[Now Bhikkhu Dhammavihari]

Jotiya Dhirasekera

Indebtedness of the author to the Ministry of Higher Education for the publication of this work is gratefully acknowledged.

BUDDHIST MONASTIC DISCIPLINE

Thesis submitted to the University of

Ceylon for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

First Edition

Printed in Sri Lanka in 1982 by M.D.Gunasena & Co. (Printers) Ltd., Colombo 12.

878-2 / 79

The Vinaya which is a part of the system of training for the Buddhist disciple is a subject of absorbing interest not only for the study of Buddhist monasticism but also for the study of Buddhism as a whole. This is particularly true of Theravada Buddhism where the practice of monastic life as a means of attaining the religious goal is held in great esteem. Dr. Robert H.Thouless has made a thoroughly accurate assessment of this position as early as 1940. He says : ' Perhaps the feature of Buddhism with which the modern Western mind finds it hardest to sympathize is its monastic character. The achievement of emancipation was regarded as a full-time occupation incompatible with the preoccupation of a man living in the world. It is true that householders might become disciples of the Buddha. These were required to abstain from taking life, drinking intoxicating liquors, lying, stealing, and unchastity, and also aim at pleasant speech, kindness, temperance, consideration for others, and love. By obeying these injunctions laymen might hope to advance so far that their future state would be a happier one. It is even suggested in one discourse that a householder might obtain full release, but it is clear that this was regarded as exceptional; the fruits of the Buddhist discipline could normally be achieved only by the monk who gave all his time to the task.'

Nevertheless, it is our belief that the subject has not received the attention it deserves. The present work attempts to assess the role of the monk in the religion which is the outcome of the teachings of the Buddha. There were monks in India, no doubt, even before the time of the Buddha. But the first sermon which the Buddha delivered to the ' Group of Five ' monks made the Buddhist monks appear somewhat different from the rest of their kind. His views about life in SaµsŒra and the escape therefrom, his aesthetic sensibility, and his regard for sound public opinion contributed to emphasise these differences. Thus in Buddhist monasticism the life of the cloister is not an end in itself. It marks only the beginning of the pursuit of the goal. It is a long way before the monk could claim to have reached that worthy ideal : anuppattasadattho. It has been our endeavour to show that Buddhist monastic discipline covers this vast and extensive field.

I wish to express my gratitude to my colleagues and friends who have been of assistance to me at various stages in the course of this work.

JOTIYA DHIRASEKERA

University Park, Peradeniya, Ceylon

1 October 1964

At this stage of publication the need for further comments on the subject matter of this thesis is not felt. It is to be reiterated, however, that any meaningful living of the monastic life in Buddhism has to accord with the spirit of both the Dhamma and the Vinaya.

JOTIYA DHIRASEKERA

Encyclopaedia of Buddhism

135, Dharmapala Mawatha

Colombo 7

5 November 1981

I now write this preface to the second edition of my BUDDHIST MONASTIC DISCIPLINE as a Buddhist monk of six years' standing, having renounced the life in the household on retirement at the age of sixty-seven. More than thirty-two years have passed since the production of this thesis and I still continue pursuing my studies on the Vinaya. I have seen and read several subsequent publications on the subject. This is neither the time nor the place to make any observations on them.

I wish to place my own findings and my observations on the subject before students of Buddhist monastic life in particular, and students of Buddhism in general, specially those who have missed seeing my work in the earlier edition and those who I believe are not adequately familiar with the original Vinaya texts in their Pali version.

I owe a special word of thanks to Bhikkhu Tiradhammo who in an early review of my work had kindly drawn attention two 'minor errors' of oversight. They now stand corrected on pp. 59 and 95.

Mention must also be made of Bhikkhu Pamburana Sanghasobhana who assisted me in the production of the manuscript for the printer. Finally my thanks go to Messrs. P.W. Dayananda and B.D.Jayasena who did the typing of the text.

I wish to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to Messrs. Motilal Banarsi Das & Co. for kindly agreeing to bring out this second edition of BUDDHIST MONASTIC DISCIPLINE.

BHIKKHU DHAMMAVIHARI

Buddhist Society of Victoria Inc.

71-73 Darling Road

East Malvern, Victoria 3145

Australia

5 November 1996

A. Aºguttara NikŒya

AA. Aºguttara NikŒya AÊÊhakathŒ, i.e. Manorathapèraö´

AAS. Ananda Asrama Series

Ap. ApadŒna

Brh. BrhadŒraöyaka Upanisad

ChŒnd. ChŒndogya Upanisad

Comy. Commentary

D. D´gha NikŒya

DA. D´gha NikŒya AÊÊhakathŒ, i.e. SumaºgalavilŒsin´

Dhp. Dhammapada

DhA. DhammapadaÊÊhakathŒ

DhsA. Dhammasaºgaö´ AÊÊhakathŒ, i.e. AtthasŒlin´

Gilgit MSS Gilgit Manuscripts

IHQ. Indian Historical Quarterly

Ind. Ant. Indian Antiquary

J. JŒtaka

KaÊha. KaÊha Upanisad

Kkvt. KaºkhŒvitaraö´, i.e. PŒtimokkha AÊÊhakathŒ

M. Majjhima NikŒya

MA. Majjhima NikŒya AÊÊhakathŒ, i.e. Papa–casèdan´

MŒö¶. MŒö¶èkya Upanisad

Manu. Manusmriti

Miln. Milinapa–ha

Muö¶. Muö¶aka Upanisad

Prasna. Prasna Upanisad

PTS. Pali Text Society

Pts. PaÊisambhidŒmagga

S. Samyutta NikŒya

SA. Samyutta NikŒya AÊÊhakathŒ i.e. SŒratthappakŒsin´

SBB. Sacred Books of the Buddhists

SBE. Sacred Books of the East

Sn. SuttanipŒta

SnA. SuttanipŒta AÊÊhakathŒ

Taisho Taisho Issaikyo

Tait. Taittir´ya Upanisad

Thag. TheragŒthŒ

Thig. Ther´gŒthŒ

Ud. UdŒna

UdA. UdŒna AÊÊhakathŒ, i.e. Paramatthad´pan´

Vibh. Vibhaºga

Vimt. Vimativinodan´Vinaya T´kŒ

Vin. Vinaya PiÊaka

VinA. Vinaya AÊÊhakathŒ, i.e. SamantapŒsŒdikŒ

Vinvi. Vinayavinicchaya

Vism. Visuddhimagga

CHAPTER I

We have attempted in the present study to analyse and examine such lapses wherever possible. It is our conviction that, barring the paucity of source material at a particular time, the following considerations contributed in some way or other to the origin and perpetuation of several erroneous theories:

(i) An unnecessary attempt to force into one single geneological tree many institutions of diverse origin. This is particularly true in the case of some scholars who begin their study of Indian religions from the Vedic schools and trace it down chronologically through the centuries. Here is Monier Williams attempting to see Buddhism in relation to Brahmanism : 'We perceive again the close connexion between Brahmanism and Buddhism ; for clearly the BrahmacŒr´ and SannyŒs´ of the one became the SrŒmaöera or junior monk, and Sramaöa or senior monk of the other.' But this is an unfortunate identification which is far from the truth. The Pali works keep the brahmacarya of the Brahmins distinctly apart from their own [brahmacariya ]. In the SuttanipŒta it is said that the orthodox Brahmins of old practised the life of brahmacariya for forty-eight years.

AÊÊhacattŒl´saµ vassŒni komŒrabrahmacariyaµ cariµsu te
vijjŒcaraöapariyeÊÊhiµ acaruµ brŒhmaöŒ pure. Sn. v. 289

The Aºguttara NikŒya too, expresses a similar idea. This distinction between the brahmacariya life of the Buddhist disciple and that of the Brahmins is clearly maintained by an independent observer in the person of King Pasenadi Kosala in the Dhammacetiya Sutta. [ IdhŒ ' haµ bhante passŒmi eke samaöabrŒhmaöe pariyantakataµ brahmacariyaµ carante dasa ' pi vassŒni v´satim ' pi vassŒni tiµsam ' pi vassŒni cattŒr´sam ' pi vassŒni. Te aparena samayena sunhŒtŒ.... pa–cahi kŒmaguöehi samaºg´bhètŒ paricŒrenti. M.II.120. ]

(ii) An inadequate knowledge of Pali, the language in which one of the most reliable recensions of Buddhist texts is preserved. Some of the pioneers very naturally stumbled over in many places in their translations, mainly through their ignorance of the peculiarities of idiom. Greater disaster befell Pali studies when later scholars who followed in their wake placed implicit faith on the earlier translations and built far-reaching theories on them. Avery glaring instance of this is found in S.Dutt's reliance on Chalmers' translation of the GopakamoggallŒna sutta. It is also possible to trace other instances of incorrect translations which result more from biassed thinking than from ignorance. Here are two such cases picked up at random :

Here, not only is this translation incorrect but the quotation itself is badly mutilated. The words vuddhi hi esΠshould be prefixed to the quotation. The translation should then read as follows :

(iii) An unwarranted disregard for the subsequent commentarial traditions which merit more serious consideration.

It should be made quite clear that we do not make a plea here on behalf of the Pali Commentaries that they should be used as the sole criteria in the interpretation of Canonical texts. Far from it. But our contention is that more often than not, when Commentaries have been subject to criticism and ridicule, they have been misjudged and misinterpreted. We come across instances when modern scholars accuse commentators of being ignorant of etymology. But it is obviously unreasonable to imagine that every commentarial explanation of a word either had to be or was thought by the commentators to be an etymological one. It would certainly amount to fighting wind-mills to mock a commentator at a definition like saµsŒre bhayaµ ikkhat´ ' ti bhikkhu. This is by no means born of ignorance of etymology. Commentarial tradition is equally conversant with the definition bhikkhat´ ' ti bhikkhu. And there are numerous other definitions of bhikkhu.

This commentarial trend is much more evident in the numerous definitions that have been successively added on to the word PŒtimokkha. All these go to prove the fact that the commentarial tradition which legitimately goes back to the early days of the SŒsana, as far back as the time of the Buddha, did acquire in its long history a wealth of information which is invaluable in the study and interpretation of Buddhist ideas and institutions. Such information reveals something dynamic in their evolution. The connotations of words and the values attached to them are seen changing in course of time.

(Page 3)

It would be interesting to study the various definitions of PŒtimokkha in the light of these observations. In the MahŒvagga, in what is called the Old Commentary by Rhys Davids and Oldenberg, we have perhaps what may be regarded as the oldest definition of PŒtimokkha: PŒtimokkhan ' ti Œdiµ etaµ mukhaµ etaµ pamukhaµ etaµ kusalŒnaµ dhammŒnaµ . One would search in vain here for an etymological definition. But one cannot ignore the light it throws on the scope and function of the PŒtimokkha in the early history of the SŒsana. It is said to be the beginning, the source of all good activities. We have shown elsewhere how the PŒtimokkha which began as a complement to s´la in early Buddhist monasticism soon came to be regarded as s´la par excellence. Thus we discover their identification in the Commentaries [ PŒtimokkhasaµvaro eva hi s´laµ - MA.I.155; SA.III. 230.]. The cultivation and acquisition of virtue (kusalŒ dhammŒ) was the main concern of the monastic life and soon the PŒtimokkha came to be the sole guide in Buddhist monasticism for the attainment of this ideal. Hence, even in the Canonical texts, sampannapŒtimokkha or the perfection in terms of the PŒtimokkha becomes a necessary adjunct of a s´lasaµpanna or one who is perfected in s´la.

We are well aware of the fact that the spiritual earnestness of early Buddhist monasticism soon receded into the background. In its place, the slower process of perfection through saµsŒric evolution, subject to birth in good and evil states (sugati and duggati), came to the fore and gained greater prominence. This tended, to a certain degree, even to secularise the monastic ideal. The reward for the religious life of the monk differed from that of the layman only in the matter of degree. They both shared a life of bliss in heaven, the monk excelling the layman with regard to his complexion, glory and life-span.

However, there is no doubt that this was viewed as a departure towards something inferior. In the Aºguttara NikŒya, the Buddha gives these same items of divine excellence as a cause for revulsion for those who seek the true fruits of recluseship [Sace vo bhikkhave a––atitthiyŒ paribbŒjakŒ evaµ puccheyyuµ devalokè ' papattiyŒ Œvuso samaöe gotame brahmacariyaµ vussat´ ' ti nanu tumhe bhikkhave evam puÊÊhŒ aÊÊiyeyyŒtha harŒyeyyŒtha jiguccheyyŒthŒ ' ti. Evam bhante - A.I.115. ].

Some did, in fact, rebel against it. Evidence of this, though with a different emphasis, is found in the Commentary to the story of the Samaöa Devaputta of the Saµyutta NikŒya who, due to no choice of his, found himself born in the heavenly world [So chŒyaµ disvŒ cutibhŒvaµ –atvŒ na mayŒ imaµ ÊhŒnaµ patthetvŒ samaöadhammo kato. Uttamatthaµ arahattaµ patthetvŒ kato ' ti sampattiyŒ vippaÊisŒr´ ahosi. SA.I. 86. ]. At this stage we are not surprised at the following definition of PŒtimokkha given by Buddhaghosa : Yaµ taµ atimokkhaµ atipamokkhaµ uttamas´laµ pŒti vŒ sugatibhayehi mokkheti duggatibhayehi yo vŒ naµ pŒti taµ mokkhet´ ' ti pŒtimokkhan ' ti vuccati.

Apart from the new emphasis which is laid on the scope of the PŒtimokkha, one thing stands out clearly in this definition of Buddhaghosa. Buddhaghosa is conscious of the paramount importance of the PŒtimokkha as a body of s´la : it is the atimokkhaµ atipamokkhaµ uttamas´laµ. Nevertheless,

(Page 4)

it is now valued more for its efficacy in warding off the possible dangers of sugati and duggati. It is the security of the life after that is now sought. Yet another thing strikes us here. Whatever may be the purpose for which the PŒtimokkha is used, the Commentator seems to be aware of the fact that the primary idea associated with the PŒtimokkha is that of freeing, liberating and saving. It is as though he knows that the verbal notion in the word PŒtimokkha is derived from the root /muc, giving such verb forms like muccati, mu–cati, moceti which have the idea of free, release or liberate.

In the present study of monastic discipline we use the word ' monastic' primarily in the sense of 'pertaining to or characteristic of monks, nuns, friars and the like.' Any reference to monasteries is made only secondarily in association with the former. As a prelude to such a study three things should be viewed clearly in order that the problems of Buddhist monastic discipline may be analysed in their proper context.

Extensive work has admittedly been done in all these fields of study. Very difinite ideas have been expressed on many problems connected with them. Nevertheless, we feel that there are numerous instances where modification and reconsideration of views already expressed is not only desirable but absolutely essential.

A great deal has been said about religious mendicancy in India before the advent of Buddhism. As early as 1889 Monier Williams said the following on the subject :

'Monasticism had always been a favourite adjunct of the Brahmanical system, and respect for monastic life had taken deep root among the people....Hindu monks, therefore, were numerous before Buddhism. They belonged to various sects, and took various vows of self- torture, of silence, of fasting, of poverty, of mendicancy, of celibacy, of abandoning caste, rank, wife and family. Accordingly they had various names..... Such names prove that asceticism was an ancient institution.'

These remarks of Monier Williams about pre-Buddhist mendicancy are also borne out by the evidence of the Pali texts. Oldenberg gives a very vivid account of the pre-Buddhist origin of Indian monasticism. Sukumar Dutt makes a very comprehensive study of the origin of §ramaöa in India in a chapter entitled ' The Primitive ParivrŒjaka - A Theory Of Their Origin'. He has refreshingly new and interesting views to express regarding their origin. It would be out of place in the present study to quote these authorities at length on the history of pre-Buddhist religious mendicants. Suffice it to say that all evidence points to the wide prevalence and respectful acceptance of religious mendicancy in ancient India prior to the birth of Buddhism, and that what was most noteworthy about it was the diversity rather than the homogeneity of its character.

On the origins of Buddhist monasticism much more markedly divergent theories have been put forward since the beginning of this century. One of the distinguished pioneers in the field of Buddhist studies, Professor Rhys Davids, expressed the following view about Buddhist monasticism at a date as early as 1886.

(Page 5)

'It was a logical conclusion from the views of life held by Gotama, that any rapid progress in spiritual life was only compatible with a retired life, in which all such contact with the world as would tend to create earthly excitement and desires should be reduced as much as possible; and accordingly, from the first he not only adopted such a mode of life for himself, but urged it on his more earnest disciples.'

In 1912 he was joined by his wife, Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys, in expressing the same view. In the unrevised editions of her Buddhism in the Home University Library series (pre-1934) she says the following about Buddhist monasticism :

'The monastic habit or practice of seclusion in the wild, common to Indian recluseship from time immemorial, and probably imported from India to Egypt and so to the newly Christianized Europe, was largely and systematically practised by Buddhists. It was both practised by the founder himself, and recommended to the followers, as the best opportunity for cultivating detachment, spiritual calm, and thoroughgoing meditation on any given subject prescribed by the recluse's superior.'

After a thorough analysis of the evidence of the Sutta and Vinaya PiÊakas we feel that this explanation of Buddhist monasticism is indisputably correct. The motive in renuciation as given here could not be any more near the truth.

But we lament the fact that, supported by her new discovery of ' the growing vogue of the cenobitic monk and his peculiar ideals ', Mrs. Rhys Davids abandoned her early ideas about Buddhist monasticism expressed earlier. In her Outlines of Buddhism published in 1934 she shows her new attitude to monasticism in Buddhism :

'I believe, that for the founder of Buddhism and their co-workers the business of the missioner was the main pre-occupation, and that, effectively to carry on this, it was necessary to give up the life 'of the world' as a tie which would nullify the worth in their work in religion. People would not have listened to the gospel taught by one who was sharing their life. He had to show that that gospel was the one thing in the world which mattered.'

This is a very strange motive which is ascribed here to the pabbajita. This is as it were to show that pabbajjΠand the life of brahmacariya have nothing in common. Mrs. Rhys Davids goes a step further. She undertakes the formidable task of simplifying, or oversimplifying we should say, the concept of brahmacariya in Buddhism. Of brahmacariya in Buddhism she says:

'It paraphrases Dharma as perfect conduct, in a word hitherto used for the life of a student under his teacher, resembling to some extent the life of a medieval youth in a collegiate cloister, but now applied to life as the ' many-folk ' might live if they chose to.'

But this popularised rendering of the meaning of brahmacariya when it comes to Buddhism, unlike in the CaturŒsrama Dharma, seems to be hardly justifiable except on the assumption that Buddhism, in its origin, was a religion for the ' many- folk '. In a chapter devoted entirely to this subject of brahmacariya, we show why we prefer to hold a different point of view on the evidence of the Pali texts (See Ch. III.). For the present we would place before the reader a very different evaluation of the life of pabbajjŒ and its relation to the practice of brahmacariya as given by Miss Horner:

(Page 6)

'For one of the points of entering Gotama's Order was to learn control of body, mind and speech. This, it was thought, was essential to spiritual progress, and was extremely hard to attain unless the shackles of the household life had been laid aside. Then man, as monk, could more readily attain perfection and its fruit (arahattaphala), the goal of brahmacariya, the good, divine, holy or Brahma-life.'

These remarks, whatever may be the interpretation of Brahma-life, savour truly of the contents of the early NikŒyas.

Monier Williams who completed his treatise on Buddhism in 1880 has made the following remarks on the origins of the Buddhist Saºgha :

'What ought rather to be claimed for him (Buddha) is that he was the first to establish a universal brotherhood (Saºgha) of coenobite monks, open to all persons of all ranks. In other words, he was the founder of what may be called a kind of universal monastic communism (for Buddhist monks never as a rule, lived alone), and the first to affirm that true enlightenment - the knowledge of the highest path leading to saintship - was not confined to the Brahmans, but open to all the members of all castes.'

He adds further :

'The peculiarity about Gotama's teaching in regard to monachism was that he discouraged solitary asceticism, severe austerities, and irrevocable vows, though he enjoined moral restraint in celibate fraternities, conformity to rules of discipline, upright conduct, and confession to each other.'

These obssevations of Monier Williams both with regard to the origins of Buddhist monasticism and the pattern of the consequent organization, we would regard as being commendably thorough and accurate. However, there is one single point on which we wolud like to seek futher clarification. He says that Buddhist monks never, as a rule, lived alone. It is difficult for us to determine the evidence on which he arrived at this conclusion. Judging by his evident familiarity with the Vinaya texts, we wonder whether it is the apparent compulsory residence under a teacher for a prescribed period of time which is in the tradition of the Vinaya which led him to this remark. But we should observe here that the Vinaya itself gives many exceptions to this general practice. At the same time, forest-dwelling, solitary monks were as much a feature of early Buddhism as the resident, urban monks who lived in communities. This is the burden of the KhaggavisŒöa Sutta of the SuttanipŒta. This aspect of Buddhist monastic life is discussed at greater length elsewhere (See Chs. VII & XII.).

(Page 7)

Life in the community and life in seclusion were undoubtedly in existence side by side even during the earliest phase of the SŒsana. But to affirm this is not to lose sight of the fact that both monasteries and community life in them grew in stature in the centuries that followed the establishment of the SŒsana.

" These are the grandiloquent words which have come down to us. It is more likely that Gotama said something like ' Go out now to the villages near by, and as there are so few of you, no two of you should go by the same way. Speak of the new ideas that I have just been telling you about to any one who will listen'."

Having postulated that the Buddhist Bhikkhus formed a sect of the Indian ParivrŒjaka community, Dutt associates, ipso facto, an exclusive eremetical ideal with the early Buddhist Bhikkhus. But he seems to run into a number of references in the Canonical Pali texts which differentiate the Bhikkhus from ParivrŒjakas. As these obviously are contrary to his supposition he chooses to regard them as being of later orgin. It is difficult to detect the criteria which Dutt uses in underrating the evidence of some portions of the Pali texts as being unhistorical. The GopakamoggallŒna Sutta of the Majjhima NikŒya clearly does not support his theory of the early Buddhist eremetical ideal. He thinks this Sutta is unhistorical in its narrative contents.

The solitary, retiring type of Bhikkhu who loved a life of peace and quiet and who for that purpose even penetrated into the forest depths was by no means the exclusive pattern of early Buddhist monasticism. While the great elders like MahŒ Kassapa were respected as champions of this way of life, monks who lived in an urban setting (gŒmantavihŒr´ ) have won as much praise for their spiritual earnestness. (Evam eva kho Œvuso yassa kassaci bhikkhuno ime pŒpakŒ icchŒvacarŒ pah´nŒ dissanti c ' eva suyyanti ca ki–cŒ ' pi so hoti gŒmantavihŒr´ nemantaniko gahapatic´varadharo atha kho naµ sabrahmacŒr´ sakkaronti garukaronti mŒnenti pèjenti. Taµ kissa hetu. Te hi tassa Œyasmato pŒpakŒ akusalŒ icchŒvacarŒ pah´nŒ dissanti c ' eva sèyanti cŒ ' ti - M.I. 31) In the GulissŒni Sutta, the venerable SŒriputta shows us that the forest-dwelling monk needs as much to develop his virture as the monk who lives in the village.

(Page 8)

Both groups seem to have been known at a very early date and it also appears that their venue of residence was no major concern. In marked contrast to MahŒ Kassapa, SŒriputta and MoggallŒna mingled with their fellow brethren in large communities and worked for their upliftment.

Dutt also tells us that " the counterpart in practice of the 'rhinoceros' ideal is represented by the formula of the Four Resources (nissaya) of a Bhikkhu." Elsewhere he says the same in the following words : ' The eremetical ideal indicated here - a life of solitude and austerity - is that recommended in the so -called Four Nissayas.' Neither the nature of these Nissayas nor the incident which is said to have prompted the announcement of these make us believe that they have anything in common whit the solitary ideal of the KhaggavisŒöa Sutta. They only constitute a sound attitude of mind towards the life of pabbajjŒ. They refer to the four requisites (catupaccaya) which a Bhikkhu expects to receive from the laymen. It is of paramount importance that a Bhikkhu who chooses on his own a life of renunciation should be able to live that life, without discontent, on the simplest of requisites which he would receive from others. The virtue which is aimed at in this idea of the Nissayas is contentment. In a desire for more and better requisites the pabbajita shall not let a spirit of discontent overpower him and embitter him about his religious life. That is the warning struck in the admonition on the Nissayas : Tattha te yŒvaj´vaµ ussŒho karaö´yo. It means 'In that holy way of living you should continue to strive all your life.'

Dutt's remarks on the Nissayas show signs of unnecessary distortion. He says : 'When a person has already been ordained as a Bhikkhu, an almsman professing to live for the rest of his life on alms, he is thus reminded in a formal exhortation of the other three nissayas, supposed to be the other resources of his mendicant life.' He appears to derive the idea that a Bhikkhu is ' an almsman professing to live for the rest of his life on alms ' perhaps from the expression of the first Nissaya in the form 'Piö¶iyŒlopabhojanaµ nissŒya pabbajjŒ '. But we do not see any justification for it. Nor do we feel warranted to make such a statement on the purely etymological definition of the word bhikkhu (bhikkhat´ 'ti bhikkhu).

This concept of the Bhikkhu as indicated by Dutt is obviously in the tradition of Devadatta who requested the Buddha to lay it down that a Bhikkhu should live on begged food all his life (sŒdhu bhante bhikkhè.... yŒvaj´vaµ piö¶apŒtikŒ assu - Vin.III.171). Dutt goes even so far as to think that Devadatta's request to make rigid, lifelong habits of certain recommendations which also include the Nissayas was an unsuccessful attempt at reviving the old eremetical ideal. But what Devadatta attempted was more to toe the line with the champions of severe austerity, for Devadatta himself states that people generally have a greater regard for austerity in religious life - lèkhappasannŒ hi manussŒ. But whether Devadatta did this out of genuine respect for austerity, or as the Vinaya texts put it, out of the sinister motive of discrediting the Buddha and his Order in the eyes of the people because the Buddha denounced severe austerities, is a different problem. As Dutt himself points out, Devadatta's proposals accord more with Jaina practices. In Buddhism, they strike a discordant note and consequently Devadatta appears more a dissentient than a revivalist. Dutt is apparently sorry that 'Devadatta got no credit for enjoining strictness with regard to some of them.' But for very obvious reasons we are certainly not.

(Page 9)

Dutt's historical sense has also led him to develop an evolutionary theory with regard to the concept of CŒtuddisa Saºgha. He begins by saying that " the word Saºgha signified later on not the whole body of Buddhist ' Bhikkhus of the Four Quarters ', but only a particular cenobitical society resident at an ŒvŒsa." Elsewhere he is even more categorical about the use of the word CŒtuddisa Bhikkhu-saºgha. He says: ' The primitive Buddhist Saºgha in Pali literature is designated by its founder the CŒtuddisa Bhikkhu-saºgha.' 'This identification of 'the primitive Buddhist Saºgha ' with the CŒtuddisa Bhikkhu-saºgha, in our opinion, is hardly justifiable. The CŒtuddisa Bhikkhu-saºgha, in the context in which it occurs, did not represent a distinct group as such. It implied, on the other hand, the bestowal of gifts to the ' Order as a collective organization '. The phrase was used in such context, from the earliest times, connoting the totality of the Saºgha. This undoubtedly was more a theoretical reckoning than a physical reality and was used for purposes of monastic administration, particularly in the acceptance and ownership of property. We reproduce below in full the instances cited by Dutt where the word CŒtuddisa Saºgha is used:

It should be clear from a study of the above statements that where the Buddha uses the word cŒtuddisa (of the four quarters) with reference to the Saºgha, he does so for the specific purpose of enjoining the collective acceptance of gifts in the name of the Saºgha in its totality. This is further clarified by the additional word ŒgatŒnŒgata (those present and not present) which is sometimes used with the former implying that the physical presence of every member is not necessary at such a bestwal although the right of use of property so bestowed is shared by every member of the Saºgha. In the light of these observations we are unable to agree with the following statements of Dutt :

If we examine the RŒdha BrŒhmaöa episode of the MahŒvagga we see a very early stage in the evolution of monastic administration. The right of admitting new converts to the monastic order through a formal resolution before the Saºgha is introduced here for the first time. This was done by the Buddha himself to avoid the possible abuse of power by individuals to whom he

(Page 10)

had already relegated the authority which he once held. In this transference of power from individuals to a corporation we see the recognition of the existence of such separate bodies which carried the designation of Saºgha. They were real and active institutions which had a local relevance. One would not deny that this instance of empowering Saºghas for the conferment of UpasampadŒ is relatively early in the history of the SŒsana. Nevertheless one cannot confuse the Saºgha who thus acts collectively at these monastic functions with the CŒtuddisa Saºgha, a concept which connotes something very different. These independent groups of Saºgha, to begin with, were not necessarily residents of one single ŒvŒsa or monastic residence. Sometimes the residents within a single village unit formed one Saºgha as is evident from details of the PŒtimokkha recital which is referred to in the GopakamoggallŒna Sutta.

We shall now turn our attention to what has been said so far about the organization and discipline of this early monastic community. As early as 1880 Rhys Davids and Oldenberg jointly expressed the following view : 'It seems to us that Gotama's disciples, from the very beginning, were much more than a free and unformal union of men held together merely through this common reverence for their Master, and through a common spiritual aim. They formed rather, and from the first, an organised Brotherhood.'

Speaking of the Buddhist monastic fraternity Oldenberg says : 'It appears from the very beginning to have been a society governed by law. The completion of a procedure prescribed by law was necessary to the reception of a postulant into the society. The law of the Order pointed out to him his course of action and of omission. The society itself as a court of discipline secured conformity to the ecclesiastical rules by keeping up a regular judicial procedure.'

Based on independent observations we are in a position to say that what has been stated in both cases is thoroughly accurate. Let us now turn to Sukumar Dutt.

'It is unhistorical to presume that the entire corpus of the laws the Vinaya PiÊaka was drawn up at one time. From the beginning we hear of persons in the Buddhist Saºgha, called Vinayadharas, who concerned themselves with the study and exposition of the rules of the Vinaya. The existence of such professors was the surest guarantee for conservation and consolidation of the laws from generation to generation among the Buddhist Bhikkhus.'

We are glad to say that these words too, constitute very sound observation. Note here Dutt's admission of the early existence of Vinayadharas in the Saºgha and ' the study and exposition of the rules of the Vinaya'. He proceeds thereafter to strike a note of warning against possible lapses in this field of study.

' Through an inadequate appreciation of the complexities of the study, even learned writers on Buddhism have been betrayed into attributing to the historical Buddha rules and regulation of his Order, most of which did not emanate from him, but were adopted by his monk-followers from time to time under the aegis of the Founder's name. '

When and where these criticisms apply, we will leave the reader to judge. But where Dutt expresses his own ideas about the origins of Vinaya rules he seems to be obviously on slippery ground. Speaking of the role of the Buddha in the Vinaya PiÊaka he says :

' He is therefore set up rather as a judge than as a law-maker. He pronounces on the validity of acts done by the Bhikkhus and does not profess to prescribe general courses of conduct for them.'

(Page 11)

We feel that his remarks here are mixed up with a bit of legal jargon and they obviously miss the mark. As has been explained in detail elsewhere under the origin of s´la and sikkhŒpada, he Buddha does not proceed as a law-maker, without any provocation. This is clearly stated to be so by the Buddha himself both in the BhaddŒli Sutta and the Suttavibhaºga. Judgement on a single wrong act done by a Bhikkhu marks the birth of a new rule. Nothing is further from the truth than his remark that the Buddha does not profess to prescribe general courses of conduct for the Bhikkhus. Here Dutt seems to fail to assess correctly the role of the Vinaya sikkhŒpada. They are unmistakably generalisations based on specific instances. Collectively they determine the general course of conduct for the monks.

Whatever be the evidence of the Sutta and Vinaya PiÊakas, Dutt seems to have reached the conclusion that the Vinaya is a very late product in the SŒsana. But some of his remarks at times seem to contradict his own theory. We examine below some of his major postulates. He begins his argument regarding the origin of Buddhist Vinaya as follows :

'Each of these sects had a Dhamma, a body of doctrines, of its own, but whether it had an equally defined Vinaya, a special body of external rules, is another question which we shall deal with in Chapter III.'

In Chapter III which is referred to here, he makes the following analysis :

' Considering this episode.....the conclusion is irresistible that the idea of the primitive Buddhist community was that the Buddha himself had laid down no regula for the Saºgha. The seeming inconsistency in the Buddha's saying later on in the same Suttanta " Yo vo Ananda mayŒ dhammo ca vinayo ca desito," etc.... vanishes if we regard Vinaya in this context as not signifying the rules of an Order,but those of right conduct.'

But we are sorry to say, with all due deference to Dutt's critical attitude, we are not in a position to concede this manner of historical reconstruction which is based on misconceptions and is exeedingly misleading. Let us examine these statements more closely. The episode he speaks of refers to a statement said to have been made by the Buddha to Ananda. It reads as TathŒgatassa kho Œnanda na evaµ hoti ahaµ bhikkhusaºghaµ pariharissŒm´ ' ti. Kiµ Œnanda tathŒgato bhikkhusaºghaµ Œrabbha ki–cid ' eva udŒharissati.

Based on this, Dutt says that 'the Buddha refused to lay down any rule for the Saºgha.' But to say this is no more than an act of wishful thinking, for by no stretch of imagination can we find any such idea in the above statement which is ascribed to the Buddha. Therefore we would call this the first false move of Dutt in consequence of which he ventures to ascribe to the primitive Buddhist community an idea which would historically be most unsound, viz. that the Buddha himself had laid down no regula for the Saºgha. It has been pointed out elsewhere that the cry came from more than one quarter of the Buddhist Saºgha that the Buddha was laying down too many rules. The first assumption of Dutt has led him to his second error of judgement where he suggests

(Page 12)

a new meaning to the word Vinaya in the quotation Yo vo Œnanda mayŒ dhammo ca vinayo ca desito pa––atto...Note his remarks here : '... if we regard the Vinaya in this context as not signifying the rules of an Order, but those of right conduct.'

Now we should point out that it is hardly fair that Dutt leaves out of his quotation the word pa––atto which appears just after desito in the above statement. This, in effect, would be a distortion, for the word pa––atto has a specific ring of codified law, and the word pa––atti is used throughout the Vinaya PiÊaka with reference to the promulgation of rules of discipline. Further, Dutt himself does not fail to menÊion the fact that these remarks were made by the Buddha during his last missionary tour. In numerous sections of Canonical texts which can legitimately claim great antiquity the words dhamma and vinaya are used ascribing to both, as it were, equal prestige and importance. One only needs to analyse such statements as the following to be acquainted with such usage.

What justification is there then for regarding 'Vinaya in this context' as something very different from what it usually is in the references to Dhamma and Vinaya? Are we here called upon to imagine that the Vinaya in the last days of the Master was something much more diminutive than during his life time? Or are we expected to be so critical as to reject every other reference which does not support our hypothesis as being unhistorical and unacceptable?

Thus having set the stage according to his own inclinations, Dutt proceeds to build up his own theory as follows :

'There is no reason to suppose that the Buddhist ParivrŒjakas, who called themselves Bhikkhus did not abide by them. It seems, on the other hand, as the legend of Subhadda would seem to suggest, that the Buddha had enjoined strictness with regard to them. The followers of the great Teacher obeyed these rules of ParivrŒjaka life, as presumably did the other ParivrŒjakas.'

We do not deny that the background of Buddhism did influence to some extent the evolution of the Buddhist Vinaya. But this interpretation of Subhadda's words is certainly far-fetched and appears to be calculated to support a pre- conceived notion. Dutt makes several bold attempts to establish this idea and makes several new interpretations of passages too well known. Note the obvious contradiction in what Dutt says about the proceedings of the First Council : ' In other words, its main object was to collect the rules of right conduct for the Bhikkhus which had been laid down by the Buddha at various times and, by giving them an authoritative Buddhist stamp, to convert them into special rules of the Buddhist Order.' If on his own admission the Buddha had laid down at various times rules of right conduct for the Bhikkhus, the question arises what then is the need to give them an authoritative Buddhist stamp? What of the redundant conversion into special rules of the Buddhist Order? How do we dismiss the references which point to the early existence of Vinayadharas? Many such problems would be reviewed in the course of this study.

We would now consider the evolution of the Vinaya literature which is preserved to us in the Pali TipiÊaka. There too, on many problems, one discovers a diversity of opinion. Before we enter into any controversy we would like to name the works which are recognised as the contents of the Canonical Vinaya PiÊaka. They are :

(Page 13)

In our present study we do not undertake any serious study of the ParivŒra as it does not make a really worthwhile contribution to the problems of monastic discipline. Considering the vital role of the PŒtimokkha in Buddhist monasticism we would choose to begin our discussion with what has been said about the PŒtimokkha. Rhys Davids and Oldenberg say :

'It (PŒtimokkha) is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of the Buddhist text- books ; and it has been inserted in its entirety into the first part of the Vinaya, the Vibhaºga.'

As a result of extensive investigations made into early monastic history we are unable to concede the use of the description ' oldest text-book ' with reference to the PŒtimokkha. By PŒtimokkha we mean the code of bare rules, without any details regarding the rules. Jugding by the nature and function of the early ritual of PŒtimokkha in Buddhist monasticism we are convinced that if anything served as a text-book in the early days of the SŒsana, it should certainly be the Suttavibhaºga, though not necessarily in the present form, yet as something more than the PŒtimokkha itself. Evidence in support of this view is examined in detail in a succeeding chapter (See Ch. VIII.).

Oldenberg who takes the PŒtimokkha alone to be the older portion poses the following question. ' The question is, therefore, whether the ordinances originally appeared with the explanatory notes as in the Vibhaºga, the PŒtimokkha being subsequently extracted from it, or whether the PŒtimokkha alone was the older portion, the additional matter of the Vibhaºga being the work of subsequent revision.' He refers to Rhys Davids as holding a different view : ' Mr. Rhys Davids considers the PŒtimokkha of more recent origin than the works which form the great complexus of the TipiÊaka, and assumes that at the time when the latter works were collected, the PŒtimokkha either did not exist or was of too recent a date to be admitted into the holy writings.' It would be seen in the course of the present study that we are in perfect agreement with Mr. Rhys Davids on this point.

But we are surprised to find Rhys Davids and Oldenberg push their argument too far and say the following regarding the place of the PŒtimokkha in the Canon.

'... and indeed the work, as a separate work, is not considered among Buddhists to belong to the PiÊakas at all, and is therefore not included in the list of works of which the PiÊakas consist.' Winternitz too seems to hold the same idea.

While we subscribe to the view that the PŒtimokkha as an independent Vinaya treatise has been subsequently extracted from the Suttavibhaºga, very probably before it reached its present form, we should point out here the inaccuracy of the statement that Buddhists do not consider the PŒtimokkha as belonging to the PiÊakas. Buddhaghosa himself, perhaps backed by a contemporary tradition, includes the two PŒtimokkhas under the contents of the Vinaya PiÊaka (Tattha paÊhamasaºg´tiyaµ saºg´ta– ca asaºg´ta– ca sabbam ' pi samodhŒnetvŒ ubhayŒni pŒtimokkhŒni dve vibhaºgŒni dvŒv´sati khandhakŒ soÂasaparivŒrŒ ' ti idaµ vinayapiÊakaµ nŒma - DA.I.17 & VinA.I.18).

On the other hand we should also here take note of the Cullavagga account of the First Council (Vin.II. 287.). No attempt is made there to name any specific texts under the Vinaya recital, its entire contents being brought under the designation of ubhato vinaya [ PTS and Cambodian text reading.See p.79 n.3 ]. We presume ubhato implies 'of both Bhikkhu and Bhikkhun´ '. Vinaya here has to be taken to include both the Vibhaºga (MahŒ-vibhaºga and Bhikkhun´vibhaºga) as well as the Khandhakas, possibly in their initial, rudimentary form. [ We reject the Sri Lankan Buddha Jayanti Text reading vibhaºge for vinaye which would totally exclude the Khandhaka Vinaya.] In the samples given here of the work recited under Vinaya we discover portions of the detailed work, the Suttavibhaºga and not of the bare code, the PŒtimokkha.

(Page 14)

This core of the Suttavibhaºga, on account of its association with the fortnightly recital called the Uddesa which had a specific religious disciplinary function, came to be known by the name of PŒtimokkha. From the point of view of the recital it was also called the Uddesa. As the bare code, without any details, it was also designated as sutta. The Cullavagga distinguishes the two as follows : ....tassa n ' eva suttam Œgataµ hoti no suttavibhaºgo. The Commentary on this statement brings out their relative values in the following remarks : N ' eva suttaµ Œgatan ' ti na mŒtikŒ ŒgatŒ. No suttavibhaºgo ' ti vinayo na paguöo. The knowledge of the suttas, without their details is only fragmentary learning. It is not Vinaya. The inadequacy of these bare regulations for the successful maintenance of monastic discipline is clear from this reference in the Vinaya PiÊaka. (Tehi ce bhikkhave bhikkhèhi tasmiµ adhikaraöe vinicchiyamŒne tatra 'ssa bhikkhu dhammakathiko tassa suttaµ hi kho Œgataµ hoti no suttavibhºgo. So atthaµ asallakkhento vya–janacchŒyŒya atthaµ patibŒhati - Vin.II. 97.)

Speaking of the Uddesa Rhys Davids says : ' The completion of the recitation is therefore evidence that all who have taken part in it are pure in respect of the specified offences. And this is the origin of that second name, the PŒtimokkha, which means the Acquittal, or Deliverance or Discharge.'

Careful examination of available evidence has led us to conclusions not very different from the above. We have attempted a detailed study of the many problems connected with the PŒtimokkha in a chapter specially devoted to it.

Speaking of the origin of what now constitutes the PŒtimokkha Rhys Davids and Oldenberg express the following view.

' Tradition even ascribes the first laying down of each clause to the Buddha himself. This tradition is of course very far from being conclusive. But neither should we hold it impossible that the PŒtimokkha, either in its present shape, or at least in its most essential parts, can reach back to the Buddha's own time, or to that of his personal disciples.'

Of these remarks, we shall say for the present that they are characterised by their sobriety and moderation. Evidence in support of the ideas expressed here, we shall furnish in due course.

Regarding the origin of the PŒtimokkha as a ritual among the Buddhist Saºgha, Dutt seems to base his investigations on two assumptions. First, he assumes that the disciples of the Buddha, at first, formed a loosely-strung group without any disciplinary rules of their own. Hence he concludes that they needed a bond of union and that PŒtimokkha was therefore originally used in that sense and for that purpose. Secondly, in spite of his perfect disregard for legend, Dutt is willing to treat the MahŒpadŒna Sutta as a reliable bit of historical evidence.

We have shown elsewhere that we take a very different attitude with regard to both these assumptions. It will be made clear that all available evidence prove more the contrary and we are compelled to reject the following statement of Dutt as lacking in historical support.

" But the PŒtimokkha, the ' bond ' or the external token of union of the Bhikkhu-saºgha, changed its character, shortly after the founder's decease, from a mere declaration of faith in the Dhamma to a discipline and rule of life."

(Page 15)

Speaking further of the PŒtimokkha Dutt says : ' The existence of the PŒtimokkha at first as a mere code and not a ritual is beyond all legitimate doubt.' According to Dutt's idea stated earlier the PŒtimokkha, upto the founder's decease, was apparently only ' a mere declaration of faith in the Dhamma'. From when does he then date 'the existence of the PŒtimokkha at first as a mere code '? Besides, where does one get this original form as ' a mere code '? Does one find such a code divorced from the confessional meeting of the Uposatha and referred to by the name of PŒtimokkha? How does one ignore the references to the Uddesa, which mean the recital at the confessional meetings, which occur in the Suttas and in the Vinaya, including the PŒtimokkha itself? If what Dutt means by ' the present ritual form of the PŒtimokkha ' is the presence of ' the Introductory formular at the beginning and the Interrogatory Portions appended to each section ' in the text of the PŒtimokkha, then one is compelled to point out that these ' later additions ' should be as old as the days when Uddesa or the recital of the list of sikkhŒpada, the confession of guilt by transgressing monks and the consequent punishment of offenders were the functions of the Uposatha. Both those portions of the text referred to above are essential to give the recital of the PŒtimokkha a truly live function. We have shown that this was in fact so in the early days of the SŒsana. At any rate, one cannot speak of an original form of the PŒtimokkha earlier than this. What did exist was the body of sikkhŒpada.

It is lamentable that Dutt tries to discover a form ' PŒtimokkhŒ ' in the plural and says that it ' cannot but mean the rules of law contained in the code'. But we have to point out that this assumed plural form is only the second member, mutilated from the compound sampanna-pŒtimokkhŒ. Hence we should understand the plural form here as belonging to the compound as a whole and not to the word PŒtimokkha. Compare the similar use of the form ' sampanna-s´lŒ ' in the same context.

It is also Dutt's idea that ' the Suttavibhaºga in fact, regards the PŒtimokkha as a mere code, while the MahŒvagga regards it as a liturgy. ' Whatever he means here by a 'mere code' and a 'liturgy ', let us repeat again what we have said earlier that the Suttavibhaºga knows of the recital of the PŒtimokkha at the confessional meetings of the Uposatha.

As Dutt pursues his own line of argument he is led to the following observations regarding the exercise of disciplinary authority of the PŒtimokkha :

' But there were graver offences for which confession would be no atonement. It is difficult to ascertain how these offences were dealt with before the Buddhist Order had attained to that stage when each Bhikkhu was regarded as member of a single corporate body, of a particular Saºgha, subject to its disciplinary jurisdiction.'

It would be clear at this stage that the above remarks result from Dutt's confusion of the connotation of Saºgha and CŒtuddisa Saºgha in the early history of the SŒsana, The Buddhist Order had attained to that stage that he speaks of at a very early date.

Let us now turn our attention to the rest of the Vinaya PiÊaka with which we are interested, viz. the Suttavibhaºga and the Khandhakas. Let us introduce the Suttavibhaºga with the following remarks of Miss Horner whose unsurpassed familiarity with the Vinaya literature lends such maturity to her judgement on problems of Buddhist monastic discipline:

(Page 16)

' The Vinaya, the Discipline, especially that portion of it called Suttavibhaºga, appoints and decrees a definite standard of outward morality, comprised in courses of training laid down for the proper behaviour of monks and nuns. On the surface the Suttavibhaºga is not much more than an attempt to restrain unsuitable behaviour; but in reality it also arrives, though in many cases by a long process of exclusion, at the kind of positive conduct to be pursued by the monk who wishes his life to be externally blameless, so far as his relations with his fellow monks, with the Order as a whole, and with the laity are concerned.'

Here are the views of Rhys Davids regarding the Suttavibhaºga : ' The book deals with each of the 227 rules in order and following throughout one set scheme or method. That is to say it tells us firstly how and when and why the particular rule in question came to be laid down. This historical introduction always closes with the words of the rule in full. Then follows a very ancient word-for-word commentary on the rule - a commentary so old that it was already about B.C.400 (the probable approximate date of the Suttavibhaºga) considered so sacred that it was included in the canon. And the Old Commentary is succeeded,where necessary, by further explanations and discussions of doubtful points. These are sometimes of very great historical value. The discussions, for instance (in the rules as to murder and theft), of what constitutes murder, and what constitutes theft, anticipate in a very remarkable degree the kind of fine-drawn distinctions found in modern law books.'

In relation to the Suttavibhaºga Rhys Davids comments on the Khandhakas as follows :

'It deals one after another with all those matters relating to Order which are not stated in so many words in the Rules of the PŒtimokkha.' .

Winternitz puts it more directly when he says that ' the Khandhakas... (form a kind of continuation and supplement of the Suttavibhaºga.' Speaking of the relation of Suttavibhaºga to the Khandhakas in point of time Rhys Davids says : '.... it follows that in all probability they were composed, or put into their present shape, at about the same period in the development of early Buddhism - it is even possible that both works arose in immediate connection.' E.J. Thomas expresses the same idea in the following : ' Besides these rules intended for the daily life of the individual monk, others were found necessary for the organization of the Order. These also in their essentials must have existed from the beginning. They are contained in the second part of the Vinaya known as the Khandhakas and in the Pali are divided into two series (MahŒvagga, Cullavagga).'

