eight individuals who are worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, the unsurpassed field of merit for the world. Which eight?

The one who has entered the stream, the one who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of stream-entry, the once-returner, the one who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of once-returning, the non-returner, the one who has entered upon the course for the realization of the fruit of non-returning, the arahant, the one who has entered upon the course for arahantship

In AN5.199, the Buddha taught:

"On the occasion when a virtuous person who has gone forth approaches a family, the people rise up to greet him, bow down, give him/her a seat. On that occasion the family is practicing the practice leading to birth in a high family.

In Mangala Sutta:

"Not to associate with the foolish, but to associate with the wise; and to honor those who are worthy of honor — this is the greatest blessing.

In AN 4.32:

"There are these four grounds for the bonds of fellowship. Which four? Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, consistency. These are the four grounds for the bonds of fellowship."

Generosity, kind words, beneficial help, & consistency in the face of events, in line with what's appropriate in each case, each case. These bonds of fellowship [function] in the world like the linchpin in a moving cart.

Now, if these bonds of fellowship were lacking, a mother would not receive the honor & respect owed by her child, nor would a father receive what his child owes him. But because the wise show regard for these bonds of fellowship, they achieve greatness and are praised.

In AN5.58:

Now on that occasion a number of Licchavi youths had taken their strung bows and were walking and wandering in the Great Wood, accompanied by a pack of dogs, when they saw the Blessed One seated at the foot of a tree to dwell for the day. When they saw him, they put down their strung bows, sent the dogs off to one side, and approached him. They paid homage to the Blessed One and silently stood in attendance upon him with their hands joined in reverential salutation.

In MN86:

"Great king, suppose you were to see Angulimala with his hair & beard shaved off, wearing the ochre robe, having gone forth from the home life into homelessness, refraining from killing living beings, refraining from taking what is not given, refraining from telling lies, living the holy life on one meal a day, virtuous & of fine character: what would you do to him?"

"We would bow down to him, lord, or rise up to greet him, or offer him a seat, or offer him robes, almsfood, lodgings, or medicinal requisites for curing illness; or we would arrange a lawful guard, protection, & defense.

There are numerous examples of prostration before the Buddha, where the translations say that somebody bowed down then sat to one side.

In MN 90, we see prostrations with head placed at the feet.

King Pasenadi Kosala said to one of his men, "Come, my good man. Go to the Blessed One and, on arrival, showing reverence with your head to his feet in my name, ask whether he is free from illness & affliction, is carefree, strong, & living in comfort, saying: 'King Pasenadi Kosala, lord, shows reverence with his head to your feet and asks whether you are free from illness & affliction, are carefree, strong, & living in comfort.' And then say: 'Lord, today King Pasenadi Kosala will come to see the Blessed One after his morning meal.'"

And also in SN22.87:

“Well then, friends, pay homage to the Blessed One in my name with your head at his feet and say: ‘Venerable sir, the bhikkhu Vakkali is sick, afflicted, gravely ill; he pays homage to the Blessed One with his head at his feet.’

Part of the Sekhiya rules of the vinaya on a bhikkhu teaching the dhamma:

When his listener is not ill, a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma if the listener:

  • has an umbrella, staff, knife, weapon in his/her hand.
  • is wearing shoes, boots or sandals.
  • is sitting in a vehicle when the bhikkhu is in a lower vehicle or not in a vehicle at all.
  • is lying down when the bhikkhu is sitting or standing.
  • is sitting holding his/her knees.
  • is wearing a hat or a turban, or has covered his/her head with a scarf or shawl.
  • is sitting on a seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on the ground.
  • is sitting on a high seat while the bhikkhu is sitting on a lower seat.
  • is sitting while the bhikkhu is standing.
  • is walking ahead of the bhikkhu.
  • is walking on a path while the bhikkhu is walking beside the path. (Sk 57-72)

This theme is also found in Tibetan Buddhism, in the "A Brief Teaching on The Bodhisattva’s Garland of Jewels" with translation and commentary by Khenpo Sodargye Rinpoche. This text might apply to other Mahayana and Vajrayana schools too.

