About Anattalakkhanasutta

Yes. It also fits in with “there is no ESSENCE” in any of the pancakkhadha.

P.S. By the way, this use of the word “mendicant” for a bhikkhu is very bad. Mendicant means a “begger”. That is an insult to a bhikkhu. I do not understand why they cannot use the word “bhikkhu”. There is no need to translate each and every Pali word.
– As I have explained many times, some key Pali words cannot be should not be translated as a single English word: anicca, anatta, vinnana, sankhara, etc, etc.

So, Tien has made the meaning of the sutta clear by just replacing the English translations by the original Pali words (anatta, atta), in case someone does not notice.
– For comparison, just go that link and see the English translation. Then you can see the difference.

Ironically, the person who is using this word mendicant at Sutta Central is himself a bhikkhu.

That is a great English translation of this sutta.

This is the first time I’m come across that translation. It makes anatta that much more clear!

Tien wrote:
“Because you are not in control, you cannot just compel rupa (or any of the pancakkandha) to your own satisfaction.

With the true sense of atta/anatta as ‘in your control’/’out of your control’. You can read the whole sutta and do bhavana on it, will definitely yield great result.”

Yes this has helped a lot. Personally for me, even before doing any bhavana on it, just from seeing it as in control/not in control of rupa gave me a great mental boost.

Tien, thank you so much for highlighting and sharing this sutta!! It deserves emphasis like this.

Hi all,

What is the Pali breakdown of the word “bhikkhu”?

The translation of “bhikkhu” as “mendicant” or “beggar” is rampant in many sources; the same thing happens with the translation of many other Pali terms.

I felt very lucky to have come to puredhamma.net, where I can learn the correct explanation about concepts behind many Pali terms. Not only that, Lal breaks the Pali terms into components, and that makes it easier to remember their explanation; of particular help is the list of words made out of “san”.

Sadhu!
Lang

Yes. Lang is quite correct.
The translation of “bhikkhu” as “mendicant” or “beggar” is very bad. Mendicant also means “beggar”.

It is quite inappropriate to call a bhikkhu a “beggar”. It is those bhikkhus who assure the continuation of the Buddha Sasana. We need to hold bhikkhus in high regard.
– I am surprised that most of those bad translations are used by bhikkhus themselves!

I think the word “bhikkhu” comes from “bhava” + “khaya”. It could also be “bhaya” + “khaya”.
– “Bhaya” means “danger” or “afraid”. “Khaya” is to remove.
– Thus is bhikkhu is one who is striving to remove “bhava” (that gives rise to jati) is one who is striving to attain Nibbana (end the rebirth process filled with suffering).
– In the same way, one who is working to remove the sansaric bhaya or the danger associated with the rebirth process could be “bhikkhu”.

Excellent, Lal.

Even ‘warrior’ is by far much better than beggar or mendicant, since the bhikkhu is truly fighting a war,an inner one, and the greatest one of all. But of course for bhikkhus to be referred to as simply ‘warriors’ ………!

Awesome. “bhava” + “khaya” make great sense. Thank you!

This reminds me of other “bh” words you have explained elsewhere, such as:

buddha = bhava + uddha
bhauddhayā = bhava + uddha + yā

We would not have known on our own that “bhava” was embedded in these words. In fact, for a very long time I really wanted to know what “buddha” really meant, and English translation such as “the enlightened one” or “the awakened one” did not make a strong impression. Knowing “bhava + uddha” makes the meaning clear from the word itself.

It does seem, however, that bhikkhu and bhauddhayā mean the same thing: one who strives to stop bhava; but bhikkhu is someone who has left home, and bhauddhayā is a householder, correct?

“It does seem, however, that bhikkhu and bhauddhayā mean the same thing: one who strives to stop bhava; but bhikkhu is someone who has left home, and bhauddhayā is a householder, correct?”

Yes. That is correct.

Another related word is “sangha”: “san” + “gha” where “gha” also means to remove. Thus “sangha” is someone who has started removing “san”, i.e., one who is Sotapanna Anugami or above (attha purisa puggala).
– Thus a bhikkhu is not necessarily included in “Sangha”. A bhauddhayā could be included in Sangha if he/she is an attha purisa puggala.
– However, these days, “Sangha” is being used just for bhikkhus. That is not quite correct.

Terrific, so

Sangha = “san” + “gha” ⊃ bhikkhū / ni and bhauddhayā who are attha purisa puggala

… and that’s why we take refuge in Sangha in the Triple Gem? A person who is removing san is a reliable source of refuge, not someone who is accumulating san just like we are.

Another thought, just out of curiosity:

Can devā and brahmā who are attha purisa puggala be included in Sangha?