We are in perfect agreement with the views expressed above. The nature and scope of the contents of the PŒtimokkha being so limited the Khandhakas had, of necessity, to take up the rest of monastic discipline from the very outset. Further, the contents of the Suttavibhaºga being necessarily based on the text of the PŒtimokkha admitted of no additions beyond that. On the other hand, the Khandhakas had to envisage and accomodate evolutionary changes. Thus the period of development of the whole of the Khandhakas must inevitably spread over a much longer period of time than that of the Suttavibhaºga.

Oldenberg himself makes similar observations on the above subject :

' While the Vibhaºga stands in the closest relation to the PŒtimokkha, there was a new and wider circle of additions added to that same centre of the Vinaya- discipline -the PŒtimokkha- most probably about the same time in which the Vibhaºga originated, an endeavour was made to go beyond the more confined domain of that series of ecclesiastical offences as established of old, to give a coherent picture of the whole legal life of the Saºgha.'

(Page 17)

It would be clear from what has been said so far that we are on the whole in agreement with the views expressed by Rhys Davids and Oldenberg, both jointly and severally, with regard to monastic discipline and Vinaya literature. One notable exception to this occurs in the ideas we hold regarding the text of the PŒtimokkha and its place in the Canon. We hope we have succeeded in stating our position clearly in the light of evidence we have examined. On the other hand, the greatest disagreement is with the views expressed by Sukumar Dutt. We were compelled to make a detailed and exhaustive analysis of very many of his statements. After careful consideration we have expressed our opinion about them. The present study is therefore undertaken in the belief that we could make our contribution to the elimination of such failings as the following which vitiate a fair and unbiassed examination and evaluation of the subject:

It is also our considered opinion that once these defects, which we have specifically pointed out in several works on the subject, are remedied it is also necessary to view the problems of monastic discipline from the wider angle of religion as a whole. For Buddhist monks are not a class of officiating priests. They are not members of a purely administrative heirarchy who tend the flock. They are symbolic of the religious earnestness of those who choose to follow the teaching of the Buddha. Their life has to be fashioned to accord with the professed faith. It must be such as would necessarily lead them to the aspired goal. Thus we feel the necessity to study Buddhist monastic discipline based on the joint evidence of the Sutta and the Vinaya PiÊakas. Historically, there is no doubt that the Buddha had a message for the world, even before ' the group of five ' (pa–cavaggiyŒ bhikkhè) thought of joning him. One might call the contents of that message a philosophy or a way of life. One might therefore say with commendable accuracy that both the theory and practice of good living were contained in these early teachings which are in the domain of the Dhamma (or Sutta according to subsequent classification). Thus the seeds of monastic discipline are seen to be rooted in the teaching of the Dhamma. With the spread and expansion of monastic life from the personal and the individual to an institutional group level we discover the problems of monastic discipline increasing in complexity. The efficacy of the ' early philosophy of life ' seems to lose its grip on the increasing membership and this marks the appearance of the new medium of monastic control and administration. This is the birth of the Vinaya literature.

(Page 18)

It is from this basic position that we propose to proceed on our investigations. Therefore our primary source of information consists of the Sutta and the Vinaya PiÊakas. These Canonical texts are read and studied with as much care as we could command with our present knowledge of the Pali language. Even where the meaning of texts is clear it has been our desire to probe further into the notes in the Commentaries (AÊÊhakathŒ) and the Sub-commentaries (T´kŒ) for purposes of comparison and contrast. This has proved to be of immense value as would be shown in relevant places. Owing to the vastness of the field of study we lave had to confine ourselves mainly to Pali literature. But in a number of places where we thought it extremely important we have ventured out into two further fields, namely Sanskrit and Chinese. In both cases our suspicions and speculation which prompted us to go to them have been amply rewarded. Considering the complexity of the problems of monasticism within Buddhism itself we have thought it wise to leave any references to Jainism completely out of the present study.

As a basic source of investigation our choice invariably falls on the TheravŒda school which upheld the monastic ideals of the faithful disciple in Buddhism : saddhŒ agŒrasmŒ anagŒriyaµ pabbajito. Monastic discipline is essentially their concern. At the same time it is clear from the evidence relating to the early history of the Buddhist Saºgha that the first hundred years of the SŒsana knew of only a single body of disciples, more or less homogenous. One does not discover at this stage any traces of groups with distinct names which indicate their partisan loyalties or sectarian teachings. Thus one is inclined to consider terms like Theriya (TheravŒda) and MahŒsaºghika as being obviously necessitated by the first schism in the SŒsana, the distinction between them being essentially relative.

However, disagreements and differences of opinion did exist within this apparently homogenous body of early sisciples. While a common Dhamma and Vinaya guided their destinies during this period, it becomes clear in our studies that the Dhamma begins to lend itself to diverse interpretations and the Vinaya comes to be challenged and criticised as being too stringent. Although it is not always possible to identify the men behind these moves, the portents are visible threatening a schism in the SŒsana, be it either on account of the Dhamma or the Vinaya.

Thus we are not surprised to find, on a comparison of the PrŒtimok©a sètras of the different schools, that the TheravŒdins and the MahŒsaºghikas share the greatest measure of agreement, having coexisted so long close to each other during their formative years. It is with this common heritage that they part their ways and as they develop their own distinctive doctrines and traditions, the new schools which emerge align themselves with the one or the other.

However, it should be pointed out here that in the seven categories of ecclesiastical offences listed in the PrŒtimok©a sètra there is almost complete conformity among all the early schools with regard to the first six categories. These account for 145 out of the total of 220 rules. In the last category of minor rules dealing with etiquette, popriety and decorum called the Sekhiya Dhamma, however the new schools show an evident increase. While the TheravŒda school lists 75 and the MahŒsaºghika 66 under this category, the SarvŒstivŒdins go as far as 113.

The reason for this agreement in their Vinaya literature between the TheravŒda and the MahŒsaºghika on the one hand and between these and the later schools on the other is more to be sought in the fact that these legal enactments of the Vinaya being stratified in a fixed form at a very early date and being shared unaltered by the earliest groups which appeared after the first schism, namely the Theriya and the MahŒsaºghika, left little room for any changes or modifications. But the weight of ideological changes and changes of tradition in the different schools is certainly felt in the less stratified historical records and in the instructions on procedure in the rest of the Vinaya literature, particularly the portions which correspond to the Khandhakas of the TheravŒda Vinaya and portions of the Suttavibhaºga.

These observations do not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that the TheravŒda literature preserves completely the Buddha's teaching on monastic discipline, i.e. the Vinaya, in it s original form. However, comparing it as a whole with that of the MahŒsaºghikas one cannot fail to be

(Page 19)

impressed by the fact that the canonical texts of the TheravŒda Vinaya show more coherence and continuity as well as a conciseness in the statement of ideas which entitle them to be considered closer to the time of the origin of the Buddhist monastic institutions.

We do indicate, at the same time, more than one instance in the TheravŒda Vinaya literature where we suspect a violation of the spirit of the early traditions and injunctions. On the other hand, we do find the MahŒsaºghikas to be more alert at times and more sensitive to such discrepancies. In such instances the traditions preserved or the modifications effected by the ' dissentients ' appear to us to be more orthodox than the TheravŒda version.

Nevertheless, assessing the overall position we are led to use the Vinaya literature of the TheravŒdins together with their suttas dealing with the Dhamma, as the basis of this study. Evidence from other schools of Buddhism has been brought in from time to time both to investigate a doubtful proposition and to stabilise a tottering tradition.

Before we bring these prefatory remarks to a close we should make a few observations on Buddhist monastic discipline in general. As the teacher (satthŒ) who had a new message (dhamma) for the world, the Buddha was soon surrounded by a group of disciples who chose to follow him (uddissa pabbajitŒ). This placed him, as the Pali texts describe it, in the distinguished position of being the propounder of a completely new way (anakkhŒtassa maggassa akkhŒtŒ- M.III. 8.). The disciples were the followers of that way (maggŒnugŒ ca pana etarahi sŒvakŒ viharanti pacchŒ samannŒgatŒ - ibid.). At this stage in life, the Buddha was making no experiments. As early as the First Sermon, he had known as to what should constitute the foundations of Buddhist monastic life. He himself had been through a life of mendicancy which led him to his enlightenment. He denounced both the life of sensual pleasures and that of extreme austerity as being unsuited for a Buddhist disciple (Dve ' me bhikkhave antŒ pabbajitena na sevitabbŒ...Vin.I.10.) The life he enjoined on them steered clear of these two extremes.

Early Buddhist monastic life, which was thus one definite way for one definite purpose, admitted of no compromises. It would be shown in the relevant places that the Buddha was firmly opposed to those who rebelled against discipline and dealt with them with such strictness as worthy of a teacher who does not swerve from his ideals for the sake of popularity with his pupils. Additions and modifications to rules which did not violate their spirit were accepted and even initiated by the Buddha himself. Constructive evolution of this nature did, in fact, bring the Vinaya PiÊaka into its present shape. Against destructive revolutionary trends, legislation was enacted and the very machinery of the Vinaya was geared against them.

Thus Buddhist monastic life being what we have shown it to be, the content of its discipline had to embrace every aspect of life as viewed in Buddhism. According to Buddhism, life activity goes on through the three media of thought, word and deed. Progress or depravity are reckoned in terms of refinement or deterioration of these. Therefore the total content of Buddhist monastic discipline had to be in terms of thought, word and deed. Even in what appears to be a modified statement of old material Buddhaghosa clearly upholds this view.

Of this threefold discipline, it is said that the Vinaya PiÊaka claims to concern itself only with two, viz. word and deed. They are the aspects of outward conduct (TasmŒ vividhanayattŒ visesanayattŒ kŒyavŒcŒna– ca vinayanato vinayo ' ti akkhŒto.). Here we would also refer the reader to Oldenberg's very precise definition which describes the Vinaya PiÊaka ' as a collection of rules regulating the outward conduct of the Saºgha and the Bhikkhu'. But true monastic discipline covers a little more. It embraces the discipline of the mind too. It has been our endeavour to relate this to the former and to show that any violation of the former would possibly produce serious repercussions on the latter.

(Page 20)

Monasticism in Buddhism comes in the wake of the brahmacariya ideal which the Buddha preached from the beginning of his mission. Hence our present study primarily springs from the study of the life of brahmacariya in Buddhism. But even prior to the birth of the Buddha the notion of brahmacariya has had an appeal to the religious men of India. Each creed had its own form of Brahmacarya life leading to its desired goal, which was often termed emancipation, immortality or divine absorption. In Chapter II we deal with the different forms of brahmacariya both in the Brahmanic and non- Brahmanic religious creeds. Chapter III portrays the Buddhist concept of brahmacariya in marked contrast to the rest. Chapters IV, V, VI and VII deal in succession with the foundations on which the life of pabbajjŒ is built. In Chapter VIII we have attempted to show how the early basis of monastic life gradually changed its character from a simple system of advice and admonition to a complete code of monastic law. In Chapter IX one witnesses the disciplinary machinery of the Saºgha at work. Numerous factors are seen retarding its efficiency in course of time.

Onece the machinery of the Vinaya PiÊaka was set up it also became necessary to see that its operation was smooth and effective. Every attempt to put it out of gear was also guarded against. Thus, in the wake of the rules there also came provision for prosecution and punishment of those who violated them. We have made special studies of these aspects of the Vinaya in Chapters X and XI.

Besides all legislation and legal machinery, yet another factor played a very dominant part in the history of the SŒsana. It is the spiritual leadership which the members of the Order, individually and collectively, offered to the others and the integrated life in the community which contributed to its stability and well-being. See Chapter XII.

Whatever may be the verdict of the later generations on the role of Bhikkhunis in the SŒsana, there is no doubt that they distinguished themselves and fulfilled the mission of their monastic life with as much success as the Bhikkhus. Thus we have thought it fit to devote a part of this study to the establishment of this new division of Buddhist monasticism and the formation of the code of discipline for the Bhikkhunis. In Chapters XIII and XIV we have examined this development in relation to the Order of the Bhikkhus and lay society of the day.

We have also thought it necessary at his stage to probe further into two problems which we think are very much more controversial than they seem to be on the surface. It appears as though history has stratified them in such a way as to be unquestionably settled. But curiosity has spurred us into this venture of re-investigating them.

The two problems are :

We have attempted to compare and contrast the evidence found in Pali literature with those we have been able to gather from Sanskrit and Chinese sources. If we have succeeded in indicating even to some extent the complexity of these problems we would feel more than amply rewarded.

The S´mŒ also has been a subject of great interest in the history of Buddhist monasticism, both during the life time of the Buddha and in the centuries that followed. We have occasion to refer to it briefly in the study of the PŒtimokkha ritual. But we feel that the subject needs more careful analysis and examination. Hence we have pursued the matter further and we present our observations to the reader separately in an appendix. See Appendix III.

It is our belief that this brief outline of the contents of the present study will enable the reader to view the problems of Buddhist monasticism from a fresh angle as he reads through this thesis. It is also hoped that he would be able to purge his mind of various misconceptions about the subject which have been created through mistakes of omission and commission of some of the pioneer work.

(Page 21)

Thoroughout the pages of Indian religious thought, in Buddhist as well as non-Buddhist terminology, brahmacarya (Pali brahmacariya) is the term of choice used to designate the life of discipline ordained for the aspirant to spiritual awakening. The life of brahmacarya had a meaning and purpose to many in India even before the appearance of Buddhism. Here we shall be concerned with a survey of the badcground of Buddhism in which the life of brahmacarya under diverse religious traditions was widely known. A passage in the ChŒndogya Upani©ad in which one seems to get a glimpse of the first beginnings of the Catur îsrama doctrine of the Brahmins refers to the life of brahmacarya as one of 'the three dharmaskandhas ' 'each of which is regarded as capable of leading the adherent to a state of spiritual edification or a 'world of bliss (puöyaloka). According to the text the result of the pursuit of these dharmaskandha is that thereby one becomes an heir to a punyaloka (Trayo dharmaskandhŒ yaj–o 'dhyayanaµ dŒnam iti prathamas. Tapa eva dvit´yas. BrahmacaryŒcŒryakulavŒs´ trt´yo' tyantamŒtmŒnamŒcŒryakule' vasŒdayan.Sarva ete puöyalokŒ bhavanti brahmasamstho' mrtatvameti - ChŒnd. 2.23.1.).

êaºkara, commenting on this passage in the ChŒndogya, identifies these dharmaskandha with the stages of the îsrama doctrine and goes on to say that each îsramin reaches a puöyaloka by virtue of his own dharma (Sarva ete trayo'pyŒsramino yathoktair dharmaih puöyalokŒ bhavanti - ibid.). But we are not certain how far one could look for the pattern of the fully developed Catur îsrama Dharma in this passage. Belvalkar and Ranade, in their chronological grouping of the Upani©adic texts, place this section of the ChŒndogya in the early portion of group one which they call Brahmanic. Hence we would consider this as one of the earliest references to the institution of brahmacarya, perhaps as a unit in itself or as a part of religious life in the Brahmanic tradition. It is not convincingly clear whether these three dharmaskandha are parts of an integrated whole. Each one of them seems to have a justification in itself and appears capable of producing the desired effect of a puöyaloka, although such a state may not be identified with the highest goal which is am¨tatva. For, over and above these dharmaskandha, the highest premium is set on what is referred to as brahmasaµstha, because it is the brahmasaµstha who attains amrtatva or immortality (Brahmasaµstho am¨tatvameti - ibid.)

Therefire we would consider brahmacarya here as still being ranked as one of several ways of religious living. It is worth noting the ritualistic bias of some of the other dharmaskandhas which are mentioned along with brahmacarya. They do not reflect a moral or ethical basis of religious life or an intellectual attitude towards it. The inclusion of adhyayana and brahmacarya along with yaj–a and tapas aproximates to a fusion of old and new ideas about religious life. Brahmacarya here is still neither the religious initiation nor the stepping stone to social upliftment among the Brahmins as it was at a later date. Those who took to this life of brahmacarya, it may be argued, did so out of their own choice with a view to spiritual edification. It was undoubtedly a life of devotion and dedication as is clear from the passage in the ChŒndogya Upani©ad which describes the brahmacŒrin as wearing himself away at the house of his teacher (BrahmacŒryŒcŒryakulavŒs´ t¨t´yo' tyantamŒtmŒnamŒcŒryakule' - ibid.). This old Brahmanic institution of brahmacarya which evidently was the choice of a select few underwent a process of popularisation in the formulation of the Catur îsrama Dharma whereby it was brought into the life of

(Page 22)

every Brahmin, or in fact of every member of the three principal castes. The religious and secular duties of life were magnificently blended together in this fourfold institution. However, it is clear that the older concept of brahmacarya constituted a way of religious life which was, more or less, complete in itself.

The Manusmrti describes two different types of brahmacŒrins who are referred to in the Commentary of MedhŒtithi as naisÊhika and upakurvŒöa. The former is lifelong studentship. It is described as an effective means of making an end of saµsŒra. This naisÊhika evidently refers to the older concept of brahmacarya which was a lifelong institution and which had to be lived under a teacher. This completely religious life which was divorced from social obligations did promise as its goal the attainment of Brahman. Thus as a way of life it could not be displaced completely with the inauguration of the Catur î§rama Dharma. Brahmanic tradition often shows acquaintance with both. The latter, upakurvŒöa, which shows more conformity to the Catur îs¨rama Dharma, was a limited period of studentship whereby initiation into true Brahminhood was effected through the mastery of the sacred learning. Manu gives thirty-six years as the maximum period of time for this preparation which he calls the 'traivedikaµ vrataµ ' or dedication to the study of the three Vedas. He apparently shows no concern for the fourth Veda, the Atharvan, as a part of the sacred learning. Thus each Veda would have a maximum period of twelve years for its study. But the possibility is indicated of completing the study of the Vedas in much less time. It is in fact brought down to a total of nine years thus giving only three years for each Veda. This is considered possible only in the case of exceptionally good students.

This tradition of twelve years for the study of each Veda during the period of Brahmacarya appears to have been well known to the Buddhists. But the Buddhist texts which speak of the Brahmin institution of brahmacarya apparently go a step further than Manu in this connection. What they describe as komŒrabrahmacariya of the Brahmins extends over forty- eight years. This komŒrabrahmacariya unmistakably refers to the period of studentship during which the study of the sacred literature was undertaken. Here the Buddhist texts seem to be in accord with BaudhŒyana who ' alone states that the term of studentship extends over forty-eight years. This rule includes the Atharva-veda.' However, we are not in a position here to examine the reasons for this preference shown by the Buddhists.

In the vast complex of Upani©adic thought it is difficult to see a singleness either with regard to what constituted the life of brahmacarya or the nature of the goal that was to be attained by means of it. However, there is no doubt that brahmacarya meant a period, limited or otherwise, of training in religious life under the guidance of a teacher. Some of the early Upani©ads, deviating perhaps from the ' older ' naisÊhika brahmacarya way which was a complete means by itself, use brahmacarya as a vital part of religious life on to which are grafted moral and ethical considerations.

(Page 23)

The Muö¶aka Upani©ad which has a claim to a relative antiquity gives brahmacarya long with truth, austerity and correct knowledge (satyam, tapas and samyag–Œna) as a means of reaching the îtman. The Prasna Upani©ad which chronologically belongs to the succeeding group attaches similar importance to brahmacarya when it says the following:

They indeed possess that Brahma-world,

Who possess austerity (tapas) and chastity (brahmacarya)

In Whom truth is established.

To them belongs yon stainless Brahma-world,

In whom there is no crookedness and falsehood, nor trickery (mŒyŒ).

This is a further indication of the insistence on moral values. One cannot fail to notice at this stage the fact that the goal of religious life presented in the Upani©ads is, in itself, not a fixed concept. Brahma, whatever it may connote in different contexts, comes to be repeatedly given as the goal which is to be reached through brahmacarya. At any rate, the motive underlying this Brahma-reaching was the escape from this whirl of human existence. ' He leads them on to Brahma. This is the way to the gods, the way to Brahma. They who proceed by it return not to the human condition here - yea, they return not.' The importance of the observance of brahmacarya in the sphere of religious life has been very keenly recognised in the Upani©ads. ChŒndogya 8.4.3 says that only those who find the Brahma-world through brahmacarya possess the Brahma-world. The next khaö¶a of the same text goes so far as to identify brahmacarya with a host of sacrificial duties of varying degrees of importance thus giving brahmacarya the pride of place as the sole means to the attainment of the highest goal. Brahmacarya is equated to what people call 'sacrifice' (yaj–a), what people call 'what has been sacrificed ' (isÊaµ), what people call ' the protracted sacrifice ' (sattrŒyaöa), what people call 'silent asceticism ' (mauna), what people call ' a course of fasting ' (anŒsakŒyana) and what people call ' betaking oneself to hermit life in the forest ' (araöyŒyana). But it should be pointed out that these portions of the ChŒndogya belong to the late period of the Upani©adic group. We are not in a position to determine with any certainty wherher brahmacarya here is completely identified with the first stage of the Catur î§rama Dharma. Apparently, ti is as a part of this systematised way of life that brahmacarya here eclipses, more or less, the cult of yaj–a and tapas.

This complexity of the idea of brahmacarya which we find in the Upani©ads is simplified by the commentators who readily identify this brahmacarya with the first stage of the Catur î§rama Dharma. At ChŒnd. 2.23.1 êsºkara identifies the three dharmaskandha which include brahmacarya with three of the four Œ§ramas. The commentators associate the following ideas with this institution of brahmacarya :

(Page 24)

The pattern of brahmacarya in the Upani©ads which we have discussed so far does not seem to be identifiable with that formulated in Buddhism. In the Upani©ads the life of brahmacarya has a different end in view. It is the attainment of Brahma or the Brahma-world and the way to it is distinctly prescribed. In summing up the Upani©adic position the commentators recommend brahmacarya as a particular stage in life which is to be gone through for the purpose of religious and social accomplishment. However, the life of brahmacarya in the Upani©ads and that in Buddhism seem to be drawn very close to each other in the remarks of êaºkara on ChŒnd. 8.7.3. Describing the practice of brahmacarya by Indra and Vairocana under PrajŒpati, êaºkara goes on to say that although these two were jealous of each other before they came to PrajŒpati, they gave up their failings such as greed, hatred, delusion and jealousy before commencing the life of brahmacarya under PrajŒpati. It should be noted that these commentarial observations are peculiar to êaºkara alone. He seems thereby to make this ethical purge a pre-requisite of brahmacarya. Although this same ethical purge, viz. the elimination of rŒga, dosa and moha is the fundamental concern of Buddhism, the Buddhist life of brahmacarya does not begin with it. On the other hand, the life of brahmacarya is undertaken in Buddhism, as will be shown below, for the purpose of eliminating rŒga, dosa and moha by a gradual process of development. Their elimination is given as the goal of brahmacarya. The disciples of the Buddha are thus guided through brahmacarya towards this end.

The Atharva- veda which lies outside the Brahmaöic tradition of the three Vedas presents to us at 11. 5 a very different character in the person of the brahmacŒrin. Bloomfield makes the following observations on this hymn : ' Here a Brahma disciple - brahmacŒrin - in the full glory

(Page 25)

of his holy functions and monastic habits is treated as an incarnation of the brahma ; from him the brahma springs, and in his holy life - brŒhmaöaµ - the brahma is glorified.' Griffith too refers to this hymn as a glorification of the brahmacŒrin or religious student. According to this Atharvan hymn the brahmacŒrin is infinitely powerful and controls the universe and the gods therein. 'He hath established firmly earth and heaven.' He has command over both worlds. 'Stirring both worlds the BrahmacŒri moveth.' He takes precedence over Brahma too, and all this power he derives through tapas. 'The BrahmacŒri, earlier born than Brahma, sprang up through Fervour, robed in hot libation.' His power of tapas is repeatedly mentioned. He is the most potent factor in the universe. He is the source from which the highest Brahma sprang and all the gods owe their origin to him. ' From him sprang the heavenly lore, the highest Brahma, and all the Gods, with life that lasts for ever.' All life, both animate and inanimate, sprang from him. ' The plants, what is and what shall be, day, night, the tall tree of the wood, the year with seasons of the year, all from the BrahmacŒri sprang. All creatures of the earth and heaven, tame animals and sylvan beasts, winged and wingless creatures, from the BrahmacŒri sprang to life.' In him lay the ultimate guardianship of all. 'The Brahma that is stored within the BrahmacŒri guards them all.' The contents of this hymn seems to give an indication that the brahmacŒrin of the Atharva-veda belongs to a different tradition. Religiously he may be regarded as being more primitive in character, deriving his power mainly through tapas and yaj–a. Nevertheless, it shows the wide acceptance and unchallenged importance which the institution of brahmacarya had acquired.

We are also aware that the term brahmacarya was something familiar to the other contemporary religious circles as well. The term was used by them to mean the ideal life prescribed by each. The Bodhisatta himself refers to the religious life he opted to live under îlŒra KŒlŒma and Uddaka RŒmaputta as brahmacariya. The MahŒvagga of the Vinaya PiÊaka refers to the religious life of the JaÊilas who were contemporaries of the Buddha as brahmacariya. It is said that after the Buddha converted the JaÊila chief, Uruvela Kassapa, people were still in doubt as to who really was converted, the Buddha or Uruvela Kassapa. So they questioned, 'Has Samaöa Gotama taken up the life of brahmacariya under Kassapa or vice versa?' It is also said that SŒriputta and MoggallŒna, prior to their conversion to Buddhism, lived the life of brahmacariya of the ParibbŒjakas under the ParibbŒjaka chief Sa–jaya. In the AssalŒyana Sutta it is associated with the Seven Brahmin Sages of yore. The Sandaka Sutta mentions eight such courses, which when judged by the criteria of the Buddhists, fall below standard. Hence they are termed abrahmacariyavŒsa (no real abodes of brahmacariya) or anassŒsika-brahmacariya (rewardless life of brahmacariya). They seem to include the Materialists (under the doctrine associated with Ajita Kesakambal´) and the îj´vakas (under the doctrines of Pèraöa Kassapa, Makkhali GosŒla and

(Page 26)

Pakudha KaccŒyana.) None of these teachers, however, are referred to by name in the Sutta. In the Sutta, the venerable înanda explains to Sandaka ParibbŒjaka why the Buddha declared the religious life lived under most of the contemporary teachers as being void and worthless. In all cases it is pointed out that no wise man would choose to practise the brahmacariya under them and that if one ever did he would thereby never gain enlightenment. Under the four abrahmacariyavŒsa the doctrines of Ajita Kesakambal´, Pèraöa Kassapa, Makkhal´ GosŒla and Pakudha KaccŒyana are critically examined and the verdict is given that no true brahmacariya life could be lived under them. The four anassŒsikŒni brahmacariyŒni refer to the following four types of teachers whose doctrines are similarly scrutinised and dismissed: 1. The teacher who claims omniscience. 2. The traditionalist. 3. The rationalist. 4. The sceptic.

In the MahŒs´hanŒda Sutta the Buddha tells the venerable SŒriputta of another form of brahmacariya which he himself is said to have practised. It also, no doubt, stands outside the pale of Buddhism. It was a form of severe asceticism characterised by fourfold austerities such as abstemious partaking of food, seeking the solitude of forest retreats, etc.

Buddhaghosa places before us a list in which he tries to indicate the connotation of the term brahmacariya in different circles at different times. He says: ' This term brahmacariya here is used in the following senses.' But one is not quite sure whether Buddhaghosa refers to the use of the term only in Buddhism. What is clear from the evidence of Buddhaghosa is that brahmacariya in all these cases, not necessarily Buddhist, meant virtuous living. But the concept and magnitude of virtue apparently varied. Here are the different applications of the term according to Buddhaghosa :

1. dŒna - charity.
1. veyyŒvacca - rendering a service.
1. pa–casikkhŒpadas´la - observance of the five precepts.
1. appama––Œ - practice of brahmavihŒra.
1. methunavirati - celibacy.
1. sadŒrasantosa _ chastity.
1. viriya - striving.
1. uposathaºga - observance of the full-day of the fast
1. ariyamagga - the noble path.
1. sŒsana - the complete Buddhist way of life

While some of these practices may fall in line with the Buddhist concept of morality still there is evidence to show that at least a few of these forms of brahmacariya were not at all Buddhist in outlook. Illustrating the use of the term brahmacariya in the sense of viriya or striving Buddhaghosa refers to the Lomahaµsana Sutta which is the same as the MahŒs´hanŒda Sutta which was quoted earlier. There the Buddha describes the fourfold austerities which he had practised. Those debased practices with regard to food, lodgings etc. as they are described in the Sutta are evidently among those which the Buddha rejects in more places than one. We discover clear proof of this as we examine the story in the JŒtaka collection which goes by the same name, namely the Lomahaµsana JŒtaka. The JŒtaka story which summarises the contents of the Lomahaµsana Sutta goes into

(Page 27)

great detail in the narration of the story. Perhaps, in an attempt to avoid any mistaken association of these practices with what were genuinely Buddhist, the JŒtaka story makes the Buddha state that he practised these austerities to see whether there was any value in them. It is further added that these constituted a form of îj´vaka life. Thereafter the JŒtaka story goes on to stigmatise these practices completely by stating that these practices invariably lead to birth in hell.

Buddhism seems to have found in the setting in which it grew up a number of terms of very great popularity and wide acceptance. Their connotations had been established through continued usage and as religious concepts they had reached an unchallenged position. The term Brahma and its derivatives seem to occupy the foremost place among them and they are our main interest here. In the Upani©adic schools of thought the Highest Being, Brahman, is sometimes conceived personally and at other times as an Impersonal Absolute. To reach it and be merged in it or be identified with it was the aim of all their religious endeavours. It is as the fountain-head of all existence that Brahman was accorded this position. Brahman is believed to be the source whence everything originated. In the more developed later Upani©adic thought we get a pantheistic conception where Brahman is identified with the universe. Buddhism too, seems to use the term Brahma to mean the Highest and the Perfect, but apparently with none of the theological and metaphysical associations. The term is always defined by Buddhaghosa in this sense, giving the word brahma the meaning of seÊÊha. The Buddha, however, was aware of the earlier connotations of the term. This becomes quite evident in the new definitions and explanations which the Buddha offers to the exponents of these ideas.

In the Saµyutta, the Buddha is seen giving a new interpretation which accords with his teaching to the Brahmanic concept of Brahma-reaching. He tells the Brahmins that it is essentially based on moral achievements like honesty, self-restraint and holy life: Saccaµ dhammo saµyamo brahmacariyaµ majjhe sitŒ brŒhmaöa brahmapatti. In Buddhism these concepts of ' Becoming Brahma' (brahmabhèta) and 'Attaining Brahma ' (brahmapatti) had no associations of a higher power, an absolute with which an alliance was sought. As far as the Buddha was concerned, these terms implied only the attainment of the goal, the perfection of the religious life which he propounded. It is the enlightenment which leads to perfect liberation from the cycle of saµsŒra. It is also the purge of all the defiling traits of human life which hence comes to be called ŒsavŒnaµ khaya. The Buddha, while he was once resting in a forest glade, was asked by BhŒradvŒjagotta BrŒhmaöa whether he was there practising austerities (tapas) in order to reach Brahma (brahmapattiyŒ) and to gain companionship with him (lokŒdhipatisahavyataµ ŒkaºkhamŒno). The Commentary on the above passage gives the concept of Brahma here the more personal character by explaining lokŒdhipatisahavyataµ as lokŒdhipatimahŒbrahmunŒ sahabhŒvaµ. We have already observed that such a concept of Brahman was not unknown among the Brahmins. The Buddha, in his reply to the Brahmin, not only points out that as Buddha he is supremely enlightened and possesses a clarified vision into the nature of all things, but also indicates the way whereby he attained to that state. This shows that the talk of Brahma-reaching in the way in which the Brahmins understood it had no relevance to the

(Page 28)

Buddha or to the religious life he advocated. What the Buddha valued most was his victory in the battle against craving and desire which are rooted in ignorance. Freed from craving and desire, and seeing things in their true perspective, the Buddha is wise and enlightened. He is happy and for him there are no further attainments beyond this.

But on the other hand, we notice that the concept of 'Becoming Brahma' (brahmabhèta and brahmabhèya) as found in the Bhagavadg´tŒ is always coupled with the idea of identification of the individual self with Brahman. The consequence of this seems to be the final mergence of the Œtman in Brahman which the G´tŒ refers to as BrahmanirvŒöa. A commentarial note explains this clearly. With remarkable consistency the term brahmabhèta is defined in a number of places in more or less identical terms which amounts to an identifcation of oneself with Brahman. Similar observations are made in the comment on brahmabhèya. Brahmabhèta is also defined as the reciprocal identification of Brahman and Œtman. It should also be noted that the G´tŒ too, like Buddhism, reckons with moral values. But these are subordinated to the absolutism of its Brahma ideal.

In Buddhism, the term brahmabhèta is used in two different contexts. It is used with reference to the Buddha along with a host of other attributes which describe him as a wise and reliable teacher. In all instances, the term brahmabhèta as an epithet of the Buddha is closely associated with the term dhammabhèta. In The Agga––a Sutta, these two terms are declared to be epithets of the Buddha and are associated with two other terms derived from the same concepts of Dhamma and Brahma. The Buddha is also described as dhammakŒyo and brahmakŒyo. He is the symbol of the Dhamma (dhammakŒyo) and he is identified with it. Hence th is also dhammabhèto. The Commentary on the above passage adds that the Dhamma, on account of its supreme nature, is called Brahma which is the recognised and accepted term to signify the highest and the perfect in contemporary religious thought. Here comes the identification of Dhamma with Brahma and perhaps this gave further support for the adoption of the term Brahma by the Buddhists to describe their own state of religious perfection. Now it becomes clear that the term brahmabhèta is used to stress the Buddha's perfection and pre-eminence. The Commentaries regularly explain it as seÊÊhabhèta : SeÊÊhaÊÊhena brahmabhèto - MA. II. 76. It is also used as an attribute of the Arahant, i.e. the disciple who, in this very life, has reached peace and perfection, is tranquil and blissful. Here too, the idea does not seem to be far from what was stated above, for it seems to emphasise the transcendent character of the Arahant as compared with the rest of the worldlings. But neither in the descriptions of the spiritual progress of one who aspires to Arahantship nor in the accounts of the achievements and attainments of the Arahant do we ever get any associations with Brahma, personal or impersonal, as the highest and the absolute.

(Page 29)

The term Brahma, however, does appear in Buddhism in such contexts as brahmacariya, brahmabhèta snd brahmapatti. Here the term connotes only the idea of noble, worthy and supreme. It is this same phenomenon of adapting terms with already established connotations that we find in the use of the word brŒhmaöa with reference to the worthy Buddhist disciple. During the days of the Buddha, the Brahmins as a group had attained an unassailable position in society, and the Buddha too, seems to have conceded this up to a point. He always had a word of praise for those whom he called the virtuous Brahmins of old. His lament was that the Brahmins of his day did not live up to the worthy Brahmin ideals set up by the ancestors of the clan. The following are some of the virtues he ascribed to them: ' The sages of yore were full of restraint and given to austerity. Rejecting the pleasures of the senses they sought their own salvation.' 'They considered the life of brahmacariya, morality, honesty, austerity, benevolence, compassion and tolerance as great virtues.' It would have been both futile and almost impossible to dislodge the Brahmin from the social position which he had acquired for himself. The Buddha accepted the concept of the ideal Brahmin and redefined the qualifications for the title of BrŒhmaöa with the stress on ethics and morality. He challenged the accepted value attached to birth as the exclusive qualification for Brahminship. It is the mode of a man's life, according to the Buddha's new criterion, that determines a man's social and religious pre-eminence.

It is not the purpose of the present study to go into details of the development of Buddhist cosmological ideas. However, it must be mentioned that Buddhist texts know of references to BrahmŒ as a personal being. He is referred to as MahŒbrahmŒ and is recognised as the head of the thousand world systems. But the interest of the Buddhist texts here is not so much to stress the greatness of BrahmŒ as to show that he himself is subject to the law of change and therefore is not an ideal or absolute position to aspire to, although it is, no doubt, regarded as a very high one. According to the Buddhist texts, it is to this great BrahmŒ that the Brahmins of the day addressed their prayers and sacrifices. It is a very ritualistic Brahmanism that is portrayed here. It is centered on the cult of a personal Brahma. The world of BrahmŒ was the religious goal of the Brahmins and companionship with him was the consummation of their religious life. The Brahmins themselves are seen professing it to be so. A passage from the DhŒna–jŒni Sutta makes it further clear that this was the manner in which the Buddhists explained the position of the Brahmins of the day who aspired to reach the world of Brahma (brahmalokŒdhimuttŒ). Here the Buddha questions the venerable SŒriputta why he aided DhŒna–jŒni to be born in the Brahma-world which according to the religious considerations of the Buddhists was an inferior goal. But in the TevijjŒ Sutta, the Buddha himself, being questioned by the Brahmin pupils of PokkharasŒti and TŒrukkha, is seen redefining the path to the world of BrahmŒ and the way to Brahma-union. What strikes us in both

(Page 30)

these instances is that birth in the world of BrahmŒ as a reward for the practice of the religious life is conceded. However, nowhere is it recognised as the final end. On the other hand, the Buddha asks SŒriputta why he set DhŒna–jŒni in the world of BrahmŒ when something further could have been achieved (sati uttariµ karaö´ye). BrahmŒ himself is declared to be subject to change (mahŒbrahmuno ' pi atth ' eva a––attattaµ atthi vipariöŒmo). Consequently a high premium is never set on life in the Brahma-world for the Buddhists who always regard it as a relatively inferior position in relation to nibbŒna (h´ne brahmaloke).

At the same time we notice that the idea of birth in the Brahma-world is closely bound up with the practice and development of the four virtues of mettŒ, karuöŒ, muditŒ and upekkhŒ which in Buddhism have come to be known as the four Brahma-vihŒra or divine abodes . However, in the early texts the term Brahma-vihŒra is not always used for the practice of these virtues. The Saºg´ti Sutta refers to them as catasso appama––Œyo or the fourfold boundlessness. In the DhŒna–jŒni Sutta, it is the practice of these four virtues which the venerable SŒriputta recommends to the Brahmin DhŒna–jŒni as the way to reach the Brahma-world. Each one of these is spoken of as leading to that much coveted goal. Here, the practice of the Brahma-vihŒra seems to stand on its own without any leanings on Buddhism, except for the fact that the Sutta simply says that a Bhikkhu does practise these. DhŒna–jŒni was thus able, apparently without any radical change of his ways, to practise it in his Brahmin setting and be born in the Brahma-world. In the TevijjŒ Sutta, the position is different. It is admitted that the development of these practices leads to Brahma-companionship, but it is to come only after the fulfilment of the preliminary duties which are to be carried out by a Buddhist disciple. The grounding in morality (s´lakkhandha), restraint of the sense faculties (indriyasamvara), mental alertness (satisampaja––a) and contentment (santuÊÊhi) are all basic requirements, possessed of which the Buddhist disciple is to purge his mind of the five evil traits (pa–can´varaöa). Then alone has he reached the necessary mental poise for the effective practice of the above virtues referred to as Brahma-vihŒra. We see in this Sutta the practice of the Brahma-vihŒra adequately garbed in Buddhist fashion, even though it is recognised that this practice leads to Brahma-companionship. This being so, no difficulty of incompatibility seems to be encountered here.

But in the MakhŒdeva Sutta, the Brahma-vihŒra are valued differently. King MakhŒdeva who is recognised as the Buddha in one of his earlier existences, is said to have renounced the household life at the first appearance of the signs of old age. Living the life of brahmacariya, he practised not one, but all the four Brahma-vihŒra and after death was born in the Brahma-world. But after he became the Buddha, he was in a position to point out the limitations of the practice of the Brahma-vihŒra as a way of religious life. It leads not to detachment, tranquility and cessation. It leads not to enlightenment but only confers birth in the Brahma-world. The Buddha is happy to be able to offer a new way of religious life which leads to detachment, cessation and tranquility. It is the way to enlightenment which is none other than the noble eightfold path. We notice that there is a definite attempt in this Sutta to reject this alien way of the practice of Brahma-vihŒra,

(Page 31)

with its limitations, perhaps because of its strong ties with the Brahma-world, the relative inferiority of which the Buddha repeatedly stressed. The scope of the religious life of a Buddhist disciple would not only thereby be limited but also misdirected. The same criticism is made when a Buddhist disciple practises the life of brahmacariya, aspiring to be born in a particular heavenly world. The Cetokhila Sutta considers it a definite hindrance to spiritual progress.

However, the virtues developed under the Brahma-vihŒra are in no way incompatible with the spiritual progress of a Buddhist disciple. They are, in fact, associated with the Buddha too. In the J´vaka Sutta, J´vaka tells the Buddha about these four virtues which are believed to be characteristics of BrahmŒ and adds that he feels that the Buddha also possesses them. The Buddha admits that he possesses them but not as the result of a direct process of practice. On the other hand, it is by virtue of the fact that rŒga, dosa and moha are completely eliminated in the Buddha. For it is these which give rise to vyŒpŒda, vihesŒ, arati and paÊigha which are the opposites of these four virtues. Thus, in him they are only derivative virtues resulting from a higher achievement. But the Buddha speaks of his disciples as developing these virtues in their daily life. In the MahŒrŒhulovŒda Sutta, the disciples are asked to develop these with the primary idea of eliminating their opposites, viz. vyŒpŒda, vihesŒ, arati and paÊigha. The Commentary adds that these virtues are essential as the means to the attainment of Arahantship. We notice here an attempt to offer a different motive which is more in keeping with Buddhist values for the practice of these much recognised virtues. It is particularly interesting to note how the elimination of arati is held out as an incentive for the practice of muditŒ. The explanation of arati as given in the Commentaries gives the virtue of muditŒ an essentially monastic character which it need not necessarily have. Arati is accordingly the apathy and indifference to the cloistered life and the lack of initiative in the striving for higher spiritual attainments. Also note the comment on arati which is given in the SuttanipŒta AÊÊhakathŒ. There it is indicated that the pabbajita, even after the conquest of kŒma on entering the monastic life, may yet fall a victim to arati if he fails to engage himself actively in the pursuit of the monastic aspirations. As we examine the interpretation given here to muditŒ and arati with this distinctly monastic bias we begin to see that the Brahma-vihŒra which originally were meant to bring about a mental purge and secure an equipoise of mind are also being used to serve partly as a stimulant in Buddhist monasticism. There is a statement in the Saµyutta NikŒya which tries to make out that the difficult task for a pabbajita is the devotion and dedication to his mission of good monastic living. The Saµyutta has repeated laments over the falling standards of the Buddhist Saºgha and we may safely infer that this statement reflects a similar attitude. At such a stage in the history of the order it is understandable that muditŒ is called upon to play this additional role of battling against spiritual lethargy and indifference.

(Page 32)

The practice of these four virtues is also called appamŒöŒ cetovimutti and this cetovimutti is esteemed high in so far as it is stable and has led in that state of mental perfection to the elimination of rŒga, dosa and moha. Of these four, mettŒ alone as a virtue by itself, is advocated by the Buddha in the Kakacèpama Sutta. This sermon which refers to the elimination of feelings of anger under all circumstances became, more or less, a standard injunction to his disciples. They are called upon to bear in mind the simile of the saw (kakacèpama) at all times. Consequently it became a guiding principle in their life as is borne out by the TheragŒthŒ. The MŒgha Sutta too, seems to single out mettŒ as a virtue to be developed by the Buddhist disciple. The Metta Sutta goes further to recommend the development of mettŒ and calls it, in its isolation, the Brahma-vihŒra.

The AÊÊhakanŒgara Sutta points out that a disciple, realising the limitations of the mental purge resulting from the practice of these virtues under the Brahma-vihŒra, would be propelled thereby to strive for further attainments. Thus it becomes abundantly clear that in spite of the allusions to their transcendent character the Brahma-vihŒra have only a limited significance in Buddhism in relation to the Buddhist life of brahmacariya.

(Page 33)

The Buddha, who discovered the path to enlightenment after a successful process of trial and elimination, proclaims a new way of religious life which he recommends to his followers under the name of brahmacariya. We find that as the goal of this life of brahmacariya the accent falls on the release from dukkha and the attainment of nibbŒna. This is clear from the recurring statement in the texts which is ascribed to the Buddha : ' Come. O monk, live the life of brahmacariya in order that you may make an end of suffering ' (Ehi bhikkhè ' ti bhagavŒ avoca svŒkkhŒto dhammo cara brahmacariyaµ sammŒ dukkhassa antakiriyŒyŒ ' ti - Vin.I.12.). This orientation is due to the fact that the Bodhisatta's search for enlightenment derived its urge from his consuming anxiety to discover the root-cause of the phenomenon of dukkha and the way to its extinction.

The Bodhisatta seems to have analysed the problem of dukkha in terms of its origin (samudaya) and its cessation (nirodha). Through this, it is not difficult to see the emergence of the Noble Truths or Ariya-saccŒni as a part of the basic doctrines of Buddhism. This quest of the Bodhisatta resulted in the discovery of the ultimate cause of dukkha and hence of its cessation too, a discovery which he made following the principle of causal genesis (idappaccayatŒ paÊicca-samuppŒdo). From this, the evolution of the Chain of Causation would have naturally resulted. In the SammŒdiÊÊhi Sutta, the venerable SŒriputta defines dukkha and analyses it in terms of its origin, cessation and the path leading to its cessation. Thereafter, he defines likewise the twelve links of the PaÊiccasamuppŒda chain and analyses each one of them in turn in the same manner. In this analysis of SŒriputta we see an extended use of the Buddha's idea of causal genesis. Here too the successive links of the chain follow, as it were, from an analysis of dukkha.

Thus it is clear that the fact of dukkha was the starting-point of the Bodhisatta's journey of discovery of the causative links. As Buddha, he makes this point crystal clear in more than one place. Thus he tells the venerable AnurŒdha : ' One thing do I teach, suffering and the cessation of suffering ' (SŒdhu sŒdhu anurŒdha pubbe cŒ ' ham anurŒdha etarahi ca dukkha– c' eva pa––Œpemi dukkhassa ca nirodhan ' ti - S.IV. 384. See also M.I.140.). Nothing could have been a more realistic approach to mok©a or deliverance than an awareness of the presence of suffering and a desire to terminate it. Even in his first sermon to the Pa–cavaggiya monks, the Buddha discoursed on dukkha and the escape therefrom. This is so fundamentally the dominant theme of Buddhism that even the philosophical expositions of nibbŒna savour of this. They describe nibbŒna as being the termination of dukkha : es'ev' anto dukkhassa. (Atthi bhikkhave tadŒyatanaµ yattha n ' eva pathav´ na Œpo... es ' ev ' anto dukkhassŒ ' ti ... etc. - Ud. 80f.)

(Page 34)

This current life, associated together with the idea of many more repeated existences, appeared to the Bodhisatta as but a single link in the continuous chain of births and deaths, holding between them decay and disease as inescapable consequences. These ills of life, which the Bodhisatta observed around him, stand out as the first promptings which stirred him to the quest of a way of release from them. The inquiry which he initiated and the results he achieved have become so significant in the history of Buddhism that these researches have been referred retrospectively to times anterior to Buddha Gotama. They are ascribed to all the six Buddhas of the past who are listed together in the MahŒpadŒna Sutta. All these Buddhas seem to make the same observation regarding life in the world, namely, that the world is subject to the ills of birth, decay and death with the threatening reality of birth again in another existence. ' And to me, brethren, before I was enlightened, while I was yet unenlightened and Bodhisatta, there came this thought : Alas! this world has fallen upon trouble. There is getting born and decaying and dying and passing away and being reborn. And yet from this suffering, from decay and death, an escape is not known. O when shall escape from this suffering, from decay and death, be revealed? Then to me, brethren, came this thought, What now being present, does decay and death come to be? What conditions decay and death? '

The theory of causal genesis in Buddhism was therefore a direct outcome of this probe and it is little wonder that the venerable Assaji. who was one of the first five disciples of the Buddha, gave this theory as the essence of his master's teaching :

In the Ariyapariyesana Sutta, the Buddha himself identifies the theory of causal genesis - idappacayatŒ paÊiccasamuppŒdo, a theory in terms of which phenomenal existence and all its concomitants are explained, as the central feature of his Dhamma. As the only complement to this the Sutta introduces the cessation of samsaric existence which is the goal in Buddhism - nirodho nibbŒnaµ. The words of Assaji are undoutedly resonant of these two fundamental and correlated ideas of the Buddha's teaching. Thus, as already pointed out earlier, the four Truths of Buddhism including the way or magga (dukkhanirodhagŒmin´paÊipadŒ) and the Chain of Causation are products of the Buddha's application of the principle of causal genesis to the problem of dukkha. Therefore they are essentially of the very core of Buddhism. In the MahŒhatthipadopama Sutta, the venerable SŒriputta quotes the Buddha as having identified the PaÊiccasamuppŒda with the whole of his teaching. This same prestige for the PaÊiccasamuppŒda is claimed with greater eloquence in the MahŒnidŒna Sutta.