From this section:

Refrain from meaningless chatter,
And speak only true words at any time.
Whenever you see your guru or khenpo,
Offer to serve with devotion and respect.

Commentary:
In every moment, refrain from any talk that does not refer to the Buddha-dharma or spiritual practice. Never say anything that may cause others to slander the guru or the Three Jewels. Some people pay close attention to their own speech, and will carefully consider if what they are about to say is meaningful or meaningless, and if they find that it is meaningless, they will refrain from speaking at all. Others however, very much like talking and gossiping about other people’s faults. They do not even notice that they are doing it! This can bring a great deal of trouble both to themselves and to others. It would be better for this type of person to remain silent and avoid committing so many negative actions. Our speech should always be true speech, meaning that it is in accordance with the truth, is meaningful and brings no harm to ourselves or to others. Whenever we meet our root guru or khenpo, we must give rise to reverence and respect from the depths of our heart, and offer to serve them with respectful devotion. Some people might occasionally become caught up in anger or resentment towards their guru. This creates very severe negative karma and should be remedied with their utmost efforts at sincere confession and clarification. Some people do not know how to act when they see their guru or khenpo, and so will try to hide or run away. This is not right. What is appropriate is to just remain calm when seeing your guru, and, from the heart, offer to serve them with devotion and respect.

We also see this in the Manusmrti or Manu's Laws, a Hindu legal text, on respect to elders:

2.119. One must not sit down on a couch or seat which a superior occupies; and he who occupies a couch or seat shall rise to meet a (superior), and (afterwards) salute him.

2.120. For the vital airs of a young man mount upwards to leave his body when an elder approaches; but by rising to meet him and saluting he recovers them.

2.121. He who habitually salutes and constantly pays reverence to the aged obtains an increase of four (things), (viz.) length of life, knowledge, fame, (and) strength.

And this from the Manusmrti on reverence to the teacher / guru:

2.146. Of him who gives natural birth and him who gives (the knowledge of) the Veda, the giver of the Veda is the more venerable father; for the birth for the sake of the Veda (ensures) eternal (rewards) both in this (life) and after death.

2.147. Let him consider that (he received) a (mere animal) existence, when his parents begat him through mutual affection, and when he was born from the womb (of his mother).

2.148. But that birth which a teacher acquainted with the whole Veda, in accordance with the law, procures for him through the Savitri, is real, exempt from age and death.


OP: I'm not sure I understand "why", though. For example, a venerable is a friend -- or are they not? Is the behaviour (or mode of address) mere ritual? Is there said to be a benefit, some purpose, some effect: for society, for the individual's state of mind, or even for the venerable? I imagine one benefit may be orderliness in the classroom: giving the venerable an opportunity to speak; another might be somehow associated with "faith" (i.e. being willing to listen without yet knowing)

Argument 1: Korean Air Crashes

A theory on this is explored by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers, as summarized here:

As a closing point to consider the value of the wide use of formal speech in Korean, let me add a story regarding Korean Air discussed among others by Malcolm Gladwell in his book ``Outliers." Korean Air had in the 1990s become one of the world's most dangerous airlines, with so many crashes that it was eventually excluded from its airline alliance.

The management of Korean Air at that time brought in an American team of consultants to analyze the problem and recommend a solution. While the Korean management had suggested more mandatory hours of flight simulator training for all pilots, the Americans advised them to introduce English as the official on-board language and ban the use of any Korean communication from the cockpit. Korean Air went ahead with this solution and as a result the crashes ceased, the airline's reputation was restored and it became an alliance member again. The consultants had discovered that the reason for the numerous accidents was that co-pilots could not inform captains about mistakes or potentially dangerous situations, because they had to use the most formal style of speech when addressing the captain and this created a barrier, which made criticism almost impossible. Once they used English, this "artificial wall" was torn down and teamwork and cross-checks became easy.

According to this theory by Malcolm Gladwell, Korean co-pilots spoke in Korean with each other that had a formal style of speech when addressing the captain, and this created an artificial barrier of respect that prevented first officers from directly criticizing their captains.

