גלות רוחנית : spiritual exile

Steve Hind sent around a question about ”good friendship“ in Buddhism. As I touched it in my MA dissertation I thought to put the fuller answer here.Question:

There seems to be some debate within Western Buddhist circles about a quote (or misquote?) from the Pali canon

Ananda says to the Buddha …

‘The half of the holy life, Lord is the friendship (Sanskrit: Kalyanamitra?) with what is lovely, intimacy with what is lovely’ (Sanskrit: sobhana)

The Buddha replies:

“Say it not so, Ananda. Say it not so, Ananda! It’s the whole, not the half of the holy life.’

I have over the years come across several versions of this quoted in Western Buddhism to demonstrate various points and I wondered what the Pali scholars can tell us?

Many thanks
Steve Hinde
Bristol

Answer:
Kalyāṇamitta is a compound that breaks up to kalyāṇa (good) and mitta (friend). ‘Good friend’ is understood by both modern academic scholars as well as the Buddhist teachers within the tradition as spiritual teacher. Though technically it may be translated as being ”friend with the good“, it is widely accepted that this is the least likely interpretation. Having a good friend, means being in touch with some kind of a spiritual guide, a senior monk or just good social (spiritual) influence.

This, I think is the original meaning of the term, though the traditional interpretation has limited the meaning to be simply a meditation teacher.

Harvey explains that ”a new monk’s guiding senior is his particular “good friend”. The best of “good friends” are those who are gifted meditation teachers.“ (Harvey, 2000: 96). Katz (1982: 190) states that ‘the kalyāṇamitta is the Buddhist guru’ and Prebish (2003: 28), following him, writes: ‘It is the kalyāṇamitta who functions as a spiritual guide of the Buddhist practitioner’. The ‘good friend’, according to them, is a technical term that does not mean a friend in the common modern sense but indicates a specific function within the Buddhist religious education system.

This view seems to be shared with some thinkers within the Theravāda tradition. Buddhahāsa Bhikkhu, a twentieth century teacher in the Thai Forest Tradition, uses kalyāṇamitta as a synonym for spiritual teacher when explaining the role of the Buddhist teacher to meditation students who retreat at his monastery (Buddhadāsa, 1996: 45). In the same manner Bhikkhu Bodhi writes that good friendship ‘means in effect seeking out wise companions to whom one can look for guidance and instruction’ (Bodhi, 1994)

It is almost tempting to state, as Katz does, that ‘good friend’ and ‘teacher’ are actually synonymous (Katz, 1982: 189). This, I think, is to stretch the boundaries of interpretation too far, and in this particular instance it is also based on wrong reading. Katz writes that ‘in the Dīghanikāya Aṭṭhakathā we find “kalyāṇamitta” and seṭṭha (“teacher”) given as synonyms’ (ibid) but his reading seems to be wrong. To cite his reference in full: ‘kalyāṇoti kalyāṇaguṇasamannāgato seṭṭhoti vuttaṃ hoti’ (Sv I 146). Firstly, the commentator does not explain kalyāṇamitta but kalyāṇa which basically means ‘good’. Secondly, Katz reads satthā, ‘teacher’ when the actual word is seṭṭha which means ‘excellent’. Therefore, the commentator says: ‘“good”––endowed with virtue (or goodness, or excellence) and with good quality; that is to say: he is excellent. (Sv I 146)’. This has nothing to do with either friends or teachers.
Back to the question.

Reading ”The half of the holy life, Lord is the friendship (Sanskrit: Kalyanamitra?) with what is lovely, intimacy with what is lovely’ (Sanskrit: sobhana)“ is probably based on a paragraph from the Samyutta Nikāya, however the translation is erroneous. It is based on this three-fold phrase kalyāṇamitta kalyāṇasahāya kalyāṇasampavaṅka (k-m; k-sah; k-sam) which means ‘one who has a good friend, one who has good companions, one who inclines to good [company]’ (Collins,1987: 64). As I said, translating kalyāṇamitta ”as friendship with what is lovely“ is the less probable translation. It actually means ”having a friend who is good“.
The reference to Ānanda is from S I 88 in which the Buddha refers directly to himself as kalyāṇamitta in the sense that was mentioned above––being someone to rely upon, someone who assists on the path to awakening.
Here is Bhikkhu Bodhi’s translation:

By the following method too, Ānanda, it may be understood how the entire holy life is good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship (kalyāṇamittatā kalyāṇasahāyatā kalyāṇasampavaṅkatā): relying upon me as a good friend (kalyāṇamittaṃ), Ānanda, beings subject to birth are freed from birth; beings subject to aging are freed from aging; beings subject to illness are freed from illness; beings subject to death are freed from death… by this method, Ānanda, it may be understood how the entire holy life is good friendship, good companionship, good comradeship. (S I 88; trans. Bodhi, 2000)

Ānanda is mistaken to think that half of a spiritual life is good friendship. Having a good friend, says the Buddha, is the entire spiritual life. ‘Good friend’ here is the Buddha, who is definitely the spiritual guide par excellence.

A comment on the commentaries:
The view that kalyāṇamitta is a teacher, and specifically a meditation teacher, goes back to the fifth century commentator Buddhaghosa. According to him the ‘good friend’ is the Buddha himself or someone who teaches the same dhamma. By training under such a person one grows in faith, virtue, learning, generosity and understanding (Vism I.49). In the third part of the Vism, which is devoted to the practice of meditation, kalyāṇamitta is attributed more specifically to one who gives mediation subjects (Vism III,62ff). Buddhaghosa quotes S I 88––in which the Buddha talks about himself as kalyāṇamitta––and explains the hierarchy of meditation teachers beginning with the Buddha and ending with one who is moral and knows only one collection of suttas (Vism III,64). Buddhaghosa clearly uses the term in a technical way, to mean a mediation teacher. Nevertheless Collins argues that ‘this late, very specific, and indeed not very frequent use of the idea of ‘good friend’ seems to have been rather over-emphasized in the secondary literature’ (Collins, 1987: 63).

Thank you Steve for Bringing up this question!