(Page 35)

The problem of dukkha as envisaged by the Bodhisatta and analysed by him later in great detail is shown to be both varied and extensive. In addition to the physical changes of decay, disease and death which are inherent in the fact of birth and are aspects of the basic suffering in life, there are also other painful situations which are consequent on it. The Buddha, in his first sermon at Isipatana, explained that all our relationships with the world outside which are based on strong likes and dislikes and perverted values also lead to dukkha. Dukkha is there defined as ' the company of those whom one does not like, separation from those whom one likes and the inability to gain the objects of desire.' Cares and considerations of household life lead to numerous such instances. The KŒma Sutta of the SuttanipŒta portrays some of these as follows:

However, it is pointed out that these are situations which a wise man may discreetly avoid. The MahŒdukkhakkhandha Sutta also discusses how the manifold implications of life bring dukkha in their wake, to a greater or lesser degree. These aspects of dukkha, man creates for himself to whatever degree he gives vent to his desires. The burden of earning a livelihood, loss and failure, insecurity, interstate warfare, communal and family disputes, and acts of political violence are all listed in the Sutta as contributing their quota to the additional load of dukkha which man piles upon himself.

Brahmacariya or the higher religious life which is often identified with the life of pabbajjΠis held out in early Buddhism as the one certain way for the effective elimination of these ills of existence. The disciples of the Buddha, once being asked by the followers of other religious schools as to the purpose of Buddhist monastic life, answer that it aims at the termination of dukkha.

(Page 36)

This reply of the disciples is heartily endorsed by the Master who maintains that it is the correct interpretation of his teaching.He is himself seen stating the same. The following items are also added as motives for the practice of brahmacariya :

Elimination of lust - rŒgavirŒgatthaµ

Removal of fetters of existence - saµyojanapahŒnatthaµ

Destruction of predispositions - anusayasamugghŒtatthaµ

Extinction of defilements - ŒsavŒnaµ khayatthaµ

Realisation of the fruits of release through wisdom - vijjŒvimuttiphalasacchikiriyatthaµ

Realisation of knowledge and insight - –Œöadassanatthaµ

Complete liberation from the whirl of esistence - anupŒdŒ parinibbŒnatthaµ

Brahmacariya is the Buddhist way to perfection which is referred to as the attainment of nibbŒna. The MahŒassapura Sutta states that the one concern of brahmacariya is the attainment of that poise and freedom of the mind which is nibbŒna. The Cullavedalla Sutta explains the purpose of brahmacariya as the attainment of nibbŒna. The Saµyutta explains further how the life of brahmacariya leads to the cessation of dukkha. Through the practice of brahmacariya, it says, rebirth is ended, and thereby one is freed of all consequent ills. The above passage in the Samyutta strives hard to establish, in no uncertain terms, the essential connection between the practice of brahmacariya and the attainment of the Buddhist goal of terminating saµsŒric existence. The early Canonical texts repeatedly record that every Arahant, while declaring the fact of his enlightenment, claims that he would not be reborn again and that he has perfected the life of brahmacariya : kh´öŒ jŒti vusitaµ brahmacariyaµ. He is also aware of the termination of his existence in saµsŒra which he has accomplished : nŒparaµ itthattŒyŒ ' ti pajŒnŒti. This life of brahmacariya admits of no compromises and is described as a mode of life which is perfect and wholly pure : ekantaparipuööaµ ekantaparisuddhaµ saºkhalikhitaµ. There should be no erring even for a single day, says the Commentary. The Commentaries go on to add that the life of brahmacariya is so called because it is the noblest way of life or the way of life of those who have reached the highest state of perfection. The Arahant is described as brahmacariyassa keval´ or one who has perfected the life of brahmacariya. The Commentary on the above adds that he is also called sakalabrahmacŒr´. i.e. a complete brahmacŒr´. As the complete way to salvation it is also said to embrace all three phases of sikkhŒ or self- culture in Buddhism, namely s´la, samŒdhi and pa––Œ. i.e. morality, tranquility of mind and wisdom respectively.

(Page 37)

It is in this sense, namely that brahmacariya is the way to Arahantship, that brahmacariya comes to be identified with the Noble Eightfold Path. The Commentaries repeatedly speak of brahmacariya as the path leading to Arahantship. Thus it is undoubtedly the ideal religious life in Buddhism, recommended and practised for the attainment of the final goal.

The efficacy of this way of life is readily admitted by its adherents. The elder Puööa MantŒniputta tells the venerable SŒriputta that the life of brahmacariya under the Buddha is lived for the sake of attaining complete emancipation : AnupŒdŒ parinibbŒnatthaµ kho Œvuso bhagavati brahmacariyaµ vussati - M.I.148. The Buddhist disciple who has attained the goal of his quest, the Arahant, speaks of having perfected this higher life of brahmacariya : vusitaµ brahmacariyaµ. The pragmatism of the Buddha's teaching is clearly revealed in the statement that he preaches only what contributes to his life of brahmacariya and leaves unexplained that which has no relevance to it. The life of brahmacariya amounts almost to complete renunciation in that all the followers of the Buddha are invariably found saying that this perfect and pure religious life cannot easily be lived while leading the life of a householder. Thus the ardent convert is seen going from home to homelessness, with faith in the way of life laid down by the Buddha, for the purpose of perfecting this life of brahmacariya. The PabbajjŒ Sutta of the SuttanipŒta describes on very similar lines the motive which prompted the Bodhisatta to renounce the household life. It is at this point of emphasis of complete renunciation that brahmacariya and the life of pabbajjŒ seem almost to converge.

In describing the s´la observed by a pabbajita Suttas go on to say that he is a brahmacŒr´ in that he observes the vow of celibacy, having given up the life of abrahmacariya (non-brahmacariya) which is, more or less, identified with the sex life of a householder. The Tissametteyya Sutta of the SuttanipŒta sheds further light on the Buddhist monastic attitude to celibacy. Called upon by the elder Tissametteyya to explain the dangers of sex life to a monastic career, the Buddha says that the monk who indulges in the pleasures of sex (methuna) would, first and foremost, fail to fulfil his avowed mission. The Commentary explains this further as the failure to gain mastery over the Buddha's teaching (pariyattisŒsana) and the inability to attain to any higher spiritual states (paÊipattisŒsana). He would also consequently slip into wrong patterns of conduct which are unworthy of the noble traditions of true monasticism. It is also said to be despicable in the eyes of the public that one who had renounced everything and chosen a monastic career to lead a solitary life should be lured by thoughts of methuna or sex gratification. He would be looked upon as a carriage which has gone out of control, which ere long would go to wreck and ruin. Such a decline would be degrading and the

(Page 38)

Sutta goes onto say that these considerations should suffice as inducements for a monk to eschew such vulgar pleasures. On account of this monastic attitude to celibacy we discover in the Saµyutta NikŒya what appears to be a fossilized idea which regarded women as a danger to the life of brahmacariya. This latter attitude to women in Buddhism may also be partly derived from Jainism and from the Brahmacarya î§rama of the Brahmins which we discussed earlier under the Upani©ads. But the really vital consideration, over and above all these, is the Buddhist attitude to the enjoyment of kŒma or pleasures of the senses. The desire for their enjoyment, the Buddha has repeatedly stated, is contradictory to the spiritual aspirations of the monk.

It is the celibacy and the good life of the monk that we have discussed so far, and thus brahmacariya remains as though it were the prerogative of the monk. However, in the MahŒvacchagotta Sutta we see the term brahmacŒr´ being used with reference to laymen. The PŒsŒdika Sutta too, uses it in the same sense. The essence of the term here, which is also applied to the white-clad laymen, is that a brahmacŒr´ is one who has eschewed sensual pleasures. Hence he is not a kŒmabhog´. The white-clad laymen who are brahmacŒr´ are presented in marked contrast to the white-clad laymen who enjoy sensual pleasures. This stresses the idea that the essence of brahmacariya is the spirit of complete renunciation. It is not the mere departure from home to homelessness but the surrendering of all the pleasures which are the lot of a householder. This detachment which is to be acquired through diligent cultivation is the fundamental characteristic of true pabbajjŒ. It is evident from the statement in the Saµyutta which says that once the mind has achieved this detachment, the pabbajita would not exchange his mode of life for the lower order of the laymen.

It is also clear from the testimony of the Suttas that the early disciples who took to the monastic life under the Buddha did so with a characteristic awareness and earnestness. They admit that it is difficult for one who lives the life of a householder to practise this code of higher living. The household, with its many-faceted activities could never provide the necessary leisure or freedom for its development. It is far from being the ideal setting for it. It is also said that the unstable and disquietening character of household life is enough in itself to drive a man to complete renunciation. The contrast between the two is emphatically stated in the following statement. ' Life in the household is full of impediments and leads to corruption. Life of mendicancy affords complete freedom ' : BahusambŒdho gharŒvŒso rajopatho abbhokŒso pabbajjŒ. The Commentaries, which give

(Page 39)

further details of this, quote the MahŒaÊÊhakathŒ as saying that the household life does invariably give rise to defilement of the mind through greed etc. This point of view, that the higher life of brahmacariya is closely bound up with renunciation, is so significant and is accepted in principle in Buddhism that in the biographies of the Buddha he is made to express it even at the stage of being a Bodhisatta, prior to his enlightenment. Those who choose that life leave their household behind with perfect ease. Inspired by this end which they have in view they find that nothing in their worldly possessions is too great to be sacrificed. KŒla, who fled from his wife and son, reassures us of this as he says : ' Like the elephant that breaks its chains asunder the wise leave behind their sons, wealth and kinsmen and enter the life of pabbajjŒ '. The goal for which they strive becomes the constant and unfailing guiding force in their lives.

It is abundantly clear that early Buddhism with its spiritual earnestness considered pabbajjŒ or the life of renunciation as the ideal religious life. The life of the monk is a stage beyond that of the laymen, and the passage from lay life to recluseship is always looked upon as an advance, a step forward in spiritual progress. Discarding all paraphernalia and associations of lay life a man should leave his home and take to the solitary life of a mendicant. In doing so he is compared to the PŒricchatta tree which sheds its leaves. The Cèladukkhakkhandha Sutta expresses the idea that the spiritual development enjoined in Buddhism would ultimately lead to pabbajjŒ or renunciation of household life. It is argued in the Sutta that if the basis from which thoughts of lobha, dosa and moha spring has been eliminated in any man, he would then no longer remain in the household or enjoy sensual pleasures. Those who chose this way of life, inspite of the strict discipline and the endless striving it involved, decided that they would ceaselessly work all their life for the attainment of their goal. An independent observation by King Pasenadi Kosala in the Dhammacetiya Sutta testifies to this. Those disciples would prefer death rather than give up their chosen career. A ther´, despairing at the slow progress she made in her spiritual endeavours, declares that she would rather make an end of her life than return to lay life. The elder SappadŒsa who was placed in a similar situation voiced the same sentiment. This, in fact, became the accepted attitude to fickleness of faith among those leading the higher life. It is suicide, declares the Saµyutta, to give up the higher religious life and revert to the lower order.

Thus early Buddhism, very naturally, seems to have exalted the life of the monk over that of the layman. In the spiritual quest, the monk is ahead of the layman on account of his very natural advantages with which the layman could not compete. The SuttanipŒta illustrates this position beautifully where it says that the crested peacock adorned with its blue neck never equals the swan in its speed. A monk does transcend a layman in that he gives up not only the belongings. but also

(Page 40)

the desires and emotions which are characteristic of those living in the household. He leads such a light livelihood, with just enough food for his sustenance and a garment to cover himself, that it is said that the monk goes about like a bird which, wherever it goes, carries only the weight of its feathers.

These world-renouncing and abstemious disciples of the Buddha seem to have had a mixed reception in the contemporary Indian society. Although celibacy and renunciation were nothing strange to Indian religions, yet the popularity of the new creed of the Buddha and the success of his early conversions appear to have roused some animated comments from his contemporaries. The ideal of renunciation in the new religion, they argued, led to social disintegration and breach of family life. It was added that women were widowed on account of this new movement and parents were robbed of their dhildren. This presumably would have been the most natural and at the same time the most superficial charge that could have been made against the Buddhist Order of monks. The Indians of the Buddha's day seem to have been accustomed to look upon renunciation and religious mendicancy as a stage in man's life which is to be initiated at the appearance of grey hairs. Renunciation marks the quest for celestial pleasures on which one embarks only after the enjoyment of the pleasures of the world. This is well attested in the words of King MakhŒdeva in the MakhŒdeva Sutta where he says that since grey hairs have appeared on his head it is time for him to search for heavenly pleasures. In the RaÊÊhapŒla Sutta we get another expression of this idea where King Koravya tells the elder RaÊÊhapŒla that people leave the household life and take to religious mendicancy only when they fail to make a success of this life on account of old age or disease, loss of wealth or kith and kin.

It would also not be out of place here to observe that the hallmark of Indian religious mendicancy at the time was asceticism which more often than not turned out to be of a severe order. Both popular taste and contemporary practices mutually contributed towards this position. Putting forward his new charter for more rigorous monastic living, Devadatta pointed out that people adore severe self-abnegation. The naked ascetics of the day argued with the Buddha that no happpiness could be attained except through the path of pain. It was also observed earlier that the caturaºgasamannŒgata-brahmacariya which is of non- Buddhist origin consisted of austerities of the highest severity. The Buddha denounced this as a form of religious life and said, in his first sermon, that it was a mean and vulgar way of life which was painful. Therefore it was to be ruled out as a disastrous extreme which should be avoided. It was not the way whereby the mind would triumph over the body and attain to higher states of enlightenment. Nor did this mode of conduct help to pay off the sins of the past as was maintained by the Jains. Thus the Buddha never set

(Page 41)

the mind and the body against each other. One should take special note here of the statement in the PadhŒna Sutta which appears, as it were, to contradict this position. In reply to MŒra, the Bodhisatta is reported to have said the following. ' While my flesh wastes away my mind will reach greater tranquility ' : Maµsesu kh´yamŒnesu bhiyyo cittaµ pas´dati - Sn. v. 434. This does not, however, seem to mean that the way to the tranquility of mind is through this physical decline. As the Commentary appears to indicate these words are in reply to MŒra who exaggerated the Bodhisatta's physical deterioration with a view to luring him into the enjoyment of sensual pleasures. The Bodhisatta was fully aware that the way to the attainment of the desired goal was undeniably a hard one which would make very heavy demands. But with a sincerity of purpose and an unrivalled earnestness which are coupled with a perfect judgement, he was not to be dissuaded from his venture. It is in spite of the threatened danger to his physical self that he is certain of attaining the desired mental equipoise. Thus what the Bodhisatta wished to establish was that his indomitable spirit would not give way under the decline of the flesh : Na tv ' eva tappaccayŒ saµs´dati - SnA. II. 389.

It is in fact a healthy and peaceful interdependence of the mind and the body that is aimed at in the religious life which the Buddha prescribed. While the body is distressed no control or concentration of the mind could ever be achieved. Keeping this in mind the Buddha decried not only the baser forms of austerities which weary the body but also excessive striving, even though such striving may be channelled in the right direction. The composure of the dody and the consequent sense of ease was vital for the acquisition of any tranquility of the mind. (Pamuditassa p´ti jŒyati p´timanassa kŒyo passambhati passaddhakŒyo sukhaµ vedeti sukhino cittaµ samŒdhiyati - M.I.37.).

Coloured by this new attitude to mind culture, the code of conduct governing the life of the Buddhist disciple became considerably different from those of the contemporary groups. The life of the Buddhist disciple was never degraded to sub-human levels as are described at length in the Buddhist Suttas which deal with the austerities of the day. Clean and healthy living, both in mind and body, was their rule. The Buddha saw no reason to retreat from physical and mental well-being, as long as it was not mingled with and contaminated by sensual pleasures. In fact, he recognised the physical well-being as a basis for the other. A high value was set on physical fitness and freedom from disease, not so much for its own sake but as forming a solid basis for mental development. It is partly with this end in view that the Buddha regulated the lives of the monks with regard to their habits of food and drink. Regularity and moderation in eating, the Buddha maintained, contributes to a healthy life, but lack of food would impair the successful progress of brahmacariya. Food is therefore to be taken with a view to eliminating physical distress so that the endeavour for spiritual development may be made unhindered. Thus the Buddhist monks did eat and dress much less than the laymen and on a much simpler pattern. The Buddha constantly reminded them that once they renounced the household life they should never again lean towards the ways of the laymen. SeyyathŒ ' pi gih´ kŒmabhogino was a grim reminder to every erring individual. Every monk who was sufficiently alert in mind always reminded himself that it was

(Page 42)

unworthy of his ideal to incline towards the enjoyment of pleasures which he had renounced on leaving the household. The monk who is satisfied with his four basic sustenances (cattŒro nissayŒ) which consist of begged food and patch-work robes, way-side shelters and the simplest of medicaments, is described as a triumphant free man who finds himself at home everywhere. Even these minimum requirements, a monk should use with extreme frugality and diligent consideration.

The marked contrast of the Buddhist monks when viewed in relation to contemporary religious mendicants, and the liberal patronage they enjoyed brought upon them a series of accusations that they were leading a life of ease and luxury. But these statements were often groundless and based on misconceptions. It is proved by the fact that those who sought admission to the Buddhist Order, lured by these assumed attractions, were soon disillusioned and discovered to their utter dismay the demands of Buddhist monastic discipline. There is also no doubt that some would have found themselves in the same position as the Brahmin who joined the Order to make an easy living on the gifts of food offered by the laymen and subsequently threatened to revert to lay life on being called upon to go begging for alms. There was also the other section of the community who truly recognised the sincerity of the Buddhist diseiples and their devotion to the holy life. They were looked upon as a perfect model of good living and were of such exemplary character that men who wished to join their ranks were not wanting in the society of the day.

(Page 43)

The complete spiritual development of the early Buddhist disciple who has voluntarily embarked on the life of brahmacariya seems to have been covered under the term sikkhŒ which means culture, training, discipline and also study. All the rewards of monastic life including the final goal of Arahantship are therefore the result of sikkhŒ (Tassa evaµ jŒnato evaµ passato kŒmŒsavŒ ' pi cittaµ vimuccati....nŒparaµ itthattŒyŒ ' ti pajŒnŒti. Taµ kissa hetu. Evaµ hi etaµ bhaddŒli hoti yathŒ taµ satthusŒsane sikkhŒya paripèrakŒrissŒ ' ti - M.I. 442.) Similarly the respect in which sikkhŒ is held by the disciples (sikkhŒ-gŒravatŒ) is considered a cardinal virtue of Buddhist monasticism (ye pana te kulaputtŒ saddhŒ agŒrasmŒ anagŒriyaµ pabbajitŒ.... sikkhŒya tibbagŒravŒ - M.I. 32). It is also one of six virtues which contribute to a disciple's spiritual stability. It is listed together with the respect for the Buddha, Dhamma and Saºgha (satthugŒravatŒ, dhammagŒravatŒ and saºghagŒravatŒ) and two other virtues which vary in different contexts. Consequently the abandonment of the monastic discipline and the return to lay life was regarded as the negation of sikkhŒ (ye pi samaöassa gotamassa sŒvakŒ sabrahmacŒr´hi sampayojetvŒ sikkhaµ paccakkhŒya h´nŒya Œvattanti - M.II. 5.).

This concept of sikkhŒ which brings within its fold the entire system of spiritual development in Buddhism is considered as being threefold in character. According to this classification the training of the disciple is divided into three successive stages of 1. s´la, 2. samŒdhi and 3. pa––Œ and goes under the name of tisso sikkhŒ (Tisso imŒ bhikkhave sikkhŒ. KatamŒ tisso. Adhis´lasikkhŒ adhittasikkhŒ adhipa––ŒsikkhŒ - A.I. 235.). It is reported in the Aºguttara NikŒya that once a Vajjiputtaka monk who confessed his inability to abide by such a large number of rules which exceeded one hundred and fifty in number (sŒdhikaµ diya¶¶hasikkhŒpadasataµ) and which were recited fortnightly at the PŒtimokkha ceremony was told by the Buddha that it would serve the purpose of his monastic life if he could discipline himself in terms of the threefold sikkhŒ. All those rules, it is said, are contained within the threefold sikkhŒ (ImŒ kho bhikkhave tisso sikkhŒ yatth ' etaµ sabbaµ samodhŒnaµ gacchati - A.I. 231.). These three items of discipline are also referred to as constituting the duties of monastic life (T´öi ' mŒni bhikkhave samaöassa samaöakaraö´yŒni. KatamŒni t´öi. Adhis´lasikkhŒsamŒdŒnaµ adhicittasikkhŒsamŒdŒnaµ adhipa––ŒsikkhŒ-samŒdŒnaµ - A.I. 229.) They bring about the accomplishments of a recluse which make him a true samaöa. Buddhaghosa too, quoting the Aºguttara NikŒya verbatim in his commentary on the MahŒassapura Sutta, reaffirms this view. These three stages of s´la, samŒdhi and pa––Œ, together mark the complete development of Buddhist monastic life which leads to the acquisition of true knowledge or a––Œ (SeyyathŒ pi sŒriputta bhikkhu s´lasampanno samŒdhi-sampanno pa––Œsampanno diÊÊheva dhamme a––aµ ŒrŒdheyya - M.I. 71.). Viewed negatively, it is said that self-training in terms of these three results in the elimination of lust, hatred and delusion (tasmŒ tuyhaµ bhikkhu adhis´lam ' pi sikkhato adhicittam ' pi sikkhato adhipa––am ' pi sikkhato rŒgo pah´yissati doso pah´yissati moho pah´yissati - A.I. 230). Thus the true endeavour to develop all these aspects is made the basis of all monastic aspirations. The îkaºkheyya Sutta gives it as a prescription for the perfection of monastic life. It is held out as the best code for the attainment of the highest good in religious life, including Arahantship.

(Page 44)

(Akaºkheyya ce bhikkhave bhikkhu ŒsavŒnaµ khayŒ anŒsavaµ cetovimuttiµ pa––Œvimuttiµ diÊÊhe ' va dhamme sayaµ abhi––Œya sacchikatvŒ upasampajja vihareyyan ' ti s´lesv ' eva ' ssa paripèrakŒr´ ajjhattaµ cetosamathaµ anuyutto anirŒkatajjhŒno vipassanŒya samannŒgato brèhetŒ su––ŒgŒrŒnaµ - M.I. 35f.). Buddhaghosa establishes that the procedure described here is identical with the discipline of the tisso sikkhŒ.

Nevertheless, it is clear from the evidence of the Suttas that out of the threefold sikkhŒ special emphasis was laid on s´la as the foundation of all spiritual attainments. The Buddha himself is seen assuring his disciples of the efficacy of s´la as the basis of spiritual progess (yato kho tvaµ bhikkhu s´laµ nissŒya s´le patiÊÊhŒya ime cattŒro satipaÊÊhŒne bhŒvessasi tato tuyhaµ bhikkhu yŒ ratti vŒ divaso vŒ Œgamissati vuddhi yeva pŒÊikaºkhŒ kusalesu dhammesu no parihŒn´ ' ti - S.V. 187.). Once the monastic life is well established on the s´la basis all else seem to follow in natural succession. The îkaºkheyya Sutta,in fact, begins with the Buddha's admonition to the monks to be mindful of their s´la and to acquire thereby the necessary discipline (sampannas´lŒ bhikkhave viharatha sampannapŒtimokkhŒ pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvutŒ viharatha ŒcŒragocara-sampannŒ anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhatha sikkhŒpadesu - M.I. 33.). The SŒma––aphala Sutta gives a complete account of what ought to be and what probably was the proper conduct of the good monk (Evaµ pabbajito samŒno pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharati ŒcŒragocarasampanno anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhati sikkhŒpadesu kŒyakammavac´kammena samannŒgato kusalena parisuddhŒj´vo s´lasampanno indriyesu guttadvŒro satisampaja––ena samannŒgato santuÊÊho - D.I. 63.) An analysis and evaluation of the aspects of monastic conduct which are described here will be found in a succeeding chapter. For the present we shall only quote Professor Rhys Davids who in his study of the SŒma––aphala Sutta makes the following observations regarding its distinctly Buddhist flavour in its reference to monastic conduct : 'Now it is perfectly true that of these thirteen consecutive propositions or groups of propositions, it is only the last, No. 13 which is exclusively Buddhist. But the things omitted, the union of the whole of those included into one system, the order in which the ideas are arranged, the way in which they are treated as so many steps of a ladder whose chief value depends on the fact that it leads up to the culminating point of NirvŒna in Arahatship - all this is also distinctly Buddhist.'

Getting down to the details of the above passage, however, the Sutta proceeds with an exhaustive analysis of s´lasampanno which is followed in succession by indriyesu guttadvŒro, satisampaja––ena samannŒgato and santuÊÊho. When we compare the comments of Buddhaghosa on the above passage and the definition of s´lasampanno given in the Sekha Sutta it becomes clear to us that here too the first consideration has been the perfection in s´la. This prestige which s´la enjoys in early Buddhism as the basic training in religious life has never been challenged in the centuries that followed in the history of Pali Buddhism. In the Milindapa–ha (circa first century B.C.), the venerable NŒgasena reiterates its impotrance with equal vigour (PatiÊÊhŒnalakkhaöaµ mahŒrŒja s´laµ sabbesaµ kusalŒnaµ dhammŒnaµ indriya-bala-bojjhaºga-magga-satipaÊÊhŒna-sammappadhŒna-iddhipŒda-jjhŒna-vimokkha-samŒdhi-samŒpatt´naµ s´laµ patiÊtham. S´le patiÊÊhassa kho mahŒrŒja sabbe kusalŒ dhammŒ na parihŒyant´ 'ti - Milin. 34.). In the fifth century A.C. Buddhaghosa is equally eloquent on it in the Visuddhimagga. Both NŒgasena and Buddhaghosa quote Canonical texts regarding the basic value of s´la. The Saµyutta NikŒya records in two places the following statement which is ascribed to the Buddha :

(Page 45)

This stanza which emphasises the importance of s´la is quoted by NŒgasena as an utterance of the Buddha (BhŒsitam ' pi etaµ mahŒrŒja bhagavatŒ s´le patiÊÊhŒya ....Miln. 34.). Buddhaghosa does the same in the Visuddhimagga. (Ten ' Œha bhagavŒ s´le patiÊÊhŒya... Vism.I. 4) In the GaöakamoggllŒna and the Dantabhèmi Suttas of the Majjhima NikŒya, which deal with the development of the monastic life under the guidance of the Master himself, the main emphasis is on the idea that the spiritual development of the monk is a gradual process and is undertaken in successive stages (anupubbasikkhŒ anupubbakiriyŒ anupubba-paÊipadŒ). The first words which the Buddha addresses to his disciples on taking them under his direction are with regard to their perfection in s´la and the consequent restraint which is associated with it (Ehi tvaµ bhikkhu s´lavŒ hohi pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharŒhi ŒcŒragocarasampanno anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhŒhi sikkhŒpadesè ' ti - M.III. 2,134.).

The perfection in s´la, no doubt, marks the first stage in the spiritual development of the Buddhist disciple and this advice of the Buddha to his disciples is found scattered in many places in the Sutta PiÊaka, sometimes addressed to single individuals and sometimes to the Saºgha as a whole. It is thus clear that s´la was the corner-stone of early Buddhist monasticism. First and foremost, the Buddhist disciple had to be s´lavŒ. It meant that the disciple had to regulate his life in terms of what is recorded under s´la as conditions of good monastic living, abstaining from what is indicated as unworthy and contradictory to his spiritual aspirations. In the SŒma––aphala Sutta, the term s´lasampanno is used as equivalent in meaning to s´lavŒ and under it are included forty-three items of s´la which are subdivided into three groups as Minor, Middle and Major (cèlas´la, majjhimas´la and mahŒs´la). A number of Suttas of the Majjhima NikŒya, in describing the s´la of the Buddhist disciple, include under the category of s´la (s´lakkhandha) only the first twenty-six items which in the SŒma––aphala Sutta are all grouped under cèlas´la. They include the three bodily and the four verbal misdeeds or akusalakamma and have in addition certain practices, like the acceptance of gold and silver, cattle and land, which are unworthy of a monk but are allowable in the case of laymen. There are also some others like the last three items of the cèlas´la which include fraudulent practices, violence and atrocities which are neither good for the monk nor for the layman. Almost all the ten items under the majjhimas´la are only further elaborations of some of the items of the cèlas´la. The seven items of the mahŒs´la are only detailed descriptions of the different forms of ignoble livelihood or micchŒ Œj´va which are improper for a monk.

These items of s´la, in the Suttas where they occur, do not bear the impress of an order or injunction. The disciples of the Buddha are described as giving up akusalakamma through word and deed. Abstaining from these evils, the disciples develop their corresponding virtues (Idha mahŒrŒja bhikkhu pŒöŒtipŒtaµ pahŒya pŒöŒtipŒtŒ paÊivirato hoti nihitadaö¶o nihitasattho lajj´ dayŒpanno sabba-pŒöa-bhèta-hitŒnukamp´ viharati - D.I. 63 ff.). They also abstain from patterns of conduct which are deemed unworthy of a monk. This freedom and the absence of pressure in the regulation of the spiritual life which underlies the letter and the spirit of s´la is very characteristic of Buddhist monasticism in its earliest phase. With those sincere and earnest disciples of the Buddha who gathered themselves around him at the inception of the SŒsana, no injunctions or restrictive regulations seem to have been necessary. In the Kakacèpama Sutta, the Buddha records his memory of the early days of the SŒsana when he needed no strict orders to determine the behaviour of his disciples. At a mere suggestion by the Master the disciples took to the good ways of life recommended as they did when they adopted the habit of one meal a day (îrŒdhayiµsu vata me bhikkhave bhikkhè

(Page 46)

ekaµ samayaµ cittaµ. IdhŒ ' haµ bhikkhave bhikkhè Œmantesiµ. Ahaµ kho bhikkhave ekŒsanabhojanam bhu–jŒmi.... Etha tumhe ' pi bhikkhave ekŒsanabhojanaµ bhu–jatha... Na me bhikkhave tesu bhikkhusu anusŒsan´ karaö´yŒ ahosi sat ' uppŒdakaraö´yaµ eva me bhikkhave tesu bhikkhusu ahosi - M.I.124.).

The incident referred to in the Kakacèpama Sutta clearly indicates the manner in which the Buddha's early disciples received and accepted his recommendations regarding the way of life appropriate for the monk. The Buddha seems at first to have counted on the sincerity and spiritual earnestness of his early disciples for the success of his religious order. It was his wish, no doubt, to manage with the minimum of restrictive regulations. But in the growing monastic community whose numbers were rapidly increasing, laxity in discipline was bound to appear before long. The BhaddŒli Sutta indicates a recognition of the relative strength of the Saºgha at two different periods within one's memory (AppakŒ kho tumhe bhaddŒli tena samayena ahuvattha yadŒ vo ahaµ ŒjŒn´yasusèpamaµ dhammapariyŒyaµ desesiµ. Sarasi tvaµ bhaddŒl´ ' ti - M.1.445.). The strength in numbers, the popularity of individuals or groups and the maturity of the members of the Saºgha as it was becoming a long established institution, were among the causes of corruption. The BhaddŒli Sutta shows us how the once accepted monastic tradition of one meal a day which is recorded in the Kakacèpama Sutta and which had also found for itself a place among the items of s´la as a condition of good monastic living had to be reinforced with a restrictive regulation making it an offence to eat out of regular hours. These rgulations which are called sikkhŒpada now provide, beside s´la, an effective instrument for the furtherance of good discipline in the monastic community.

It is also probable that the Buddha has such rebellious disciples like BhaddŒli in mind when he speaks in the Kakacèpama Sutta of the willing acceptance of the one meal a day recommendation by his disciples as a thing of the past. Inspite of the general agreement that abstinence from irregularity of meals was wholesome for the monastic life, yet certain laxities regarding this practice are noticeable in the early Buddhist monastic community. The incident which brought about the promulgation of PŒcittiya 37 is such an instance. It was certainly an offence against s´la, but since sila had no legal status the offender could not be prosecuted and punished under its authority. It is such situations as these which mark the introduction of sikkhŒpada into the sphere of Buddhist monastic discipline. Thus, in the Buddhist Vinaya, the first offender who provokes the promulgation of a sikkhŒpada is declared free, in a legal sense, from guilt (anŒpatti.... Œdikammikassa - Vin.III. 33. etc.). His offence, at the time, is against an item of s´la and he could not therefore be legally prosecuted for a pre-sikkhŒpada offence. This role of the Vinaya, that it serves as an instrument of prosecution, is clearly indicated in the text of the Vinaya itself. In the introduction to PŒcittiya 72, we diccover the fear expressed by the Chabbaggiya monks that if many monks are conversant with the text of the Vinaya that they are liable to be accused and questioned by those Masters of the Vinaya with regard to laxities in discipline (Sace ime vinaye pakata––uno bhavissanti amhe yen ' icchakaµ yad ' icchakaµ yŒvad ' icchakaµ Œka¶¶hissanti parika¶¶hissanti. Handa mayaµ Œvuso vinayaµ vivaööemŒ ' ti - Vin. IV. 143.). Buddhaghosa too, explains the role of sikkhŒpada on the same lines when he says that in the presence of sikkhŒpada the Saºgha could make specific references to the body of rules and make just and legally valid accusations.

A careful analysis of the history of PŒrŒjika I reveals the nanner in which the authoritative disciplinary machinery of the Vinaya came to be set up in gradual stages. The Suttavibhaºga records that Sudinna committed the offence of methunadhamma (sexual intercourse) at a time when the sikkhŒpada on this point had not been promulgated. It is said that he did not know the consequences it involved (.... apa––atte sikkhŒpade anŒd´navadasso - Vin.III.18.). It is difficult to

(Page 47)

maintain here that anŒd´navadassao means that Sudinna did not know that his act was an offence against the spirit of Buddhist monasticism. Two things preclude us from accepting this position. Some time after the commission of the act Sudinna is stricken with remorse that he had not been able to live to perfection his monastic life (atha kho Œyasmato sudinnassa ahu ' d eva kukkuccam ahu vippaÊisŒro alŒbhŒ vata me na vata me lŒbhŒ dulladdhaµ vata me na vata me suladdhaµ yŒvŒ ' haµ evaµ svŒkkhŒte dhammavinaye pabbajitvŒ nŒsakkhiµ yŒvaj´vaµ paripuööaµ parisuddhaµ brahmacariyaµ caritun ' ti - Vin. III. 19.) He knows and feels that he has erred and brought ruin upon himself. For he says that he has committed a sinful deed (Atthi me pŒpaµ kammaµ kataµ - Vin. III. 19.). Perhaps it would also have occurred to him that his act was in violation of the item of s´la which refers to the practice of celibacy (Abrahmacariyaµ pahŒya brahmacŒr´ hoti ŒrŒcŒr´ virato methunŒ gŒmadhammŒ - D.I. 63.).

Therefore we cannot take anŒd´navadasso to mean that Sudinna did not know that methunadhamma was an offence against monastic life. Nor does he claim such ignorance anywhere during the inquiries held by his fellow celibates or the Buddha. Secondly, even in the absence of any restrictive regulations it seems to have been very clear to all members of the Buddhist Saºgha that according to what the Buddha had declared in his Dhamma, the offence of methunadhamma contradicts the spirit of true renunciation (Nanu Œvuso bhagavatŒ aneka-pariyŒyena virŒgŒya dhammo desito no sarŒgŒya visaµyogŒya dhammo desito no samyogŒya anupŒdŒnŒya dhammo desito no saupŒdŒnŒya - Vin. III. 19.). Similarly, the Buddha had repeatedly stated to the monks that gratification of sense desires was in no way permissible. Both the disciples and the Buddha remind Sudinna of this position (Nanu Œvuso bhagavatŒ anekapariyŒyena kŒmŒnaµ pahŒnaµ akkhŒtaµ kŒmasa––Œnaµ pari––Œ akkhŒtŒ kŒmapipŒsŒnaµ paÊivinayo akkhŒto kŒmavitakkŒnaµ samugghŒto akkhŒto kŒmapariÂŒhŒnaµ vèpasamo akkhŒto - Vin. III. 2.). On the other hand, the sikkhŒpada on methunadhamma, i.e. PŒrŒjika I, which came to be laid down subsequently does no more than determine the gravity of the offence and the consequent punishment it involves. Therefore what the statement anŒd´navadasso here means probably is that abstinence from methunadhamma being one among the many items of s´la, Sudinna did not fully apprehend the relative seriousness of his offence.

However, this passage receives a very different interpretation in the hands of Buddhaghosa. The commentator says that Sudinna committed the act of methunadhamma thinking that it was not wrong because he did not realise the consequences which the Buddha was going to indicate while laying down this sikkhŒpada. It is abundantly clear that Sudinna did not know that he would have been expelled from the Order for his offence had he not been the first to be guilty of it, because this penalty came to be categorically stated only in the sikkhŒpada which was laid down after the commission of the offence by Sudinna. But we are unable to agree with Buddhaghosa when he says that Sudinna did not know that he was doing something wrong and thought he was completely blameless (anavajjasa––´ and niddosasa––´). This interpretation does not seem to be possible unless we say that Sudinna was completely ignorant of the Dhamma or we take the words vajja and dosa here in an unnecessarily restricted legal sense. This is obviously what Buddhaghosa does in his explanation of anavajjasa––´ and niddosasa––´ (AnŒd´navadasso ' ti yaµ bhagavŒ idŒni sikkhŒpadaµ pa––Œpento Œd´navaµ dasseti tam apassanto anavajjasa––´ hutvŒ ...... ettha pana Œd´navam apassanto niddosasa––´ ahosi. Tena vuttam anŒd´navadasso ' ti - VinA.I. 213.). But it is the criteria of the Dhamma which both Sudinna's fellow-celibates and the Buddha adopt in chastising him. Does not Sudinna himself admit that he has incurred a guilt (Atthi me pŒpaµ kammaµ kataµ purŒöadutiyikŒya methuno dhammo paÊisevito - Vin. III. 19.), and that therefore his monastic life has been a failure (.... yŒvŒ ' haµ evaµ svŒkkhŒte dhammavinaye pabbajitvŒ nŒsakkhiµ yŒvaj´vaµ paripuööaµ parisuddhaµ brahmacariyaµ caritun ' ti - Ibid.)? Thus, this ignorance of the possible penalty cannot be taken as rendering the offender blameless.

It is possible to state at this stage that the sikkhŒpada of the Vinaya PiÊaka have been evolved as instruments of prosecution with a monastic legal validity, against offences which in the general text of the Dhamma are put down as improper and unworthy of a monk, which sometimes are also applicable to laymen, or as being detrimental to the spiritual progress of the monk. It is this particular character of the sikkhŒpada of which the greater part of the Vinaya consists, which made the Vinaya

(Page 48)

so obnoxious to quite a umber of rebellious monks even during the lifetime of the Master (Sace ime vinaye pakata––uno bhavissanti amhe yen ' icchakaµ yad ' icchakaµ yŒvad ' icchakaµ Œka¶¶hissanti parika¶¶hissanti. Handa mayaµ Œvuso vinayaµ vivaööemŒ ' ti - Vin.IV.134.). The need for such legalised administration of the Saºgha arose only with the lapse of time. It was already referred to above how the Buddha recollects with pleasure the golden age of the Buddhist Saºgha when the good life according to the Master's bidding was practised at a mere suggestion. According to a tradition preserved in the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ, this sense fo responsibility and earnestness among the members of the Saºgha lasted only twenty years. For twenty years from the enlightenment of the Buddha, says the tradition, no serious offence like a PŒrŒjika or SaºghŒdisesa was ever witnessed, and hence there was no provocation for the promulgation of PŒrŒjika or SaºghŒdisesa rules. Then there began to appear the need for legislation. In course of time laxities in discipline and lawlessness among the members of the monastic community signalled to the Buddha that the time had come to lay down restrictive regulations for the guidance of its members (Yato ca kho bhaddŒli idh ' ekacce ŒsavaÊÊhŒniyŒ dhammŒ saºghe pŒtubhavanti atha satthŒ sŒvakŒnaµ sikkhŒpadaµ pa––Œpeti tesaµ y ' eva ŒsavaÊÊhŒniyŒnaµ dhammŒnaµ paÊighŒtŒya - M.I. 445.).

In the BhaddŒli Sutta, the above quoted words of the Buddha to BhaddŒli that he lays down rules and regulations only as the need arises seem to come at a time when already a fair number of regulations had been laid down. This fact appears to be recognised in the words of BhaddŒli as he questions the Buddha with regard to the increase in the number of sikkhŒpada (Ko pana bhante hetu ko paccayo yen ' etarahi bahutarŒni c ' eva sikkhŒpadŒni honti appatarŒ ca bhikkhè a––Œya saöÊhahanti - M.I. 445.). The Buddha's reply to this is, in fact, in defence of the increase of regulations which is said to have been necessitated by the steady decline in morality (Evaµ hi etaµ bhaddŒli hoti sattesu hŒyamŒnesu saddhamme antaradhŒyamŒne bahutarŒni c ' eva sikkhŒpadŒni honti appatarŒ ca bhikkhè a––Œya saöÊhahanti - M.I. 445.). In the Saµyutta NikŒya, the venerable MahŒ Kassapa is seen making the same observation about the increase in the number of sikkhŒpada. On the other hand, the semi-historical introduction to the Suttavibhaºga places these words of the Buddha regarding the promulgation of the rules in a different context. Here the Buddha Gotama, at the request of the venerable SŒriputta, discusses the success and failure of the monastic organizations of the six previous Buddhas from Vipassi to Kassapa and analyses in detail the causes which contributed to these vicissitudes. In addition to the exhaustive preaching of the Dhamma, the adequate provision of restrictive regulations and the institution of the monastic ritual of the PŒtimokkha are considered vital for the successful establishment of the monastic order. It is further recorded that the venerable SŒriputta, getting wiser by the experience of the Buddhas of the past, requests the Buddha Gotama to lay down s´kkhŒpada and institute the ritual of the PŒtimokkha for the guidance of his disciples. The Buddha then silences SŒriputta saying that he himself knows the proper time for it, and repeats the rest of the argument as is recorded in the BhaddŒli Sutta that rules and regulations would be laid down only as the occasion demands. However, there are two noticeable differences in these two accounts. In the BhaddŒli Sutta, the Buddha tells BhaddŒli that he does not lay down sikkhŒpada until they are really necessitated by circumstances and that with the appearance of signs of corruption in the Order he would lay down sikkhŒpada for their arrest. In the Suttavibhaºga, the institution of the ritual of the PŒtimokkha is added to this as a further safeguard. The absence of this reference to the PŒtimokkha in the BhaddŒli Sutta does not entitle us to argue that the account in the BhaddŒli Sutta is therefore anterior to the institution of the PŒtimokkha ritual. It may be that since sikkhŒpada and their gradual increase was the main concern of BhaddŒli, the Sutta speaks about the promulgation of sikkhŒpada alone and leaves from it any reference to the PŒtimokkha ritual.

(Page 49)

The second point is far more interesting. The BhaddŒli Sutta has five items as causes of corruption in the monastic order. The list begins with mahatta (greatness) and adds lŒbhagga (highest gain), yasagga (highest fame), bŒhusacca (great learning) and ratta––utŒ (seniority). The Suttavibhaºga has only four items which run as follows: ratta––umahatta (greatness of seniority), vepullamahatta (greatness of number), lŒbhaggamahatta (greatness of gain) and bŒhusaccamahatta (greatness of learning). The first thing we notic here is that while mahatta was used in the BhaddŒli Sutta as a specific condition it is used in the Suttavibhaºga as a general attribute. The yasagga of the former is also left out in the latter. In the Suttavibhaºga list, ratta––umahatta which is the last item in the BhaddŒli Sutta takes precedence over all other considerations. Consequently, mahatta which headed the list in the BhaddŒli Sutta takes the second palce in the Suttavibhaºga under the new name of vepullamahatta. This change of position, and probably also of emphasis of ratta––utŒ is a significant one. For this attribute of ratta––utŒ, both in relation to the monastic community as well as to individual monks seems to imply their existence over a long period of time. Probably at the time of the BhaddŒli Sutta, ratta––utŒ as cause of corruption of the monastic community was only beginning to gather momentum. It was to become a potent factor only in the years to come. Hence it would not have been in proper sequence if ratta––utŒ as a cause of corruption headed the list in the BhaddŒli Sutta. It is therefore rightly relegated to the last place. On the other hand, the increase in the number of monks was then a reality and was no doubt a constant cause of trouble. The Buddha's remarks to BhaddŒli imply that the numbers in the monastic community at that time were not as few as they used to be (appakŒ kho tumhe bhaddŒli tena samayena ahuvattha yadŒ vo aham ŒjŒn´yasusèpamaµ dhammapariyŒyaµ desesiµ. Sarasi tvaµ bhaddŒl´ti - M.I. 445.).

On the whole, the SŒriputta episode in the Suttavibhaºga regarding the origin of sikkhŒpada, which undoubtedly is a part of the compiler's preface, lacks the historicity of the account in the BhaddŒli Sutta. SŒriputta's inquiries are based on the semi-legendary story of the Buddhas of the past. According to the Suttavibhaºga, SŒriputta's request to the Buddha to lay down sikkhŒpada and institute the ritual of the PŒtimokkha was prompted by an observation of the catastrophe that befell the monastic communities of the Buddhas of the past which were not adequately bound by restrictive regulations. This, we have no doubt, is historically based on what was actually taking palce in the monastic community of Buddha Gotama himself and is projected back into legendary antiquity. This same tendency to seek traditional authority is seen in the MahŒpadŒna Sutta where the biographies of the six previous Buddhas are modelled, more or less, on the main outlines of the life of the historical Buddha Gotama. In the Buddhavagga of the Saµyutta NikŒya, Buddha Gotama's quest of enlightenment is similarly reproduced in relation to the Buddhas of the past. Furthermore, in the Suttavibhaºga, the discussion on the promulgation of sikkhŒpada in relation to the ŒsavaÊÊhŒniyŒ dhammŒ or conditions leading to corruption which is placed at a time when there is no evidence either of the presence of ŒsavaÊÊhŒniyŒ dhammŒ or the promulgation of sikkhŒpada, appears to be far more theoretical than the account in the BhaddŒli Sutta which seems to analyse the situation in terms of what was actually taking place. Thus the Suttavibhaºga account appears to be, more or less, a romanticised version of what is recorded in the BhaddŒli Sutta.

(Page 50)

khuddakŒpatti referred to here we note that Thullaccaya, DukkaÊa and DubbhŒsita are generally derivative offences. The DukkaÊa has also an independent existence under the SekhiyŒ dhammŒ. The Thullaccaya on the other hand is derived from a PŒrŒjika or SaºghŒdisesa offence. As such, it is difficult to push the Thullaccaya back to a period when the major offences themselves were not known to exist. In fact, there is evidence to show that this statement of the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ was later challenged and not accepted in its entirety. The SŒratthad´pan´ Vinaya T´kŒ records the tradition of a line of scholars who contend that the five khuddakŒpattikkhandha referred to here could only be what the Buddha laid down as regulations during the eight years which followed his rains-retreat at Vera–jŒ in the twelth year of his enlightenment. Apparently they do not concede the promulgation of any sikkhŒpada anterior to this.