They were politely making suggestions with hints to the captain, when they should be communicating directly, clearly and bluntly in the case of a flight scenario where timeliness is critical.

On the other hand, in English, they would address each other simply as "you" or "I" instead of using honorifics. This apparently broke down the artificial barrier of respect and contributed to a reduction in crashes.

I would argue the reverse.

The use of honorifics like "bhante" and "ayasma" would create the right context and climate of respect that makes it conducive for teaching and learning the Dhamma.

Argument 2: Courtroom Decorum

Another way to argue this is to use courtroom etiquette or courtroom decorum as explained by these guidelines:

  1. Be Respectful in Your Public Requests, Comments, and Dealings with the Court. Adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect for the authority of the court. Common phrases that are used when communicating with the judge include the following: "May it please the Court," used as the greeting at the outset of your opening statement and your opening argument; "With Your Honor's leave (or permission), I would like to, " used when seeking permission to do something; "As the court pleases," "Very well, Your Honor," and "So be it, Your Honor" - used when you are acceding (consenting) to an unobjectionable oral direction or order of the court. "As the Court well knows," used when you are getting ready to educate the judge about something s/he probably doesn't know. Don't interrupt the judge. Listen to what the judge says. The judge has considerable discretionary power that can be used to help you or hurt you, even in jury trials where s/he serves only as the referee. Something as nebulous as the judge's tone of voice in ruling on objections can influence the juror's perceptions of your credibility. In jury trials, treat the judge as though s/he was the foreperson of the jury. Every judge has quirks. In some locales, there are published Judge's Bench Books that describe the peculiarities, predilections, and requirements of each local judge. These may be useful reading if you are not personally familiar with the way a certain judge runs his or her court.

Similarly, we should adopt a formal approach that reflects courtesy and respect for the authority of the teacher.

What would happen if courtroom communication was informal and casual? The authority of the court and the judge would not be respected, and justice would not be served.

Similarly, we need to be formal in front of the Dhamma teacher to respect his authority.

This establishes the atmosphere conducive to learning and teaching the Dhamma.

Argument 3: Your child is not your friend

From a parenting website:

There are parents out there who are concerned about being their child’s friend. What is challenging is that if you are, first, a friend, then when the child is a preteen or teenager, the child will not need you as a friend. By then, he or she will have friends their own age to listen to. As teens, they need you as a parent, but they are not going to tell you that. When you become their friend first, parenting becomes difficult to establish. The child may not see you as an authority figure, and when you try to establish authority, the child will most likely question you even more. That’s not what you want.

When you are a friend first, it sends a message that you want your child to like you, to share with you, and to help you feel connected. If that’s the case, that puts a lot more pressure on the child. It is not your child’s job to help you feel good about yourself. If that is why you are your child’s friend, rather than being his/her parent, then you may need to get some counseling for yourself. You and your spouse (if married) will need to focus on a healthy relationship so the lines of parenting and friendship, even with your child, can be reassessed and altered, if need be.

If parents become friends first with their child, their child would not respect the authority of the parent.

It is the same with the Dhamma teacher.

Hence formal communication is needed to establish authority.

  • What about speaking without having got leave? Something very importand and very ignored today and maybe worthy to add in the lists. – Samana Johann Feb 14 '18 at 12:42
  • Speaking to elders without permission? – ruben2020 Feb 14 '18 at 12:48
  • 1
    Speaking even if elders or "respect worthy persons" are next without have asked or (if proper) taken leave, or to talk like under homies or stressed managers, no time for polite adressing, or thinking "i am wise" and "at least i have the right" to express my mind, yes, Nyom Ruben. – Samana Johann Feb 14 '18 at 13:02
  • That's an interesting analogy at the end -- there's a similar principle, in operating theatres: i.e. you want anyone (including even relatively low-status participants) to be able to question or to point out an omission if they notice one. And I don't want to say that using honorifics is wrong, at all; but can you explain why would you want to argue the reverse? – ChrisW Feb 14 '18 at 14:28
  • 1
    @ChrisW I've added a third argument - "your child is not your friend" – ruben2020 Feb 14 '18 at 16:01
3

Buddha-Dhamma is not about deceit & political correctness but is about acting according to reality with honesty. Therefore, when a teacher, be it a monk or lay teacher, provides knowledge, compassion, help & assistance in a virtuous manner, it is appropriate & proper to address that person as 'Venerable Sir' or 'Lady' (rather than merely as "Friend").

