|WikiProject Buddhism||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Bhikshu redirect .. is this Sanskrit or what? Needs clarification. I've got 1001 windows open right now so wont look it up myself, but someone could use an online dictionary to do so quite simply. --prat 23:40, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)
So far as I know it was a Pali word. It's in my Pali dictionary.
"Bhikshu" is a Sanskrit term, while in Pali it is written "Bhikkhu". Dhammamedhi 22:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Picture of a novice???
So the picture of the Tibetans debating seems to be of two novices, ie not bhikkhus. Also, as noted above, a Tibetan monk is a bhikhsu as opposed to a Theravada monk being a bhikkhu. Obhaso 06:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Vows in Vajrayana
I think the section Vows in Vajrayana can be a article in itself, which is linked to from this article.Greetings, Sacca 01:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Needs lots of reworking
This article is way too short and too specific to the Tibetan tradition. It should include the terminology from all major Buddhist countries and more details on geographic differences. I'll try to do this in a month or two if no one else has, I'm just too busy until then.
I second this. Bhikkhu is the title used in Theravada buddhism, and yet the article is mostly on Tibetan buddhism. Moreover, it is entirely unclear what elements are specific to Tibetan buddhism, and what elements hold for Buddhism in general. The article should either cover all traditions, or focus on Theravada (and be clear about that), which is the tradition that gave birth to this term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this article needs to represent a worldwide view encompassing all major sects, without focusing too much on only one. Rucha58 23:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I fourth this. In Theravada a Bhikkhu does not even take vows, he undertakes the 227 training rules. Furthermore he does not take these rules for life, but may disrobe at any point and time if should so choose. Therefore "vows" is perhaps a redundant term for a Bhikkhu. In the Vajrayana tradition it may be different but we need to be clear that Vajrayana never uses the pali terminology of a Monk. Perhaps an article for each tradition would be most appropriate as there is a lot of variance of lifestyle between Theravada/Mahayana/Vajrayana, due in part to the fact that Theravada and Mahayana attend to different Vinaya codes of conduct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Sanskrit-as sacred should not be in use as first choice,rather in closed-source only- Y/N/(otherwise) 18.104.22.168 (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There's some minor vandalism on the page, but I don't know how to revert it. If someone could please fix it it would be appreciated. Thanks. --22.214.171.124 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
picture of Sri Lankan monk
The article for bonze directs the reader here, and some articles pipelink bonze to this article, yet nowhere does this article use the word bonze. Could somebody add this word and discuss how it differs from bhikkhu please? — Hippietrail (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- So added. Don't have great references for the changing utilization of the word- I know that in works from the 60's I still see bonze used for monks in Vietnam, but it's become less and less common since. --Clay Collier (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
The introduction states that monks aim to attain Nirvana. I'm not too familiar in this area, but isn't it that Nirvana (or Nibbana, which might be more appropriate for an article focusing on a Theravada word) is something to be realized, not so much attained? I'm afraid I don't know much about the semantics when it comes to Nirvana, but I seem to remember something along those lines. Rucha58 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC
- English-language works on Zen, I think, sometimes make an issue of there being a distinction between attaining vs. realizing nirvana. I don't see such a difference being maintained in works dealing with the Theravadin view- I've seen both usages. De Silva's essay on Nibbana also uses it interchangeably- he's the author of a popular book on learning Pali, so I would expect him to be familiar with the usage of the term in the Pali canon. I'm sure I've seen the "realization not attainment" bit in some Zen sources, but I'm not sure if that reflects a more general Mahayana view on the topic. --Clay Collier (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Monastics in Japan
The last part of the article states how Dengyo (AKA Saicho) changed the ordination process, or rather, the precepts. This is correct. However, he did not abolish celibacy, and I believe he continued to live as a Bhiksu. Nichiren, too, lived as a monk, by which I mean He remained celibate, didn't eat meat, and relied on alms.
I believe it was during the Meiji Restoration that Buddhist monks were permitted to marry, eat meat and so on in an effort to secularise them and bring Shinto back to power. The last passage on the article seems biased. Whoever wrote it has not fully research the issue, but is attempting to say that Shingon is correct, and Tendai is not. - Steve Milburn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Being a bhiksu basically requires formal ordination in a nikaya (in this case Dharmaguptaka). Tengu800 00:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Talapoy refers to Buddhist monks in
- Roberts, Edmund (Digitized October 12, 2007) [First published in 1837]. "Chapter XVI —Presents.". Embassy to the Eastern courts of Cochin-China, Siam, and Muscat : in the U. S. sloop-of-war Peacock ... during the years 1832-3-4. Harper & brothers. pp. 248ff. OCLC 12212199. Retrieved April 25, 2012. Check date values in:
- George Sale, George Psalmanazar, Archibald Bower, George Shelvocke, John Campbell, John Swinton, An universal history, Part 2, Volume 6, page 298, Kingdom of Siam.
- My 1960 Webster's doesn't have that spelling, but does have talapoin [Pg. talapães, pl. of talapão fr. Burmese tala poi our lord.] Indo-China. A Buddhist monk. --Pawyilee (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Should the title be changed to more gender-neutral, e.g., "Bhikkhu / bhikkhuni" (& consolidated)?
- Should the articles be combined? Should some mention be made here of the areas where expectations and treatment of bhikkhunis and bhikkus are the same and where it is different? If the position of bhikkhus has been or remains privileged in some ways above bhikkhuni by reason of gender, should that be mentioned here? If not here, where? Ocdnctx (talk) 02:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think that the articles should be combined.
- "Should some mention be made here of the areas where expectations and treatment of bhikkhunis and bhikkhus are the same and where it is different?" Yes, and this is already mentioned in the Bhikkhuni article, where this topic might be expanded. JimRenge (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)