But the author of the T´kŒ himself supporting the orthodoxy of the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ and wishing to push the first promulgation of the sikkhŒpada of the lesser type to an earlier period, seems to reject this amendent (Ke ci pana tasmiµ tasmiµ pana vatthusmiµ avasesapa–cakhuddakŒpattikkhandhe eva pa––Œpes´ ' ti idaµ dvŒdasame vasse vera–jŒya vutthavassena bhagavatŒ tato paÊÊhŒya aÊÊhavassabbhantare pa––attasikkhŒpadaµ sandhŒya vuttan ' ti vadanti. Taµ na sundaraµ. Tato pubbe ' pi sikkhŒpadapa––attiyŒ sabbhŒvato - SŒratthad´pan´ I. 401.). But neither of these traditions seem to question the antiquity of the Thullaccaya over the two major offences of PŒrŒjika and SaºghŒdisesa. But there is no doubt that the Thullaccaya had already come to be regarded as one of the group of five offences. If we concede the existence of the fivefold group of lesser offences from the early days of the SŒsana, prior to the rains-retreat at Vera–jŒ, then the request of SŒriputta to the Buddha during his stay at Vera–jŒ, asking him to lay down sikkhŒpada for the guidance of the monks becomes considerably incongruous. The SŒratthad´pan´, confronted with this anomaly, explains it by saying that the request of SŒriputta was mainly concerned with regulations against grosser offences (PaÊhamabodhiyaµ pa–cannaµ lahukŒpatt´naµ sabbhŒvavacanen ' eva dhammasenŒpaissa sikkhŒpadapa––attiyŒcanŒ visesato garukŒpattipa––attiyŒ pŒtimokkhuddesassa ca hetubhètŒ ' ti daÊÊhabbŒ - SŒratthad´pan´ I. 401.). But this turns out to be a very inadequate answer which only tends to disintegrate the ingeniously knitted episode of SŒriputta in the Suttavibhaºga regarding the promulgation of sikkhŒpada by the Buddha for the guidance of the life of his disciples.

Another instance of unwarranted distortion resulting from commentarial over-anxiety is found in Buddhaghosa's explanation of the conditions that lead to the corruption of the Saºgha (ŒsavaÊÊhŒniyŒ dhammŒ) in the Papa–casèdan´. Since it is said both in the BhaddŒli Sutta and the Suttavibhaºga that the Buddha lays down sikkhŒpada only at the appearance of signs of corruption in the SŒsana, Buddhaghosa tries to indicate some sikkhŒpada from the extant Vinaya PiÊaka as resulting from those said conditions. The result, however, is intriguing. Although the appearance of ŒsavaÊÊhŒniyŒ dhammŒ has repeatedly been mentioned as prompting the promulgation of sikkhŒpada, Buddhaghosa is able to bring before us as consequent sikkhŒpada only about six PŒcittiya rules and two regulations regarding DukkaÊa offences. He has obviously missed the mark. There is no doubt that through some tradition which he inherited he has too narrowly viewed these ŒsavaÊÊhŒniyŒ dhammŒ and the conditions that lead to their appearance. Further, if as he has stated in the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ, the five groups of minor rules had already been laid down previously, prior to the provocation for the promulgation of the major rules at the appearance of the ŒsavaÊÊhŒniyŒ dhammŒ then it does not appear convincing to regard these minor offences which Buddhaghosa quotes without any reference to major ones as resulting from those conditions. This unwarranted identification of Buddhaghosa has in no way contributed to explain or emphasise the point that the conditions mentioned both in the BhaddŒli Sutta and the Suttavibhaºga tended to corrupt

(Page 51)

the monastic organization, thus compelling the Buddha to set up a body of regulations and thereby arrest this decay. At this stage the instructions of the Dhamma proved ineffective and nothing without monastic legal validity would have compelled the offenders to submit themselves to correction and punishment.

We have now seen the introduction into Buddhist monasticism of restrictive legislation for the purpose of maintaining good discipline and furthering the spiritual progress of the disciple. Ten considerations are listed under PŒrŒjika I as well as several other sikkhŒpada as having motivated the Buddha to lay down sikkhŒpada. The Buddha deelared that he lays down sikkhŒpada to serve the following needs :

SaºghasuÊÊhutŒya : well-being of the Saºgha.

SaºghaphŒsutŒya : convenience of the Saºgha.

Dummaºkènaµ puggalŒnaµ niggahŒya : restraint of evil-minded persons.

PesalŒnaµ bhikkhènaµ phŒsuvihŒrŒya : ease of well-behaved monks.

DiÊÊhadhammikŒnaµ ŒsavŒnaµ saµvarŒya : restraint against the defilements of this life.

SamparŒyikŒnaµ ŒsavŒnaµ paÊighŒtŒya: eradication of the defilements of the life after.

AppasannŒnaµ pasŒdŒya : for the conversion of new adherents.

PasannŒnaµ bhiyyobhŒvŒya : enhancement of the faith of those already converted.

SaddhammaÊÊhitiyŒ : stability and continuance of the Dhamma.

VinayŒnuggahŒya : furtherance of the good discipline.

These seem to cover mainly the individual and collective welfare of the disciples, the relation of the disciples to the laymen on whom they are dependent, and the spiritual attainments for the sake of which the disciples take to the monastic life. However, it is clear to us from statements in Canonical Pali literature that these sikkhŒpada did not, on their introduction, completely displace s´la from its position as the basis of a disciple's monastic development. True to the spirit in which they were institued, they helped to augment s´la. In a statement in the Sekha Sutta which enumerates the virtues which make a disciple to be one who is endowed with good living, i.e. s´lasampanno, s´la still seems to hold its basic position while the discipline through sikkhŒpada and other means are added on to it (katha– ca mahŒnŒma ariyasŒvako s´lasampanno hoti. Idha mahŒnŒma ariyasŒvako s´lavŒ hoti pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharati ŒcŒragocarasampanno anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhati sikkhŒpadesu - M.I. 355.). The Buddha appears to lay special emphasis on s´la while speaking of the items which form the foundation for the spiritual development of the monk (TasmŒ ' t ' iha tvaµ bhikkhu Œdim eva visaodhehi kusalesu dhammesu. Ko c ' Œdi kusalŒnaµ dhammŒnaµ. Idha tvaµ bhikkhu pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharŒhi ŒcŒragocarasampanno anumatesu vjjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhŒhi sikkhŒpadesu. Yato kho tvaµ bhikkhu s´laµ nissŒya s´le patiÊÊhŒya ime cattŒro satipaÊÊhŒne evaµ bhŒvessasi tato tuyhaµ bhikkhu yŒ ratti vŒ divaso vŒ Œgamissati vuddhi y ' eva pŒÊkaºkhŒ kusalesu dhammesu no parihŒn´ ' ti - S.V. 187.).

According to the definition of s´lasampanno quoted above, further to s´la, the sikkhŒpada are drawn into the life of the disciple as providing the necessary guidance for his spiriual development. He is called upon to train and discipline himself in terms of the sikkhŒpada (samŒdŒya sikkhŒhi sikkhŒpadesu). The Vajjiputtaka monk who confesses to the Buddha his inability to conform to the complete monastic discipline admits his weakness that he cannot discipline himself in terms of the vast dody of sikkhŒpada which are recited regularly every fortnight (SŒdhikam idaµ bhante diya¶¶hasikkhŒpadasataµ anvaddhamŒsam uddesaµ Œgacchati. NŒ ' haµ bhante ettha sakkomi sikkhitun ' ti - A.I. 230.). It is implied here that these sikkhŒpada now form the main stay of the SŒsana for the maintenance of discipline in the Saºgha. At this stage, with the largely increased number of sikkhŒpada governing the life of the monk, there arose the need to draw a distinction between the young noviciate monks

(Page 52)

called the sŒmaöera and the monks of senior status who on being twenty years of age have been elevated to the rank of upasampanna. The noviciates are given a code of ten regulations as items of compulsary training and the use of the word sikkhŒpada is extended to cover these as well. Nine out of these sikkhŒpada are traceable back to s´la : nos.1-4 and 9-13 in the lists of s´la recommended for the monk. The regulation regarding the use of intoxicants is introduced as the fifth item. It is also the fifth item in the lists of fivefold and eightfold s´la laid down for the laymen. But this one relating to intoxicants had no place in the earlier lists of s´la of the monk. Reference to the use of intoxicants is also conspicuous by its absence in the lists of satta and dasa kammapatha. Nor does it appear under dasa kusala or akusala kamma. On the other hand, it is in one of the regulations of the Vinaya PiÊaka that we discover the circumstances leading to the prohibition of intoxicants for the monks. It is based on the very sound common sense consideration whether one should drink or take in [the root / pŒ to drink being also used in the sense of - to smoke] anything which would make him lose his sense of judgement (Api nu kho bhikkhave taµ pŒtabbaµ yaµ pivitvŒ visa––´ assŒ ' ti - Vin. IV. 110.). A more developed and elaborated account of this incident, coupled with a ' story of the past ' has found a place in the JŒtaka collection.

Of the ten sikkhŒpada laid down for the sŒmaöera, the first five seem, more or less, inviolable. The sŒmaöera is liable to be expelled for the violation of any one of them TasmŒ yo pŒöŒtipŒtŒdisu ekam ' pi kammaµ karoti so liºganŒsanŒya nŒsetabbo - VinA.V.1014.). Buddhaghosa further stresses this distinction between the first five and the latter five of these dasasikkhŒpadŒni when he says that the violation of the former leads to the expulsion of a sŒmaöera while the violation of the latter lead to the imposition of specific punishments (Dasasu sikkhŒpadesu purimŒnaµ pa–cannaµ atikkamo nŒsanavatthu pacchimŒnaµ atikkamo daö¶akammavatthu - VinA.V.1012.). It is these first five sikkhŒpada which are also spoken of as the code of the laymen's discipline (Te ŒrŒmikabhètŒ vŒ upŒsakabhètŒ vŒ pa–casu sikkhŒpadesu samŒdŒya vattanti - M.II. 5.). It has come to be the standardised pattern, for all times, of basic good living for the layman. It is said in the Dhammapada that a man, by the neglect of these considerations, brings about his own ruin in this very life:

A Cakkavatti king is also presented as upholding this fivefold code of lay ethics [RŒjŒ mahŒsudassano evaµ Œha pŒöo na hantabbo adinnaµ na ŒdŒtabbaµ kŒmesu micchŒ na caritabbŒ musŒ na bhaöitabbŒ majjaµ na pŒtabbaµ yathŒbhutta– ca bhu–jathŒ ' ti - D.II.173.). Perhaps the fact that these five sikkhŒpada, with the adjustment of abrahmacariyŒveraman´ or complete celibacy to read as kŒmesu micchŒcŒrŒveramaö´ or chaste moral behaviour in the case of laymen's s´la, were shared in common both by the laymen and the noviciate monks made them inviolable in the case of the latter.

The Suttas also record countless occasions on which the Buddha advises his disciples without any reference to s´la or sikkhŒpada, to conduct and discipline themselves in a specific manner (evaµ hi vo bhikkhave sikkhitabbaµ). It is often said to be under the guidance of the Dhamma (TasmŒ ' t iha bhikkhave dhammaµ yeva sakkaronto dhammaµ garukaronto dhammaµ apacŒyamŒnŒ suvacŒ bhavissŒma sovacassataµ ŒpajjisŒmŒ ' ti evaµ hi vo bhikkhave sikkhitabbaµ - M.I. 126.). Not only did this form another source of discipline from the earliest times but also supplemented s´la which regulated

(Page 53)

discipline in terms of word and deed, by bringing within its fold mental discipline as well. This is clearly evident in the Buddha's advice to the Bhikkhus in the Kakacèpama Sutta where they are asked to rid themselves of anger, hatred and ill-will and develop love and magnanimity (TatrŒ ' pi kho bhikkhave evaµ sikkhitabbaµ na c ' eva no cittaµ vipariöataµ bhavissati na ca pŒpikaµ vŒcaµ nicchŒressŒma hitŒmukamp´ ca viharissŒma mettacittŒ na dosantarŒ ta– ca puggalaµ mettŒsahagatena cetasŒ pharitvŒ viharissŒma tadŒrammaöa– ca sabbŒvantaµ lokaµ mettŒsahagatena cetasŒ vipulena mahaggatena appamŒöena averena abyŒpajjhena pharitvŒ viharissŒmŒ ' ti - M.I.129.). In the passage cited above, although certain patterns of conduct are idicated to the monks, yet there are evidently no sikkhŒpada. What is referred to here is self-acquired discipline : evaµ vo hi bhikkhave sikkhitabbaµ. We also notice that sikkhŒ in its most liberal sense, without the aid of sikkhŒpada, not only thus regulated conduct but also urged the disciple to his highest culture, the attainment of wisdom [JarŒmaraöaµ bhikkhave ajŒnatŒ apassatŒ yathŒbhètaµ jarŒmaraöe yathŒbhèta- –ŒöŒya sikkhŒ karaö´yŒ. Evaµ ....... catusaccikaµ kŒtabbaµ - S.II.131.).

We may now safely conclude that s´la, sikkhŒ and sikkhŒpada form the foundations of the life of brahmacariya in Buddhism. Not only do we find these perfectly co-ordinated but at times almost identified with one another. With reference to the dichotomous division of AbhisamŒcŒrika and îdibrahma-cariyika, s´la and sikkhŒ are used as though they were identical with sikkhŒpada as their subject matter. The Aºguttara NikŒya divides sikkhŒ into these two categories and includes under AbhisamŒcŒrikŒ sikkhŒ the regulations which determine the outward conduct of the monk in relation to the laymen on whose good will he is dependent (Idha bhikkhave mayŒ sŒvakŒnaµ abhisamŒcŒrikŒ sikkhŒ pa––attŒ appasannŒnaµ pasŒdŒya pasannŒnaµ bhiyyobhŒvŒya. YathŒ bhikkhave mayŒ sŒvakŒnaµ abhisamŒcŒrikŒ sikkhŒ pa––attŒ appasannŒnaµ pasŒdŒya pasannŒnaµ bhiyyobhŒvŒya tathŒ so tassŒ sikkhŒya akkhaödakŒr´ hoti acchiddakŒr´ asabalakŒr´ samŒdŒya sikkhati sikkhŒpadesu - A.II. 243.). The Commentary to the Aºguttara NikŒya, in more than one place, defines AbhisamŒcŒrikŒ as vattavasena pa––attas´la or rules of propriety. The îdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ, on the other hand, contributes towards the attainment of complete freedom from suffering which is the goal of the life of brahmacariya (Puna ca paraµ bhikkhave mayŒ sŒvakŒnaµ ŒdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ pa––attŒ sabbaso sammŒ dukkhakkhayŒya ..... sikkhŒpadesu - A.II. 243.).

Thus it is clear from both the text and the commentarial notes of the above two passages that AbhisamŒcŒrikŒ and îdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ in Buddhism stood complementary to each other and that they did cover from the earliest times the social as well as religious aspects of Buddhist monasticism. Considering the importance which the Buddha attached from the very inception of the SŒsana to the good will of the lay public there is litle doubt that AbhisamŒcŒrkŒ sikkhŒ too, must have played an important part. The Vinaya PiÊaka regards both these as two important aspects of training through which a teacher should put his pupil [PaÊibalo hoti antevŒsiµ vŒ saddhivihŒriµ vŒ abhisamŒcŒrikŒya sikkhŒya sikkhŒpetuµ ŒdibrahmacariyikŒya sikkhŒya vinetuµ Vin. I. 64.).

In the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa divides s´la into AbhisamŒcŒrika and îdibrahmacariyika, thus exhausting between them the complete monastic discipline and culture which leads up to the termination of dukkha. According to Buddhaghosa, the AbhisamŒcŒrika s´la as the lesser of the two consists of all sikkhŒpada which are designated as minor in character (yŒni vŒ sikkhŒpadŒni khuddŒnukhuddakŒn´ ' ti vuttŒni idaµ abhisamŒcŒrikas´laµ sesaµ Œdibrahmacariyikaµ - Vism.I. III f.). The rest of the sikkhŒpada form the îdibrahmacariyika. Buddhaghosa makes the groups more specific when he divides the contents of the Vinaya into two categories as follows. The îdibrahmacaryika consists of the contents of the twofold Vibhaºga. The instructions of the Khandhakas form the AbhisamŒcŒrika, perfection in which assures the attainment of the other (UbhatovibhaºgapariyŒpannaµ vŒ Œdibrahmacariyikaµ khandhakavattapariyŒpannaµ abhisamŒcŒrikaµ. Tassa sampattiyŒ Œdibrahmacariyikaµ sampajjati - Vism. I.12.). In the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ Buddhaghosa presents the latter classification as Khandhakavatta and Sekhapaööatti (AbhisamŒcŒrikŒya sikkhŒyŒ ' ti khandhakavatte vinetuµ na paÊibalo hot´ ' ti attho. îdibrahmacariyikŒyŒ ' ti sekhapaööattiyaµ vinetuµ na paÊibalo ' ti attho - Vin A.V. 989f.).

(Page 54)

It is clear from what has been stated above that Buddhaghosa not only admits the higher role of the discipline brought about by the Ubhato Vibhaºga, but also emphasises at the same time the important basic character, in his opinion, of the discipline brought about by the regulations of the Khandhakas. Thus we notice that both these items of AbhisamŒcŒrika and îdibrahmacariyika are, according to Budhaghosa, products of the Vinaya PiÊaka. The Vinaya PiÊaka in its codified and legalised form, was designed to safeguard the monsastic discipline and contribute thereby to the furtherance of the spiritual development envisaged in the Suttas. With the decline of morality and the waning spiritual earnestness among the members of the monastic community such rigorous and binding discipline as is evident in the Vinaya PiÊaka would have become indispensable. The liberalism of the instructions of the Suttas had to become, ere long, a thing of the past. We come to a stage when not only the PŒtimokkha but the entire discipline of the Vinaya PiÊaka is looked upon as the fundamental basis on which the Buddhist spiritual perfection of tisso sikkhŒ had to be founded. According to this view AbhisamŒcŒrikŒ sikkhŒ which is perfected through the discipline of the Khandhakas had to be accomplished first before the perfection of sekha dhamma. On a comparison of commentarial notes we discover that this sekha dhamma is equated by Buddhaghosa to sekha paööattis´la. (Sekhaµ dhamman ' ti sekkapaööattiyaµ - AA. III.228.) In the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ, Buddhaghosa defines îdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ as sekhapaööatti. (îdibrahmacariyikŒyŒ ' ti sekhapaööattiyaµ - VinA.V. 990.) Thus the sekha dhamma which can be perfected only after the AbhsamŒcŒrikŒ sikkhŒ is none other than the îdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ. According to a statement in the Aºguttara NikŒya, it is only after these two stages of AbhisamŒcŒrikŒ and îdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ that the successive development through s´la, samŒdhi and pa––Œ are considered possible. (So vata bhikkhave bhikkhu... abhisamŒcŒrikaµ dhammam aparipèretvŒ sekhaµ dhammaµ paripèressat´ ' ti... sekhaµ dhammam aparipèretvŒ s´lakkhandhaµ paripèresst´ ti...... s´lakkhandham aparipèretvŒ samŒdhikkhandhaµ paripèressati samŒdhikkahndham aparipèretvŒ pa––Œkkhandhaµ paripèressat´ ' ti n ' etaµ ÊhŒnaµ vijjati - A.III.15.).

Here we are led to take note of two different views with regard to the perfection of monastic life. On the one hand, the AbhisamŒcŒrikŒ and îdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ are looked upon as exhausting between them the complete monastic discipline and culture leading up to the termination of dukkha. ( Note : Puna ca paraµ bhikkhave mayŒ sŒvakŒnaµ ŒdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ pa––attŒ sabbaso sammŒ dukkhkkhayŒya - A. II. 243.). On the other hand, the îdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ came to be narrowly defined, thus allowing for the integration of these two sikkhŒ, i.e. AbhisamŒcŒrika and îdibrahmacariyika to provide a basis for the perfection of s´la, samŒdhi and pa––Œ which once existed independently as a system of monastic culture under the name of tisso sikkhŒ. (Note : Sakkhasi pana tvaµ bhikkhu t´su sikkhŒsu sikkhituµ ...... tasmŒ tuyhaµ bhikkhu adhis´lam ' pi sikkhato adhicittam ' pi sikkhato adhipa––am ' pi sikkhato rŒgo pah´yissati doso pah´yissati moho pah´yissati - A.I.230.).

We have thus witnessed in the above discussion the origin and development of Buddhist monastic discipline in terms of s´la, sikkhŒ and sikkhŒpada and the relation in which they stand to the threefold sikkhŒ and to the more codified texts of the Vinaya PiÊaka. They all contribute their share to the perfection of the spiritual development of the disciple and to the attainment of the goal of Arahantship which Buddhism, as a way of life, offers its followers.

(Page 55)

In the preceding chapter we pointed out the basic position which s´la occupies in the spiritual development of the Buddhist disciple and the manner in which s´la came to be related to sikkhŒ and sikkhŒpada. Besides these, the Suttas also know of a number of other items, which together with the above, contribute to the perfection of a disciple. In the SŒma––aphala Sutta, for instance, we find an account of what constituted the perfect character of the good monk. ' Having thus become a recluse he dwells, 1. disciplined by the restraints of the PŒtimokkha, 2. endowed with the propriety of behaviour and conduct, 3. heedful even of the slightest misdeeds, 4. disciplining himself in terms of the moral injunctions, 5. possessed of blameless word and deed, 6. virtuous in his livelihood, 7. full of moral virtue, 8. with well restrained sense organs, 9. endowed with mindfulness and awareness, and 10. full of contentment.' (Evaµ pabbajito samŒno 1. pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharati, 2. ŒcŒragocara-sampanno, 3. anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´, 4. samŒdŒya sikkhati sikkhŒpadesu, 5. kŒyakammavac´kammena samannŒgato kusalena, 6. pari-suddhŒj´vo, 7. s´lasampanno, 8. indriyesu guttadvŒro, 9. satisampaja––ena samannŒgato, 10. santuÊÊho - D.I. 63.).

Explaining further the items which are mentioned here, the Sutta deals first with the concept of s´lasampanno (7), making an exhaustive analysis of its many aspects. The Sutta proceeds thereafter to indriyesu guttadvŒro (8), satisampaja––ena samannŒgato (9) and santuÊÊho (10). In its summing up too, the Sutta is concerned only with these four items (So iminŒ ca ariyena s´lakkhandhena samannŒgato iminŒ ca ariyena indriyasaµvarena samannŒgato iminŒ ca ariyena satisampaja––ena samannŒgato imŒya ca ariyŒya santuÊÊhiyŒ samannŒgato vivittaµ senŒsanaµ bhajati - D.I. 71.). Thus we are naturally led to associate the first six items of the above list from pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto (1) to parisuddhŒj´vo (6) with s´lasampanno and consider them as subdivisions of the latter. Of these six items, the first four have already appeared together with s´lavŒ, in the difinitions of s´lasampanno (Katha– ca mahŒnŒma ariyasŒvako s´lasampanno hoti. Idha mahŒnŒma ariyasŒvako s´lavŒ hoti pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharati ŒcŒragocarasampanno anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhati sikkhŒpadesu - M.I. 355.). Buddhaghosa helps us to include the remaining two items also under the category of s´la. In the SumaºgalavilŒsin´ he takes these two (kŒyakammavac´kammena samannŒgato kusalena and parisuddhŒj´vo) as complementary to each other and points them out to be really amounting to one thing, namely s´la (YasmŒ idaµ Œj´vapŒrisuddhis´laµ nŒma na ŒkŒse vŒ rukkhaggŒdisu vŒ uppajjati kŒyavac´dvŒresu eva pana uppajjati tasmŒ tassa uppattidvŒradassanatthaµ hŒyakammavac´kammena samannŒgato kusalenŒ ' ti vuttaµ. YasmŒ pana tena samannŒgato tasmŒ parisuddhŒj´vo. Mandiyaputtasuttantavasena vŒ etaµ. Tattha hi katama– ca thapati kusalaµ s´laµ. Kusalaµ kŒyakammaµ vac´kammaµ. Parisuddhaµ Œj´vaµ ' pi kho ahaµ thapati s´lasmiµ vadŒm´ ' ti vuttaµ - DA.I. 181 f.). Buddhaghosa is, no doubt, backed here by the Canonical texts. The Mandiyaputta Sutta which he quotes is none other than the Samaöamaö¶ikŒ Sutta of the Majjhima NikŒya where Œj´vapŒrisuddhi is recognised as a part of good s´la.

After s´la and its accessory virtues we are introduced to three further items in the spiritual development of the Buddhist disciple, viz. indriyesu guttadvŒratŒ, satisampaja––a and santuÊÊh´. These together with s´la, are to be achieved and accomplished before the disciple embarks on his inner purification, commencing with the elimination of the five n´varaöa. Indriyasaµvara or indriyesu guttadvŒratŒ, restraint of senses referred to above, appears to take the disciple to a stage beyond s´la in that it aims at the discipline of the body as well as of the mind for the sake of further inner development. The disciple begins to regulate, in the light of the instructions of the Master, his responses

(Page 56)

to the external world through the sense organs so as not to allow evil thoughts which result from excessive desires and dislikes to get the better of him. He needs a cultivated outlook for this purpose. He has to guard his senses with cautions neutrality (So cakkhunŒ rèpaµ disvŒ na nimittaggŒh´ hoti nŒ ' nubya–janaggŒh´ yatv ' Œdhikaraöaµ enaµ cakkhundriyaµ asaµvutaµ viharantaµ abhijjhŒ domanassŒ pŒpakŒ akusalŒ dhammŒ anvŒssaveyyuµ tassa saµvarŒya paÊipajjati rakkhati cakkhundriyaµ - D.I. 70 f.)

The significant part indriyasaµvara thus plays in the religious life of a Buddhist disciple is amply illustrated in the MahŒtaöhŒsaºkhaya Sutta. It points out how unguarded senses upset the poise of mind and enslave one to his sense experiences (So cakkhunŒ rèpaµ disvŒ piya¨èpe rèpe sŒrajjati appiyarèpe rèpe vyŒpajjati anupaÊÊhitakŒyasati ca viharati parittacetaso ta– ca cetovimuttiµ pa––Œvimuttiµ yathŒbhètaµ nappajŒnŒti yattha ' ssa te pŒpakŒ akusalŒ dhammŒ aparisesŒ nirujjhanti. So evaµ anurodhavirodhaµ samŒpanno yaµ ka– ci vedanaµ vedeti sukhaµ vŒ dukkhaµ vŒ adukkhamasukhaµ vŒ so taµ vedanaµ abhinandati abhivadati ajjhosŒya tiÊÊhati - M.I. 266.). This in turn, it is pointed out, leads to the perpetuation of the saµsŒric process which the Buddhist disciple strives to transcend (Tassa tam vedanaµ abhinandato abhivadato ajjhosŒya tiÊÊhato uppajjati nand´ yŒ vedanŒsu nand´ tadupŒdŒnaµ tassupŒdŒnapaccayŒ bhavo bhapvaccayŒ jŒti jŒtipaccayŒ jarŒmaraöaµ sokaparideva-dukkha-domanassupŒyŒsŒ sambhavanti. Evam etassa kevalassa dukkhakkandhassa samudayo hoti - Ibid.). Indriyasaµvara or restraint over sense-faculties is also valued elsewhere as paving the way to s´la. It is said that in the absence of indriyasaµvara, s´la would be without support (Indriyasaµvare bhikkhave asati indriyasaµvaravipannassa hatèpanisaµ hoti s´laµ - A.III. 360.). Hirotappa, the sense of shame and fear in doing what is wrong, is sometimes added as a virtue which necessarily precedes indriyasaµvara. Satisampaja––a or mental alertness and awareness is considered to be the first and foremost in this whole process of acquiring personal discipline. Regardless of the order in which they are listed, they all aim jointly at vimutti or the final liberation from saµsŒra.

Besides this, indriyasaµvara has a secondary importance in that it contributes to the successful practice of the monastic life. It is said that indriyasaµvara sustains the life of brahmacariya: Indriyasaµvaro brahmacariyassa ŒhŒro - A.V.136. Expressed negatively, it is implied that the lack of indriyasaµvara is an impediment to it : IndriyŒ ' saµvaro brahmacariyassa paripantho - Ibid. The lure of sensual pleasures which a pabbajita has to renounce on leaving the household life was a great force against which he had to be constantly armed. On taking to the monastic career, if the pabbajita did not acquire proper control over his senses, temptations of kŒma would not only defile his mind but also wreck his whole monastic life, swallowing him up in the whirl of worldly pleasures (So evaµ pabbajito samŒno pubbaöhasamayaµ nivŒsetvŒ pattac´varaµ ŒdŒya gŒmaµ vŒ nigamaµ vŒ piö¶Œya pavisati arakkhiten ' eva kŒyena arakkhitŒya vŒ vŒcŒya anupaÊÊhitŒya satiyŒ asaµvutehi indriyehi. So tattha passati gahapatiµ vŒ gahapatiputtaµ vŒ pa–cahi kŒmaguöehi samappitaµ samaºg´bhètaµ paricŒrayamŒnaµ. Tassa evaµ hoti mayaµ kho pubbe agŒriyabhètŒ samŒnŒ pa–cahi kŒmaguöehi samappitŒ samaºg´bhètŒ paricŒrimha. Saµvijjante kho kule bhogŒ. SakkŒ bhoge ca bhu–jituµ pu––Œni ca kŒtun ' ti. So sikkhaµ paccakkhŒya h´nŒyŒ ' vattati. Ayaµ vuccati bhikkhave ŒvaÊÊabhayassa bh´to sikkhaµ paccakkhŒya h´nŒyŒ ' vatto - M.I. 461.). Indriyasaµvara is also sometimes spoken of as an essential monastic virtue necessary for the safeguarding of a disciple's chastity and therefore also of his whole monastic life. In the adsene of such restraint he would succumb to the temptations of the world and would be torn off the moorings of monastic life.

On the other hand, the insistence on indriyasaµvara in Buddhist monasticism is given as a reason why Buddhist disciples, most of whom are described as not being mature in years, have successfully completed their monastic careers. They achieved this end through the restraint of their senses (Vuttaµ kho etaµ mahŒrŒja tena bhagavatŒ jŒnatŒ passatŒ arahatŒ sammŒ-sambuddhena etha

(Page 57)

tumhe bhikkhave indriyesu guttadvŒrŒ viharatha cakkhunŒ rèpaµ disvŒ .... manindriye saµvaraµ ŒpajjathŒ ' ti. Ayaµ kho mahŒrŒja hetu ayaµ paccayo yen' ime daharŒ bhikkhè susukŒlakesŒ bhadrena yobbanena samannŒgatŒ paÊhamena vayasŒ anik´ÂitŒvino kŒmesu yŒvaj´vaµ paripuööaµ parisuddhaµ brahmacariyaµ caranti addhŒna– ca ŒpŒdenti - S.IV.112.).

Satisampaja––a or mental alertness, which comes next, is very generally described as awareness and deliberation over all bodily activities which range from movement of limbs, bodily ablutions and acts of eating and drinking to speech and silence, sleep and wakefulness (So abhikkante paÊikkante sampajŒnakŒr´ hoti Œlokite vilokite sampajŒnakŒr´ hoti sami–jite pasŒrite sampajŒnakŒr´ hoti saºghŒÊipattac´varadhŒraöe sampajŒnakŒr´ hoti asite p´te khŒyite sŒyite sampajŒnaka´ hoti uccŒrapassavakamme sampajŒnakŒr´ hoti gate Êhite nisinne sutte jŒgarite bhŒsite tuöh´bhŒve sampajŒnakŒri hoti - M.I. 181.).

SantuÊÊhi which appears as the last virtue in this list, emphasises a disciple's contentment with regard to his food and clothing, which incidentally had to be of the simplest order (SeyyathŒ ' pi mahŒrŒja pakkh´ sakuöo yena yen ' eva ¶eti sapattabhŒro ' va ¶eti evam eva mahŒrŒja bhikkhu santuÊÊho hoti kŒyaparihŒrikena c´varena kucchiparihŒrikena piö¶apŒtena. So yena yen ' eva pakkamati samŒdŒy ' eva pakkamati - D.I. 71.). This virtue of santuÊÊhi or contentment is also used in relation to the wider field of requirements of a Buddhist disciple, viz. the fourfold requisites or catupaccaya (SantuÊÊho hoti itar´tarac´vara-piö¶apŒta-senŒsana-gilŒnapaccaya-bhesajjaparikkhŒrena - A.III. 135.). The venerable MahŒ Kassapa is held out as a perfect embodiment of this virtue and the other disciples are advised to emulate him (SantuÊÊhŒ ' yaµ bhikkhave kassapo itar´tarena....TasmŒt ' iha bhikkhave evaµ sikkhitabbaµ santuÊÊhŒ bhavissŒma itar´tarena c´varena itar´tarac´varasantuÊÊhiyŒ ca vaööavŒdino na ca c´varahetu anesanaµ appaÊirèpaµ ŒpajjissŒma. AladdhŒ ca c´varaµ na paritassissŒma laddhŒ ca c´varaµ agadhitŒ amucchitŒ anajjhŒpannŒ Œd´navadassŒvino nissaraöapa––Œ paribhu–jissŒma. Evaµ kŒtabbaµ ..... itar´tarena piö¶apŒtena.... itar´tarena senŒsanena ...... itar´tarena gilŒnapaccaya-bhesajjaparikkhŒrena.... Kassapena vŒ hi vo bhikkhave ovadissŒmi yo vŒ kassapasadiso. Ovaditehi ca pana vo tathattŒya paÊipajjitabban ' ti - S.II.194f.). The KhaggavisŒöa Sutta echoes a similar refrain:

' Moving freely in all the four quarters of the world, without any sense of cnflict or hostility, content with meagre provisions, braving all dangers without trepidation, let him wander alone like the rhinoceros. '

SantuÊÊhi also focusses light on the abstemiousness of the disciple which has been praised elsewhere as santussako ca subharo ca appakicco ca sallahukavutti. ' Contented is he and easily supportable. He is abstemious and has few things that he needs to do.' Commenting on the word santuÊÊho, Buddhaghosa does, in fact, emphasise this aspect of monastic life (Iti imassa bhikkhuno sallahukavuttiµ dassento bhagavŒ santuÊÊho hoti kŒyaparihŒrikena c´varenŒ ' ti Œdim Œha - DA.I.207.). We also witness in the Canonical texts the elaboration of this concept of santuÊÊhi under the name of ariyavaµsŒ. The Saºg´ti Sutta speaks of cattŒro ariyavaµsŒ or four noble traditions which according to the Commentary are characteristic of the Buddhas and their disciples. The Sutta itself calls them ancient traditions : porŒöŒ agga––Œ ariyavaµsŒ. The Aºguttara NikŒya also knows of the ariyavaµsŒ. Describing them in greater detail it claims universal approval and acceptance for them. It is also claimed that they come down from hoary antiquity and have ever since held an unchallenged position. The practice of these it is said, will enable a monk to resist the temptations of the pleasures

(Page 58)

of the world and derive sufficient inspiration to fight the spiritual lethargy that would impede his progress (CattŒro' me bhikkhave ariyavaµsŒ agga––Œ vaµsa––Œ porŒöŒ asaµkiööŒ asaµkiööapubbŒ na saµk´yanti na saµk´yissanti appaÊikuÊÊhŒ samaöehi brŒhmaöehi vi––èhi .....Imehi ca pana bhikkhave catèhi ariyavaµsehi samannŒgato bhikkhu puratthimŒya ce 'pi disŒya viharati sv ' eva aratiµ sahati na taµ arati sahati....Taµ kissa hetu. Aratiratisaho hi bhikkhave dh´ro ' ti - A.II. 27 f.). The first three of these ariyavaµsŒ pertain to a disciple's contentment with regard to his clothing, food and residence respectively. The commentary on the Saºg´ti Sutta points out that being so they fall within the territory of the Vinaya PiÊaka. It also tells us that in compressing the four requisites of the catupaccaya within the first three items of ariyavaµsŒ, gilŒna- paccayabhesajjaparikkhŒra is to be taken as being implicitly included under piö¶apŒta. The fourth place in the list of ariyavaµsŒ is reserved for the disciple's interest and enthusiasm in his spiritual development, both by the elimination of evil traits of his mind and by his inner culture (pahŒnŒrŒmo and bhŒvanŒrŒmo). Hence the commentator suggests that the other two PiÊakas, Sutta and Abhidhamma, play their role here. Thus it should be noted that this concept of ariyavaµsŒ is more developed and more comprehensive than the fourfold contentment in relation to the catupaccaya which was ascribed to the venerable MahŒ Kassapa.

As is evident from the text of the SŒma––aphala Sutta, these virtues of s´la, indriyasaµvara, satisampaja––a and santuÊÊhi undoubtedly constituted the standard pattern of early Buddhist monasticism (Evaµ pabbajito samŒno pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharati ŒcŒragocarasampanno anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhati sikkhŒpadesu kŒyakammavac´kammena samannŒgato kusalena parisuddhŒj´vo s´lasampanno indriyesu guttadvŒro satisampaja––ena samannŒgato santuÊÊho - D.I. 63.). We also discover in the Canonical texts another list of virtues, somewhat different from the above, which are linked with the disciple's spiritual development under s´la. They are as follows: 1. s´lavŒ hoti pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharati ŒcŒragocarasampanno anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhati sikkhŒpadesu. 2. indriyesu guttadvŒro. 3. bhojane matta––è. 4. jŒgariyaµ anuyutto. 5. satisampaja––ena samannŒgato. As in the former list the cultivation of these virtues here prepares the disciple for the elimination of the five n´varaöa. Thus both these lists which start with s´la appear to be similar in their scope. They are in fact identical as far as s´la and indriyasaµvara are concerned. The latter list adds thereafter two new items in bhojane matta––utŒ and jŒgariyŒnuyoga. It leaves out santuÊÊhi of the former, but agrees with it in retaining satisampaja––a.

As we examine the concept of bhojane matta––utŒ, it appears as though considerations regarding the acceptance and use of food assumed, in course of time, increasing importance in Buddhist monasticism, and that it led to this special mention of moderation in eating. The broader concept of santuÊÊhi which covers all the needs of a disciple besides food is thus replaced by this narrower one of bhojane matta––utŒ, perhaps with the intention of being more specific. In its wider interpretation, however, bhojane matta––utŒ was taken to be equivalent to santuÊÊhi as is evident from the comment of Buddhaghosa which says that bhojane matta––utŒ brings to light such virtues like contentment : bhojane matta––è ' ti idam assa santosŒdiguöaparid´pam - VibhA. 323. Heedlessness in eating was considered a danger not only to the physical well- being but also to the mental poise and spiritual development of the disciple. In several suttas like the Kakacèpama, BhaddŒli and LaÊukikopama, the Buddha speaks of the physical benefits which result from moderation and regularity in meals. A verse in the TheragŒthŒ almost specifies the quantity of food to be consumed by a monk.

(Page 59)

' Let him drink water after his meal while he leaves four or five mouthfuls of food yet uneaten. This is conducive to the ease and comfort of the disciple who is striving for this emancipation.'

It is suggested in the Commentaries that these bounds of propriety apply not only to the quantity of food consumed but also to the amount sought and accepted (Bhojane matta––utŒ ' ti bhojane yŒ mattŒ jŒnitabbŒ pariyesana-paÊiggahana-paribhogesu yuttatŒ - MA.I.152.). The Vatthèpama Sutta negatively implies the dangers to spiritual life of the proneness to pleasures in eating. A disciple of such virtue and wisdom, even if he were to partake of a delicious and delightful meal, would not thereby bring ruin upon his spiritual life (Sa kho so bhikkhave bhikkhu evaµs´lo evaµdhammo evampa––o sŒl´na– ce ' pi piö¶apŒtaµ bhu–jati vicitakŒlakaµ anekasèpaµ anekabya–janaµ nev ' assa taµ hoti antarŒyŒya - M.I. 38.).

Thus bhojane matta––utŒ became an important item of monastic discipline. True to the injunction under santuÊÊhi (santuÊÊho hoti kucchiparihŒrikena piö¶apŒtena) it not only sets the limit on the quantity of food, but also corrects the disciple's attitude to the use of food in general. 2 The disciple is advised to eat his food with the awareness that he does so in order to maintain his physical fitness, free from pain, that he may further his religious pursuit of brahmacariya. He should eschew all desires of physical perfection and adornment (Ehi tvaµ bhikkhu bhojane matta––è hohi paÊisaºkhŒ yoniso ŒhŒreyyŒsi neva davŒya na madŒya na maö¶anŒya na vibhèsanŒya yŒvad ' ev ' imassa kŒyassa ÊhitiyŒ yŒpanŒya vihiµsèparatiyŒ brahmacariyŒnuggahŒya - M.III.). The Dhammapada views it from many other angles. Moderation in eating is said to be a great asset in the battle against the forces of evil. The disciple who along with other virtues possesses a sense of moderation in eating shall not easily be swayed by MŒra. It is said that the disciple should take his food with the awareness that it should contribute so much to his physical well being as would be needed for the successful completion of his life of brahmacariya.

This added emphasis which seems to be centered on the question of food does not appear to have resulted from mere theoretical considerations. Evidence of both the Sutta and the Vinaya PiÊakas show that restrictions on food were constantly being challenged and violated by rebellious disciples even during the time of the Buddha. BhaddŒli tells the Buddha of his inability to practise the habit of one meal a day (Evaµ vutte ŒyasmŒ bhaddŒli bhagavantaµ etad ' avoca. Ahaµ kho bhante na ussahŒmi ekŒsanabhojanaµ bhu–jituµ - M.I. 437.). The LaÊukikopama Sutta expresses through the words of UdŒyi what might have been the general protest at the prohibition to the monks of the night meal and meals out of hours. Similarly, we witness in the K´ÊŒgiri Sutta the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu, who being told about the Buddha's abstemious ways relating to food, argue on the merits of plentiful meals. We also come across a number of supplementary rules on the acceptance and use of food which were laid down by the Buddha as a result of certain irregularities indulged in by erring disciples. Once a number of monks, fearing that they would get only a frugal meal at the house of a poor man who had invited them. collected an early meal and enjoyed it beforehand. This led to the promulgation of PŒcittiya 33. In the history of PŒcittiya 35 we discover monks

(Page 60)

taking a second meal elsewhere after they had concluded their meal at one place. PŒcittiya 37 had to be laid down as a special safeguard against eating after hours. It should here be observed that all these situations are implicitly guarded against under s´la in the sikkhŒpada which pertains to food, that the disciple takes only one meal a day, abstaining from the night meal and meals after hours (Ekabhattiko hoti rattèparato virato vikŒlabhojanŒ - D.I. 64.).

Considerig all these dangers which could possibly befall Buddhist monasticism in general and the spiritual life of the disciple in particular through an untutored attitude to food, it is little wonder that bhojane matta––utŒ became a special monastic virtue. We notice further a new attitude to food being cultivated by the Buddhist disciples which came to be regarded as one among seven conditions which lead to enlightenment. It is an acquired feeling of disgust and detachment towards food which a disciple is called upon to develop gradually, stage by stage (Tasmiµ ŒhŒre paÊikkèlŒkŒraggahaöavasena uppannŒ sa––Œ ŒhŒre paÊikkèlasa––Œ - Vism. 341.). What is intended thereby is that a disciple's mind may never be enslaved through his greed for food (îhŒre paÊikkèlasa––Œ bhikkhave bhŒvitŒ bahul´katŒ mahapphalŒ hoti mahŒnisaµsŒ amatogadhŒ amatapariyosŒnŒ ' ti iti kho pan 'etaµ vuttaµ ki–c ' etaµ paÊicca vuttaµ. îhŒre paÊikkèlasa––Œparicitena bhikkhave bhikkhuno cetasŒ bahulaµ viharato rasataöhŒya cittaµ paÊil´yati paÊikuÊÊati paÊivattati na sampasŒr´yati upekkhŒ vŒ paÊikkèlyatŒ vŒ saöÊhŒti - A.IV.49.). The Visuddhimagga considers that the acquisition of this attitude would serve as a prelude to the complete eradication of lust centering on the fivefold pleasures of the senses (Atha 'ssa appakasiren ' eva kabaliºkŒrŒhŒrapari––Œmukhena pa–cakŒmaguöiko rŒgo pari––aµ gacchati - Vism. 347.). The origin of this idea of Buddhaghosa is in fact traceable back to Canonical texts. The Samyutta NikŒya (S.II. 98) records a statement by the Buddha himself where he says that once a complete mastery over one's attitude to solid food of daily consumption has been gained (kabaliºkŒra-ŒhŒre pari––Œte), one gains restraint over one's attitude to the entire range of fivefold sense pleasures or pa–cakŒmaguöika-rŒga. It is the vision of such possibilities, no doubt, which set a high premium on ŒhŒre paÊikkèlasa––Œ and led to its being considered as a factor leading to nibbŒna (amatogadhŒ amataariyosŒnŒ.

JŒgariyŒnuyoga too, like bhojane matta––utŒ, is a very specific virtue. It refers to both physical wakefulness and mental alertness through control of sleep. Satisampaja––a which was referred to earlier, concerns itself with the vigilance of a disciple. But jŒgariyŒnuyoga demands that a disciple should harness that vigilance to bring about the purge of his mind of the defiling traits. We notice that instead of replacing satisampaja–a, jŒgariyŒnuyoga augments it by adding this active mind-culture as another important monastic virtue. Thus the second list of monastic virtues is completed with satisampaja––a as the last of its items.

Out of the virtues enumerated in this second list three have come to deserve special consideration in that they are often listed together as basic virtues necessary for the successful continuance of monastic life as well as for the attainment of the final goal of Arahantship (So vata Œvauso bhikkhu indriyesu aguttadvŒro bhojane amatta––è jŒgariyaµ ananuyutto yŒvaj´vaµ paripuööam parisuddhaµ brahmacariyaµ santŒnessat´ ' ti n ' etaµ ÊhŒnam vijjati - S.IV.103 f.). It is in terms of these monastic virtues that the venerable MahŒ Kassapa judged the followers of înanda and declared them to be immature and unworthy. However, we notice that no mention is made here of s´la. Perhaps it is implicitly taken to be contained within the framework of these three items of indriyasaµvara, bhojane matta––utŒ and jŒgariya. They lead to the physical and mental well-being of a disciple in this very life and pave the way for the attainment of Arahantship (T´hi bhikkhave dhammehi samannŒgato bhikkhu diÊÊhe ' va dhamme sukhasomanassabahulo viharati yoni ca ' ssa ŒraddhŒ hoti ŒsavŒnaµ khayŒya. Katamehi t´hi. Indriyesu guttadvŒro hoti bhojane matta––è jŒgariyam anuyutto - S.IV.175 f.). The Aºguttara reiterates this idea, declaring the infallibility of these virtues. There is no doubt that they formed a powerful triad in the development of monastic life. However, we find at times satisampaja––a appended to these as a fourth (Kima––atra bhikkhave nando indriyesu guttadvŒro bhojane matta––è jŒgariyam anuyutto satisampaja––ena samannŒgato yena nando sakkoti paripuööam parisuddham brahmacariyaµ carituµ - A.IV. 166.).

(Page 61)

CHAPTER VI

The final and what is claimed to be the most comprehensive code of monastic discipline is brought under the fourfold division of s´la known as the CatupŒrisuddhis´la. Buddhaghosa begins his Visuddhimagga, more or less, with a detailed analysis of this classification. Like the earlier lists of s´la which had indriyasaµvara closely appended to it, this classification seems to recognise the basic importance of the two items of s´la and indriyasaµvara. Buddhaghosa goes so far as to say that no perfection in s´la could be achieved without stability in indriyasaµvara (Evam asampŒdite hi etasmim pŒtimokkhasaµvaras´lam ' pi anaddhaniyaµ hoti aciraÊÊhitikaµ....... Vism.I.37.). However, the earlier concept of s´la as expressed in the Suttas in the reference iminŒ ariyena s´lakkhandhena samannŒgato now forms only one single fragment in this larger fourfold classification. The earlier concept is narrowed down and is specifically referred to as PŒtimokkhasaµvaras´la. In this division of s´la the emphasis is more on the codified legalised precepts. The sole basis of monastic discipline now seems to be the code of the PŒtimokkha which is aptly described by Buddhaghosa as the sikkhŒpada-s´la. Here one immediately feels that there is a complete disregard of the role of the Dhamma as a disciplinary force among the disciples. This new attitude is perhaps resonant of an age in which the Vinaya dominated. Buddhaghosa does bring before us in clearer relief the tendency of his day when he says that the Vinaya constitutes the life-blood of the SŒsana. However, it is interesting to note that the Vimuttimagga which is claimed to be a pre-Buddhaghosa work adds the following remarks after its definition of pŒtimokkhasaµvara : 'This is the entrance into the doctrines. By this the Good Law (saddhamma) is accepted.' One is tempted by this to ask whether the reference to the Good Law (saddhamma) under the definition of pŒtimokkhasaµvara implies in this context a recognition of the wide range of monastic discipline and a desire to infuse the spirit of the Dhamma into the legal machinery of the Vinaya which tended to be exclusive in character in the regulation of monastic life.