But if a monk is undeveloped in body, speech & mind and rotten to the core, it is not required to address that monk (falsely) as 'Venerable Sir' because this would be False Speech. The Dhammapada says:

307. There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because of their evil deeds.

308. It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the people.

Also, when a monk does not understand the True Dhamma & continuously negates the True Dhamma spoken by a lay Sotapanna, Once-Returner & Non-Returner, it is difficult to regard this monk as a 'Venerable Sir' or to use the term 'Bhante' ('Lord').

There are stories in Buddhism about lay Non-Returners honoring less enlightened monks but in the time of the Buddha generally all proper monks all accorded with what the Buddha taught. But today, there are so many different schools & sects.

If a monk is visibly virtuous, to address the monk as 'Venerable Sir' merely on the basis of his Virtue is appropriate.

But a person wearing the orange robes but uncontrolled in speech & unlearned in the True Dhamma cannot be addressed 'Venerable Sir' because this would be Lying. The Dhammapada says:

307. There are many evil characters and uncontrolled men wearing the saffron robe. These wicked men will be born in states of woe because of their evil deeds.

308. It would be better to swallow a red-hot iron ball, blazing like fire, than as an immoral and uncontrolled monk to eat the alms of the people.

-1

Why should one not address a venerable as friend?

Because he/she is an enemy (at least as such perceived), or because one prevers giving what is proper and can be given, maybe...? It would not be of benefit to give without confidence and joy, that what is good for all and praised by the wise.

For long time benefit and aimed even beyound, some inspirations:

If somebody desiring sharing merits by a more extended answer here and seeking sources to be able, Opening the Door to the Dhamma, also Mv I 15: Upajjhāyavattakathā — The Discussion of Duties Toward a Preceptor/teacher and a collection "Respect and Veneration", might be good "starter".

...Paying Respect or Veneration (also regard, obeisance, high esteem, honour, admiration) (pi apacāyana, apa + cāy root pūja = abound, scarify; verb apaciti; gārava) , is the fourth of the traditional listed ten skilful/meritorious deeds (pi puññakiriya-vatthus), a practice which would be maintained beginning in childhood within families and societies in Buddhist environments. Within the three major kinds meritorious deeds (dāna, sīla, bhāvana) it counts to the virtue group as an aspect of sila. More known accesses, which will be maybe not suddenly regarded as aspects of respect, is the Refuge into the Three Jewels, honour and respect as the access point into the Dhamma and one of the Four Sublime Attributes (brahma vihara), Mudita, often translated as sympathy joy or appreciation. Mudita means joy and appreciation, and with it respect, in regard of one own goodness that one has developed and that of others...more in Detail

If having further an detail question or seeking for an intensive discussion to work thinks good out, one might feel always given to do so here (careholders here don't like such to happen here, sometimes but not always).

Always happy, since people at large often give statistics more value then discerning observations, inwardly and outwardly, this topic here "Lessons from Sardinia: respect towards elders leads to a significantly longer life", in a usuall opposing proper discerment enviroment, might give some source of thoughts in regard of "one gets what one gives" and why "conservative" (good tradition preserving) societies are more garants for harmonious and long live while usually pseudo liberalism, postmodern and commonist tendencies are merely the enviroments of short live and joyless vegetating.

Abhivādanasīlissa, niccaṃ vuḍḍhāpacāyino; Cattāro dhammā vaḍḍhanti, āyu vaṇṇo sukhaṃ balaṃ.

