Saṃyutta Nikāya · Discourse 7.20

An Almsman

Bhikkhakasutta

Setting
At Sāvatthī
Speakers
A brahmin almsman (bhikkhaka) and the Buddha
Form
A leveling comparison, answered by a precise redefinition built on shared vocabulary
Length
~2 minutes to read
Northern parallel
A rough counterpart may exist in the Chinese Saṃyukta-āgama (T99), though this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★★★☆☆ — compact, hinging on the relationship between two closely related Pali words

Why this discourse

This brahmin's observation sounds almost unanswerable: he begs for alms, the Buddha begs for alms, so what exactly separates them? The question exploits a real linguistic overlap — bhikkhaka, an ordinary beggar, and bhikkhu, the word for a Buddhist mendicant, share the same root. Rather than disputing the shared vocabulary, the Buddha accepts it and draws the real distinction elsewhere entirely: the act of begging itself doesn't make anyone a ‘mendicant’ in the fuller sense the word can carry; only someone who has gone beyond both merit and evil, wandering the world with full understanding, earns that deeper title.

Reading guide

A comparison that sounds like a genuine equivalence

The brahmin isn't being hostile or clever for its own sake; his observation — that both he and the Buddha beg for food — is simply, literally true, making the question feel less like a challenge than an honest puzzle.

A shared word doing double duty

Bhikkhaka and bhikkhu are closely related terms sharing the same root, one naming an ordinary beggar and the other the specific word for a Buddhist mendicant; the brahmin's question implicitly asks why one deserves a more elevated meaning than the other.

The overlap accepted, not denied

The Buddha doesn't dispute that both of them beg, or claim some technical exemption from the shared vocabulary; he grants the surface-level similarity fully before locating the real distinction somewhere else entirely.

Domestic entanglement named as a disqualifying condition

The verse specifies that someone who has ‘undertaken domestic duties’ hasn't yet become a mendicant in the fuller sense, regardless of whether they also happen to beg — the disqualifying factor isn't the food source but the underlying way of life.

Two conditions given for the deeper meaning of the word

The verse's positive definition names two things together, not one: having banished both merit and evil, and wandering the world having fully appraised it — a completed transcendence of the moral duality that ordinary alms-seeking, however honest, doesn't by itself require.

Key terms

ahampi kho bhikkhako, bhavampi bhikkhako — “both you and I are almsmen” — the brahmin's leveling comparison, prompting the entire discourse.
na tena bhikkhako hoti, yāvatā bhikkhate pare — “you don't become an almsman just by begging alms from others” — the Buddha's opening denial of the naive equivalence.
vissaṁ dhammaṁ samādāya — “one who has undertaken domestic duties” — naming what disqualifies mere alms-seeking from counting as true mendicancy.
puññañca pāpañca…bāhitvā — “having banished both merit and evil” — the first of two positive conditions for the deeper meaning of ‘mendicant.’
saṅkhāya loke carati — “wanders having appraised the world” — the second condition, completing the true definition.

The text

The discourse in full. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

§1At Sāvatthī. Then a brahmin almsman went up to the Buddha, and exchanged greetings with him. When the greetings and polite conversation were over, he sat down to one side and said to the Buddha, “Worthy Gotama, both you and I are almsmen. What, then, is the difference between us?”

§2“You don’t become an almsman just by begging alms from others. One who has undertaken domestic duties has not yet become a mendicant.

§3But one living a spiritual life who has banished both merit and evil, and wanders having appraised the world, is said to be a mendicant.”

§4When he had spoken, the brahmin almsman said to the Buddha, “Excellent, worthy Gotama! Excellent! … From this day forth, may the worthy Gotama remember me as a lay follower who has gone for refuge for life.”

· · ·

Self-check quiz

Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.

Question 1 of 10
What observation does the brahmin make to the Buddha?
Correct: A. A literally true observation, feeling more like an honest puzzle than a challenge.
Question 2 of 10
What linguistic relationship does this question exploit?
Correct: A. Two closely related Pali terms doing different work in this exchange.
Question 3 of 10
How does the Buddha respond to the brahmin's comparison?
Correct: A. Granting the overlap fully rather than disputing it.
Question 4 of 10
What does the verse say disqualifies someone from being a true mendicant, regardless of begging?
Correct: A. The disqualifying factor is the underlying way of life, not the food source.
Question 5 of 10
What two conditions does the verse give for the deeper meaning of "mendicant"?
Correct: A. A completed transcendence of moral duality, not merely honest begging.
Question 6 of 10
Does the Buddha deny that he himself begs for alms?
Correct: A. The overlap is accepted, not denied, before the real distinction is drawn.
Question 7 of 10
How does this discourse's wordplay compare to SN 7.17's?
Correct: A. A pattern of etymological teaching recurring across this vagga.
Question 8 of 10
What does "puññañca pāpañca bāhitvā" mean?
Correct: A. A transcendence of the moral duality itself, not simply avoiding wrongdoing.
Question 9 of 10
How does the brahmin respond after hearing the Buddha's answer?
Correct: A. Continuing this vagga's established pattern of lay conversion.
Question 10 of 10
Where does this discourse take place?
Correct: A. The same city as SN 7.19 and several other discourses in this vagga.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0