Indriyasaµvaras´la forms the second item in this fourfold classification. It has retained its character, more or less unmodified in the new classification. îj´vapŒrisuddhis´la and Paccayasannissitas´la form the last two items. These are concerned with the daily life of the disciple, specially in relation to his food and clothing. The Suttas too are adequately concerned with this aspect of monastic discipline although it had not come to be laid down in the form of a division of s´la. The Œj´vapŒrisuddhi, as a separate item of s´la in the new fourfold category, claims to safeguard the way in which a disciple ' earns his living ' without fraud and deceit, and greed for gain, and thus renders him blameless with regard to his livelihood. It is possible to infer from Buddhaghosa's definition of îj´vapŒrisuddhis´la that the origin of this special branch of s´la lay primarily in the last item of Majjhimas´la given in the BrahmajŒla and the SŒma––aphala Suttas. Buddhaghosa quotes it as

(Pqge 62)

follows : ..... kuhanŒ lapanŒ nemittakatŒ neppesikatŒ lŒbhena lŒbhaµ nijigiµsanatŒ ' ti evam Œd´na– ca pŒpadhammŒnaµ vasena pavattŒ micchŒj´vŒ virati - Vism. I. 16. It is also of interest to note that the MahŒcattŒr´saka Sutta defines micchŒj´va solely in terms of this item of s´la. Buddhaghosa further suggests that along with this are also to be taken the different forms of unworthy professional practices or micchŒj´va which are elaborated under the mahŒs´la. To supplement this concept of îj´vapŒrisuddhi Buddhaghosa also draws reinforcements from the Vinaya. These consist of six sikkhŒpada from the Suttavibhaºga and Buddhaghosa describes them as being ' laid down for the guidance of the livelihood of the monk ' : Œj´vahetu pa––attŒnaµ channaµ sikkhŒpadŒnan ' ti yŒni tŒni .... evaµ pa––attŒni cha sikkhŒpadŒni - Vism. I. 22. They occur already together in a group in the ParivŒra as constituting in their violation Œj´vavipatti or damage to the purity of livelihood.

Of these, five sikkhŒpada are primary regulations directly traceable to the PŒtimokkha. The other is a Thullaccaya offence derived from the fourth PŒrŒjika. The DukkhaÊa offence is in terms of Sekhiyadhamma 37. In their gravity, these sikkhŒpada range from a PŒrŒjika to a DukkaÊa offence. Three minor rules, a PŒcittiya (Vin. IV. 88), PŒÊidesan´ya (Vin. IV. 347f.) and a DukkaÊa (Vin. IV. 193) are concerned with irregular appropriation of food. Two rules, a PŒrŒjika (Vin.III. 91) and a Thullaccaya (Vin. III. 102 Sec.7) deal with claims to spiritual powers which are made with a view to increase the support from laymen. One rule, a SaºghŒdisesa (Vin.III.139) proscribes the transaction of the affairs of laymen with a similar motive of personal gain. It is also interesting to note that Buddhaghosa bundles up under the one PŒÊidesan´ya sikkhŒpada all the eight PŒÊidesan´ya rules of the Bhikkhunis. He is perhaps here influenced by the single PŒcittiya rule (no. 39) of the Bhikkhus which covers the same ground. Thus the Œj´vapŒrisuddhi is judged in terms of both s´la and the codified rules of the Vinaya. On the other hand, we notice that in the earlier texts, the concept of Œj´vapŒrisuddhi was brought within the scope of s´la itself. Its aim was to make the disciples purge themselves of such mean traits of character (pŒpadhammŒ) as fraud and deceit, as well as to make them abstain from blameable forms of livelihood (micchŒj´va) which are unworthy of a monk. But Buddhaghosa makesa further distinct group of micchŒjiva in terms of the transgression of the rules of the PŒtimokkha : Œj´vahetupa––attŒnaµ channaµ sikkhŒpadŒnaµ v´tikkamavasena - (Vism. I 30.).

As far as the disciples of the Buddha were concerned, the items of micchŒj´va which are more or less professional practices were firstly considered stupid (tiracchŒna-vijjŒ), perhaps because they exploited the credulity and the superstitious character of the public on whom they were dependent. Secondly, they were irregular practices for the monk (micchŒj´va), for they were not conducive to his spiritual progress. It would be a misuse of his life if he engaged himself in such activities. There can be little doubt that kŒyakamma-vac´kammena samannŒgato kusalena served as a warning against such irregular ways of members of the monastic community. Thus we notice parisuddhŒj´vo being rightly equated by Buddhaghosa to kŒyakamma-vac´kammena samannŒgato kusalena. It must be observed that the îj´vapŒrisuddhis´la as described by Buddhaghosa overlaps to some extent the PŒtimokkhasaµvaras´la in that Buddhaghosa while recognising the various irregular ways of a monk enumerated under s´la (kuhanŒ lapanŒ etc.) draws also on the contents of the PŒtimokkha.

(Page 63)

The last item in this fourfold classification is the Paccayasannissitas´la. While the îj´vapŒrisuddhis´la is concerned with the correctness of the method whereby the monk obtains his requisites, the Paccayasannissitas´la determines the correct attitude of mind in the use of these. The SabbŒsava Sutta deals comprehensively with this consideration in relation to the use of the four paccaya. Buddhaghosa quotes freely from this Sutta in his description of the Paccayasannissitas´la. Bhojane matta––utŒ which was discussed earlier, tended to single out food from among these four requisites and lays special emphasis on moderation in eating as a monastic virtue. The Paccayasannissitas´la seems to reintroduce to monastic life the above considerations of the SabbŒsava Sutta in their widest application.

Canonical Pali literature does not make any reference to this fourfold classification of CatupŒrisuddhis´la. The PaÊisambhidŒmagga knows the term PŒrisuddhis´la but it is used in the very general sense of a ' code of good living leading to purity '. It is presented there in five categories which are graded according to the degree of perfection of each. Speaking of a fivefold classification of s´la in the Visuddhimagga, Buddhaghosa reproduces this division of PŒrisuddhis´la of the PaÊisambhidŒmaga. The classification is as follows:

1. PariyantapŒrisuddhis´la - anupasampannŒnaµ pariyantasikkhŒnaµ

2. ApariyantapŒrisuddhis´la - upasampannŒnaµ apariyantasikkhŒnaµ

3. ParipuööapŒrisuddhis´la - puthujjanakalyŒöakŒnaµ kusaladhamme yuttŒnam sekhapariyante paripèrakŒrinam kŒye ca jivite ca anapekkhŒnam pariccattaj´vitŒnaµ

4. AparŒmaÊÊhapŒrisuddhis´la - sattanöaµ sekhŒnaµ

5. PaÊippassaddhipŒrisuddhis´la - tathŒgatasŒvakŒnaµ kh´öŒsavŒnaµ paccekabuddhŒnaµ tathŒgatŒnaµ arahantŒnaµ sammŒsambuddhaŒnaµ

These refer to the various stages in the development of s´la or moral virtue in Buddhism, from the uninitiated disciple to the TathŒgatas. It is difficult to determine with any certainty whether the concept of pŒrisuddhis´la as the ' code of good living leading to purity ' heralded the later classification of the CatupŒrisuddhis´la. However, it has already been pointed out that the aspects of monastic discipline contained under the CatupŒrisuddhis´la are of Canonical origin. Like s´la, they were considered among the necessary accomplishments of monastic life, and as such some of them stood beside s´la under their own name. Thus they were never reckoned as divisions of s´la. Nevertheless, with the lapse of time, we witness the expansion of the scope and function of s´la as it brings within its fold the entire range of monastic development which culminates in the attainment of Arahantship. Thus s´la, from its position of being the first and basic stage in the threefold training of a disciple (tisso sikkhŒ) came, more or less, to be identified with the complete concept of s´kkhŒ itself. The first clear indication of an adequate elaboration of s´la capable of accomodating the new element is seen in the Milindapa–ha where the venerable NŒgasena tells King Milinda that

(Page 64)

the s´laratana of the Buddha consists of PŒtimokkhasaµvara, Indriyasaµvara îj´vapŒrisuddhi and Paccayasannissita s´las as well as of the Cèlla, Majjhima, MahŒ and Magga and Phala s´las (Katamaµ mahŒrŒja bhagavato s´laratanaµ. PŒtimokkhasaµvara-s´lam indriyasaµvaras´lam Œj´vapŒrisuddhis´lam paccayasannissitas´lam cullas´lam majjhimas´lam mahŒs´lam maggas´lam phalas´lam - Miln. 336.). It also occurs in a statement by King Milinda where he refers to the development of a disciple in terms of the four categories of s´la : catusu s´lakkhandhesu sammŒ paripèrakŒri - Miln. 243. Although the term CatupŒrisuddhis´la is not used here, there is no doubt that the fourfold classification had already gained considerable recognition, for the threefold division of Cèla, Majjhima and MahŒ s´las which is the Canonical classification is accorded here the second place after the enumeration of the four items of s´la which constitute the CatupŒrisuddhis´la.

This fourfold classification of s´la which evidently is one of post-Canonical origin seems to have been a subject of great controversy in later monastic history. Even during the time of Buddhaghosa the CatupŒrisuddhis´la does not seem to have enjoyed an unchallenged position. Buddhaghosa who describes it in great detail in the Visuddhimagga also records elsewhere the disputes which seem to have arisen on this subject. According to him, a learned Buddhist monk of Sri Lanka by the name of CulŒbhaya Thera who was a Master of the TipiÊaka [ TipiÊka CulŒbhaya Thera ] refused to accept, in the absence of Canonical authority, the importance attached to Indriyasaµvara, îj´vapŒrisuddhi and Paccayasannissita as separate items of s´la. He challenged the view of his teacher, Sumana Thera of D´pavihŒra, who held that the term s´la was used in the Canonical texts to mean implicitly the wider concept covered under the fourfold classification. To Sumana Thera s´la meant something more than the discipline brought about by the PŒtimokkha, although he was quick and ready to recognise the very significant part it played in the life of a monk. Commenting on the term sampannas´la in the îkankheyya Sutta, Buddhaghosa brings to light these differences of opinion (Tattha sampannas´lŒ ' ti ettŒvatŒ kira bhagavŒ catupŒrisuddhi-s´laµ uddisitvŒ pŒtimokkhasaµvarasampannŒ ' ti iminŒ tattha jeÊÊhakas´laµ vitthŒretvŒ dasses´ ' ti d´pavihŒravŒs´ sumanatthero Œha. AntevŒsiko pana 'ssa tipiÊakacèlŒbhayatthero Œha. UbhayatthŒ ' pi pŒtimokkhasaµvaro bhagavatŒ vutto. PŒtimokkhasaµvaro y 'eva hi s´laµ. ItarŒni pana t´ni s´lan ' ti vuttaÊÊhŒnaµ nŒma atth´ ' ti ananujŒnanto vatvŒ Œha - MA.I.155.)

Even if we would agree with the learned CèlŒbhaya Thera and argue that the recognition of such items as Paccayasannissita and îjivapŒrisudhi as separate items of s´la is a matter of post-Canonical origin, CèlŒbhaya Thera is himself liable to be accused of viewing s´la too narrowly by identifying it totally with the PŒtimokkha. S´la would thereby be robbed of its spirit to some extent and be made effective only by the mechanism of the PŒtimokkha. However, the PŒtimokkha was only an aid to the perfection of s´la and therefore the old stereotyped description of a s´lasampanno invariably mentions s´la first and then follows it with PŒtimokkhasaµvara etc. (Katha– ca mahŒnŒma ariyasŒvako s´lasampanno hoti. Idha mahŒnŒma ariyasŒvako s´lavŒ hoti pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharati ...M.I. 355.).

But with the increasing importance which the text and the ritual of the PŒtimokkha gradually assumed in the early days of Buddhist monasticism we are not surprised to find in the Canonical texts themselves a virtual identification of the very comprehensive concept of s´la with the PŒtimokkha. In doing so, at least theoretically, the scope of the PŒtimokkha was considerably widened. A passage in the Aºguttara NikŒya refers to the complete grounding in s´la simply as pŒtimokkhasaµvara (Etha tumhe Œvuso s´lavŒ hotha pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvutŒ viharatha ŒcŒragocarasampannŒ anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒvino samŒdaya sikkhatha sikkhŒpadesè ' ti. Iti pŒtimokkhasaµvare samŒdapetabbŒ nivesetabbŒ patiÊÊhŒpetabbŒ - A.III.138.). On the other hand, we find in the Saµyutta NikŒya a passage which describes the discipline of a monk with the rest of the above phraseology, leaving out the reference to s´la. However, the discipline so described is recognised in the end as the grounding in s´la (Yato kho tvam bhikkhu pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharissasi ŒcŒragocarasampanno

(Page 65)

anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhasi sikkhŒpadesu tato tvam bhikkhu s´laµ nissŒya s´le patiÊÊhŒya cattŒro satipaÊÊhŒne bhŒveyyŒsi - S.V.187.) Thus there seems to be a mutual identification of s´la and the PŒtimokkha. Evidently, CèlŒbhaya Thera found here a point in his favour and Buddhaghosa himself remarks that this establishes the superiority of the PŒtimokkhasaµvaras´la over the other s´las in the fourfold classification. CèlŒbhaya Thera argues that the other three items of this classification are never referred to as s´la and dismisses them as elementary considerations relating to the control of sense faculties and to the acceptance and use of a disciple's food and raiment. Nevertheless, Buddhaghosa is anxious to maintain that the PŒtimokkha by itself does not complete the discipline of a monk. The PŒtimokkha being essentially an organ of Buddhist Vinaya aimed at the correction only of word and deed. This is clearly stated to be the avowed purpose of theVinaya PiÊaka as is borne out by the definitions of Vinaya given by Buddhaghosa. But the complete development of a Buddhist disciple included the discipline of his mind as well. As the CatupŒrisuddhi-s´la was meant to be the complete and comprehensive code of Buddhist monastic discipline, it was argued that the development of the mind of the disciple which the PŒtimokkha did not take within its fold was brought about by the rest of these divisions of s´la. Thus Buddhaghosa would speak of the good disciples as being established in this fourfold s´la for the perfection of their religious life.

This deficiency of the PŒtimokkha, and therefore also of the earlier s´lakkhandha referred to in the Suttas, which is pointed out here had been remedied to some extent by the discipline of indriyasaµvara which was closely coupled with s´la from the earliest times. Hence we would readily concede the elaboration of the indriyasaµvara into a separate item of s´la which contributes to the mental discipline of a monk. But the formulation of îj´vapŒrisuddhi and Paccayasannissita in their present form in the CatupŒrisuddhis´la seems more to hint at the concern over the behaviour of the growing monastic community.

It is of interest to note that while Buddhaghosa records the divergent evaluations of the CatupŒrisuddhis´la. he also makes a genuine attempt to place before us this fourfold classification with a definite note of recommendation. In the Visuddhimagga he shows us how these four items of s´la bring into play essential monastic virtues like saddhŒ, sati, viriya and pa––Œ. It is also shown that they contribute towards a fourfold purification in the life of the monk : catubbidhŒ hi suddhi. In terms of the s´la which bring about these aspects of purification they are :

(a) DesanŒsuddhi : PŒtimokkhasaµvaras´la.

(b) Saµvarasuddhi : Indriyasaµvaras´la .

(c) PariyeÊÊhisuddhi : îj´vapŒrisuddhis´la.

(d) Paccavekkhaöasuddhi : Paccayasannissitas´la

(Page 66)

There is a passage in the DhammapadaÊÊhakathŒ which in its comment on a verse in the Bhikkhuvagga, attempts to equate the CatupŒrisuddhis´la to the three items of pŒtimokkhasaµvara, indriyagutti and santuÊÊhi of Canonical antiquity. In doing so it is constrained to accommodate both îj´vapŒrisuddhi and Paccayasannissita s´las under santuÊÊhi which is explained as contentment with regard to the four requisites. The Vimuttimagga seems to go a step further in that it tries to establish with finality the significance of the CatupŒrisuddhis´la in Buddhist monasticism by equating the four items of s´la to the three sikkhŒ of s´la, samŒdhi and pa––Œ. In the light of all these observations it becomes clear that the CatupŒrisuddhis´la has acquired in Buddhist monasticism a validity and significance which cannot easily be underrated.

(Page 67)

CHAPTER VII

Inspite of the diversity of opinion regarding the importance of the CatupŒrisuddhis´la one would readily admit that Buddhism attaches great importance to the inner development of the disciple as a part of his religious life. In its basic form this development would amount to the elimination of manoduccarita or evil traits of the mind and the cultivation of manosucarita as its opposite. This obviously lay outside the pale of s´la, for greed, hatred and wrong views (abhijjhŒ vyŒpŒda micchŒdiÊÊhi), the three items of dasakammapatha which belong to the mind-group (manokamma) are not reckoned with under the s´la. The Suttas, on the other hand, repeatedly bring before us hosts of such vices or diseased states of the mind against which the disciples are constantly cautioned (Evam eva kho bhikhave citte saµkiliÊÊhe duggati pŒÊikaºkhŒ - M.I. 36.). The Vatthèpama Sutta gives a list of sixteen such evil traits of the mind which are referred to as cittassa upakkilesŒ. None of these have been brought up for correction under the category of s´la. Commenting on these, Buddhaghosa hastens to add that these sixteen are not the only defiling traits of the mind (kilesa, upakkilesa) and suggests that in this manner all kilesa are taken into consideration. (Na ca ete soÂas ' eva cittassa upakkilesŒ. Etena pana nayena sabbe ' pi kilesŒ gahitŒ y ' eva hont´ ' ti veditabbŒ - MA.I. 170.).

The monks are advised to purge their minds of these as a step forward in their spiritual progress. (Yath ' odhi kho pana ' ssa cattaµ hoti vantaµ muttaµ pah´naµ paÊinissaÊÊhaµ so buddhe aveccappasŒdena samannŒgato'mh´ ' ti labhati atthavedaµ labhati dhammavedaµ labhati dhammèpasaµhitaµ pŒmujjaµ. Pamuditassa p´ti jŒyati p´timanassa kŒyo passambhati passaddhakŒyo sukhaµ vedeti sukhino cittaµ samŒdhiyati - M.I. 37.) The Sallekha Sutta which is addressed to the monks as a plea for self-correction introduces us to a much larger list of forty-four evil ways or akusala dhamma. The Buddha reminds his disciples that every attempt to eradicate these by a sincere desire to cultivate their opposites is a commendable virtue (CittuppŒdam ' pi kho ahaµ cunda kusalesu dhammesu bahukŒraµ vadŒmi. Ko pana vŒdo kŒyena vŒcŒya anuvidh´yanŒsu. TasmŒt ' iha cunda pare vihiµsakŒ bhavissanti mayam ' ettha avihiµsakŒ bhavissaŒmŒ ' ti cittaµ uppŒdetabbaµ - M.I. 43.) He calls this the way to peace and progress: uparibhŒvapariyŒya and nibbŒnapariyŒya. (SeyyathŒ ' pi cunda ye keci akusalŒ dhammŒ sabbe te adhobhŒvaºgaman´yŒ ye keci kusalŒ dhammŒ sabbe te uparibhŒvaºgaman´yŒ. Evam eva kho cunda vihiµsakassa purisapuggalassa avihiµsŒ hoti uparibhŒvŒya...... Evaµ eva kho cunda vihiµsakassa purisapuggalassa avihiµsŒ hoti parinibbŒnŒya - M.I.44.).

The mental purge referred to above was always considered an essental feature in the religious life of a Buddhist disciple. The Suttas which deal with s´la as the basis of the spiritual development of a disciple refer to this as the subsequent cleansing of the mind of the n´varaöa. N´varaöa defile and disease the mind and thereby weaken the functioning of the intellect. (So ime pa–ca n´varaöe pahŒya cetaso upakkilese pa––Œya dubbal´karaöe...M.I.412.) Thus the proper culture of the mind is a stage which must necessarily precede the perfection of wisdom or adhipa––Œ sikkhŒ. Without it, the mind can never be chanelled for the attainment of Arahantship (Evaµ eva kho bhikkhave pa–c ' ime cittassa upakkilesŒ yehi upakkilesehi upakkiliÊÊhaµ cittaµ na c ' eva mudu hoti no ca kammaniyaµ na ca pabhassaraµ pabhaºgu ca na ca sammŒ samŒdhiyati ŒsavŒnaµ khayŒya. Katame pa–ca. KŒmacchando bhikkhave.... khayŒya - S.V. 92.). Every good disciple, therefore, was expected to strive for the elimination of these defilements.

(Page 68)

The KhaggavisŒöa Sutta specifies the defiling mental traits as cetaso Œvaraöa, upakkilesa and sinehadosa :

On a careful analysis of these defilements which are referred to as 1. n´varaöa, 2. cetaso Œvaraöa, 3. cittaklesa, 4. upakkilesa or 5. saµyojana, we discover that there are two constant and recurring items, viz. abhijjhŒ and vyŒpŒda. As a n´varaöa, abhijjhŒ is also referred to as kŒmacchanda. As a saµyojana, it goes under both names of kŒmacchanda and kŒmarŒga. Thus it appears that in the mind-culture which is recommended to the Buddhist disciple, these two, out of the numerous evil states to which the mind was liableto descend, became the central target of attack. But we have already noted above that these two, together with micchŒdiÊÊhi, form the triad of manokamma in the list of dasa akusala kamma. Hence we may ask ourselves why then do abhijjhŒ and vyŒpŒda come to be specially stressed, almost to the exclusion of micchŒdiÊÊhi. But it should also be noted here that micchŒdiÊÊhi is not listed under the pa–ca n´varaöa which are the primary defiling traits of the mind. Nor does the Vatthèpama Sutta mention it among the upakkilesa of the mind.

This special mention of abhijjhŒ and vyŒpŒda has also a parallel when we consider lobha (rŒga) and dosa which are referred to at times without any mention of moha which is the third item of the group. The Saµyutta speaks of a disciple's conquest of these two evils:

The Majjhima NikŒya mentions lobha and dosa as the two evils which are to be transcended by pursuing the Middle Path (Tatr ' Œvuso lobho ca pŒpako doso ca pŒpako. Lobhassa ca pahŒnŒya dosassa ca pahŒnŒya atthi majjhimŒ paÊipadŒ cakkhukaraö´ –Œöakaraö´ upasamŒya abhi––Œya sambodhŒya nibbŒnŒya saµvattati - M.I.15.). However, it must be clearly borne in mind that in the final attainment of Arahantship there is no room for any trace of moha or of rŒga and dosa. For nibbŒna is the elimination of all the three evils of rŒga, dosa and moha (Yo kho Œvuso rŒgakkhayo dosakkhayo mohakkhayo idaµ vuccati nibbŒnan ' ti - S.IV.251.).

It is important to note that in this line of spiritual development sakkŒyadiÊÊhi is regarded as one of the earlier mental failings which need to be remedied. For already at the early stage of SotŒpatti the first three saµyojana (sakkŒyadiÊhi together with vicikicchŒ and s´labbataparŒmŒsa) are completely eradicated (Tinnaµ saµyojanŒnaµ parikkhayŒ sotŒpanno avinipŒtadhammo niyato sambodhiparŒyano ' ti - M.I. 141.). This achievement is further described as follows :

(Page 69)

Beyond this, the further achievements of a SakadŒgŒmin are only a reduction in rŒga, dosa and moha (yesaµ bhikkhènaµ t´ni saµyojanŒni pah´nŒn´ rŒgadosamohŒ tanubhètŒ sabbe te sakadŒgŒmino sakid ' eva imaµ lokaµ ŒgantvŒ dukkhass ' antaµ karissanti - M.I.141.). This makes it clear that inspite of the complete elimination of sakkŒyadiÊÊhi at the stage of SotŒpatti, moha seems to survive beyond this. Even at the stage of SakadŒgŒmin rŒga, dosa and moha are only reduced in magnitude. An AnŒgŒmin is said to get rid of two more saµyojana, viz. kŒmacchanda and vyŒpŒda, for he is described as having purged himself by then of the five orambhŒgiya saµyojana. If we regard the two saµyojana, kŒmacchanda and vyŒpŒda as approximating to rŒga and dosa, then we discern this reduced element of moha as surviving even after the stage of AnŒgŒmin. The final extinction of moha (mohakkhaya) perhaps takes place in Arahantship, after the elimination of the five uddhambhŒgiya saµyojana. We find avijjŒ persisting as the last item of this group, and whatever meaning we may give to the term avijjŒ, it must undobtedly remain a form of moha. Buddhaghosa's definition of moha that it is the root of all evil (Moho.... sabbŒ ' kusalŒnaµ mèlan ' ti daÊÊhabbo - Vism. 468.) perhaps emphasises this most enduring character of moha. This failing, which seems to find expression severally as micchŒdiÊÊhi, sakkŒyadiÊÊhi, moha and avijjŒ, implies error of judgement and deficiency of knowledge, presumably of varying degree, which can be rectified completely only on the attainment of perfect wisdom in Arahantship.

The other defiling traits of the mind which the Suttas enumerate are mainly related to fraud, pride, jealousy and anger, which may exist in varying degrees of severity. Besides their moral and ethical significance for the religious life referred to in the Vatthèpama and Sallekha Suttas, they also have an essentially social character in that these failings cause friction and disharmony in the communal life of the monastic society. The AnumŒna Sutta calls them the dovacassa-karaöa-dhamma, or evil ways of monks which make them resent and reject good eounsel from fellow members. The Saºgha would no longer trust such monks and would deem it unwise to advise or admonish them (So ca hoti dubbaco dovacassa-karaöehi dhammehi samannŒgato akkhamo appadakkhiöaggŒh´ anusŒsaniµ. Atha kho naµ sabrahmacŒr´ na c ' eva vattabbaµ ma––anti na ca anusŒsitabbaµ ma––anti na ca tasmiµ puggale vissŒsaµ Œpajjitabbaµ ma––anti - M.I. 95.). Therefore the monks are called upon to view from all angles the dangers resulting from these to the religious life as well as to the life in the community, and make therefore every effort for their elimination. (i. Sa kho so bhikkhave bhikkhu abhijjhŒvisamalobho cittassa upakkileso ' ti iti viditvŒ abhijjhŒvisamalobhaµ cittassa upakkilesaµ pajahati. ii. Pare abhijjhŒlè bhavissanti mayam ettha anabhijjhŒlè bhavissŒmŒ ' ti sallekho karaö´yo. iii. TatrŒvuso bhikkhunŒ attanŒ ' va attŒnaµ evam anuminitabbaµ yo khv ' Œyaµ puggalo pŒpiccho pŒpikŒnaµ icchŒnaµ vasaµgato ayam me puggalo appiyo amanŒpo. Aha– c ' eva kho pan ' assaµ pŒpiccho pŒpikŒnaµ icchŒnaµ vasaµgato aham ' p'assam paresaµ appiyo amanŒpo ' ti. Evaµ jŒnantena Œvuso bhikkhunŒ na pŒpiccho bhavissŒmi na pŒpikŒnaµ icchŒnaµ vasaµgato ' ti cittaµ uppŒdetabbaµ - M.I. 37.)

It appears to be fairly clear from the statements in the Suttas that for the cultivation of the perfect character it was not only a life of renunciation that was desirable. The pabbajita, as a disciple who had given up all household ties, was further advised that solitary retreats would be conducive to a life of contemplation and spiritual perfection. We discover in the Suttas that it was nothing unusual for the early Buddhist disciple to resort to a sylvan retreat in order to develop his inner character (So iminŒ ca ariyena s´lakkhandhena samannŒgato ... santuÊÊhiyŒ samannŒgato vivittaµ senŒsanaµ bhajati ara––aµ rukkhamèlaµ pabbataµ kandaraµ giriguhaµ susŒnaµ vanapatthaµ abbhokŒsaµ palŒlapu–jaµ. So pacchŒbhattam piö¶aptapaÊikkanto nis´dati pallaºkam ŒbhujitvŒ ujuµ kŒyam panidhŒya parimukhaµ satim upaÊÊhapetvŒ - D.I.71.). The Buddha, in fact, recognises the existence among his disciples of monks

(Page 70)

who lead such lives (Santi kho pana me udŒyi sŒvakŒ Œra––akŒ pantasenŒsanŒ ara––avanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni ajjhogahetvŒ viharanti - M.II. 8). This mode of life of some of the early Buddhist monks seems also to have been well recognised as a regular institution as is evident from words ascribed to Vessavaöa in the îÊŒnŒÊiya Sutta (Santi hi bhante bhagavato sŒvakŒ ara––e vanapatthŒni pantŒni sensanŒni paÊisevanti appasaddŒni appanigghosŒni vijanavŒtŒni manussarŒhaseyyakŒni paÊsallŒnasŒruppŒni - D.III. 195.). In the Saµyutta NikŒya we hear of the venerable UdŒyi who reports back to the Buddha the progress he made under such conditions (So khv ' Œham bhante su––ŒgŒragato imesam pa–cupŒdŒnakkhandhŒnaµ ukkujjŒvakujjaµ samparivattento idaµ dukkhan ' ti yathŒbhètam abbha––Œsim - S.V. 89.). At times the Budha is seen making direct reference to this in his admonitions to his disiples. ' Resort to the solitary retreats and be engaged in contemplative thought,' he tells Cunda, and adds further, ' Be quick and zealous, lest you repent afterwards.' (Yaµ kho cunda satthŒrŒ karaö´yaµ sŒvakŒnaµ hitesinŒ anukampakena anukampaµ upŒdŒya kataµ vo tam mayŒ. EtŒni cunda rukkhamèlŒni etŒni su––ŒgŒrŒni. JhŒyatha cunda mŒ pamŒd ' attha mŒ pacchŒ vippaÊisŒrino ahuvattha. Ayaµ vo amhŒkaµ anusŒsan´ ' ti - M.I. 46.) He is seen advising înanda with these same words. The Buddha is even more direct in his admonitions to Nanda who evinced a love of luxury and pleasure (Evaµ kho te nanda patirèpaµ kulaputtassa saddhŒ agŒrasmŒ anagŒriyam pabbajitassa yaµ tvaµ Œra––ako assasi piödapŒtiko ca paµsukèliko ca. KŒmesu ca anapekkho vihareyyŒs´ ' ti - S.II. 281.). Here the relevance of his remarks appears in clearer relief, for the very things that he seems to recommend to Nanda are some of those of which he refused Devadatta to make a general rule incumbent on all.

It is evident that this mode of living, which is called a life of physical detachment or kŒyavèpakaÊÊha, soon came to be recognised in Buddhist monastic circles as a much praised virtue (Etha tumhe Œra––akŒ hotha ara––avanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni paÊisevathŒ ' ti. Iti kŒyavèpakaÊÊhe samŒdapetabbŒ nivesetabbŒ patiÊÊhŒpetabbŒ - A.III.138.). The Pali texts make repeated attempts to show that both the Buddha and the venerable MahŒ Kassapa practised this way of solitary living. They are said to have done so for their own comfort and peace of mind as well as for the purpose of setting a good example for the future generations. King Pasenadi Kosala praises the Buddha for this special virtue (Yam pi bhante bhagavŒ d´gharattaµ Œra––ako ara––avanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni paÊisevati imaµ pi kho ahaµ bhante atthavasaµ sampassamŒno bhagavati evarèpaµ paramanipaccŒkŒraµ karomi mittèpahŒraµ upadaµsemi - A.V. 66 f.). Saµyutta NikŒya informs us of Kassapa's preference for this mode of life (Kim pana tvaµ kassapa atthavasaµ sampassamŒno d´gharattaµ Œra––ako c ' eva ara––akattassa vaööavŒd´ - S.II.203 f.). This is in fact made out to be the general pattern of conduct of the Buddha and his disciples. (Ye kira te ahesuµ buddhŒnubuddhasŒvakŒ te d´gharattaµ Œra––akŒ c ' eva ahesuµ araööakattassa ca vaööavŒdino - Ibid.). Udumbarikas´hanŒda Sutta goes so far as to make it an ancient and eternal order which governs the life of the Buddhas of the past, present and the future (Ye te ahesuµ at´taµ addhŒnaµ arahanto sammŒsambuddhŒ .... evaµ su te bhagavanto ara––e vanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni paÊisevanti appasaddŒni appanigghosŒni vijanavŒtŒni manussarŒhaseyyakŒni paÊisallŒnasŒruppŒni seyyathŒ ' pi bhagavŒ etarah´ ' ti - D.III. 54.). The Aºguttara NikŒya which gives five different reasons for the adoption of this way of forest-living says that one would take to it being impressed by the fact that it had been extolled by the Buddha and his disciples (vaööitaµ buddhehi buddhasŒvakeh´ ' ti Œra––ako hoti - A. III. 219.). But the real reason, it goes on to add, should be that it provides an ideal setting to the man who has renounced the cares of the world and seeks to perfect his inner being (Appicchataµ y ' eva nissŒya santuÊÊhiµ y ' eva nissŒya sallekhataµ y ' eva nissŒya pavivekaµ y ' eva nissŒya idaµ atthitaµ y ' eva nissŒya Œra––ako hoti - Ibid.).

It appears from the above consideration that every attempt had been made to popularise this mode of life as the one that contributes most to the spiritual well-being of the disciple. It was deemed useful for the progress of both samatha and vipassanŒ. It is this idea of solitary and secluded life that is implied in the phrase brèhetŒ su––ŒgŒrŒnaµ which the Buddha addresses as an admonition

(Page 71)

to his disciples. The Papa–casèdan´ brings both samatha and vipassanŒ within the aspirations of this solitary life in its comment on brèhetŒ su––ŒgŒrŒnaµ (Ettha ca samathavipassanŒvasena kammaÊÊhŒnaµ gahetvŒ rattindivaµ su––ŒgŒraµ pavisitvŒ nis´damŒno bhikkhè brèhetŒ su––ŒgŒrŒnan ' ti veditabbo - MA.I.157.). This love of the life of solitude in the forest is one of the seven conditions wich would arrest the decay of the monk (satta aparihŒniyŒ dhammŒ). It would, on the other hand, be a stimulus to his spiritual progress (YŒvak´va– ca bhikkhave bhikkhè Œra––akesu senŒsanesu sŒpekkhŒ bhavissanti vuddhi y ' eva bhikkhave bhikkhènaµ pŒÊikaºkhŒ no parihŒni - D.II. 77.) It is also given as one of ten items which a disciple should constantly ponder over with a view to developing a love for it (Kacci no ahaµ sè––ŒgŒre abhiramŒm´ ' ti pabbajitena abhiöhaµ paccavekkhitabbaµ........ Ime kho bhikkhave dasa dhammŒ pabbajitena abhiöhaµ paccavekkhitabbŒ - A.V. 88.).

However, it was recognised at the same time that mere residence in forest retreats or sdopting frugal and abstemious ways of life was not a virtue in itself, unless accompanied by a corresponding perfection of character. The Budha tells the venerable Sandha that unless the defiling traits of the mind are first eliminated they would overpower him even as he dwells in his forest residence and lead him astray in his musings (Evam eva kho sandha idh ' ekacco purisakhaluºko ara––agato ' pi rukkhamèlagato ' pi su––ŒgŒragato ' pi kŒmarŒgapariyuÊÊhitena cetasŒ viharati kŒmarŒgaparetena. Uppannassa ca kŒmarŒgassa nissaraöaµ yathŒbhètaµ nappajŒnŒti. So kŒmarŒgaµ.... vicikicchaµ y ' eva antaraµ karitvŒ jhŒyati pajjhŒyati nijjhŒyati avajjhŒyati - A.V. 323.).

On the other hand, it has been very realistically pointed out that unless a disciple makes progress towards the attainment of the tranquility of mind which he is seeking, it would be difficult for him to relish forest-residence and delight in its solitude. The wilderness would whirl away his mind. In the Bhayabherava Sutta, the Brahmin JŒnussoni expresses this view and the Buddha is found to be in perfect agreement with him (DurabhisambhavŒni hi bho gotama ara––e vanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni. Dukkaraµ pavivekaµ durabhiramaµ ekatte. Haranti ma––e mano vanŒni samŒdhiµ alabhamŒnassa - M.I.16.). In the early history of the SŒsana it was evidently this dread of forest-residence which prevented it from being widely accepted. The story of the Vera–jŒbhŒöavŒra seems to indicate that the reliance on this mode of life alone, without an alternative, was regarded as one of the causes that led to the alleged breakdown of the monastic institutions of some of the Buddhas of the past. Thus it is not difficult to see that while zealous monks like MahŒ Kassapa and Upasena Vaºgantaputta were regular forest-dwellers and always spoke in favour of it, there were, even in the earliest days of the SŒsana, others who probed into the spiritual qualifications of those who resorted to such a way of life and pointed out that it could be as much a source of danger to a monk as a life of pleasure. Continuing to lead such a life without attaining the desired result of tranquility of the mind, it is pointed out, would lead a disciple to disastrous consequences (Yo kho upŒli evaµ vadeyya ahaµ samŒdhiµ alabhamŒno ara––e vanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni paÊisevissŒm´ ' ti tass ' etaµ pŒÊikankhaµ saµs´dissati vŒ uppilavissati vŒ - AV.202.). The commentary explains that in such a state of contradiction the mind of the disciple would be torn by thoughts of lust or hatred (Saµs´dissat´ ' ti kŒmavitakkehi saµs´dissati uppilavissat´ ' ti vyŒpŒdavihiµsŒvitakkehi uddhaµ pilavissati - AA.V. 67.)

But those who took to this way of life supported it wholeheartedly. MahŒ Kassapa led the way in this direction, both by example and precept (Dve kho ahaµ bhante atthavasaµ sampassamŒno d´gharattaµ Œra––ako c ' eva ara––akattassa ca vaööavŒd´.... Attano ca diÊÊhadhammasukhavihŒraµ sampassamŒno pacchima– ca janataµ anukampamŒno app ' eva nŒma pacchimŒ janatŒ diÊÊhŒnugatiµ Œpajjeyyuµ - S.II.202.) Upasena Vaºgantaputta was such an ardent supporter of it that he would take none as his pupil unless he was willing to be a regular forest-dweller (Yo maµ bhante upasampadaµ yŒcati t ' Œhaµ evaµ vadŒmi ahaµ kho Œvuso Œra––ako piö¶apŒtiko paµsukèliko. Sace tvaµ ' pi Œran–ako bhavissasi piö¶apŒtiko paµsukèliko ev ' Œhaµ taµ upasampŒdessŒm´ ' ti - Vin. III. 230.). However, even during the life-time of the Buddha we note that the ara––akatta as a regular mode of monastic life was recommended with

(Page 72)

certain reservations. According to a statement in the Anguttara NikŒya, the venerable UpŒli informs the Buddha of his desire to live the forest-life (Ekamantaµ nisinno kho ŒyasmŒ upŒli bhagavantaµ etad avoca icchŒm ' ahaµ bhante ara––e vanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni paÊisevitun ' ti. - A.V. 202). But he was immediately dissuaded by the Buddha who, in those same words of JŒnussoni quoted earlier, told him of the hopelessness of forest-life for one who fails to gain tranquility of the mind.

It is somewhat difficult to understand here why UpŒli, who later became such a distinguished disciple, was warned by the Buddha in this manner. We are thus inclined to ask whether these remarks implied any inherent weakness of UpŒli against which the Buddha was anxious to safeguard him. The next remark which the Buddha makes, dismissing almost with ridicule the idea that one could still continue to lead the forest-life without gaining any tranquility of mind, seems to be very emphatic about UpŒli's inaptitude for such a life. The words with which the Buddha concludes his advice to UpŒli crown the whole argument. ' Stay back, UpŒli, in the midst of the Saºgha and it will contribute to your own welfare.' (Iºgha tvaµ upŒli saºghe viharŒhi saºghe te viharato phŒsu bhavissati. - A.V. 209.). The Commentary very readily solves this problem by pointing out that if UpŒli was allowed to choose the way of forest-life, he would have only developed the holy life and missed the chance of learning the texts of the Vinaya. He would also thereby have lost the honour of being the chief exponent of the Vinaya. The Commentary says that it was in anticipation of the situation that the Buddha advised him against retiring to the forest. However, it is clear that what the text tries to stress is something different.

We do not propose to probe further into this matter here. But the Bhayabherava Sutta and the story of UpŒli in the Aºguttara NikŒya yield us two interesting observa-tions. In the Bhayabherava Sutta, the Buddha who was told by JŒnusssoni of the difficulties of forest-life explains that the disciple who on retiring to the forest assails the evil and corrupt ways of his life, gains with each victory greater and greater confidence for the pursuit of it. It is in terms of his own life as the Bodhisatta that the Buddha makes these observations in the Bhayabherava Sutta (Etaµ ahaµ brŒhmaöa parisuddha-kammantataµ attani sampassamŒno bhiyyo pallomaµ ŒpŒdiµ ara––e vihŒrŒya. - M.I. 17.). On the other hand, it is pointed out that to retire to the forest one did not need to wait for the perfection of his spiritual life. In fact, it was to achieve this end that one took to the forest life. But the forest-dweller had to be contilually inspired by his religious aspirations, i.e. the higher and higher states of spiritual development he could attain in succession (Imaµ ' pi kho upŒli mama sŒvakŒ attanŒ dhammaµ samanupassamŒnŒ ara––e vanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni paÊisevanti no ca kho tŒva anuppattasadatthŒ viharanti. - A.V.207).

Once this spiritual earnestness was secured the results of forest-residence always proved to be heartening and the hardships of such a life recede to the background. Thus the thera Vakkali who was living in the forest, even though he suffered from cramps (vŒtarogŒbhin´to), made his mind triumph over the body and thereby propelled himself to further and further spiritual attainments, ignoring the hardships of forest life.

(Page 73)

A similar story is told of the thera NhŒtakamuni. The thera EkavihŒriya seems to look upon the wilderness as the one place of delight to the ardent disciple, the yog´.

Psalms of the Brethren, 537-9

Therein he looks forward to the consummation of his religiouslife.

Psalms of the Brethren, 541

Armed for that purpose, he plunges into the forest, never to return until he has attained his heart's desire, the highest goal of Arahantship.

Psalms of the Brethren, 543

Perhaps the most glorious example of a thera who seems to have enjoyed every moment of his life in the forest, using these sylvan charms as a spring-board to higher spiritual attainments is the thera TŒlapuÊa. To him, they have been a constant source of inspiration as he pursued this spiritual quest.

Thag. 1102-3

(Page 74)

Psalms of the Brethren,1102-3

Similar ecstasies of the thera TŒlapuÊa are also evident in the following verses ascribed to him:

Thag. 1135-7

Psalms of the Brethren, 1135-7

There seems to be very little reason to doubt that in the early days of the SŒsana when the majority of the Buddha's disciples chose the monastic life out of a deep-rooted conviction, realising its significance and its implications, the practice of frugality and contentment, and to some extent even austerity, was a reality in Buddhist monasticism. Following the anagŒriya doctrine of the Buddha, the disciples could not have conducted themselves in any other way if they were to be true to their convictions. It was not a mere non-existent ideal of the past, as is assumed by some, that was used as the criterion in commenting on the increasing laxity in monastic discipline. There was undoubtedly an established and recognised pattern of conduct which was jointly determined by both the Dhamma and the Vinaya in terms of which monastic conduct was judged and criticised.

(Page 75)

It is clear from a passage in the Aºguttara that it included perfection of personal character as well as observance of monastic propriety. Discussing the dangers that would befall the SŒsana in the future (anŒgatabhayŒni), it is said that monks of uncultivated character would confer higher monastic status on others whom they would not be able to instruct and discipline towards perfection of character on account of their own imperfections. But these new members, inspite of their imperfect character, would in turn aspire to be leaders and teachers and thus subscribe to the continuous degeneration and corruption of monastic life (Bhavissanti bhikkhave bhikkhè anŒgatamaddhŒnaµ abhŒvitakŒyŒ abhŒvitas´lŒ abhŒvitacittŒ abhŒvitapa––Œ te abhŒvitakŒyŒ samŒnŒ abhŒvitas´lŒ abhŒvitacittŒ abhŒvitapa––Œ a––e upasampŒdessanti. Te ' pi na sakkhissanti vinetuµ adhis´le adhicitte adhipa––Œya. Te ' pi bhavissanti abhŒvitakŒyŒ...... abhŒvitapa––Œ. Iti kho bhikkhave dhammasandosŒ vinayasandoso vinayasandosŒ dhammasandoso - A.III.106.).

We have already noticed in our study of s´la that with the increase of offences and offenders in the monastic community rules and regulations for the guidance of its members became more rigorous and more comprehensive, and in the light of contemporary events, were made foolproof. This battle against falling standards and increasing laxity in monastic discipline led to a number of interesting devolopments. The simple and basic monastic virtues of contentment with regard to food, clothing and residence, and the love of solitude, which were more or less assumed to be basic virtues in the early days of the SŒsana, begin to acquire more and more importance. It becomes a compulsory monastic procedure that every monk, soon after the conferment of UpasampadŒ, be told of the four Nissayas or the minimum of his requirements with which he is expected to be satisfied all his life. They are: i. Begged_food for a meal (piö¶iyŒlopabhojana), ii. a robe made of bits of cloth collected from here and there for a garment (paµsukèlac´vara), iii. residence at the foot of a tree (rukkhamèlasenŒsana), and iv. putrid urine as medicament (pètimuttabhesajja). However, it was not binding on him to be confined within these narrow limits. If extra gifts were offered to him he was given the option to receive them. This principle of the Nissayas was laid down by the Buddha only as a safeguard against any possible complaints from monks regarding the scanty provision of food, clothing etc. by the laymen. It is a forewarning against disappointment and disillusionment concerning the comforts of monastic life.

However, it was the Buddha himself who refused the request alleged to heve been made by Devadatta to make these virtues of simplicity compulsory for the monks. But the public at large, who inherited the ascetic traditions of India, show a partiality for austerity and asceticism in religious life. Even during the life time of the Buddha there seem to have been some who thought the monks who were austere and ascetic in their ways were, on that account, more worthy of honour and nearer to perfection. A householder of NŒdika once told the Buddha that whenever he made offerings of food he always selected monks who were abstemious and austere in their ways (D´yati me bhante kule dŒnaµ ta– ca kho ye te bhikkhè Œra––akŒ piö¶apŒtikŒ paµsukèlikŒ arahanto vŒ arahattamaggaµ vŒ samŒpannŒ tathŒrèpesu bhante dŒnaµ d´yyati - A.III. 391.). Here, the Buddha hastens to correct the fallacy and states that susterity, without the perfection of character, would not be a virtue in itself. On the other hand, a monk who is less austere could be more worthy of honour on account of his perfect character (Ara––ako ce ' pi gahapati bhikkhu hoti uddhato unnalo capalo mukharo vikiööavŒco muÊÊhassati asampajŒno asamŒhito vibbhantacitto pŒkatindriyo evaµ so tena y ' eva gŒrayho... Gahapatic´varadharo ce ' pi gahapati bhikkhu hoti anuddhato anunnalo acapalo amukharo avikiööavŒco upaÊÊhitasati sampajŒno samŒhito ekaggacitto saµvutindriyo evaµ so tena y ' eva pŒsasµo - Ibid.). The existence among the popular values of the day of a preference for ascetic and austere living as a monastic virtue is indicated in a statement in the Anaºgana Sutta. It is stated that the monk who lives in urban associations appears to suffer by contrast when placed against his forest-dwelling brethren. The Sutta, however, makes it clear that according to true Buddhist values what mattered more in the perfection of monastic life was the elimination of defiling traits of the mind (pŒpakŒ akusalŒ icchŒvacarŒ).