For one of respectful and virtuous nature who continuously honours those who are older and more virtuous, four benefits, viz., longevity, beauty, happiness and strength, will increase.

dhp 109 incl. Comm. Story

...and of course vizi-versa, one becomes weak, ugly, thin and founds one self lost in a hot wide desert.

"There is the case where a woman or man is obstinate & arrogant. He/she does not pay homage to those who deserve homage, rise up for those for whom one should rise up, give a seat to those to whom one should give a seat, make way for those for whom one should make way, worship those who should be worshipped, respect those who should be respected, revere those who should be revered, or honor those who should be honored. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is low-born wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a low birth: to be obstinate & arrogant, not to pay homage to those who deserve homage, nor rise up for... nor give a seat to... nor make way for... nor worship... nor respect... nor revere... nor honor those who should be honored.

The Shorter Analysis of Action

So really good to think much about the starter for a good walk-about: "What is worthy to go after and fall for it?", and how to not forget and fall into self-centeredness., get stuck.

May all beings have always proper and never to less Respect, Confidence and Patient, and even it may sound contradict, starting with goodwill to be able, with one self, since someone not estimating ones own merits, does not know the cause of pleasure, how could he/she ever find any real refuge and follow it?

Addition because it could work to make the way of approach for a fruitful relay-tion-ship reasonable more understandable.

What kind of guided person in a relation do you like to be? (Drawn from nun Uppalavanas translation of AN 7.13, seven kinds of wives)

Sujatha these are the seven wives to a man. Of them what are you, or like to be?

Venerable sir, from today remember me as a slave wife to my husband.

While Sujatha, and others, even if worse, could trace practice and good ways within her sociaty and being reminded, it's probably total impossible for a modern, western person, having grown up in a communist, socialisitic, postmodern society to ever get a needed enviroment given that they seek for advices in even more "brotherly" Kolkhoz (resource another), under other slaves with no liberality or usuals to walk after liberation.

So if really wishing to get it understood and become capable to adopt and practice good conduct, like always, starts with association with wise and avoiding the fools like poision, or to best train to possible gain existence in a area where basic right view is still something practiced amoung many, become blessed.

For even, as my person heard, recommended and as good estimated branches of monks even wish their lay people not to use proper addressing - "don't do so, we are all equal here in search" - and prefer that what they are used to, by birth, not having chanced, the lighter bearable "homie-hood" to ensure their gain, growth and existence.

Let my person share a simile for encouragement to put all effort into seek for real refuge, inwardly and outwardly and to learn to become a devotional person not to Mara, not to Death, as usual in the world, amoung "friends", in a dusty on-house-holding (e.g. senses) life:

The King of Death

We live like a chicken who doesn't know what's going on. In the morning it takes its baby chicks out to scratch for food. In the evening, it goes back to sleep in the coop. The next morning it goes out to look for food again. Its owner scatters rice for it to eat every day, but it doesn't know why its owner is feeding it. The chicken and its owner are thinking in very different ways.

The owner is thinking, "How much does the chicken weigh?" The chicken, though, is engrossed in the food. When the owner picks it up to heft its weight, it thinks the owner is showing affection.

We too don't know what's going on: where we come from, how many more years we'll live, where we'll go, who will take us there. We don't know this at all.

The King of Death is like the owner of the chicken. "We" don't know when he'll catch up with us, for "we're" engrossed — engrossed in sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, and ideas. "We" have no sense that "we're" growing older. "We" have no sense of enough.

And possible end up in not having found real refuge again but just a more "comfortable" better more tricky chicken raising farm, with all good for health and grow and good managed, where "non" even able to harm the other.

enter image description here

"Under friends"

Vandāmi is a usual, even often just a ritual, practice under devoted lay followers, a homage, asking for pardon and asking for the share of the juwels merits (e.g. father, teacher, Sangha, Dhamma, Buddha) and as it is pointed out in the Vinaya, to confess faults amoung those of equal, is of no use, would not help and support a better, neither for the individual nor for the paticular community (which can possible not helped).

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial use or other low trades and just exchange for the world.]

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.