z:\ ambedkar\vol 011\vol11 06.indd MK SJ+YS 5 10 2013/YS 18 11 2013 433
THE BHIKKHU-THE BUDDHA’S CONCEPTION OF HIM
433
Quite different is the case of the Bhikkhu, mental and moral training is his life-blood.
A Brahmin is free to acquire unlimited amount of property for himself. A Bhikkhu on the other hand cannot.
This is no small difference. Property is the severest limitation upon the mental and moral independence of man both in respect of thought and action. It produces a conflict between the two. That is why the Brahmin is always opposed to change. For, to him a change means loss of power and loss of pelf.
A Bhikkhu having no property is mentally and morally free. In his case there are no personal interests which can stand in the way of honesty and integrity.
They are Brahmins. Nonetheless each Brahmin is an individual by himself. There is no religious organization to which he is subordinate. A Brahmin is a law unto himself. They are bound by common interests which are material.
A Bhikkhu on the other hand is always a member of the Sangh. It is inconceivable that there could be a Bhikkhu without his being a member of the Sangh. A Bhikkhu is not a law unto himself. He is subordinate to the Sangh. The Sangh is a spiritual organization.
§ 4. The Bhikkhu and the Upasaka
In the Dhamma there is a marked distinction between the Dhamma of the Bhikku and the Dhamma of the Upasaka or the layman.
The Bhikkhu is bound to celibacy. Not so the Upasaka. He can marry.
The Bhikkhu can have no home. He can have no family. Not so the Upasaka. The Upasaka can have a home and can have a family.
The Bhikkhu is not to have any property. But an Upasaka can have property.
The Bhikkhu is forbidden from taking life. Not so the Upasaka. He may.
V