(Page 76)

We notice, at any rate, that along with the choice of this solitary way of life in the forest there seems to have gone hand in hand a number of other practices which reveal frugality, abstemiousness and contentment. The Anaºgana Sutta mentions three such practices, viz. 1. forest residence (Œra––aka), 2. subsistence on begged food (piö¶a-pŒtika) and 3. use of patch-work robe (paµsukèlika). These seem to cover a disciple's residence, food and clothing. In the form they are presented here they constitute special ways of monastic life which are optional. They do not bear any longer the general and simple character of the Nissayas. As monastic observances they seem to have brought greater honour and respect to those who practised them, presumably on account of the austerity and sacrifice they implied. It becomes more evident when we compare the opposites of these ways which seem to indicate, as it were, an easier way of life : gŒmantavihŒra or residence in the proximity of a village, nemantanika or acceptance of invitations to meals and gahapati-c´varadhara or use of garments offered by laymen. To these monastic practices which were becoming increasingly popular, tec´varikatta or reliance on a single set of three robes was sometimes added as a fourth. The Buddha recognises, however, that there can be a nominal practice of these austere ways without any corresponding spiritual progress. He brings to our notice the thirty PŒveyyaka monks. who inspite of the complete adoption of these austere ways, were full of defiling traits of character (Atha kho bhagavato etadahosi. Ime kho tiµsamattŒ pŒveyyakŒ bhikkhè sabbe Œra––akŒ sabbe piö¶apŒtikŒ sabbe paµsukèlikŒ sabbe tec´varikŒ sabbe sasaµyojanŒ. YannènŒ ' haµ imesaµ tathŒ dhammaµ deseyyaµ yathŒ nesaµ imasmiµ y ' eva Œsane anupŒdŒya Œsavehi cittŒni vimucceyyun ' ti - S.II. 187.)

We also detect an attempt to idealise these practices and make them a part of the general pattern of Buddhist monastic life. This seems to herald the ascendency of asceticism as the hallmark of monastic virtue. The YodhŒjivavagga of the Aºguttara NikŒya which gives warning of a number of calamities that would befall the SŒsana with the lapse of time (anŒgatabhayŒni), refers to the practice of these ways of monastic living as though it was the order of the day. Here we see clearly an attempt to fix and establish the changing pattern of monastic living in a form acceptable to contemporary values. We would not imagine that there was unanimity of opinion with regard to these values. However, it is certain that they were acceptable to a fair section of the community who were powerful enough to publicise and popularise their views among others. There will come a time, says the text, when monks evincing a love of luxury with regard to food, clothing and residence would neglect the present austere practices of being piö¶apŒtika, paµsukèlika and Œra––aka respectively. They would give up the life of retirement in the forest and ' invading the urban districts ' indulge in all manner of unworthy pursuits for the sake of their requisites (Bhavissanti bhikkhave bhikkhè anŒgatamaddhŒnaµ c´vare kalyŒnakŒmŒ te c´vare kalyŒnakŒmŒ samŒnŒ ri–cissanti paµsukèlikattaµ ri–cissanti ara––avanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni gŒmanigama-rŒjadhŒniµ osaritvŒ vŒsaµ kappessanti c´varahetu ca anekavihitaµ anesanaµ appaÊirèpaµ Œpajjissanti. Idaµ bhikkhave paÊhamaµ anŒgatabhayaµ etarahi asamuppannaµ Œyatiµ samuppajjissati. Taµ vo paÊibujjhitabbaµ paÊibujjhitvŒ ca tassa pahŒnŒya vŒyamitabbaµ - A.III. 108 f.).

In a similar passage in the Saµyutta, the Buddha, in a conversation with the venerable MahŒ Kassapa, is made to lament over this alleged decline in Buddhist monastic values and the effect it would have on the younger generation of disciples. Nevertheless, this tendency appears to have continued unabated. Those who fought for laxity in discipline were equally vivacious and vociferous and are seen thrusting themselves against the orthodoxy with unyielding persistence.

(Page 77)

CHAPTER VIII

The first indications of the evolution of a system of codified law for the Saºgha come to us with the promulgation of sikkhŒpada which was provoked by laxities in discipline in the monastic community which contravened the spirit of s´la. The sikkhŒpada thus laid down from time to time soon grew to be a comprehensive code of discipline for the monks and was put into effective functioning through the fortnightly recital which was called the Uddesa or PŒtimokkhuddesa. The Aºguttara NikŒya specifies the total number of sikkhŒpada which were thus regularly recited to be over a hundred and fifty (SŒdhikam idam bhante diya¶¶ha-sikkhŒpada-satam anvaddhamŒsam uddesam Œgacchati - A.I. 230.). This is evidently an early reckoning, for the extant code of the PŒtimokkha has a total of 220 sikkhŒpada. Seven different groups of sikkhŒpada contribute to this total of 220. The distribution of the sikkhŒpada is as follows : PŒrŒjika 4, SaºghŒdisesa 13, Aniyata 2, Nissaggiya 30, PŒcittiya 92, PŒtidesaniya 4, Sekhiya 75. The Adhikaranasamathas which are seven in number, for obvious reasons, cannot be grouped together along with these sikkhŒpada.

It is clear from the evidence of both the Sutta and the Vinaya PiÊakas that the promulgation of the sikkhŒpada preceded the institution of the fortnightly recital of the PŒtimokkha for the monks. This does not, however, preclude the possibility that additions were made to the corpus of sikkhŒpada even after the institution of the PŒtimokkha recital. But we discover Oldenberg has expressed a surprisingly different view. He says: " The origin of the earliest rules or laws laid down by the Buddhist community for the guidance of its members appears to have been connected with those assemblies of Bhikkhus which met at full and new moon." We fail to see why Olenberg adopted this sequence in relating the sikkhŒpada to the PŒtimokkha recital. According to what we have been able to gather from the evidence of the Suttas and the Vinaya this appears to be a reversal of the order. We ourselves observe that some of the rules of the PŒtimokkha have had their origin after the recital of the PŒtimokkha had acquired definite form and recognition. At the same time it appears to be resonable to assume that a large number of rules would have had their origin independent of the idea of a recital.

The promulgation of rules in the form of sikkhŒpada was necessitated by the growing inadequacy of the moral injunctions of s´la to curb miscreants. Perhaps the form in which the rules of the PŒtimokkha are introduced in the Suttavibaºga led Oldenberg to his conclusion. The Suttavibhaºga introduces every rule saying ' This rule shall be recited in this manner ' : Eva– ca pana bhikkhave imam sikkhŒpadam uddiseyyŒtha. The editors of the Suttavibhaºga, we may venture to guess, could not have thought of the sikkhŒpada divorced from the Uddesa or the recital at the Uposatha. Thus it is said of all the sikkhŒpada, from the first to the last, that they should be recited in this form. But we cannot infer from this that the entire code of the PŒtimokkha was drawn up, like a constitution, prompted solely by the needs of the recital. We believe Oldenberg is much nearer the truth when he says the following: "A list of those offences which deserved punishment or some kind of expiation was, at a very early period, drawn up for the use of these confessional meetings." Rhys Davids and Oldenberg jointly express the same idea elesewhere : "A list was drawn

(Page 78)

up which of course it would be necessary from time to time to complete and rectify -- of those offences which ought to be confessed and atoned for....." This certainly was, in the first instance, a systematic grouping together of material which was already in existence.

In the MahŒvagga of the Vinaya PiÊaka, which gives the most comprehensive account of the origin and development of the ritual of the PŒtimokkha, the Buddha says that he would sanction for recital at the ritual of the PŒtimokkha the sikkhŒpada which he has already laid down for the monks (YannènŒham yŒni mayŒ bhikkhènam pa––attŒni sikkhŒpadŒni tŒni nesam pŒtimokkhuddesam anujŒneyyam. So nesam bhavissati uposathakamman ' ti - Vin. I. 102.). The Vimativinodan´ T´kŒ, a Sub-Commentry on the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ, which explains further the evolution of the PŒtimokkha code adds that the Buddha himself gave to the sikkhŒpada which he had laid down a formal character by codifying them and prefacing them with an introduction for the purpose of recital at the Uposatha meeting (Pubbe avijjamŒnam pa––Œpes´ ' ti na kevala– ca etam. Pubbe pa––attam ' pi pana pŒrŒjikŒdi sikkhŒpadam sabbam bhagavŒ tatr ' ime cattŒro pŒrŒjikŒ dhammŒ uddesam Œgacchant´ ' ti ŒdinŒ pŒrŒjikuddesŒdivasena vinayamŒtikam katvŒ nidŒn ' uddesena saha sayam eva sangahetvŒ pŒtimokkhan ' ti pa––Œpes´ ' ti daÊÊhabbam - Vimt. 396.).

We should draw attention here to the fact that Sukumar Dutt refers to the above account of the MahŒvagga as ' the legend, incredible for obvious reasons... .' As far as we can see the incredibility of the legend is not so obvious. But it is abundantly clear that this account, together with other allied evidence, contradicts his thesis regarding the PŒtimokkha. Fact or fiction he may call this, it will be seen that there is adequate evidence both in the Suttas and in the Vinaya which support this tradition that

(i) the promulgation of the sikkhŒpada, not necessarily all, started with the Buddha. (See M.I. 444 f ; A.I. 230 f.)

(ii) the recital of the PŒtimokkha was instituted during the life time of the Buddha and under his personal direction. (See M.II. 8, III.10; A.I. 230.)

(iii) the sikkhŒpada which had been promulgated earlier formed the text of the Uddesa or the recital. (See Vin.I.102; A.I. 230.)

We notice that a comprehensive code of sikkhŒpada was in existence in the monastic circles at an early date and that it was regularly recited before the Saºgha once a fortnight, with a view to reminding and acquainting the disciples with the regulations in terms of which they were expected to discipline themselves. The Mah´sŒsaka Vinaya in the Chinese version asserts negatively this function of the recital when it says that owing to the repeated recitals of abridged texts of the PŒtimokkha the young monks failed to acquaint themselves with its contents.

Each one of these sikkhŒpada or rules which constitute the text of the PŒtimokkha, according to the text of the Vinaya PiÊaka, was laid down on the commission of some offence which thereafter on the authority of the rules thus laid down, was declared illegal. These rules, as instruments of prosecution and punishment, therefore carried with them a host of carefully worded clauses which determine the gravity of the offence and the consequent changes in the nature of the punishment according to the circumstances of each case. Thus in the early days of the PŒtimokkha recital with which we associate the very dynamic function of ' dealing with offenders ' (tam mayam yathŒdhammam yathŒsattham kŒrema - M.III.10.), the details connected with each rule were as vital as the rule itself.

(Page 79)

Every competent monk had to be a master of the text of what was to be recited at the Uddesa (i.e. sutta) together with those details (sutta-vibhaºga). They were undoubtely parts of one single text and one cannot always speak of the details as being of later origin. Some of the historical prefaces and the amendments to the rules are evidently contemporary accounts and would have been essential in the application of the PŒtimokkha as a legal system. Thus the reference to the PŒtimokkha in terms of suttato and anuvya–janaso undoubtedly covers the contents of the Suttavibhaºga which embodies the PŒtimokkha together with the details connected with it. These details were vitally needed in the days when the Uddesa was no mere recital of the list of rules but a trial at which the offenders thus discovered were to be judged and dealt with according to the law.

Further proof of this literary position of the PŒtimokkha is seen in the solitary Canonical account of the First Buddhist Council, the Saºg´ti which was held soon after the demise of the Buddha. In the record of the literary activity of this Saºg´ti it is said that the venerable MahŒ Kassapa questioned the venerable UpŒli on the contents of the Ubhato Vinaya, commencing with the first PŒrŒjika with all its details (Atha kho ŒyasmŒ mahŒkassapo Œyasmantam upŒlim paÊhamassa pŒrŒjikassa vatthum ' pi pucchi nidŒnam ' pi pucchi puggalam ' pi pucchi pa––attim ' pi pucchi anupa––attim ' pi pucchi Œpattim ' pi pucchi anŒpattim ' pi pucchi... Eten ' eva upŒyena ubhato vinaye pucchi- Vin.II. 287.). There is little doubt that Ubhato Vinaya refers to the disciplinary code of the Bhikkhus and the Bhikkhunis and we are fairly safe in assuming this to be primarily the two Vibhaºgas, [ i.e. the codfied rules ot the PŒtimokkha together with their legally relevant details of application as was revealed in the above report ], though not necessarily in their present form. Thus it becomes clear that the text of the PŒtimokkha was something already contained in the Vibhaºgas, the MahŒvibhaºga and the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga, for no special mention of it is made under that name any where in the proceedings of the first Council. We are also compelled to add here that Ubhato Vinaya of the above report should include, under the connotation of that phrase, a reasonable amount of the core contents of the other section of the Vinaya known as the Khandhaka. That was vital for the execution of the ecclesiastical acts fo the Saºgha as a corporate body.

Sukumar Dutt attempts in the following remarks to offer a different explanation for this omission : " In the reported proceedings, the term, PŒtimokkha is nowhere mentioned, but all the heads of misdemeanour on the part of a Bhikkhu are listed except the Sekhiyas and the procedural rules of Adhikaranasamatha. The reason for the studied omission of the word, PŒtimokkha, is not far to seek if we assume that at the time when the proceedings were put into the present narrative shape, the Bhikkhus understood by PŒtimokkha something quite different from a code of Vinaya rules."

Here we are prepared to concede that the ' time when the proceedings were put into the present narrative shape ' may even be some time after the Second Buddhist Council. On Dutt's own admission almost all the sikkhŒpada of the extant PŒtimokkha code were known by then. For he says : ' but all the heads of misdemeanour on the part of a Bhikkhu are listed except the Sekhiyas and the procedural rules of Adhikaranasamatha.' On the other hand, he also says : ' at the time ....the Bhikkhus understood by PŒtimokkha something quite different from a code of Vinaya rules.' What then did this body of sikkhŒpada mean to them? Was their PŒtimokkha still a ' communal confession of Faith in a set from of hymn-singing '? However, in the succeeding paragraph Dutt says the following : ' The code, whatever its original contents, became after the First Council the bond of association of the Buddhist Bhikkhus, and was called PŒtimokkha (Bond). Thus the old name for a confession of faith came to be foisted on something new, a code of Prohibitions for a Bhikkhu. ' This attempted explnation of the omission of the term PŒtimokkha in the proceedings of the First Council is far from being conclusive.

(Page 80)

It is the Vibhaºga and not the PŒtimokkha which had the completeness of a code of discipline. That alone was the effective instrument of discipline, though one could have opted to learn only the body of rules in isolation. We find the sutta and the suttavibhaºga referred to severally (Tassa n ' eva suttam Œgatam hoti no suttavibhaºgo - Vin.II. 96.). But out of these two, it is the suttavibhaºga which is looked upon as the Vinaya proper even in the commentarial tradition (No suttavibhaºgo ti vinayo na paguöo - VinA.VI. 1197.). The sutta has only the value of an extract, an abridged version or mŒtikŒ.

In course of time, the recital of the PŒtimokkha lost its legal validity and function, as would be shown in the following chapter. The details regarding the application of rules would have then proved themselves to be irksome to those whose only interest in the Ptimokkha was for the sake of its fortnightly recital mainly as an instrument of monastic get-together and consolidation. The Vinayavinicchaya perhaps attempts to establish this attitude to the PŒtimokkha in the following statement, which contrasts the PavŒraöŒ with the Uposatha and asserts that the latter is for the purpose of stability and consolidation of the monastic community: Uposatho samaggattho visuddhatthŒ pavŒraöŒ - Vinvi. p.190.v.2599. There seems to be very little doubt that the term uposatha here stands for the fortnightly meeting at which the recital of the PŒtimokkha is the main concern. At such a stage one would readily concede the extraction of the text of the rules, and the rules alone, from the Suttavibhaºga to form an independent unit. Thus we would regard the emergence of an independent text by the name of PŒtimokkha, which contained only the sikkhŒpada and the instructions regarding their recital, to be historically later than the very substantial text of the Suttavibhaºga.

Oldenberg, however, is very definite about the theory that the list called the PŒtimokkha ' is the earliest specimen of Buddhist Vinaya literature that we possess '. In support of this he says that if we read the ordinances of the PŒtimokkha, without the commentary of the Vibhaºga, we find that they constitute one uninterrupted whole. It is our opinion that this alleged continuity is more imaginary than real. If we begin with the four PŒrŒjika rules of the PŒtimokkha, even a cursory glance at them would show that there is no more continuity among them than their being grouped together under a single category. The position is identically the same with regard to their continuity even if we examine them in the Suttavibhaºga, not better nor worse.

On the other hand, in the Suttavibhaºga version the sikkhŒpada come to possess more meaning and significance with regard to their disciplinary role. The generalised rule which occurs in isolation in the PŒtimokkha looks revitalised when viewed in the specific setting of its origin. Nor does the fact that three or four rules in succession deal with different aspects of the same subject support Oldenberg's theory of continuity. For thereafter, there occurs irreconcilable deviation into a completely new theme. (Compare the SaºghŒdisesa 6 and 7 in relation to the first five rules of the same group.) Further he says : ' and, moreover, it frequently happens that a rule refers to the one immediately preceding it, in a manner that would be altogether unintelligible if the two had been originally separated by the intervening explanations of the Vibhaºga.' Here too, we find it difficult to subscribe to this view. He cites two examples in support of his statement. He points out the phrase tassa bhikkhuno which occurs in PŒcittiya 49 as an indication of its link with the preceding rule. We would readily concede this, but we are unable to accept the position that the 'intervening explanation of the Vibhanga ' would make it ' altogether unintelligible ' On the other hand, we would like to point out that the phrase a––atra tathŒrèpaccayŒ of PŒcittiya 48 would be completely unintelligible without the explanations of the Vibhaºga. We would make the same comments regarding the phrase tathŒvŒdinŒ bhikkhunŒ of PŒcittiya 69, which Oldenberg gives as the second example. The introductory story of this PŒcittiya rule clearly spcifies this tathŒvŒdinŒ bhikkhunŒ as being AriÊÊha, who was a well known character both in the Suttas and in the Vinaya.

(Page 81)

Regarding this intelligibility of the rules without their explanations which Oldenberg assumes, we would commend the scrutiny of a few rules from the PŒtimokkha which, on account of their very elliptical nature, would make very little sense in the enforcement of discipline without an acquaintance with their background. The following deserve special mention:

PŒcittiya 12 : A––avŒdake pŒcittiyaµ
52 : Aºgulipatodake pŒcittiyaµ
53 : Udake hŒsadhamme pŒcittiyaµ
54 : AnŒdariye pŒcittiyaµ

As for the details regarding the rules which occur in the Suttavibhaºga, it need hardly be said that the explanations of the contents of the rules and the provision of modifications to the rules could not have preceded the rules themselves. But this does not necessarily separate them from the rules by a very wide margin of time and once they came into being this element would not have been divorced from the rest of the legal system as these details were necessary for its proper enforcement.

When we examine the stories which are given in the Suttavibhaºga as leading to the promulgation of the rules we feel that the majority of these can be regarded as historical and that they serve a useful purpose in the proper understanding of the law. However, we are prepared to accept the position that some of the stories are possibly the contribution of the editors who felt that every rule, however simple or spontaneously laid down, should have a preceding incident leading up to it. This provision of a ' historical basis ' (nidŒna) could have happened both in the case of rules which were not necessarily provoked by a specific incident and those whose stories of origin were replaced in course of time with more attractive versions.

Here are a few such cases which we think lie open to this criticism:

(Page 82)

PŒcittiyas 56 and 61 have a similar appearance.

Oldenberg also raises the question of a contradiction in the relationship of the traditions of the PŒtimokkha to those of the Vibhaºga. Here too, we are compelled to say that this contradiction vanishes when we view the problem from a different angle. Oldenberg has already taken up the position that the PŒtimokkha and the Vibhaºga are from the very beginning two distinct units which stand apart. We have shown why we refuse to accept this position. The contents of what is spoken of here as the PŒtimokkha are the rules governing the conduct of the members of the monastic community which had acquired, very early, an unalterably fixed character. Flexibility in the application of this legal system was the theme of the living tradition which grew on and around it and was considered so essential from the earliest times (UbhayŒni kho pana ' ssa pŒtimokkhŒni vitthŒrena svŒgatŒni honti suvibhattŒni suppavatt´ni suvinicchitŒni suttato anuvya–janaso - Vin.I. 65.).

The changing pattern of monastic organization would have necessitated a corresponding change in the monastic administration. There is clear evidence of such changes, particularly in the acts of PabbajjŒ and UpasampadŒ. The responsibility that was once the right of individual Bhikkhus had to be latterly vested in the collective organization of the Saºgha. With every such change it was not possible to alter the structure of the rules of the PŒtimokkha. On the other hand, the living traditions which accompanied it closely from the very beginning and constituted the contents of the Vibhaºgas stood up to serve as a complement to the PŒtimokkha. These are the changes which the Suttavibhaºga shows in relation to the PŒtimokkha and we have no doubt that they would have been smoothly effected through a sensible acceptance of the traditions of the Suttavibhaºga.

The sikkhŒpada which constitute the PŒtimokkha have a new emphasis and are very different in character from advice and counsel given in the Dhamma under the category of s´la. They are at times restatements of items of s´la, increasing in number and diversity according to the needs of the monastic organization of the Saºgha. Besides these, a number of regulations governing residence, food and clothing of the members of the Saºgha as well as series of rules covering monastic propriety and procedure, and communal harmony of the society of the Saºgha are also found in the PŒtimokkha. However, as a code for the guidance of monks in their pursuit of religious development, these sikkhŒpada are far more exacting and obligatory than the s´la.

The s´la concept, for example, of abstaining from destruction of life includes within it non-injury and the love and protection of life of every sort, both human and animal (PŒöŒtipŒtaµ pahŒya pŒöŒtipŒtŒ paÊivirato hoti nihitadaö¶o nihitasattho lajj´ dayŒpanno sabbapŒöabhètahitŒnukamp´ viharati - D.I. 63 .). But in the sikkhŒpada of the PŒtimokkha where both prosecution and punishment are contemplated, the gravity of the offence of killing is fixed at different levels, drawing a distinction between human and animal life. The destruction of human life is classed among the PŒrŒjika offences, the four greatest crimes under the monastic discipline which involve expulsion and complete loss of monastic status. PŒrŒjika No.3, which covers this subject of homicide, also regards other conditions such as aiding and abetting which would contribute to the commission of the crime of suicide, as being equally reprehensible.

(Page 83)

There is a further rule pertaining to destruction of life, other than human, included under the lesser offence of PŒcittiya. (PŒc. 61 : Yo pana bhikkhu sa–cicca pŒöaµ j´vitŒ voropeyya pŒcittiyaµ - Vin.IV.124.) Both the Old Commentary in the Suttavibhaºga which defines pŒöa in this context as tiracchŒnagatapŒöa and the history of the sikkhŒpada narrated there just before the text of the rule establish the fact that this rule concerns itself with the destruction only of animal life. Thus we notice that considerations which under the category of s´la had moral values are now, as sikkhŒpada, forced into a legal frame-work, involving at times a sacrifice of the spirit in which they were originally introduced. Another clear instance of this is PŒrŒjika No.2 which deals with stealing. Under the category of s´la theft meant the appropriation of whatever was not given and the scheming to obtaining the same (AdinnŒdŒnaµ pahŒya adinnŒdŒnŒ paÊivirato hoti dinnŒdŒy´ dinnapŒÊikaºkh´ athenena sucibhètena attanŒ viharati - D.I. 63.). But as a PŒrŒjika rule, the regulation against stealing seeks further, backing from the law of the land, coupling together as it were both moral and legal considerations. The Buddha is in fact seen consulting a former Minister of Justice, who was now ordained as a monk, on this matter (Yo pana bhikkhu gŒmŒ vŒ ara––Œ vŒ adinnaµ theyyasaºkhŒtaµ Œdiyeyya yathŒrèpe adinnŒdŒne rŒjŒno coram gahetvŒ haneyyuµ vŒ bandheyyuµ vŒ pabbŒjeyyuµ vŒ coro ' si bŒlo ' si mèÂho ' si theno ' s´ ' ti tathŒrèpaµ bhikkhu adinnaµ ŒdiyamŒno ayam ' pi pŒrŒjiko hoti asaµvŒso - Vin.III. 45.).

There is no doubt that it was soon felt that the four items of discipline brought under the category of PŒrŒjika and stated in legal phraseology were necessarily circumscribed in relation to the moral well being of the true pabbajita. Thus while the greatest respect was shown to the codified monastic law an attempt was made to infuse into these four major items of discipline the spirit of s´la which comes in the earlier Sutta tradition. We find expression given to this in the declaration of CattŒri AkaraöiyŒni which are mentioned in the MahŒvagga. These are given there as four major items of discipline which no monk who has gained higher ordination shall transgress. He shall guard himself in terms of these all his life. Thus it is required by law that these should be made known to a Bhikkhu soon after the conferment of upasampadŒ or higher ordination on him.

The wider field of control of the Akaraö´yŒni in marked contrast to the PŒrŒjikas is particularly evident in the items 2 and 3 which deal with theft and destruction of life respectively. It is these two, as we have shown above, which underwent serious contraction in the process of legalization. Under the category of Akaraö´yŒni the spirit which they lost appears to be restored. Note the wider applicability of the Akaraö´yŒni 2 and 3 which are given below :

Akaraö´ya 2 : Upasampannena bhikkhunŒ adinnaµ theyyasankhŒtaµ na ŒdŒtabbaµ antamaso tiöasalŒkaµ upŒdŒya. i.e. No Bhikkhu who is an upasampanna shall take in theft what is not given to him, even as much as a blade of grass.

3 : Upasampannena bhikkhunŒ sa–cicca pŒöo j´vitŒ na voropetabbo antamaso kunthakipillikaµ upŒdŒya. i.e. No Bhikkhu who is an upasampanna shall destroy the life even of an ant.

Sukumar Dutt makes a suggestion which gives the impression that the CattŒri Akaraö´yŒni were the precursors of the four PŒrŒjikas. But a closer examination of the Vinaya texts would reval the fact that this assumption lacks historical support. In the text of the Akaraö´yŒni we find the precisely worded clauses of the PŒrŒjikas embedded almost in their entirety. They also show an awareness of the incidents which are related in the Suttavibhaºga connected with the promulgation of the rules. Akaraö´yŒni are obviously the result of a fusion of the legal statements pertaining to the PŒrŒjikas from the Suttavibhaºga with the general spirit of the s´la from the Sutta PiÊaka. This establishes beyond doudt the vital position which the items of discipline included under the four PŒrŒjika came to occupy in Buddhist monasticism.

(Page 84)

Let us examine further the relationship of the PŒrŒjika rules to the lists of s´las. The first thing that strikes us is the difference in the order of these items in the two groups, i.e. s´las and the sikkhŒpada of the PŒtimokkha. The s´las commence with abstinence from destruction of life. Considerations regarding theft come second and the vow of celibacy is listed as the third item. Under the PŒrŒjikas, on the other hand, celibacy takes the first place. Destruction of life, which is now restricted to destruction of human life alone, stands as the third item. These two items have thus changed places in the two groups. Regarding these discrepancies we would make the following observations:

S´la, at least in part, remain the common property of both monks and laymen. The laymen are capable of keeping some of them. With the addition of abstinence from intoxicants a list of five items of s´la is constituted for the guidance of the daily life of lay prsons. On special occasions, they observe three additional s´la thus making a total of eight. It is on those occasions alone that the laity take the vow of celibacy temporarily : abrahmacariyŒ veramaö´. All the other times the s´la of the laity specifies this as the vow of chastity, i.e. restraint in the enjoyment of sex pleasures : kŒmesu micchŒcŒrŒ veramaö´. Monks alone take the vow of complete celibacy to be observed all their life. Hence we would regard this virtue of celibacy as one of the primary distinguishing features which marks out the monk from the layman. It is also clear from the history of the PŒrŒjikas that nothing else seems to have run so contrary to the spirit of pabbajjŒ as the violation of this virtue of celibacy. For Sudinna, who is presented as the first miscreant who violated this virtue, is accused of having directly contradicted the fundamental teachings of the Buddha. (Tattha nŒma tvam Œvuso bhagavatŒ virŒgŒya dhamme desite sarŒgŒya cetessasi visaµyogŒya dhamme desite saµyogŒya cetessasi anupŒdŒnŒya dhamme desite saupŒdŒnŒya cetessasi.... Nanu Œvuso bhagavatŒ anekapariyŒyena kŒmŒnam pahŒnaµ akkhŒtaµ kŒmasa––Œnaµ pari––Œ akkhŒtŒ kŒmapipŒsŒnaµ paÊivinayo akkhŒto kŒµavitakkŒnaµ samugghŒto akkhŒto kŒmapariÂŒhŒnaµ vèpasamo akkhŒto - Vin.III.19 f.). Hence we would regard the prominence given to this rule pertaining to the virtue of celibacy in the codified law of the Sangha as being quite legitimate. It savours of the very essence of nekkhamma or renunciation which is the basis of pabbajjŒ.

But we are aware of the fact that the PŒrŒjikas have been assessed differently by some scholars. This is what Dr. Nagai has to say regarding the first PŒrŒjika : ' With regard to the problem of inhibitions for priests, one that will remain perplexing for a long time to come is the inhibition concerning sexual relations. To me it appears that the problem of inhibitions for the Buddhist priests of the present day (except those belonging to the Shinshè Sect) depends upon the manner of interpretation of this particular inhibition. If it is interpreted as one requiring all Buddhist priests to observe celibacy, I fear that very few priests will be found living in Japan who are really worthy of the name bhikkhu.' There is no doubt that it is the bold venture of Shinran in the 13th century which led to this state of affairs in Japan. It is not possible to undertake a full analysis of this in the present study. However, unless it is admitted that the concepts of bhikkhu and priest in this context are incomparably different, one from the other, we are not in a position to concede this magnanimity in the interpretation of the first PŒrŒjika rule. The early history of the religion and the nature of its fundamental teachings do not seem to allow it.

We should here refer the reader to the observations of Miss Horner on the regulations governing the lives of the Buddhist disciples. ' If monks behaved in a way that was censurable in monks, this does not necessarily mean that their conduct was wrong in itself. Various activities were not only permissible for lay-people, but were fully accepted to be such as could be unquestionably pursued by them. Marriage, negotiating for parties to a marriage, trading, the owning of possessions, are cases in point.... I think it very likely that some of the courses of training for monks that are

(Page 85)

included in this volume were formulated as a result of this bringing over of lay-life into the religious life; for a difference between the two had to be made, and then maintained.' We feel that these remarks are obviously the result of a thorough understanding of original authoritative texts which deal with Buddhist monasticism.

In the evaluation of the PŒrŒjikas, however, the fourth PŒrŒjika seems to have confronted Miss Horner with some serious difficulty. For she says: " The curious fourth PŒrŒjika, concerned with the offence of 'claiming a state of quality of further-men' (uttarimanussadhamma), seems to have been fashioned in some different mould, and to belong to some contrasting realm of values." This attitude towards the fourth PŒrŒjika has made her evaluate the four PŒrŒjikas from a new angle. She remarks : ' For I think it possible that the PŒrŒjikas are arranged in an ascending scale of gravity, in which the offence held to be the worst morally, though not legally, is placed last.' We find it difficult to agree with this. In an attempt to regard the fourth PŒrŒjika as supremely important it is hardly possible to consider the first PŒrŒjika as being the least offensive morally. We would regard it to be undoubtedly the worst, for it runs contrary to the basic teachings of Buddhism, whose main theme is virŒga, visaµyoga etc. We have already shown above what we consider to be the significance of this sikkhŒpada which gives it the pride of place among the PŒrŒjikas.

Let us now examine the fourth PŒrŒjika, which is said to rival the first in moral value. The text of the sikkhŒpada is as follows: "Whatever monk should boast, with reference to himself of a state of further-men, sufficient ariyan knowledge and insight, though not knowing it fully, and saying : This I know, this I see, then if later on, he, being pressed or not being pressed, fallen, should desire to be purified, and should say : ' Your reverence, I said that I know what I do not know, see what I do not see, I spoke idly, falsely, vainly, ' apart from the undue estimate of himself, he also is one who is defeated, he is not in communion." This sikkhŒpada provides that no monk shall make false claims (anabhijŒnan ' ti asantaµ abhètaµ asaµvijjamŒnaµ ajŒnanto apassanto attani kusalaµ dhammaµ atthi me kusalo dhammo ' ti - Vin.III. 91.) to spiritual attainments except under the pain of being expelled from the Order. The sikkhŒpada refers to such attainments under the terms iti jŒnŒmi iti passŒmi. It is clear that the state or quality of further-men (uttarimanussa-dhamma) referred to here pertains to the realm of emancipation and hence recons exclusively with knowledge and insight. Uttarimanussadhamma also marks different stages in the process of spiritual development like the eight jhŒnas and the state of Sa––Œvedayitanirodha. The Suttavibhaºga appears to take note of both these in its comment on uttarimanussadhamma. (Note : Uttarimanussadhammo nŒma jhŒnaµ vimokkhaµ samŒdhi samŒpatti –Œöadassanaµ maggabhŒvanŒ phalasacchikiriyŒ kilesapahŒnaµ vin´varaöatŒ cittassa su––ŒgŒre abhirati - Vin.III. 91.) At the same time there is also reference to uttarimanussadhamma in association with less transcendental achievements like the ability to exercise miraculous powers. This is referred to as uttarimanussadhammaµ iddhi-pŒÊhŒriyaµ (Note : na bhikkhave gih´naµ uttarimanussadhammaµ iddhipŒÊihŒriyaµ dassetabbaµ - Vin.II.112.)

The spirit of this sikkhŒpada seems to be made further clear in the Buddha's reference to the five great thieves who are identified with different types of monks which occurs in the introduction to the sikkhŒpada. The fifth thief who is referred to here as the greatest of all is described in terms which coincide, more or less, with the text of the sikkhŒpada. (Note: Ayaµ aggo mahŒcoro yo asantaµ abhètaµ uttarimanussadhammaµ ullapati - Vin.III. 9). Thereafter, the Buddha proceeds to give a reason for the stigmatisation of such attempts. The reason is that the monks who do so subsist on what is collected by theft (Taµ kissa hetu. TheyyŒya vo bhikkhave raÊÊhapiö¶o bhutto ' ti - Vin.III. 90.).

(Page 86)

This emphasis on the correctness of Œj´va or the mode of earning a living is seen to be specifically so in the incident which led to the promulgation of the fourth PŒrŒjika (Varaµ tumhehi moghapurisŒ tiöhena govikattanena kucchi parikanto natv 'eva udarassa kŒraöŒ gih´nam a––ama––assa uttarimanussadhammassa vaööo bhŒsito - Vin.III. 89.). Further, the text assures us that it was a false claim which they made before the laymen (Kacci pana vo bhikkhave bhètan ' ti. Abhètaµ bhagavŒ ' ti - Vin.III. 89.).

At rhe same time we should also take note of the fact that PŒcittiya 8 too, records the incidents of the fourth PŒrŒjika almost in identical terms. The one point of difference, and that is vital here, is that the spiritual attainments of the Bhikkhus of which they give publicity to lay people are states to which they had genuinely attained. Hence there does not arise a question of dishonesty here and the offence is only the lesser one of PŒcittiya.

Apart from considerations of honesty and truthfulness of a monk in the mode of obtaining his requisites from the laymen there seems to be yet another associated idea in this sikkhŒpada. To our mind it is the unscrupulous exploitation of the regard and the respect which the lay people of the time had for these 'super-human achievements' which were generally associated with those who had renounced the household life. The SeÊÊhi of RŒjagaha sums up this position beautifully when he says yo samaöo vŒ brŒhmaöo vŒ arahŒ c ' eva iddhimŒ ca, i.e. any monk or brahmin who is both an Arahant and one who is possessed of miraculous powers. People viewed such superhuman achievements with awe and credulity, with little scrutiny as to whether those claims were genuine or false. Hence a false claim would be deemed an act of meanness which is unworthy of a Buddhist disciple.

On the other hand, it is said that even where claims to such superhuman powers were real a true Buddhist disciple would not display them in public for the sake of worldly and personal benefits. The Vinaya PiÊaka tells us of the elder Piö¶olabhŒradvŒja who was sternly rebuked by the Buddha for displaying his superhuman powers by performing miraculous feats in public for the sake of winning a sandal-wood bowl. Thereafter, the Buddha forbade such acts and decreed that one who did so was guilty of a DukkaÊa offence (Na bhikkhave gih´naµ uttarimanussadhammaµ iddhipŒÊihŒriyaµ dassetabbaµ Yo dasseyya Œpatti dukkaÊassa - Vin.II.112.). In the Saµyutta NikŒya it is said that the venerable Mahaka once performed a similar miracle (uttarimanussadhammaµ iddhipŒÊihŒriyaµ) before Citta, the house-holder, but with no desire for personal gain. However, as a result of it when Citta invited him to stay in MacchikŒsaö¶a, promising to provide him with his requisites, he left the place never to return again. Perhaps he did so out of his conviction that if he remained to enjoy the hospitality which was offered he would be guilty of having ' earned it ' in the wrong way.

We would now sum up our observations on the fourth PŒrŒjika as follows:

1. Claims to superhuman powers and attainments and to the title Arahant appear to have been part of the aspirations of most groups of religious men of India who had left the household life.

2. Judging by the great esteem in which such powers were held by the public there is no doubt that any such claim would have been received with great acclamation.

3. Thus, for the petty purpose of ensuring for oneself a ' comfortable living ' any false claim to superhuman powers and attainments would amount to a despicable form of lying. Hence the inclusion of the offence, like that of theft, in the category of PŒrŒjika.

(Page 87)

4. Where such powers and attainments were genuinely achieved, any public declaration, other than in the presence of monks and nuns, would amount to a vulgar display and is ranked in the Vinaya as an offence which is lesser in gravity than the former. It is a PŒcittiya offence.

5 As such, we are unable to see how the fourth PŒrŒjika could be morally more significant than the first.

It has also been generally assumed that the fourth PŒrŒjika finds no parallel among the s´la. But after the analysis we have made above of this PŒrŒjika it becomes clear that the injunction against false claims to superhuman attainments is laid down because such claims are made with a view to gaining an easy livelihood in a manner which is unworthy of a monk. It is evidently for this same reason that Buddhaghosa introduces this PŒrŒjika rule as one laid down for the guidance of Œj´vapŒrisuddhi or purity of livelihood in his definition of îj´vapŒrisuddhis´la (... Œj´vapŒrisuddhis´le Œj´vahetu pa––attŒnaµ channaµ sikkhŒpadŒnan ' ti yŒni tŒni Œj´vahetu Œj´vakŒraöŒ pŒpiccho icchŒpakato asantam abhètam uttarimanussadhammaµ ullapati Œpatti pŒrŒjikassa - Vism.I. 22.). It is also of interest to note that Buddhaghosa couples the six sikkhŒpada which he introduces under îj´vapŒrisuddhis´la with similar considerations on Œj´vapŒrisuddhi which he derives from the category of s´la (.... kuhanŒ lapanŒ nemittakatŒ nippesikatŒ lŒbhena lŒbhaµ nijigiµsanatŒ ' ti evaµ Œd´na– ca pŒpadhammŒnaµ vasena pavattŒ micchŒj´vŒ virati - Vism.I.16.) These hint at both fraud and artful conversation as means of gaining an easy livelihood in an unworthy manner. These considerations are traceable to item 36 in the list of s´la (YathŒ vŒ pan ' eke bhonto samaöabrŒhmaöŒ saddhŒdeyyŒni bhojanŒni bhu–jitvŒ te kuhakŒ ca honti lapakŒ ca nemittikŒ ca nippesikŒ ca lŒbhena ca lŒbhaµ nijigiµsitŒro. Iti evarèpŒ kuhanŒ lapanŒ paÊivirato hoti. Idam pi ' ssa hoti s´lasmiµ - D.I. 67. Sec.55.) The scope of both PŒrŒjika 4 and PŒcittiya 8 seems to be within the range of this item of s´la. Thus we feel inclined to assume that the fourth PŒrŒjika too, as much as the other three, is traceable to the broader basis of s´la which in the early history of Buddhist monasticism was the primary guide in the life of the pabbajita.

Further modifications which s´la underwent while they were expressed in the form of sikkhŒpada are witnessed in PŒcittiya 1 and 3 which deal with lying (musŒvŒda) and tale-bearing (pisuöŒvŒca) respectively. Here, the original concepts which occur under s´la are narrowed down and are made more specific.

(Page 88)

Besides these sikkhŒpada which are closely related to s´la or the personal moral well-being of the disciple, there are also a host of others in the PŒtimokkha which attempt to maintain the concord and communal harmony of the Buddhist Saºgha. A number of sikkhŒpada of the SaºghŒdisesa group aim at achieving this end.

These may be broadly classified as calculated to suppress:

(a) Attempts to despise and discredit fellow members of the Order by making false and unfounded accusations of a definitely serious nature against them with a view to damaging their spiritual life. SaºghŒdisesa 8 and 9 appear to safeguard against such situations.

"Whatever monk, malignant, malicious and ill-tempered should defame a monk with an unfounded charge involving defeat, thinking : ''Thus perhaps may I drive him away from this Brahma-life,' then, if afterwards he, being pressed or not being pressed, the legal question turning out to be unfounded, if the monk confesses his malice, it is an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order."

(b) Attempts to disrupt the united organization of the Saºgha by canvassing public opinion against the Saºgha and by instituting disciplinary action manoeuvered to cause disunity.

"Whatever monk should go forward with a schism of the Order which is harmonious, or should persist in taking up some legal question leading to a dissension : .... there is an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order."

Such tendencies were clearly manifest in the activities of Devadatta. The following remarks of Devadatta betray him completely :

"It is possible, your reverence, with these five items, to make a schism in the Order of the recluse Gotama, a breaking of the concord. For, your reverence, people esteem austerity."

(c) Attempts to resist, under various pretexts, correction of bad and unworthy behaviour which is justly undertaken by fellow members.

" If a monk is one who is difficult to speak to, and if himself being spoken to by the monks according to dhamma concerning the courses of training included in the exposition, he reckons himself as one not to be spoken to, saying : ' Do not say anything to me, venerable ones, either good or bad, and I will not say anything to the venerable ones, either good or bad; refrain venerable ones, from speaking to me'...... there an offence entailing a formal meeting of the Order."

There is yet another collection of 16 sikkhŒpada (including rules from the Nissaggiya, PŒcittiya and PŒÊidesan´ya groups) whose purpose is to safeguard the mutual relations of the Bhikkhus and the Bhikkhunis.. These must admittedly bear the stamp of relative lateness in that they pertain to Bhikkhunis, the members of the latterly established Order of nuns. Irregular performance of monastic duties and excesses in personal relationships which are detrimental to the progress of the religious life and also would provoke public censure come within the purview of these regulations.

(Page 89)

Their distribution is as follows:

In the group of PŒcittiya are found a number of rules which deal with matters of procedure and propriety to be observed within the monastic organization so that its collective honour and authority may in no way be undermined. A monk shall not maliciously challenge the validity of an expiatory act which has been properly carried out by members of the Saºgha and urge for its performance again. (Yo pana bhikkhu jŒnaµ yathŒdhammaµ nihatŒdhikaraöaµ punakammŒya ukkoÊeyya pŒcittiyaµ - Vin.IV.126 : PŒc. 63.) He should also not conduct himself in such a way as to reduce or nullify the effect of an act of punishment inflicted on an offender. Nor should he repudiate the authority or doubt the competence of his fellow members when they advise him on matters of discipline. (Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhèhi sahadhammikaµ vuccamŒno evaµ vadeyya na tŒvŒ ' haµ Œvuso etasmiµ sikkhŒpade sikkhissŒmi yŒva na a––aµ bhikkhuµ vyattaµ vinayadharaµ paripucchŒm´ ' ti pŒcittiyaµ - Vin.IV.141 : PŒc. 71.) He is also not to underrate the value of the disciplinary measures agreed upon by the Saºgha as being effective and essential for the well-being of the community. (Yo pana bhikkhu pŒtimokkhe uddissamŒne evaµ vadeyya kiµ pan' imehi khuddŒnukhuddakehi sikkhŒpadehi uddiÊÊhehi yŒvadeva kukkuccŒya vihesŒya vilekhŒya saµvattant´ ' ti sikkhŒpadavivaööake pŒcittiyaµ - Vin. IV. 143: PŒc.72). These sikkhŒpada show that the purpose of the PŒtimokkha was not only to safeguard the outward conduct and the moral life of the disciple but also to protect the machinery which was set up to achieve this end.

In the code of the PŒtimokkha even the day to day life of the Buddhist monk is circumscribed within certain considerations relating to the articles of daily use such as his bowl and the robe, beds, seats, rugs etc. We notice that on account of certain abuses by monks they were forbidden the use of needle-cases made of bone, ivory and horn. In the evolution of monastic discipline such restrictions become general rules and through the code of the PŒtimokkha govern the life of all members of the community. Likewise, the monks are forbidden the use of couches and chairs which are bolstered with cotton on account of the protests that they are like the luxuries enjoyed by laymen. The use and distribution of what belongs to the Saºgha also needed to be done with sufficient caution. Neglect and damage of monastic property and misappropriation of what belongs to the collective organization of the Saºgha for private ends are safeguarded against. A monk who places for his own use a couch or a chair or a mattress or a stool belonging to the Order in the open air, should either remove it or have it removed on departing, or should inform those concerned of his departure. If he does not do so, there is an offence of expiation - PŒcittiya. It is also stated that a monk who knowingly appropriates for himself or fransfers to another individual a benefit which accrues to the Saºgha is guilty of a breach of discipline. In the former case he is gulity of the more serious offence of Nissaggiya PŒcittiya and in the latter of a PŒcittiya. It is clear from these injunctions that the PŒtimokkha also takes cognizance of a considerably settled monastic life.

(Page 90)

Of the diverse monastic rituals witnessed in the Khandhakas the PŒtimokkha has a few references to the kaÊhina ubbhŒra, which is closely associated with the ceremony of the vassŒvŒsa or rains-retreat, and these too, are mainly in terms of the acceptance and use of robes. The sikkhŒpada deal no more with it. On the other hand, PŒcittiya 72 and 73 directly refer to the ritual of the PŒtimokkha with a view to eliminate any irregularities and abuses which may occur in connection with the recital of the PŒtimokkha. SaºghŒdisesa12 presupposes the existence of the PŒtimokkha under the term uddesa. These rules which are contained in the text of the PŒtimokkha clearly reveal the scope and function of the PŒtimokkha and its recital as an instrument for detecting miscreants in the monastic circles and assisting them in their correction. Therefore we are compelled to observe that these sikkhŒpada were latterly added to the collection of the PŒtimokkha while the recital as a regular observance was acquiring a definite character.

Modelling the life of a monk in terms of the rules of the PŒtimokkha marks the shift of accent from s´la to sikkhŒpada as well as the change of responsibility for the maintenance of monastic discipline from the individual monk to the collective organization of the Saºgha. Even the venerable Upasena Vaºgantaputta who is distinguished as a forest-dwelling monk devoted to austere ways of living (Œra––ako piö¶apŒtiko paµsukèliko) seems to accept, as a member of the general corpus of the Saºgha, the code of rules laid down by the Buddha, in its entirety, as the guiding factor in monastic discipline. (Na mayaµ apa––attaµ pa––ŒpessŒma pa––attaµ vŒ na samucchindissŒma yathŒpa––attesu sikkhŒpadesu samŒdŒya vattissŒmŒ ' ti - Vin.III. 231.) The Buddha heartily endorses this view. SŒdhu sŒdhu upasena, says the Buddha in recognition of this attitude. We seem to hear the echo of this in the remarks of the venerable MahŒ Kassapa at the First Council where arose the dispute about the abrogation of the minor rules.

Thus it is clear that the sikkhŒpada and the recital of the PŒtimokkha are closely connected not only in their literary content but also in their aims and aspirations. Besides, in all the standard definitions of the virtuous monk, the virtue of his s´la is always coupled with the restraint he acquires through the discipline of the PŒtimokkha and the sikkhŒpada. This shows us that from early times in the history of Buddhism all possible criteria have been used for the maintenance of good discipline. In the îkaºkheyya Sutta the Buddha requests his disciples to go through this complete course of training which couples together s´la and the PŒtimokkha. (Sampannas´lŒ bhikkhave viharatha saµpanna-pŒtimokkhŒ pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvutŒ viharatha ŒcŒragocarasaµpannŒ anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhatha sikkhŒpadesu - M.I. 33.). True to this tradition, the venerable înanda, in his admonitions to the Sakyan MahŒnŒma, describes in identical terms a worthy disciple who is a s´lasampanna. (Idha mahŒnŒma ariyasŒvako s´lavŒ hoti pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto viharati ŒcŒragocarasaµpanno anumattesu vajjesu bhayadassŒv´ samŒdŒya sikkhati sikkhŒpadesu. Evaµ kho mahŒnŒma ariyasŒvako s´lasampanno hoti - M.I. 355.)

(Page 91)

CHAPTER IX

An examination of the Pali texts reveals the fact that we are not without Canonical Sutta references which speak of the existence of the PŒtimokkha recital even during the lifetime of the Buddha. In the MahŒsakuludŒy´ Sutta of the Majjhima NikŒya, the Buddha himself tells SakuludŒy´ ParibbŒjaka how the solitude of his forest-dwelling monks is regularly interrupted by their attendance at the fortnightly recital of the PŒtimokkha in the assembly of the Saºgha. (Santi kho pana me udŒyi sŒvakŒ Œra––akŒ pantasenŒsanŒ ara––avanapatthŒni pantŒni senŒsanŒni ajjhogahetvŒ viharanti. Te anvaddhamŒsaµ saºghamajjhe osaranti pŒtimokkhuddesŒya - M.II. 8). This is quite an incidental reference and no more is said in the Sutta thereafter about the PŒtimokkha ritual.

The Aºguttara NikŒya records the words of the Vajjiputtaka monk who comes before the Buddha and confesses his inability to discipline himself in terms of the sikkhŒpada which are being regularly recited in the assembly of the Saºgha every fortnight (Atha kho a––ataro vajjiputtako bhikkhu yena bhagavŒ tenupasaºkami.... Ekamantaµ nisinno kho so vajjiputtako bhikkhu bhagavantaµ etad 'avoca. SŒdhikaµ idaµ bhante diya¶¶hasikkhŒpadasatam anvaddhamŒsaµ uddesaµ Œgacchati. NŒ ' haµ bhante ettha sakkomi sikkhitun ' ti - A.I.230.). But the word PŒtimokkha is not used in this context. However, there is no doubt that the uddesa here referred to as a fortnightly event is nothing other than what is spoken of elsewhere as the recital of the PŒtimokkha (PŒtimokkhuddesa and suttuddesa). The Vinaya too, uses the term uddesa in the sense of the PŒtimokkha and its recital. (UddesapariyŒpannesu sikkhŒpadesè ' ti pŒtimokkhapariyŒpannesu sikkhŒpadesu - Vin.III.178.)

On the other hand, the GopakamoggallŒna Sutta which comes down to us as a post-parinibbŒna composition of fair antiquity, gives us more details regarding the ritual of the PŒtimokkha. According to the Suttta, this ritual seems to have been vital to the early Buddhist monastic community to maintain and establish its purity and exercise control over its miscreants. (Atthi kho brŒhmaöa tena bhagavatŒ jŒnatŒ arahatŒ passatŒ sammŒsambuddhena bhikkhènaµ sikkhŒpadaµ pa––attaµ pŒtimokkhaµ uddiÊÊhaµ. Te mayaµ tad ' ah ' uposathe yŒvatikŒ ekaµ gŒmakkhettaµ upanissŒya viharŒma te sabbe ekajjhaµ sannipatŒma sannipatitvŒ yassa taµ vattati taµ ajjhesŒma. Tasmin ce bha––amŒne hoti bhikkhussa Œpatti hoti v´tikkamo taµ mayaµ yathŒdhammaµ yathŒsatthaµ kŒremŒ ' ti. Na kira no bhavanto kŒrenti dhammo no kŒret´ ' ti - M.III.10). Thus PŒtimokkha undoubtedly became the most dynamic institution in the early history of the SŒsana. It also soon roused endless opposition from members of the monastic community on account of its uncompromising spirit of correction and reform. On the other hand, the PŒtimokkha ritual itself lost its dynamism in course of time and there is evidence to believe that in its struggle for survival it lent itself to considerable modification.

It is with regret that we note that the translation of the above passage in the Further Dialogues of the Buddha is extremely misleading. We would translate the passage as follows : ' O Brahmin, the Exalted One has laid down sikkhŒpada and instituted the PŒtimokkha for the use of the Bhikkhus. We are the Bhikkhus for whom they were laid down and all of us who live by a single village unit assemble ourselves together on the day of the Uposatha and whosover amongst us knows it, i.e. the PŒtimokkha (yassa taµ vattati ), we request him to recite it (taµ ajjhesŒma). While

(Page 92)

it is being recited if (it is discovered that) a Bhikkhu has an offence or a transgression of which he is guilty, then we deal with him (kŒrema) according to the Dhamma and the injunctions (yathŒdhammam yathŒsatthaµ). It is not the monks who punish us but the Dhamma which punishes us.'

Sukumar Dutt, in his The Buddha And Five After-Centuries, has made use of the translation of this passage in the Further Dialogues of the Buddha which we have refered to above. Dutt has certainly attempted to improve on the choice of words in the translation. He replaces almsman with Bhikkhu, Doctrine with Dhamma and ' according to book ' with ' scriptural ordinances '. But these changes do not add any more sense to the translation. If the statement yassa taµ vattati taµ ajjhesŒma of the passage quoted above which we have translated as 'whosoever knows it (PŒtimokkha), we request him (to recite it) ' still baffles the reader we would refer him to Vin. I.116 where it occurs in a clearer context. (Te theraµ ajjhesiµsu uddisatu bhante thero pŒtimokkhan ' ti. So evaµ Œha na me Œvuso vattat´ ' ti - Vin. I. 116.)

Placed in such a situation, it is not at all surprising that Dutt came to the following conclusion : ' The periodical assembly mentioned by înanda seems to have been the primitive bond of the Buddhist sect after the extinction of personal leadership on the Lord's decease.... It is not known when exactly a disciplinary code ascribed traditionally to the Lord himself, of which the PŒtimokkha was the final development, was first devised in the Buddhist community.' His theories which resulted from this assumption are examined in the relevant places.

In the GopakamoggallŒna Sutta, the declaration of the venerable înanda to the Brahmin VassakŒra is in answer to the question whether the monastic community was without guidance on the death of the Master who appointed no successor. It is interesting that both in the proper care of the monastic community and the spiritual welfare of its members, it is the Dhamma which embodies the spirit of the Buddha's teaching, which înanda claims to be their leader and guide (Na kho mayaµ brŒhmaöa appaÊisaraöŒ sappaÊisaraöŒ mayaµ brŒhmaöa dhammapaÊisaraöŒ - M.III. 9.)

This regard and respect which the disciples still seem to have for the Dhamma even after the demise of the Master is reminiscent of the advice given by the Buddha to his disciples in the Kakacèpama Sutta. (TasmŒt ' iha bhikkhave dhammaµ y ' eva sakkaronto dhammaµ garukaronto dhammaµ apacŒyamŒnŒ suvacŒ bhavissŒma sovacassataµ ŒpajjissŒmŒ ' ti evaµ hi vo bhikkhave sikkhitabbaµ - M.I.126.). It also reminds us of his sdvice to înanda in the MahŒparinibbŒna Sutta. (TasmŒt ' iha Œnanda attad´pŒ viharatha attasaraöŒ ana––asaraöŒ dhammad´pŒ dhammasaraöŒ ana––asaraöŒ ..... Ye hi ke ci Œnanda etarahi vŒ mamaµ vŒ accayena attad´pŒ viharissanti.....ana––asaraöŒ tamatagge me te Œnanda bhikkhè bhavissanti ye ke ci sikkhŒkŒmŒ ' ti - D.II.100.) In both these cases, which on the authority of internal evidence mark a relatively early and a very late stage in the history of the SŒsana, the disciples are advised by the Buddha to be guided by the Dhamma and to respect its leadership. But the increasing need for regulations, with greater concern for the letter of the law, is already evident in the Sutta PiÊaka. We have already witnessed in the BhaddŒli Sutta the introduction of sikkhŒpada into the sphere of Buddhist monastic discipline. In the GopakamoggallŒna Sutta, înanda makes pointed reference to the existence of the sikkhŒpada as well as of the ritual PŒtimokkha.

What appears to be the most complete account of the recital of the PŒtimokkha appears in the Uposathakkhandhaka of the MahŒvagga. This account, which is very composite in character, including commentarial notes which are of a relatively later date, attempts to place the inauguration of the ritual in a convincing historical situation. It introduces the establishment of the recital of the PŒtimokkha through several preliminary stages not all of which seem to be really necessary. This is perhaps the result of the editor of the text following too closely the formulation of sikkhŒpada.

(Page 93)

and their modified versions in successive stages in the Suttavibaºga where a historical or imaginary situation is provided for every addition or change. It is said that King Seniya BimbisŒra of Magadha brought to the notice of the Buddha the fact that the ParibbŒjakas met regularly on the 8th, 14th and 15th days of the fortnight and preached their Dhamma (dhammaµ bhŒsanti) as a result of which they gained fame and popularity and grew in strength. So he wished that the disciples of the Buddha, too, did the same.

In response to this the Buddha instructed his disciples to meet accordingly, hoping perhaps that they would engage themselves in some religious activity at such assemblies. But we are told that in the absence of specific instructions from the Master they sat in the assembly and remained silent like ' dumb creatures.' However, it is stated that the people were wise enough to remind the disciples that it was their duty to preach the Dhamma when they met (Nanu nŒma sannipatitehi dhammo bhŒsitabbo ' ti - Vin. I.102). Thereupon the Buddha recommended that it should be so (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave cŒtuddase pannarase aÊÊhamiyŒ ca pakkhassa sannipatitvŒ dhammaµ bhŒsitun ' ti - Ibid.) But it must be mentioned at this stage that the MahŒvagga does not refer to these assemblies of the Buddhist Saºgha or of the ParibbŒjakas as Uposatha. They are no more than regular meetings of those who had renounced the household life at which, even the laymen knew, the Dhamma would be preached. The laymen attended those meetings for the purpose of listening to the Dhamma. Nor do we find the term PŒtimokkha associated with these meetings. But as a modification to these regular meetings of religious men at which their special doctrines were preached before laymen the Buddha is said to have suggested the idea that his disciples should perform the PŒtimokkha recital as a religious duty on the day of the Uposatha. He appears to sanction for this purpose the recital of the body of sikkhŒpada which he had already laid down for the guidance of his disciples.

But the recital of the PŒtimmokkha assumes a more positive and definite character where it is presented as closely following the promulgation of the sikkhŒpada in the attempt to arrest the decline in monastic discipline. That this was undoubtedly the primary function of the PŒtimokkha is clear from the request of the venerable SŒriputta in the Suttavibhaºga pertaining to the institution of sikkhŒpada and the recital of the PŒtimokkha and from the reply given to him by Buddha. The ritual of the PŒtimokkha empowers the collective organization of the Saºgha, on the authority of the ' dhamma and the instructions ' (yathŒdhammaµ yathŒsatthaµ), to sit in judgement over the conduct of its members. The sikkhŒpada of which the text of the PŒtimokkha is constituted form the criteria. One should also take note of the procedure adopted by the senior monk (thera) who recites the PŒtimokkha in the assembly (pŒtimokkhuddesaka) in questioning the members of the assembly with regard to their purity in terms of each group of sikkhŒpada recited by him. In the light of evidence from the Suttas which we have already examined there does not appear to be any justification to regard this aspect of the PŒtimokkha recital as being of later origin.

But Sukumar Dutt calls this 'the present ritual form of the PŒtimokkha' and says that it 'was not its original form - the original was a disciplinary code.' Dutt presumes the existence of the ' original ' PŒtimokkha in the bare form of a code. He says that the Suttavibhaºga contemplates it as such, and goes on to add the following remarks : ' In the Suttavibhaºga there is not the usual word-for-word commentary on the " introductory formular " of the PŒtimokkha as we now have it - as text for a ritual.' A few lines below he concludes as follows : 'The Suttavibhaºga, in fact, regards the PŒtimokkha as a mere code, while the MahŒvagga regards it as a liturgy.' But how does one arrive at such a conclusion? When Dutt speaks of the PŒtimokkha as a mere code does he mean that it was not used for the purpose of a recital? Apparently he does so, for the only argument

(Page 94)

he adduces in support of his thesis is that the Suttavibhaºga does not provide a word-for-word commentary on the " introductory forlmular " of the PŒtimokkha which is now used as the introduction to the recital. We should point out here that not only is there no commentary on the " introductory formular " in the Suttavibhaºga, but the " introductory formular " itself is not found in the Suttavibhaºga. But this does not prove that the recital of the PŒtimokkha was not known to the Suttavibhaºga. On the other hand, the evidence proves the contrary.

At a stage when the true spirit of the Uddesa or the recital of the PŒtimokkha was well known there would hardly have been a need for the incorporation of such a formal introduction in the Suttavibhaºga. Nevertheless, one cannot forget the fact that every sikkhŒpada in the Suttavibhanga is introduced in a manner as though it were intended to be recited : Eva– ca pana bhikkhave imaµ sikkhŒpadaµ uddiseyyŒtha. On the other hand, the text of the PŒtimokkha, which contains only the sikkhŒpada without any details about them, and which we believe was extracted from the Suttavibhaºga to serve the needs of the recital, carries this " introductory formular ". It is misleading to refer to the PŒtimokkha which is known to the Suttavibhaºga as a mere code. The Suttavibhaºga knows fully well the functions of the PŒtimokkha recital as is evident from PŒcittiyas 72 and 73. The PŒtimokkha recital which is known to the Suttavibhaºga and to some of the Suttas in the NikŒyas is a dynamic function where a close watch is kept over the conduct of the members of the Saºgha, the miscreants are detected and are dealt with according to the law. If Dutt attaches so much importance to the negative evidence of the absence of the commentary to the " introductory formular " in the Suttavibhaºga, then it seems hardly justifiable to pay no attention to the positive evidence which points to a different conclusion.

This being so, where does one find the ' original form ' of the PŒtimokkha as a 'bare code'? Does one find such a code referred to by the name of PŒtimokkha divorced from the confessional meeting of the Uposatha? What did apparently exist prior to the institution of the recital of the PŒtimokkha was the body of sikkhŒpada. After his remarks on what appears to him to be the form of the PŒtimokkha, Dutt proceeds to comment on the PŒtimokkha as a monastic function. In his search for the ' missing link ' Dutt is prepared to see in the story of Buddha Vipassi in the MahŒpadŒna Sutta ' an earlier rite '. This he calls 'the archaic practice among the Buddhists' and says that the recital of the PŒtimokkha replaced it at a comparatively late stage of the growth of the Saºgha.

It is also difficult to see how Dutt comes to the conclusion that ' the rudimentary idea in the Buddhist Uposatha service seems to have been a ritualistic one, - the observance of sacred days '. On the other hand, we have already shown how the Uposatha and the PŒtimokkha recital of the Buddhist Saºgha are closely identified. Besides, we fail to detect the sacredness associated with these ' days ' which the Buddhist Saºgha was expected to observe. No matter to whom they were sacred, they were accepted by the Buddhists too, because it was convenient to use for the purpose of religious observances these conventionally recognised days. Further, as is clear from the MahŒvagga, additional religious activities on the part of the Buddhist Saºgha on these popularly respected days of the moon would have elevated them in the esteem of the people.

(Page 95)

Dutt is obviously making a needless search when he attempts to find a reason for the preaching of the Dhamma by religious mendicants when they meet on those specified days. This is what he says :

' It is curious to observe the closeness between the Vrata ceremonies of the Vedic sacrificer and the Posadha ceremonies of the Jaina, though the reason, as given in the Satapatha-BrŒhmaöa, for such observances has no relevance to Jaina faith. The Jainas retire on these sacred days into their Posadha-sŒlŒ, as the Vedic sacrificer would go into the AgnyŒgŒra, and they take upon themselves the vow of the four abstinences (UpavŒsa), viz. from eating (ŒhŒra), from luxuries (sar´rasatkŒra), from sexual intercourse (abrahma), and daily work (vyŒpŒra). Similar abstinences are prescribed also for Buddhist laymen who celebrate the day of Uposatha by the observance of the Eight S´las.'

' Among religious mendicants, however, the custom seems to have been different from that which prevailed among laity. It is another form of sacred day observance that is related of them in MahŒvagga, ii. i. The reason for this different form is not far to seek. The 'abstinences' were already implied in the norm of life of the religious mendicant, and some substitute had to be found among them for the Vrata abstinences observed by lay folk. Such substitute was found in religious discourse.'

It should be clear to every student of Buddhism that the abstinences referred to by Dutt in relation to the Eight S´la are only a continuation of the spirit of abstinence and renunciation which is characteristic of all s´la from the five s´la of the layman to the major s´la of the pabbajita. The similarity noted here is only a coincidence and shows nothing in common with the Vrata ceremonies of the Vedic ritualist. Hence one cannot find any basis for this forced remark which is made about religious mendicants that ' some substitute had to be found among them for the Vrata abstinences observed by lay folk.'

The GopakamoggallŒna Sutta which makes a brief but comprehensive statement about the recital of the PŒtimokkha speaks of the ' single village unit ' (ekaµ gŒmakkhettaµ) as its proper sphere of operation. The gŒmakkhetta seems to have served as a convenient unit for the collective organization of the disciples for their monastic activities. The rigid divisions and technicalities of S´mŒ which abound in the MahŒvagga are conspicuous by their absence in the Suttas. Both in the GopakamoggallŒna and the MahŒsakuludŒy´ Suttas, participation in the ritual of the PŒtimokkha, referred to there under the name of Uddesa, is looked upon as a regular duty which is voluntarily performed by the members of the monastic community as a collective body. It was looked upon as a ritual which was inseparable from Buddhist monasticism. Participation in it was a legitimate right of the members of the Saºgha which was withdrawn only on the commission of a PŒrŒjika offence. The following explanation of the term asaµvŒso, which refers to the penalty incurred by one who is guilty of a PŒrŒjika offence or for one suspended, makes it abundantly clear : asaµvŒso ' ti saµvŒso nŒma ekakammaµ ekuddeso samasikkhŒtŒ eso saµvŒso nŒma - Vin.III. 28. This complete and total participation in the Uddesa (ekuddeso) also implies the solidarity of the monastic group in addition to ascertaining and safeguarding its purity (Samaggo hi saºgho sammodamŒno avivadamŒno ekuddeso phŒsu viharati - Vin.III.172.) According to a statement in the MahŒvagga the performance of the Uposatha implies the unity and solidarity of the body of Bhikkhus who are participating in it. (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave samaggŒnam uposathakamman ' ti - Vin.I.105.)

The solidarity which the ritual of the PŒtimokkha thus gives to the monastic group seems secondary to the other, perhaps earlier, ideal of the purity of the individual monk and hence of the group as a whole. In the GopakamoggallŒna Sutta the recital itself is referred to very briefly in non-technical terms. But it has a very definite standpoint with regard to the miscreants in the

(Page 96)

monastic circles and their prosecution and punishment. It is clear from the evidence of the Vinaya too, that the recital of the PŒtimokkha had this end in view. During the recital of the PŒtimokkha no monk shall, on grounds of ignorance, claim forgiveness for an offence committed by him, if he had been present at least at two earlier recitals of the PŒtimokkha. (....ta– ce bhikkhuµ a––e bhikkhè jŒneyyuµ nisinnapubbaµ iminŒ bhikkhunŒ dvikkhattuµ pŒtimokkhe uddissamŒne ko pana vŒdo bhiyyo na ca tassa bhikkhuno a––Œöakena mutti atthi ya– ca tattha Œpattiµ Œpanno ta– ca yathŒdhammo kŒretabbo...Vin.IV.144.) He is to be dealt with for the offence according to the law. He is also further guilty of not being alert and attentive during the recital. (.....uttari c ' assa moho Œropetabbo tassa te Œvuso alŒbhŒ tassa te dulladdhaµ yaµ tvaµ pŒtimokkhe uddissamŒne na sŒdhukaµ aÊÊhikatvŒ manasikaros´ ' ti. Idaµ tasmiµ mohanake pŒcittiyaµ - Vin.IV.144.) Thus he has failed to comply with the requirements of the ritual which are specifically laid down elsewhere. (PŒtimokkhaµ uddisissŒmi taµ sabbe ' va santŒ sŒdhukaµ suöoma manasikaroma - Vin.I.103.)

On the other hand, the MahŒvagga gives us an account of the PŒtimokkha recital with a far greater concern for details. Procedure assumes here a great deal more of importance. (Eva– ca pana bhikkhave uddisitabbaµ. Vyattena bhikkuhnŒ paÊibalena saºgho –Œpetabbo. SuöŒtu me bhante saºgho. Ajjh ' uposatho paööaraso. Yadi saºghassa pattakallaµ saºgho uposathaµ kareyya pŒtimokkhaµ uddiseyya. Kiµ saºghassa pubbakiccaµ. PŒrisuddhim Œyasmanto Œrocetha. PŒtimokkhaµ uddisissŒmi. Taµ sabbe ' va santŒ sŒdhukaµ suöoma manasikaroma. Yassa siyŒ Œpatti so Œvikareyya. AsantiyŒ ŒpattiyŒ tuöh´ bhavitabbaµ. Tuöh´bhŒvena kho panŒyasmante parisuddhŒ ' ti vedissŒmi - Vin.I.102.).

The recital of the PŒtimokkha must first be formally proposed before the assembly of the Saºgha. In the absence of any objections from the members of the congregation the approval of the Saºgha is assumed and the PŒtimokkha-reciter commences the recital. It is on behalf of the Saºgha that he does so and his action is made to be representative of the wish of the Saºgha. The PŒtimokkha-reciter announces that he is ready to commence the recital. However, he identifies himself with the whole group in the performance of the ritual. In the KaºkhŒvitaran´, Buddhaghosa attempts to safeguard against a possible misinterpretation of the phrase pŒtimokkhaµ uddisissŒmi which occurs in the MahŒvagga. It could be argued that the PŒtimokkha-reciter would be excluded thereby from active participation in the ritual on the grounds that he is conducting the ceremony and is therefore outside it. But as pointed out earlier the recital of the PŒtimokkha is a ritual to be undertaken and performed by all members of the Saºgha living within a specified area. Therefore participation in it, either by being personally present or in absentia, was incumbent on every monk (Ettha ca ki–cŒ ' pi pŒtimokkhaµ uddisissŒm´ ' ti vuttattŒ suöotha manasikarothŒ ' ti vattuµ yuttaµ viya dissati. Saºgho uposathaµ kareyyŒ ' ti iminŒ pana na sameti. Samaggassa hi saºghassa etaµ uposathakaraöaµ. PŒtimokkuddesako ca saºghapariyŒpanno ' va. Iccassa saºghapariyŒpannattŒ suöoma manasikaromŒ ' it vattuµ yuttaµ - Kkvt.14.).

The MahŒvagga has also a few remarks concerning the preliminaries to be observed by the Saºgha before the PŒtimokkha-reciter commences the recital. (Kiµ sanghassa pubbakiccaµ. PŒrisuddhiµ Œyasmanto Œrocetha. PŒtimokkhaµ uddisissŒmi - Vin.I.102.) Strangely enough, the old commentary which is appended to the text has no comment whatsoever on these ideas of preliminary duties which the Saºgha is called upon to perform. The atatement which requires the declaration of purity - PŒrisuddhiµ Œyasmanto Œrocetha - does not get a single word of comment. On the other hand, it picks up such words as Œyasmanto for comment. The SamantapŒsŒdikŒ too, makes no comment at all on any of the details of procedure given in the MahŒvagga, although it elaborates on a few ideas picked out from the Old Commentary. However, the KaºkhŒvitaran´ explains kim saºghassa pubbakiccaµ as an inquiry made by the PŒtimokkha-reciter before commencing the recital as to whether the preliminary duties to be performed by the Saºgha had been done. (Kim taµ katan ' ti pucchati - Kkvt.11.) It further explains these duties with the aid of both Canonical texts

(Page 97)

and commentaries (Kiµ saºghassa pubbakiccan ' ti saºgho uposathaµ kareyyŒ ' ti evaµ uposathakaraöasaµbandhena vuttassa saºghassa uposathe kattabbe yaµ taµ anujŒnŒmi bhikkhave uposathŒgŒraµ sammajjitun ' ti ŒdinŒ nayena pŒliyaµ Œgataµ aÊÊhakathŒsu ca

Evaµ dv´hi nŒmehi navavidhaµ pubbakiccaµ dassitaµ - Kkvt. 10f.).

We notice here that Buddhaghosa, following the earlier commetarial tradition, takes the Canonical statement anujŒnŒmi bhikkhave uposathŒgŒraµ sammajjituµ.... to mean the preliminary duties incumbent on the Saºgha who are participating in the recital of the PŒtimokkha. But as we examine these directions in their context we notice that this preparation of the venue of the recital constitues the preliminary duties to be undertaken and supervised by the monks who act the host for the occasion. What is given there as most binding is that no junior monk shall, except in case of illness, fail to execute these duties when ordered to do so by a senior monk. The failure to do so results in a DukkaÊa offence. It is in the same spirit that these preliminary duties (pubbakaraöŒni) are recommended to a monk who is the sole occupant of a monastery to prepare for the Uposatha with the hope that other monks will arrive on the scene. It is here, in commenting on this that Buddhaghosa incorporates in the SamanatapŒsŒdikŒ the commentarial tradition which he inherits from the AÊÊhakathŒcariyŒ regarding these preliminaries. Thus one cannot fail to take note of this discrepancy. A later tradition, however, tries to explain how these preliminary duties, though performed by an individual, come to be reckoned as the lot of the Saºgha : Navavidhaµ pubbakiccaµ therena Œöattena katattŒ saºghena kataµ nŒma hoti.

On the other hand, chandapŒrisuddhi which is mentioned in the second list of preliminary duties known as pubbakicca occupies a place of real importance in the early history of the ritual. As the innocence of every member was tested during the recital in the full assembly of the Saºgha and the miscreants were punished, the presence of every member who belongs to that assembly was absolutely essential. We use the word assembly here to mean the totality of the disciples who live within the formally accepted region of samŒna s´mŒ or common communal activity. The Suttas depict such a region as a very natural division of residence like a village (.... yŒvatikŒ ekaµ gŒmakkhettaµ upanissŒya viharŒma te sabbe ekajjhaµ sannipatŒma...M.III.10.). However, with the expansion of community life the use of such natural divisions would have become impracticable. Thus we find in the MahŒvagga the origin of a formally accepted region of such co-residence or ekŒvŒsa. Through a Saºghakamma such a unit of communal activity is demarcated and agreed upon by the Saºgha. Under the injunctions of the Vinaya no monk shall fail to co-operate for the perfect execution of this arrangement except under the pain of a Dukkata (Na tv ' eva vaggena saºghena uposatho kŒtabbo. Yo kareyya Œpatti dukkaÊassa - Vin.I.108,120). We notice a very rigid ritualistic interpretation of this principle at Vin.I.122. There it is deemed possible to give validity to the Uposathakamma by removing the non-participating monk temporarily out of the region of common communal activity which has been designated as the S´mŒ (Iºgha tumhe Œyasmanto imaµ bhikkhuµ niss´maµ netha yŒva saºgho uposathaµ karot´ ' ti - Vin.I.122.).

Under normal conditions the ritual could not be carried out or would be considered ineffective in the absence of even one member. This, in fact, seems to have been the accepted position in the early days of the Buddhist Saºgha. The Buddha once ordered the monks to assemble so that the

(page 98)

Saºgha might collectively perform the Uposatha. Then it was brought to his notice that one monk was absent from the assembly on account of illness. The Buddha decreed on this occasion that any monk who absents himself from the assembly should convey his innocence to the members of that assembly (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave gilŒnena bhikkhunŒ pŒrisuddhiµ dŒtuµ - Vin.1.120). He further indicated different ways in which it could be done. Here he definitely insisted that any performance of the ritual without the full assembly or without ascertaining the purity of the absentee members of the Saºgha would not only be invalid but would also be a definite offence (Na tv ' eva vaggena saºghena uposatho kŒtabbo. Kareyya ce Œpatti dukkaÊassa - Vin.I.120.). This act of legislation is further proof of the fact that ascertaining and establishing the purity of the members of the Saºgha, both present as well as absent, was the major function of the PŒtimokkha recital.

Once the assembly of the Saºgha has met in full membership for the recital of the PŒtimokkha and the preliminary duty of communicating the purity and the consent of the absentees has been performed, the PŒtimokkha-reciter proceeds thereafter with the recital. According to the statement in the Suttas the miscreants in the monastic circle were discovered and punished during this recital. The text of the PŒtimokkha too, reveals the fact that the purity of the monks was tested and established during the recital and that disciplinary action was also taken against the transgressing monks at the same time (Tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyŒ bhikkhè anŒcŒraµ ŒcaritvŒ a––Œöakena ŒpannŒ ' ti jŒnantè ' ti pŒtimokkhe uddissamŒne evaµ vadenti idŒn ' eva kho mayaµ jŒnŒma ayam ' pi kira dhammo suttŒgato suttapariyŒpanno anvaddhamŒsaµ uddesaµ Œgacchat´ ' ti... na ca tassa bhikkhuno a––Œöakena mutti atthi yaº ca tattha Œpattiµ Œpanno ta– ca yathŒdhammo kŒretabbo ... Vin.IV.144.).

It is also clear that the testing was done in terms of each group of sikkhŒpada after its recital. The monks are called upon to confess if they have violated any of the said rules under each group (UddiÊÊhŒ kho Œyasmanto cattŒro pŒrŒjikŒ dhammŒ yesaµ bhikkhu a––ataraµ vŒ a––ataraµ vŒ ŒpajjitvŒ na labhati bhikkhèhi saddhiµ saµvŒsaµ yathŒ pure tathŒ pacchŒ pŒrŒjiko hoti asaµvŒso. TatthŒ ' yasmante pucchŒmi kacci ' ttha parisuddhŒ dutiyam ....tatiyaµ... parisuddhŒ. ParisuddhŒ etth ' Œyasmanto. TasmŒ tuöh´. Evametaµ dhŒrayŒm´ 'ti - Vin.III.109.). All these accounts seem to agree on the point that the confession of guilt and the establishment of the purity of the members of the congregation as well as the punishment of the offenders were carried out at the assembly which met fortnightly for the recital of the PŒtimokkha.

The MahŒvagga account of the PŒtimokkha recital categorically states that during the recital all members of the congregation should listen attentively to it and ponder over its contents and whosoever discovers himself to be guilty of any transgression should confess the same before the Saºgha. This regular scrutiny would have served to ensure the purity of individual monks and also would have kept the community of monks as a whole above suspicion, as the innocence of every member in terms of the code of monastic discipline was tested in the assembly and the purity of the Sangha was thus established (PŒtimokkham uddisissŒmi. Taµ sabbe ' va santŒ sŒdhukam suöoma manasikaroma. Yassa siyŒ Œpatti so Œvikareyya. AsantiyŒ ŒpattiyŒ tuöh´ bhavitabbaµ. Tuöh´bhŒvena kho pana Œyasmante parisuddhŒ ' ti vedissŒmi - Vin.I.103 f.).

Yet another, and a very distinctly different function of this ritual is envisaged in the MahŒvagga. It appears that the confession of guilt, if any, by the monks during the recital of the PŒtimokkha is insisted upon not only because no miscreant should go unpunished for his offence and thereby help to perpetuate such offences, but also because this confession is said to bring about the disburdening of the offender of the sense of guilt without which no spiritual progress could be made. The MahŒvagga states that this absolution through confession is essential as a prelude to all spiritual attainments (TasmŒ saramŒnena bhikkhunŒ Œpannena visuddhŒpekkhena santi Œpatti ŒvikŒtabbŒ. îvikatŒ hi 'ssa phŒsu hoti - Vin. I.103.). In the ritual of the PŒtimokkha, it is evidently this role of 'the purge from guilt ' (ŒvikatŒ hi ' ssa phŒsu hoti ) which earned for itself the title of PŒtimokkha, and

(Page 99)

perhaps through this the text too, which is recited at the ritual of the Uposatha came to be known by the same name. The confession removes the sense of guilt from standing as an impediment on the path to higher spiritual attainment (îvikatŒ hi ' ssa phŒsu hot´ ' ti kissa phŒsu hoti. PaÊhamassa jhŒnassa adhigamŒya....kusalŒnaµ dhammŒnaµ adhigamŒya phŒsu hot´ ' ti - Ibid. 104.).

However, the virtue of confession cannot be in the mere act of owning one's guilt. We should really seek it in the acceptance of penalties and punishments by the offender and in his determination to abstain from the repetition of such offences in the future (Œyati saµvarŒya). It is also declared by the Buddha both in the Suttas and in the Vinaya that the ability to admit and accept one's error and make amends for it as well as safeguard against its recurrence is the basis of progress (Vuddhi hi esŒ bhikkhave ariyassa vinaye yo accayaµ accayato disvŒ yathŒdhammaµ paÊikaroti Œyatiµ saµvaraµ Œpajjati - Vin.I. 315.). That this attitude to crime and its correction was not restricted to monastic discipline alone is clear from the Buddha's advice to king AjŒtasattu in the SŒma––aphala Sutta. The Vinaya too, records a similar incident where the Buddha advises the man, who being instigated by Devadatta, lay in ambush to assassinate him. This comprehensive process of confession, however, seems to have undergone considerable change in the history of the PŒtimokkha recital.

It is interesting to note that we discover, both in the Suttas and in the Vinaya, a tendency on the part of some transgressing monks to suppress and conceal any lapses in discipline into which they have slipped (ÊhŒnaµ kho pan ' etaµ Œvuso vijjati yaµ idh ' ekaccassa bhikkhuno evam icchŒ uppajjeyya Œpatti– ca vata Œpanno assaµ na ca maµ bhikkhè jŒneyyuµ - M.I. 27.). The fear and dislike of consequent punishment and loss of personal reputation may be considered as being responsible for this. There also seem to have been others who, though their guilt was known to fellow members and they themselves were willing to admit it, wished that they might not be prosecuted in public (Anuraho maµ bhikkhè codeyyuµ no saºghamajjhe - Ibid.).

The PosadhasthŒpanavastu of the MèlasarvŒstivŒda Vinaya records an incident which reflects this tendency. A monk objects to the declaration of his guilt before the whole assembly by the PŒtimokkha-reciter and adds that it would have been best done in private. It is also stated there that the Buddha sanctioned this request. (Sthavira prŒtimok©asètrodde§amuddi§eti. Sa kathayati. îyu©mannapari§uddhŒ tŒvadbhik©upar©at. Sthavira ko' trŒpari§uddhah. Tvameva tŒvat. Sthavira kathaµ nŒma tvayŒ saºghamadhye mama §irasi mu©Êir nipŒtitŒ. Aho vatŒ ' ham tvayŒ ekŒnte coditah syŒm ' iti. Sa tu©n´mavasthitah. Etatprakaraöaµ bhik©avo bhagavata Œrocayanti. BhagavŒnŒha. EkŒnte codayitavyo na saºghamadhye - Gilgit MSS. III.3.107 f.).

It is clear from evidence in the Pali Vinaya too, that there was opposition to prosecution and disciplinary action from certain individuals and groups in the monastic community (Sace ime vinaye pakata––uno bhavissanti amhe yen ' icchakaµ yad ' icchakaµ yŒvad ' icchakaµ Œka¶¶hissanti parika¶¶hissanti. Handa mayaµ Œvuso vinayaµ vivaööemŒ ' ti - Vin.IV.143. Also : Bhikkhu pan ' eva dubbacajŒtiko hoti uddesapariyŒpannesu sikkhŒpadesu bhikkhèhi sahadhammikaµ vuccamŒno attŒnaµ avacan´yaµ karoti mŒ maµ ki– ci avacuttha kalyŒöaµ vŒ pŒpakaµ vŒ aham ' pi Œyasmante na ki– ci vakkhŒmi kalyŒöaµ vŒ pŒpakaµ vŒ.ViramathŒ 'yasmanto mama vacanŒyŒ ' ti -Vin.III.178. Therefore, even where the members of the

(Page 100)

Saºgha were physically present at the PŒtimokkha recital, compelled by the regulations which required them to be present there, yet the miscreants could be non-co-operative in not admitting their transgressions when called upon to do so (Yo pana bhikkhu yŒvatatiyaµ anussŒviyamŒne saramŒno santiµ Œpattiµ na Œvikareyya - Vin. I.103.) This would completely nullify the purpose of the recital where the purity of the Saºgha is assumed by their silence (Tuöh´bhŒvena kho pana Œyasmante parisuddhŒ ' ti vedissŒmi - Vin.I.103.). Consequently the purity of the Saºgha which is thus assumed would be far from being real.

In an attempt to steer clear of such a situation special emphasis has been laid on the honesty and integrity of the participants. Wilful suppression of a transgression of which one is guilty is deemed a serious offence hindering one's spiritual progress (SampajŒnamusŒvŒdo kho panŒyasmanto anatarŒyiko dhammo vutto bhagavatŒ - Vin.I.103 f.). These words of warning seem to have been uttered regularly at the Uposatha as a prelude to the recital of the PŒtimokkha. It is also laid down in the laws of the PŒtimokkha that it is an offence involving expiation to help a fellow-member to conceal from the Saºgha a grave offence, i.e. a PŒrŒjika or SaºghŒdisesa, which he has committed (Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa jŒnaµ duÊÊhullaµ Œpattiµ paÊicchŒdeyya pŒcittiyaµ - Vin.IV.127.).

We also notice in the Khandhakas what appears to be the development of a new tradition regarding the recital of the PŒtimokkha. It is stated in the MahŒvagga that the Buddha has decreed that no monk who is guilty of any transgression should perform the Uposatha. (BhagavatŒ pa––attaµ na sŒpattikena uposatho kŒtabbo ' ti - Vin.I.125.). In the Cullavagga it is reaffirmed that such a monk should not listen to the recital of the PŒtimokkha (Na ca bhikkhave sŒpattikena pŒtimokkhaµ sotabbaµ - Vin.II.240.). Both these injunctions, in practice, really serve the same purpose as is clear from the following statement which identifies the Uposatha with the recital of the PŒtimokkha : SammatŒya vŒ bhikkhave bhèmiyŒ nisinnŒ asammatŒya vŒ yato pŒtimokkhaµ suöŒti kato' v ' assa uposatho - Vin.I.108. Both these statements evidently derive their authority from the story of the Suspension of the PŒtimokkha in the Cullavagga.

This brings us to a very paradoxical position. The MahŒvagga tells us in its details regarding the PŒtimokkha recital that any monk in the assembly who is guilty of an offence and who remembers it during the recital should make it known. By the failure to do so he shall incur the further guilt of deliberate lying (Yo pana bhikkhu yŒvatatiyaµ anussŒviyamŒne saramŒno santiµ Œpattiµ n ' Œvikareyya sampajŒnamusŒvŒd ' assa hoti - Vin.I.103.). However, at Vin.I.126 the Bhikkhu who recollects during the recital of the PŒtimokkha an offence which he has committed seems to be at a loss as to what he should do. He seems to be put into a very dilemmatic position by the apparently subsequent legislation that no guilty monk should participate in the PŒtimokkha recital (Tena kho pana samayena a––ataro bhikkhu pŒtimokkhe uddissamŒne Œpattiµ sarati. Atha kho tassa bhikkhuno etadahosi bhagavatŒ pa––attaµ na sŒpattikena uposatho kŒtabbo ' ti. Aha– c ' amhi Œpattiµ Œpanno kathan nu kho mayŒ paÊipajjitabban ' ti - Vin.I.126.).

On the other hand, side by side with this exclusion of a guilty monk from the recital of the PŒtimokkha it is also insisted on that no monk should let the performance of his Uposatha lapse. (Na tv ' eva tappaccayŒ uposathassa antarŒyo kŒtabbo - Vin.I.126 f.). Even a monk who on account of illness is unable to be physically present at the ritual was expected to communicate to the Saºgha his purity so that it may be declared in the assembly before the recital. For it is the purity of all members concerned which is to be ascertained and established at this fortnightly congregation of the Saºgha. Therefore it could not be properly performed in the absence of even one member of the group if the Saºgha had not been authoritatively informed of his purity prior to the recital. It is even suggested

(Page 101)

that a sick monk who has been unable to communicate his purity to the Saºgha may be conveyed in a bed or a seat before the assembly for the valid performance of the ritual. If he is too ill to be moved without danger to his life the Saºgha is then called upon to go to him and perform the Uposatha there lest they be guilty of a ritual of incomplete membership.

Thus we see the very dilemmatic position in which a guilty monk is placed in the light of the ruling that no guilty monk has the right to listen to the PŒtimokkha or perform the Uposatha and the injunction that no monk shall fail to perform the Uposatha. This would first eliminate the possibility of a guilty monk who could suppress his guilt and sit silently through the recital of the PŒtimokkha. Secondly, such a monk, on that account, could not also keep out of the Uposatha. The only solution that seems to be offered to this compels the monk to confess his guilt to another beforehand. Prior to his attendance at the ritual the guilty monk is expected to go before a fellow member and submit very respectfully that he is guilty of a specific offence and that he wishes to admit it. On his admission of guilt and his being advised to safeguard against its recurrence the guilty monk gains absolution which entitles him to participate in the ritual. Thus we feel that confession of one's guilt prior to participation in the ritual was necessitated by the exclusion of guilty monks from the ritual of the PŒtimokkha.

From what we have indicated it should be clear that confession of the type contemplated here does not absolve an offender from the guilt of a PŒrŒjika or SaºghŒdisesa. Nevertheless we are told that this form of confession gives an offender sufficient purity to enable him to participate in the ritual. Hence we are compelled to observe that what is conceded here is, more or less, a ritualistic purge. On the other hand, it seems to offer to the transgressing monks complete shelter from public scrutiny to which they would have ben subjected if they had to confess their guilt at the time of the recital. For now the confession may be made before a group or even a single individual who may possibly be selected on partisan loyalties. Thus it may be argued that this form of private confession prior to the recital was intended to remove the alleged harshness of the jurisdiction of the PŒtimokkha ritual.

Certain incidents which are referred to in the Cullavagga, in the chapter on the Suspension of the PŒtimokkha, seem to indicate the fact that there were certain members in the monastic community who were so rebellious in character that they did not choose to make use of this concession. That alone would account for the presence of the Chabbaggiya as guilty monks (sŒpattika) at the recital of the PŒtimokkha. The Suspension of the PŒtimokkha would then appear to serve the purpose of dealing effectively with such miscreants who tend to break the law flagrantly at every turn.

We discover that through the act of suspending the PŒtimokkha the ritual of the PŒtimokkha comes to acquire a new emphasis. Any member of the PŒtimokkha assembly who knows through seeing, hearing or suspicion (diÊÊhena sutena parisaºkhŒya) about the commission of an offence by any participant would, on seeing that individual, declare it in the assembly and call for the suspension of his PŒtimokkha, which in effect means that the PŒtimokkha shall not be recited in his company. Inspite of all the taboos and restrictions relating to the recital of the PŒtimokkha which are indicated in the Vinaya PiÊaka, the possibility is here contemplated of the presence of a PŒrŒjika offender in the assembly which meets to recite the PŒtimokkha. It is also declared possible that there may

(page 102)

be offenders in terms of all the seven groups of îpatti. Nevertheless, in all these cases, the detection and chastisement of offenders take place. if ever at all, not through voluntary confession during the recital of the PŒtimokkha but through report and other indirect sources of information with which the Saºgha has been acquainted, and that too, prior to the recital with a view to denying them the right of participation in it.

However, the ritualistic purge from guilt, resulting from confession at and before the recital, became a reality in the history of Buddhist monasticism. The Vimativinodan´ records the view of some section of the monastic community who actually maintained that even the greater offences were remedied by mere confession. But the author goes on to point out that this view is completely at variance with the text of the PŒtimokkha which prescribes penalties for the greater offences. (îvikatŒ hi ' ssa phŒsu hot´ ' ti vuttattŒ garukŒpatti ' pi Œvikaraöamattena vuÊÊhŒt´ ' ti keci vadanti. Taµ tesaµ matimattaµ parivŒsŒdividhŒnasuttehi virujjhanato. Ayaµ pan ' ettha adhippŒyo. YathŒbhètaµ hi attŒnaµ Œvikarontaµ pesalaµ bhikkhuµ akŒmŒ parivatthabban ' ti Œdivacanaµ nissŒya anicchamŒnaµ ' pi naµ upŒyena parivŒsŒdi dŒpetvŒ anassaµ suddhante patiÊÊhapessanti. Tato tassa avippaÊisŒrŒd´naµ vasena phŒsu hoti - Vimt. 396.)

It is elear, however, that the changing outlook and the concessions made in the sphere of monastic discipline led to this position. We see here an attempt to extract a new concession from the old idea of confession of guilt at the PŒtimokkha recital which included payment of penalties besides cofession. The reduction of the ritual of the PŒrimokkha to a mere confession for the sake of absolution was undoubtedly a sectarian move as pointed out in the Vimativinodan´.

But we discover that some scholars have mistaken this aspect of confession to be the original concept in early Buddhist monasticism. There is clear evidence that Sukumar Dutt did not fully appreciate the scope of confession of guilt by the Buddhist disciples. This has resulted from the incorrect translations of two Pali passages which he quotes. His first quotation (Cullavagga, v. 20.5) suffers on two accounts. Firstly, it is mutilated in that a vital portion of the quotation - vuddhi hi esŒ - has been left out. Dutt also seems to lose sight of another imprtant condition governing this confession. It is the reminder to the transgressing monk regarding future restraint which is part and parcel of this process of confession and self- correction (Œyatiµ saµvareyyŒsi - Vin. II. 102 : Œyatiµ saµvaraµ Œpajjati - Ibid. 126.). Secondly, these omissions made the rest of the quotation meaningless and drove the translator to force a garbled meaning out of it. Hence this translation : ' In these Rules laid down by the Venerable One, he who realises his lapse to be such and remedies it according to law, obtains absolution at once.' But we regret to say that there is no notion of absolution whatsoever here. How far from the real state of affairs would it be to say ' he.... absolution at once.' In the second quotation he gives the translation 'Unconfessed offences are cleared up on confession ' for the phrase ŒvikatŒ hi ' ssa phŒsu hoti. Here too, we fail to detect any indication of the 'clearance of an offence.'

Based on this mistaken notion of absolution through confession Dutt assumes that there was in the early days of the SŒsana ' a mere religious confession which led to absolution from the guilt confessed.' This, he would have us believe, was the earlier aspect of the PŒtimokkha ritual. However, he is quick to detect the dynamic function of what he calls the legal confession. Its importance is equally admitted by him. For he says: ' The incorporation of the concept of legal confession with the code was a necessity, as without it most parts of the code would remain inoperative and disciplinary proceedings could not be taken. Hence emphasis is laid on the duty of confession.' It is for these same reasons, as we have already pointed out, that confession and punishment became the essential core of the earliest PŒtimokkha ritual. The text of the PŒtimokkha too, which has

(Page 103)

a better claim to be more authentic than the MahŒvagga, records in PŒcittiya 73 evidence to the effect that if a monk is discovered during the fortnightly recital of the PŒtimokkha to be guilty of a transgression, charges are to be framed and disciplinary action taken against him.

At the same time, it is also clear that if a guilty monk could not take part in the ritual because of his guilt and he therefore absolves himself of it through confession prior to his attendance at the ritual, then no participant would really be guilty of any îpatti of which he could confess during the recital. But the ritual of the PŒtimokkha in its early phase countenanced the presence of both innocent and guilty monks (Yassa siyŒ Œpatti so Œvikareyya asantiyŒ ŒpattiyŒ tuöh´ bhavitabbaµ - Vin. I. 103. Also : Tasmi– ce bha––amŒne hoti bhikkhussa Œpatti hoti v´tikkamo - M.III. 10.). As far as we could infer, the phrase asantiyŒ ŒpattiyŒ which occurs in the MahŒvagga side by side with yassa siyŒ Œpatti, should really mean complete absence of guilt. But the MahŒvagga itself, which appears to have recognised and accepted the new turn of the ritual, explains asant´ Œpatti in keeping with the new tradition of absolution through prior confession (asant´ nŒma Œpatti anajjhŒpannŒ vŒ ŒpajjitvŒ vŒ vuÊÊhitŒ - Vin.I.103). The KaºkhŒvitaran´ subscribes to the same view and maintains that an Œpatti which has been declared and accepted really amounts to no Œpatti (AsantiyŒ ŒpattiyŒ ' ti yassa pana evaµ anŒpannŒ vŒ Œpattiµ ŒpajjitvŒ ca puna vuÊÊhitŒ vŒ desitŒ vŒ ŒrocitŒ vŒ Œpatti tassa sŒ Œpatti asant´ nŒma hoti - Kkvt. 15.). What purpose does it serve then to say as an introduction to the recital that any one who is guilty of an offence shall confess it during the recital? For no monk, according to this latter tradition, who is guilty of an îpatti could be present at the recital. Has not this statement in the MahŒvagga, yassa siyŒ Œpatti so Œvikareyya, already lost its original significance and does it not appear as a mere fossil embedded in the old formula?

A similar significant deviation from what we would consider to be the older tradition is noticeable under the pubbakicca or preliminary duties which needed to be performed before the recital of the PŒtimokkha. The MahŒvagga which describes the ritual of the PŒtimokkha recital introduces what it considers to be the preliminary duty to be performed before the commencement of the recital in the following words: ' What is the preliminary duty of the Saºgha? Let the venerable ones inform the purity.' (Kiµ saºghassa pubbakiccaµ. PŒrisuddhiµ Œyasmanto Œrocetha - Vin. I. 102.). Elsewhere in the MahŒvagga, the joint communication of chanda (consent) and pŒrisuddhi (purity) of those who are unable to be present at the recital is given as a general condition to be fulfilled before the assembly which meets for the recital of the PŒtimokkha. The inclusion of chanda here is said to be done on the assumption that the Saºgha might have besides the recital of the PŒtimokkha other monastic duties for the performance of which the unanimous agreement of the Saºgha was needed (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave tad ' ah ' uposathe pŒrisuddhiµ dentena chandam ' pi dŒtuµ santi saºghassa karaö´yan ' ti - Vin. I. 122.).

In the context of this passage it is manifestly clear that the pŒrisuddhi which is communicated to the assembly of the PŒtimokkha recital is that of the absentee monks. Therefore we would have to take the earlier statement pŒrisuddhiµ Œyasmanto Œrocetha to mean the announcement of the purity of the absentees, i.e. the members who have assembled for the recital should announce before the Saºgha any information they have regarding the purity of the absentees who are expected to convey it through a competent fellow member (pŒrisuddhi-hŒraka). For the PŒtimokkha recital, this information more than the chanda, is of vital consideration. However, we notice that the MahŒvagga gives no explanation whatsoever about this phrase pŒrisuddhiµ Œyasmanto Œrocetha even in the portion of the text which is regarded as the Old Commentary. On the other hand, Buddhaghosa hastens to explain this with the comment attano parisuddha-bhŒvaµ Œrocetha. This makes the purity which is announced before the commencement of the recital to be that of the monks present. But what we have shown so far from internal evidence in the MahŒvagga points to the contrary. It is difficult to say with any certainty whether during the time of Buddhaghosa

(Page 104)

the practice of communicating to the PŒtimokkha assembly the purity of the absentee monks had gone out of vogue. What is more clearly evident is the fact that the ritualistic significance of the purity of the participants at the PŒtimokkha recital had assumed overwhelming authority. It is in the light of this new change that Buddhaghosa offers the above comment. For he supports it with a statement which he has picked up from the Cullavagga which bars a guilty monk from participating in the PŒtimokkha recital (Na bhikkhave sŒpattikena pŒtimokkhaµ sotabbaµ yo suöeyya Œpatti dukkaÊassŒ ' ti vacanato aparisuddhehi pŒtimokkhaµ sotuµ na vaÊÊati. Tena vuttaµ pŒrisuddhiµ Œyasmanto Œrocetha pŒtimokkhaµ uddisissŒm´ ' ti - Kkvt. 14.).

But our assumption which is based on co-ordinated evidence from the Vinaya that what should mean here is 'the communication of the purity of the absentees' appears to be further supported by the Vinaya traditions of other schools besides the Theriya. On a careful scrutiny of the Vinaya texts of several other schools which are preserved both in Sanskrit and Chinese we discover that they all seem to agree with us in this interpretation of the declaration of purity at the PŒtimokkha recital. They specifically state that it is the purity of the absentees which is declared, as a preliminary duty, for the information of the members of the assembly. The Po©adhavastu of the MèlasarvŒstivŒda Vinaya, which agrees for the most part with the Uposathakkhandhaka of the MahŒvagga, contains a very clear and definite statement on this point (YadŒ saºghasthavirah kathayati anŒgamanŒya Œyu©mantas chandaµ ca pŒri§uddhiµ ca Œrocayata Œrocitaµ ca pravedayate ' ti. Tena antarikasya bhik©oh puratah sthitvŒ vaktavyaµ. SamanvŒhara Œyu©man amusmin 'n 'ŒvŒse bhik©ur ŒbŒdhiko duhkhito vŒ¶haglŒnah. Adya saºghasya po©adhapaµcada§ikŒ tasyŒ ' pi bhik©oh po©adhapaµcada§ikŒ. So ' yam evaµnŒmŒ bhik©uh pari§uddham ŒntarŒyikaih dharmair ' ŒtmŒnaµ vedayati po©adhe ' sya pŒri§uddhim ŒrocayŒmi ŒrocitŒµ ca pravedayŒmi - Gilgit MSS. III. 4. p.100.).

According to the above statement the PŒtimokkha-reciter addresses the members of the assembly and makes a clear request to announce before the Saºgha the purity and the consent of the absentees. Whosoever in the assembly has chosen to play the role of messenger to carry to the Saºgha the pŒrisuddhi on behalf of an absentee, he shall make it known to the Saºgha that the absentee has intimated that he is pure and is not guilty of any transgressions which are detrimental to his religious life : pari§uddhaµ antarŒyikaih dharmairŒtmŒnaµ vedayati. In the above passage anŒgamanŒya stands for ' the absence from the assembly of possible participants '. That it is so is further supported by the statement in the PrŒtimok©asètra of the same school which in its comments on the preliminary duties uses the very specific term anŒgatŒnŒµ which means 'of those who are not present.' (Kiµ bhagavatah §rŒvakasaºghasya pèrvakŒla-karaö´yaµ alpo 'rtho 'lpak¨tyaµ. AnŒgatŒnŒm Œyu©manta§ chandapŒri§uddhiµ c' Œrocayata Œrocitaµ ca pravedayata - IHQ. vol. XXIX. 2.167.). The PrŒtimok©asètra of the MahŒsaºghikas too, states the same under its instructions for the PrŒtimoksa recital. (AnŒgatŒnŒm Œyu©manto bhik©unŒcchanda-pŒri§uddhimŒrocetha. îrocita– ca prativedetha - Journal of the Ganganath Jha Research Institute, vol.X. Appendix, p. 3.). The Mah´sŒsaka Vinaya which is preserved to us in Chinese expresses the same idea of communicating to the assembly of the Saºgha the purity and the consent of the absentees before the commencement of the PŒtimokkha recital.

In the light of all this evidence we feel inclined to infer that this is the true spirit and the older sense in which the statement pŒrisuddhiµ Œyasmanto Œrocetha of the MahŒvagga is to be taken. Nevertheless, we believe that here too, the Theriya tradition has conceded certain changes in the process of evolution. The accomodation of such changes perhaps became more possible with the Theriya group whose Vinaya traditions did not get petrified through disuse but continued to be live and dynamic. Yet one cannot fail to observe that these changes robbed the PŒtimokkha ritual of its vigour and vitality. For there seems to be no more need for confession of guilt in the assembly of the Saºgha. It is assured that the participants are pure in character. The Saºgha does not collectively engage itself to punish and deal with offenders, exercising over its membership the authority of the Dhamma. The ritual as described in the MahŒvagga does not seem to provide

(Page 105)

for this. The instructions given in the PŒtimokkha with regard to penalties and punishments are left with a merely theoretical value at the recital. The erring individuals do not need any more to face the judiciary at the PŒtimokkha recital. For the confession of guilt can now be made before a single individual. Even if one remembers during the recital of the PŒtimokkha an offence he had committed he needs confess it only to a single Bhikkhu who sits beside him and promise to make amends for it after the conclusion of the ritual. On the other hand, the ritual is prefaced with a number of formalities by way of preliminary duties, pubbakicca and pubbakaraöa, which assume considerable ritualistic importance. They completely outweigh the recital and the consequent confession which formed the core of the ritual. The PŒtimokkha recital thereafter ceases to be a powerful instrument in the proper maintenance of monastic discipline. While we witness here, on the one hand, the break down of the centralised administration of this monastic institution, the ritual of the PŒtimokkha, we discover on the other the emergence of a completely decentralised system of the same. It has been made possible for a minimum of four Bhikkhus, without any reference to the membership of a S´mŒ, to undertake collectively the recital of the PŒtimokkha: AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave catunnaµ pŒtimokkhaµ uddisitun ' ti - Vin. I. 124. This gives the PŒtimokkha recital a very provincial character and robs it of its stature and dignity. But it would be clear from what has been said so far that the crystallized tradition of the Suttas contemplates a different position. But it also seems to be clear that the tradition of the Suttas regarding the PŒtimokkha recital, like many other Sutta traditions pertaining to problems of Vinaya, soon became a thing of the past.

It is probably at such a stage in the history of the PŒtimokkha ritual that it became possible to say that the PŒtimokkha or the Uposatha is intended for the purpose of bringing about monastic unity while the purity of the Saºgha is the burden of the PavŒraöŒ (Uposatho samaggattho visuddhatthŒ pavŒraöŒ - . Vinvi. p.190.v. 2599.). Hence we would choose to conclude with a few observations on the PavŒraöŒ.

The PavŒraöŒ is the ritual which comes usually at the end of the third month of the rains-retreat and is a part of the observance of the VassŒvŒsa. It is used like the ritual of the PŒtimokkha as a means of safeguarding monastic discipline. The PavŒraöŒ, as the name itself suggests, is the request which a Bhikkhu makes to the Saºgha with whom he has spent the rains-retreat to judge his conduct and declare according to what the Saºgha has seen, heard or suspected whether he is guilty of any transgressions. This request for the public scrutiny of one's conduct is made by every member of the Saºgha, irrespective of seniority, on the definite understanding that whosoever stands accused would make amends for his errors when he recognises them as such (Sanghaµ Œvuso pavŒremi diÊÊhena vŒ sutena vŒ parisaºkhŒya vŒ. Vadantu maµ Œyasmanto anukampaµ upŒdŒya. Passanto paÊikarissŒmi - Vin.I. 159.). The benefits resulting from this form of self-correction are gives as

(a) being agreeable to and tolerant of one another : a––ama––ŒnulomatŒ

(c) developing a regard and respect for the rules of discipline : vinayapurekkhŒratŒ.

It is evident that the disciplinary function of the PavŒraöŒ is very similar to that of the PŒtimokkha ritual and hence the details of procedure in both rituals are for the most part identical. A monk who is prevented from patricipating in the PavŒraöŒ on account of illness is expected, as in the case of the PŒtimokkha ritual, to communicate to the Saºgha through another

(Page 106)

his request for the judgement of his conduct (PavŒraöaµ dammi pavŒraöaµ me hara mamatthŒya pavŒreh´ ' ti - Vin. I. 161.) Although total and complete participation would have been the ideal aimed at in these two rituals, yet under circumstances very similar to those connected with the recital of the PŒtimokkha, the quorum for the performance of this ceremony in the assembly of the Saºgha (saºghe pavŒretuµ) is fixed at five. Any number of monks below this and down to two persons are expected to perform this ritual among themselves (a––ama––aµ pavŒretuµ). A solitary monk who is left to himself must make a personal resolve (adhiÊÊhŒna) on this matter, similar to the AdhiÊÊhŒna Uposatha of the PŒtimokkha ritual. The position of monks who are guilty of offences which exclude them from participation in the ritual of the PavŒraöŒ is identical with similar situations in the ritual of the PŒtimokkha.

However, a very distinct feature of the ritual of the PavŒraöŒ is its dynamic character, specially in contrast to the PŒtimokkha which already in the MahŒvagga has lost its vitality and appears to have only a ceremonial significance. When, for instance, a monk is charged at the PavŒraöŒ with a PŒrŒjika offence, if he were to admit that he is guilty of it, then disciplinary action is promptly taken against him (So ce bhikkhave cudito bhikkhu pŒrŒjikaµ ajjhŒpanno ' ti paÊijŒnŒti nŒsetvŒ saºghena pavŒretabbaµ - Vin. I. 173), unlike at the ritual of the PŒtimokkha where suspension of the PŒtimokkha, without any reference to the admission or denial of guilt by the accused, is the only course of action recommended. Likewise, in the case of a SaºghŒdisesa offence, the charge is laid on the offender on his admission of guilt. For all other offences too, necessary disciplinary action is taken according to the prescriptions of the law and the Saºgha thereafter proceeds with the ritual of the PavŒraöŒ : yathŒ-dhammaµ kŒrŒpetvŒ saºghena pavŒretabbaµ - Vin. I. 173. There is evidence to show that the ritual is, in fact, temporarily suspended in certain cases until necessary action is taken against the offender and he makes amends for his mistake (Ye te bhikkhave bhikkhu thullaccayadiÊÊhino tehi so bhikkhave bhikkhu ekamantaµ apanetvŒ yathŒdhammaµ kŒrŒpetvŒ saºghaµ upasaºkamitvŒ evaµ assa vacan´yo yaµ kho so Œvuso bhikkhu Œpattiµ Œpanno sŒ 'ssa yathŒdhammaµ paÊikatŒ. Yadi saºghassa pattakallaµ saºgho pavŒreyyŒ ' ti - Vin.I. 173.).

Leaving all details aside, when we compare the two institutions of PŒtimokkha and PavŒraöŒ, we note one important distinction. In the early PŒtimokkha recital it was the individual Bhikkhu who judged his guilt or innocence in terms of the regulations of the PŒtimokkha. The assembly of the Saºgha had to rely on the bona fide of the individuals. The accusation, if any at all, was pronounced in consequence of the confession of the erring member. At the PavŒraöŒ, the request made individually by the members of the assembly transfers this initiative to the collctive body of the Saºgha. This arrangement to face the scrutiny by the Saºgha which is implied here, although occurring only as an annual event, shows itself as an additional safeguard in the maintenance of good monastic discipline.

Nevertheless, the PavŒraöŒ too, shows signs of acquiring a more and more ritualistic character. As in the case of the PŒtimokkha, an idea seems to be gaining ground that the PavŒraöŒ is to be performed only by the monks who are pure. The Buddha, it is said, meant it to be so : bhagavatŒ kho Œvuso visuddhŒnaµ pavŒraöŒ pa––attŒ - Vin. I. 174. It is also said that the Buddha legislated for the exclusion of guilty monks from the PavŒraöŒ. This gives the PavŒraöŒ the appearance of a solemn conclave for it is said that the PavŒraöŒ is laid down only for the Saºgha who are united : bhagavatŒ kho Œvuso samaggŒnaµ pavŒraöŒ pa––attŒ - Vin. I. 174. The same idea of ritualistic purity which came to be associated with the recital of the PŒtimokkha seems also to be at work in the PavŒraöŒ. The request made to the Saºgha at the PavŒraöŒ to sit in judgement over one's conduct (saºghaµ Œvuso pavŒremi.... Vin. I. 159) would thus be made a formal and meaningless one. We would refer the reader to Vin. I. 175. for various other details concerning the ritual of the PavŒraöŒ.

(Page 107)

What becomes clear from all these is the fact that both these rituals of PŒtimokkha and PavŒraöŒ had, at the time of their origin, a similarity of purpose. They both strove for the maintenance of good monastic discipline and communal harmony. As such, they counted on the loyal co-operation and the sincerity and the integrity of the members of the Saºgha. Partisan rivalries and petty considerations were not provided for. But the history of these two institutions as recorded in the Vinaya PiÊaka shows that, contrary to expectations, these disruptive forces contributed considerably to the modification of the character of these institutions. The PŒtimokkha and the PavŒraöŒ, we are compelled to regard as being extremely simple in their origin and they also appear to have been characteristically direct in operation. We have shown in this essay, as far as possible, how changes set in ere long, prompted by diverse circumstances, and how the PŒtimokkha and the PavŒraöŒ acquired in course of time a very formal and rigidly ritualistic character so divorced from their original spirit. The fossilised remains of the older versions which are embedded in places in the present form of these rituals reveal, even though unwittingly, these marked divergences.

(Page 108)

CHAPTER X

In Buddhist monasticism disciplinary action against offenders proceeds primarily from the authority of the PŒtimokkha which was promulgated to regulate the life of the monk. However, four different types of situations which necessitate disciplinary action or legal proceedings (referred to as adhikaraöa) are recognised both in the Sutta and Vinaya PiÊakas (CaÊtŒr ' imŒni Œnanda adhikaraöŒni. KatamŒni cattŒri. VivŒdŒdhikaraöaµ anuvŒdŒdhikaraöaµ ŒpattŒdhikaraöaµ kiccŒdhikaraöaµ. ImŒni kho Œnanda cattŒri adhikaraöŒni - M. II. 247. Also: Adhikaraöaµ nŒma cattŒri adhikaraöŒni vivŒdhikaraöaµ anuvŒdŒdhikaraöaµ ŒpattŒdhikaraöaµ kiccŒdhikaraöaµ - Vin. III. 164. See further Vin. II. 88 ; IV.126.) They are VivŒdŒdhikaraöa, AnuvŒdŒdhikaraöa, îpattŒdhikaraöa and KiccŒdhikaraöa. Of these, the îpattŒdhikaraöa includes offences which come under the transgressions listed in the PŒtimokkha. The Khandhakas speak of this as consisting of the fivefold and the sevenfold groups of îpatti or offences which are essentially the burden of the PŒtimokkha (Tattha katamaµ ŒpattŒdhikaraöaµ. Pa–ca ' pi ŒpattikkhandhŒ ŒpattŒdhikaraöaµ satta ' pi ŒpattikkhandhŒ ŒpattŒdhikaraöaµ. Idaµ vuccati ŒpattŒdhikaraöaµ - Vin. II. 88.). This, more than the others, has relevance to the personal, moral well-being of the disciple. The rest are VivŒdŒdhikaraöa or disputes arising within the community pertaining to matters of the Dhamma or the Vinaya, AnuvŒdŒdhikaraöa or accusation of fellow-members and KiccŒdhikaraöa or disturbances resulting from the failure to observe proper procedure in all monastic acts. These latter three adhikaraöa appear to show greater concern fot the solidarity of the monastic community and the concord among its members.

It has already been observed that the Vinaya PiÊaka takes cognizance of both these aspects of discipline, of the individual as well as of the group, and provides for the correction of offences and omissions which violate its injunctions. Nevertheless, its claim to discipline the Buddhist disciple is only in terms of word and deed. Thus it emphasises the point that in the achievement of monastic discipline the Vinaya with its additional power of prosecution does not replace the contents of the Dhamma but only helps to augment it. For, it is the Dhamma which takes into its domain the discipline of the mind. Buddhaghosa records for us a definition of the Vinaya which corroborates this (KŒyikavŒcasika-ajjhŒcŒranisedhanato c ' esa kŒyaµ vŒca– ca vineti tasmŒ vividhanayattŒ visesanayattŒ kŒyavŒcŒna– ca vinayanato vinayo ' ti akkhŒto - VinA.I.19.).

Thus all disciplinary action contemplated in the Vinaya would naturally be expected to proceed against transgressions through word and deed. The only notable exception to this assumption seems to be the Ukkhepaniya-kamma or the Act of Suspension, which besides being intended for the offences of not admitting and not atoning for one's transgressions, is also recommended for holding fast to a heresy .(... pŒpikŒya diÊÊhiyŒ appaÊinissagge - Vin.II. 26). This latter consideration, however, is to be placed under the category of verbal offences, for it comes to be declared an offence under PŒcittiya 68 only after the wrong view is stated and affirmed and the offender refuses to desist from doing so. Even at this stage, when the wrong view is challenged by the rest of the community, if the offender is willing to give it up, he is absolved of the guilt, It is his unwillingness to give up his view and desist from saying so which brings upon him the specific accusation under PŒcittiya 68. Under the imposition of Ukkhepaniya-kamma too, the miscreant is first asked to refrain from giving expression to false views and thereby make groundless charges against the Buddha (MŒ ' vuso ariÊÊha evaµ avaca mŒ bhagavantaµ abbhŒcikkhi na hi sŒdhu bhagavato abbhakkhŒnaµ na hi bhagavŒ evaµ vadeyya - Vin.II. 25. Also Vin.IV.134.). If the offender continues to do so inspite of these requests then he is punished with an Ukkhepaniya-kamma. For when members of the monastic community hold fast to such views and give public expression to them it would be damaging to the beliefs of the rest.

(Page 109)

It would also discredit the community in the eyes of the public. Buddhaghosa appears to see in this Act of Suspension a relevance to the maintenance of monastic concord. The term diÊÊhi which occurs in the clause pŒpikŒya diÊÊhiyŒ appaÊinissagge under the Ukkhepaniya-kamma is defined by Buddhaghosa as views which would lead to factions and disturbances in the Saºgha (Bhaö¶ana-kŒrako ' ti Œdisu yaµ diÊÊhiµ nissŒya bhaö¶anŒd´ni karoti tassŒ appaÊinissagge y ' eva kammaµ kŒtabbaµ - VinA.VI.1159.).

Although this offence of holding fast to a heresy is included in the PŒtimokkha under the lighter category of PŒcittiya offences, yet it is clear from the evidence of the PŒtimokkha itself that it was treated with greater concern than the rest. The PŒtimokkha makes no mention of the Ukkhepaniya-kamma in this connexion. However, it is clear from PŒcittiya 69 which follows the incident of holding fast to a heresy that the offender is subjected to the Ukkhepaniya-kamma and is punished with a total boycott (Yo pana bhikkhu jŒnaµ tathŒvŒdinŒ bhikkhunŒ akatŒnudhammena taµ diÊÊhiµ appaÊinissaÊÊhena saddhiµ sambhu–jeyya vŒ saha vŒ seyyaµ kappeyya pŒcittiyaµ - Vin.IV.137.). In effect, this is what comes out of the Ukkhepaniya-kamma. The Old Commentary in the Suttavibhaºga, on the other hand, uses the word ukkhitto with reference to the offender who has been so punished (AkatŒnudhammo nŒma ukkhitto anosŒrito - Ibid.). This is further corroborated by the UkkhittŒnuvattaka PŒrŒjika rule of the Bhikkhunis which refers to the offending Bhikkhu who is not to be followed by the Bhikkhunis as ukkhitta which means that he has been punished under the Ukkhepaniya-kamma. All these make it quite clear that as a form of punishment the Ukkhepaniya seems to have been in vogue fairly early in the history of the SŒsana. Buddhaghosa readily indentifies what is alluded to in the PŒtimokkha under PŒcittiya 69 with the punishment of Ukkhepaniya kamma (AkatŒnudhammenŒ ' ti anudhammo ' ti vuccati ŒpattiyŒ adassane vŒ appaÊikamme vŒ pŒpikŒya diÊÊhiyŒ appaÊinissage vŒ dhammena vinayena ukkhittassa anulomavattaµ disvŒ katosaraöŒ so osaraöasaºkhŒto anudhammo yassa na kato ayaµ akatŒnudhammo nŒma - Kkvt. 127.).

The code of the PŒtimokkha itself, in its details of disciplinary procedure, recommends certain forms of penalties for the categories of major offences. The PŒrŒjika, being the gravest of the monastic offences, admits of no remedies or atonements. The penalty for PŒrŒjika offences being complete ex-communication and loss of monastic status, it is spontaneously brought about by the commission of the crime. Thus, the disciplinary action on the PŒrŒjika offences requires no details of procedure. The Saºgha has only to take note of the fact that the offender is no more one of their fold and that they have no dealings with him : na labhati bhikkhèhi saddhiµ saµvŒsaµ yathŒ pure tathŒ pacchŒ pŒrŒjiko hoti asaµvŒso - Vin.III.109. The Vinaya appears to refer to this briefly as the process of destruction or extermination (So ce bhikkhave cudito bhikkhu pŒrŒjikaµ ajjhŒpanno ' ti paÊijŒnŒti nŒsetvŒ saºghena pavŒretabbaµ - Vin.I.173.).

All offences other than the PrŒjika are remediable in that every offender, barring one who is guilty of a PŒrŒjika offence, who submits himself to the specified penalties and punishments and behaves himself in accordance with the law is considered as being purged of his guilt. The SaºghŒdisesas include a host of offences for which specified penalties are to be imposed by the Saºgha,

(Page 110)

taking into consideration the circumstances attendant on the commission of the crime. The Cullavagga draws a definite distinction between SaºghŒdisesa offences which are confessed forthwith on the day of commission and those which have been concealed from the Saºgha for any length of time. They are termed apaÊicchanna and paÊicchanna respectively. Buddhaghosa reckons this period of concealment as extending, theoretically, to over sixty years (Tato paraµ atirekasaµvaccharaµ dvisaµvaccharaµ evaµ yŒva saÊÊhisaµvaccharaµ atirekasaÊÊhisaµvaccharapaÊicchannan ' ti - Kkvt. 49.). However, the code of the PŒtimokkha makes no special mention of the former group of apaÊicchanna or offences which are confessed soon after commission.

The Cullavagga which discusses the details of disciplinary procedure in relation to SaºghŒdisesa offences recommends different disciplinary measures for the two categories mentioned above. The penalty that is prescribed for a SaºghŒdisesa offence which has not been concealed is a very direct one. The Saºgha is called upon to impose on the offender, at his request, the penalty of MŒnatta for a period of six days (Vyattena bhikkhunŒ paÊibalena saºgho –Œpetabbo. SuöŒtu me bhante saºgho. Ayaµ udŒyi bhikkhu ekaµ Œpattiµ Œpajji sa–cetanikaµ sukkavissaÊÊhiµ apaÊicchannaµ. So saºghaµ ekissŒ ŒpattiyŒ sa–cetanikŒya sukkavissaÊÊhiyŒ apaÊicchannŒya chŒrattaµ mŒnattaµ yŒcati. Yadi saºghassa pattakallaµ saºgho udŒyissa bhikkhuno ekissŒ ŒpattiyŒ sa–cetanikŒya sukkavissaÊÊhiyŒ apaÊicchannŒya chŒrattaµ mŒnattaµ dadeyya. EsŒ –atti - Vin. II. 38.). Commenting on these injunctions Buddhaghosa states that irrespective of the considerations of confession or concealment, the miscreant incurs this penalty of MŒnatta by the mere commission of the offence (Tattha apaÊicchanna-mŒnattaµ nŒma yaµ apaÊicchannŒya ŒpattiyŒ parivŒsaµ adatvŒ kevalaµ Œpattiµ ŒpannabhŒven ' eva mŒnattŒrahassa mŒnattaµ diyyati - VinA.VI.1171.). This penalty of MŒnatta is also recommended as the concluding phase of the disciplinary action taken against SaºghŒdisesa offences which have been concealed and for which the penalty known as ParivŒsa is first imposed on the offender (ParivutthaparivŒsena bhikkhunŒ uttariµ chŒrattaµ bhikkhumŒnattŒya paÊipajjitabbaµ - Vin.III.186. Also : So' haµ parivutthaparivŒso saºghaµ ekissŒ ŒpattiyŒ sa–cetanikŒya sukkavissaÊÊhiyŒ ekŒhapaÊicchannŒya chŒrattaµ mŒnattaµ yŒcŒmi - Vin.II. 41.).

In the case of a SaºghŒdisesa offence which has been deliberately concealed, disciplinary action commences with the penalty of ParivŒsa which is imposed for the same number of days up to which the offence had been concealed. The concealment of an offence committed by oneself was a disconcerting breach of monastic decorum and it was seen in the study of the PŒtimokkha how every precaution was taken to safeguard against such situations (SaramŒno santiµ Œpattiµ n ' Œvikareyya sampajŒnamusŒvŒd'assa hoti - Vin.I.103.). PŒcittiya 64 declares it an offeence even to aid and abet in such a situation (Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa jŒnaµ duÊÊhullaµ Œpattiµ paÊicchŒdeyya pŒcittiyaµ - Vin.IV.127.). No monk shall knowingly shield an offender who is guilty of a duÊÊhullŒ Œpatti, i.e. a PŒrŒjika or SaºghŒdisesa offence. The concern with which attempts to conceal such offences are treated is witnessed in this penalty of ParivŒsa. According to the Cullavagga, a monk who is guilty of concealing a SaºghŒdisesa offence which he has committed, must go before the Saºgha and confess to them his error. He must then request the Saºgha to impose on him first the ParivŒsa penalty for the number of days the offence had been concealed. It is only after the offender has behaved himself perfectly well under the penalty of ParivŒsa for concealing his offence, that MŒnatta, the penalty for the actual SaºghŒdisesa offence, would be imposed.

The injunctions of the PŒtimokkha regarding this penalty of ParivŒsa make it clear that as a manual of disciplinary procedure the PŒtimokkha maintained an authoritative enforcement of penalties and punishments, even though on an impersonal note. This is clearly recognised in the GopakamoggallŒna Sutta where it is stated that punishment is meted out not on the authority of persons but solely on the authority of the Dhamma (Tasmi– ce bha––amŒne hoti bhikkhussa Œpatti

(Page 111)

hoti v´tikkamo taµ mayaµ yathŒdhammaµ ythŒsatthaµ kŒremŒ ' ti. Na kira no bhavanto kŒrenti dhammo no kŒret´ ' ti. - M.III.10.). The monk who has concealed the SaºghŒdisesa offence he has committed must, according to the PŒtimokkha, submit himself to the penalty of ParivŒsa. even if it were not to his liking (UddiÊÊhŒ kho Œyasmanto terasa saºghŒdisesŒ dhammŒ nava paÊhamŒpattikŒ cattŒro yŒvatatiyakŒ yesaµ bhikkhu a––ataraµ vŒ a––ataraµ vŒ ŒpajjitvŒ yŒvatihaµ jŒnaµ paÊicchŒdeti tŒvatihaµ tena bhikkhunŒ akŒmŒ parivatthabbaµ - Vin.III.186.). The injunctions of the PŒtimokkha introduce this penalty with a note of compulsion. This attitude is also held by schools besides the Theriya. The PrŒtimok©asètra of the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins records the same idea (Uddi©tŒ mayŒyu©mantastrayodasa saºghŒva§e©Œ dharmŒh... tena akŒmatah paryu©itavyaµ - IHQ.vol. 29. 2. p.174.). The PrŒtimok©asètra of the MahŒsaºghikas puts it in the following form : ....tena bhiksunŒ akŒmaparivŒsaµ parivasitavyaµ.

The Vinaya PiÊaka knows of two forms of ParivŒsa, one as a period of punishment and the other as a period of probation. As a form of punishment it pertains, as was shown above, to the members of the Buddhist Order and is recommended as a penalty for a Bhikkhu who is guilty of a SaºghŒdisesa offence and had knowingly concealed it from the Saºgha. Thus it is known by the name of PaÊicchannaparivŒsa, the term ApaÊicchannaparivŒsa consequently being used for the period of probation applicable to members of other heretic groups. Hence it is also called TitthiyaparivŒsa. The PaÊicchannaparivŒsa is to be imposed even against the will of the offender for the number of days the offence had been concealed. This is followed by the further penalty of MŒnatta for six more days. Both these penalties being satisfactorily concluded the monk who has been subjected to them is reinstated by the Act of AbbhŒna by the properly constituted body of twenty monks. If the number were to be less even by one, then this reinstatement would be rendered invalid (ciööamŒnatto bhikkhu yattha siyŒ v´satigaöo bhikkhusaºgho tattha so bhikkhu abbhetabbo. Ekena' pi ce èöo v´satigaöo bhikkhusaºgho taµ bhikkhuµ abbheyya so ca bhikkhu anabbhato te ca bhikkhè gŒrayhŒ - Vin.III.186.)

The Khandhakas make further provision for new situations where a monk may lapse into error again during the period of his sentence. If, at the time of his second offence which he confesses forthwith, he is still serving his period of ParivŒsa for the first offence which he had concealed, or has just finished the period of ParivŒsa but not started on his MŒnatta, then he is called upon to serve his period of ParivŒsa over again. But if the second ofence is committed during the period of MŒnatta or when he is about to be reinstated on the completion of it, then he shall serve only the full period of MŒnatta again. If on the other hand, the second offence is concealed for any length of time, irrespective of the time of its commission, whether during the period of ParivŒsa or MŒnatta, the penalty of ParivŒsa is to be gone through over again for which ever is the longer period of concealment. This is called the combined penalty or SamodhŒnaparivŒsa, as the periods of punishment for the different offences are to run concurrently and not successively. This renewal of punishment to serve a sentence again either under MŒnatta or under ParivŒsa is known as MèlŒya-paÊikassana or ' being dragged to the begnning '. The Khandhakas deal with several such situations of diverse complexity. But it is not within the scope of the present study to go into a detailed analysis of these. Hence the reader is referred to the Cullavagga for fuller details.

Both these penalties of ParivŒsa and MŒnatta are characterised by the humiliation to which they subject the offender. Under the proper behaviour recommended (sammŒ vattanŒ) for those serving a period of ParivŒsa or MŒnatta (parivŒsika and mŒnattacŒrika), it is repeatedly mentioned that he who is guilty and is placed under a penalty should make it known to the rest of the Bhikkhus. The parivŒsika and the mŒnattaŒrika should as both guest and host inform the other Bhikkhus of their position (ParivŒsikena bhikkhunŒ Œgantukena Œrocetabbaµ Œgantukassa Œrocetabbaµ - Vin.II. 32.). They should also announce it at the regular assemblies of Uposatha and PavŒraöŒ. Even in case of illness

(Page 112)

when personal attendance may not be possible, they should communicate it through a messenger, who according to the Commentary should be a full-fledged monk and not an anupasampanna. The mŒnattacŒrika has the additional burden of announcing the fact of his being under a penalty each day. The Khandhakas also decree against all attempts of a parivŒsika or mŒnattacŒrika to evade informing the fellow members that he is under a penalty. It is said, for instance, that during this period he should not take to the vow of forest-residence in order to avoid meeting others who come to his residence, or take to the vow of begging for his meals so that he may avoid occupying the last of the seats which he would have to accept in the alms-hall as a part of the penalty. (Na ara––ikaºgaµ ' ti ŒgatŒgatŒnaµ Œrocetuµ harŒyamŒnena ara––ikadhutaºgaµ na samŒdŒtabbaµ .... tathŒ bhattaggŒdisu Œsanapariyante nisajjŒya harŒyamŒnena piö¶apŒtikadhutaºgaµ ' pi na samŒdŒtabbaµ - VinA.VI.164.). In brief, no person who is under these penalties of ParivŒsa or MŒnatta should make a secret of it to felow-members (MŒ maµ jŒniµsè ' ti mŒ maµ ekabhikkhu pi jŒnŒtè ' ti iminŒ ajjhŒsayena vihŒre sŒmaöerehi pacŒpetvŒ bhu–jituµ ' pi na labhati gŒmaµ piö¶Œya pavisitabbaµ eva - VinA.VI.1165.).

All these considerations discussed above are listed under the ninetyfour observances which are laid down as the pattern of conduct (catunavuti-parivŒsikavatta) for the Bhikkhu under the penalty of ParivŒsa and are more or less identical with those for the mŒnattacŒrika. As in most other forms of disciplinary action in Buddhist monasticism, here too, under these penalties, a number of privileges which a monk is normally entitled to enjoy are withdrawn from him. His authority is reduced and his freedom of action is curtailed. We reproduce below the first 18 items of catunavuti-parivŒsikavatta which are common to both the penalties of ParivŒsa and MŒnatta as well as to all acts of punishment or daö¶akamma, viz. Tajjaniya, Nissaya, PabbŒjaniya, PaÊisŒraöiya and Ukkhepaniya for not giving up a heresy. The Ukkhepaniya kamma for the refusal to recognise one's transgressions, and the failure to make amends for them has 25 more conditions added to these, thus bringing up the total to 43 (tecattŒr´savatta: Vin. II. 25.).

1. Not act as the preceptor of another for the conferment of upasampadŒ : na upasampŒdetabbaµ.
1. Not undertake to offer tutelage to another: na nissayo dŒtabbo.
1. Not take in a sŒmaöera anew or accept the services of another who has been with him: na sŒmaero upaÊÊhŒpetabbo.
1. Not allow himself to be elected to give counsel to the Bhikkhunis: na bhikkhuniovŒdasammuti sŒditabbŒ.
1. Not avail himself of that opportunity even if it has been assigned to him: sammatena ' pi bhikkhuniyo na ovaditabbŒ.
1. Not be guilty of an offence of the type for which he has been put under the particular penalty : yŒya ŒpattiyŒ saºghena parivŒso dinno hoti sŒ Œpatti na ŒpajjitabbŒ.
1. Not be guilty of another offence similar to it: a––Œ vŒ tŒdisikŒ.
1. Not be guilty of anything worse: tato vŒ pŒpiÊÊhatarŒ.
1. Not despise or challenge the validity of the disciplinary action taken against him: kammaµ na garahitabbaµ.
1. Not despise those who did it: kammikŒ na garahitabbŒ.
1. Not suspend the Uposatha of another monk who is better than himself: na pakatattassa bhikkhuno uposatho Êhapetabbo.
1. Not suspend the PavŒraöŒ of such a monk: na pavŒraöŒ ÊhapetabbŒ.

(Page 113)

13. Not assume authority to issue orders on disciplinary matters to such a monk : na savacan´yaµ kŒtabbaµ. This explanation of savacan´yaµ kŒtabbaµ is derived from the Commentary (VinA.VI.1163) to which the Sub-commentary adds this further note: evaµ attano ŒöŒya pavattanakakammaµ na kŒtabban ' ti adhippŒyo.Vimativinodan´ T´kŒ 449.
14. Not assume leadership at monastic functions : na anuvŒdo paÊÊhapetabbo. For this explanation too, we lean on the Commentary : na anuvŒdo ' ti vihŒrajeÊÊhakaÊÊhŒnaµ na kŒtabbaµ pŒtimokkhuddesakena vŒ dhammajjhesakena vŒ na bhavitabbaµ - VinA.VI.1163.
15. Not ask another monk who is better than himself for an opportunity to accuse him of an offence : na okŒso kŒretabbo.
16. Not aaccuse another monk who is better than himself of an offence : na codetabbo.
17. Not remind anoter monk who is better than himself of his offence : na sŒretabbo.
18. Not quarrel with members of the community nor incite them against one another: na bhikkhèhi sampayojetabbaµ. See Commentary : VinA.VI.1156,1163.

These conditions may broadly be classified as follows : 1-5 involve a considerable reduction in the power and prestige enjoyed by the monks in their normal daily life. A monk must, during the term of the penalty, renounce his authority over his pupils and decline the services offered to him by them. He is not only deprived of his power and position but according to the Commentary is also made to inform his pupils and the nuns who come to him about the penalty to which he is subjected (Upajjhaµ datvŒ gahitasŒmaöerŒ ' pi vattabbŒ ahaµ vinayakammaµ karomi. Mayhaµ vattaµ mŒ karotha mŒ maµ gŒmappavesanaµ ŒpucchathŒ ' ti... ŒgatŒ ca bhikkhuniyo saºghassa santikaµ gacchatha saºgho vo ovŒdadŒyakaµ jŒnissat´ ' ti vŒ ahaµ vinayakammaµ karomi asukabhikkhussa nŒma santikaµ gacchatha so ovŒdaµ dassat´ ti vŒ vattabbŒ - VinA.VI.1162.). 6-8 reiterate the old ideal in monastic discipline of Œyati saµvara or the safeguard against the recurrence of an offence which has once been committed. 9 and 10 provide that the machinery which regulates the discipline of monastic life would not be thrown out of gear by the miscreants who have been brought under punishment. The power of prosecution must thus be maintained unimpaired.11-17 concern themselves with the proper and responsible exercise of disciplinary powers by those whose conduct is beyond reproach, so that it may command from those who are subordinated to it the highest respect as being fair and just. Thus a monk who is subjected to a penalty or punishment is barred from exercising such powers. 18 serves as a perfect safeguard against possible onslaughts on the communal harmony of the Saºgha by embittered offenders who are subjected to penalties and punishments.

We have shown above that the penalty of PaÊicchannaparivŒsa which is imposed on a monk who is guilty of concealing a SaºghŒdisesa offence is followed by a further penalty of six days of MŒnatta (ParivutthaparivŒsena bhikkhunŒ uttariµ chŒrattaµ bhikkhumŒnattŒya paÊipajjitabbaµ - Vin.III.186.). This, according to the commentarial tradition, is intended for the purpose of reconciliation of the miscreant with the fellow-members (BhikkhumŒnattŒyŒ ' ti bhikkhènaµ mŒnanabhŒvŒya ŒrŒdhanatthŒya iti vuttaµ hoti - KaºkhŒvitaraö´ 51.). This clearly shows that the offender loses favour with the members of the community by his violation of monastic regulations. It also shows the degree of collective responsibility for the maintenance of discipline. The community as a whole would be slighted by such a breach of discipline. This point is further emphasised in the text of the MèlasarvŒstivŒda PrŒtimok©asètra which has saºghamŒnatva corresponding to bhikkhumŒnatta of the Pali text, thus addressing the amends and atonements which the miscreant is called upon to make to the collective organisation. The MèlasarvŒstivŒda PrŒtimok©asètra has also these additional words in this context which are not found in the Pali text: K¨tŒnudharmah bhik©usaºghasya ŒrŒdhitacitto.

(Page 114)

These seem to be supporting the Pali commentarial explanation of MŒnatta as bhikkhènaµ mŒnanabhŒvŒya ŒrŒdhanatthŒya. The MahŒsaºghika PrŒtimok©asètra has only k¨tŒnudharmah and leaves out the words Bhik©usaºghasya ŒrŒdhitacitto of the MèlasarvŒstivŒda version. But it speaks of mŒnatva as bhik©usaºghe mŒnatvaµ caritavyaµ.

ParivŒsa as a period of probation pertains to persons who, having been previously members of any other heretic group, latterly seek admision to the Buddhist order. Every such person is put under probation for a specified period of four months during which he must conduct himself honourably to the satisfaction of the Bhikkhus in authority (Yo kho seniya a––atitthiyapubbo imasmiµ dhammavinaye Œkaºhkati pabbajjaµ Œkaºkhati upasampadaµ so cattŒro mŒse parivasati catunnaµ mŒsŒnaµ accayena ŒraddhacittŒ bhikkhè pabbŒjenti upasampŒdenti bhikkhubhŒvŒya - M.I. 391.). In the text of the Khandhakas, the Aggika JaÊilas or fire-worshipping matted-hair ascetics are exempted from this on consideration of their religious views (Ye te bhikkhave aggikŒ jaÊilakŒ te ŒgatŒ upasampŒdetabbŒ na tesaµ parivŒso dŒtabbo. Taµ kissa hetu. KammavŒdino ete bhikkhave kiriyavŒdino - Vin.I. 71.). It is recorded that the SŒkiyas also are exempted. The Buddha, according to the Commentary, held the view that the SŒkiyas, out of respect for the founder as their greatest kinsman, would do nothing to discredit the religion. (Te hi titthŒyatane pabbajitŒ ' pi sŒsanassa avaööakŒmŒ na honti. AµhŒkaµ –ŒtiseÊÊhassa sŒsanan ' ti vaööavŒdino ' va honti. TasmŒ evaµ Œha - VinA.V. 995.). The commentary also insists that this Titthiya-parivŒsa applies only to the naked ascetics (Ayaµ titthiyaparivŒso nŒma apaÊicchannaparivŒso ' ti ' pi vuccati. Ayaµ pana naggaparibbŒjakass ' eva Œjivakassa vŒ acelakassa vŒ dŒtabbo ... Tattha titthiyaparivŒso nigaöÊhajŒtikŒnaµ y ' eva dŒtabbo na a––esaµ - Ibid. 990 f.).

According to the Khandhakas the newcomer is made to don the yellow robe after his head and beard have been shaven and is admitted to the order as a sŒmaöera by the act of professing faith thrice in the Buddha, Dhamma and the Saºgha. Showing respect to the accepted monastic tradition, he is made to request the Saºgha to put him under four months probation so that he may qualify for upasampadŒ or higher monastic status. During this period the noviciate must satisfy the Saºgha (ŒrŒdhako hoti ) by his conduct, efficiency and loyalties and convince them that he deserves the higher monastic status in the Buddhist Saºgha. For this he should qualify himself in terms of eight considerations which are referred to as aÊÊhavatta. He should acquire habits which are acceptable to the monastic life such as going out to and returning from the village at proper times. As a celibate he should maintain his chastity. He should adapt himself to perform with interest and efficiency the various monastic duties that devolve on him as a member of the Saºgha. He should not be lacking in interest and enthusiasm for the development of his religious life. The next four out of the eight duties which he is called upon to perform seem to concern themselves with the clash of loyalties between the old and the new faiths. If the new comer still feels angered when his former faith or its propounder is criticised and is happy when the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saºgha are subjected to ridicule, then he is deemed unworthy of full membership in the Buddhist Order. On the other hand, if he rejoices at the praise of his old faith and frowns at the eulogy of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Saºgha the same verdict is pronounced on him. When the noviciate has thus satisfied the Saºgha (ŒrŒdhitacittŒ ' ti aÊÊhavattassa pèraöena tuÊÊhacittŒ - MA.III.106) and qualified himself in terms of these basic requirements for Buddhist monastic life, upasampadŒ is conferred upon him without further delay (Evaµ ŒrŒdhako kho bhikkhave a––atitthiyapubbo Œgato upasampŒdetabbo - Vin.I. 71.).

The Sutta PiÊaka refers in more than one place to the prevalence of this practice of imposing TitthiyaparivŒsa in Buddha's own time. The Kukkuravatika Sutta records that the Buddha himself informs Seniya who was a naked ascetic practising the ' canine way ' of the general Buddhist practice of TitthiyaparivŒsa when he sought admission to the Buddhist monastic life (Yo kho seniya a––atitthiyapubbo imasmiµ dhammavinaye Œkaºkhati pabajjaµ Œkaºkhati upasampadaµ so cattŒro mŒse parivasati.

(Page 115)

Catunnaµ mŒsŒnaµ accayena ŒraddhacittŒ bhikkhè pabbŒjenti upasampŒdenti bhikkhubhŒvŒya. Api ca m ' ettha puggalavemattatŒ viditŒ - M.I. 391.). A similar incident occurs in the MahŒvacchagotta Sutta with reference to the ParibbŒjaka Vacchagotta and in the MŒgandiya Sutta with reference to the ParibbŒjaka MŒgandiya. In the MahŒparinibbŒna Sutta we come across the story of Subhadda, the last disciple of the Buddha who as an a––atitthiyapubba was treated similarly by him. The Saµyutta NikŒya gives us the story of Acela Kassapa who receives similar treatment in the hands of the Buddha. However, the Buddha admits in all these cases that the persons concerned are not of the general type contemplated, and that he would hence exempt them from the general requirement. On the other hand, we find Seniya and the rest expressing their willingness to stand the trial and go under probation, not only for four months but even for four years, in order to be admitted to the Buddhist Order. Buddhaghosa, who presents them as recognising the purpose of this test, stresses thereby the fact already witnessed in the Khandhakas that this was a safeguard against the entry into the Order of men of fickle faith who change their former beliefs and seek new ones without much conviction (Tato seniyo cintesi aho acchariyaµ buddhasŒsanaµ yattha evaµ ghaµsitvŒ koÊÊetvŒ yuttaµ eva gaöhanti ayuttaµ cha¶¶ent´ ' ti - MA.III. 106). The Vinaya PiÊaka records instances of men who on the slightest provocation revert back to their old order (Tena kho pana samayena yo so a––atitthiyapubbo upajjhŒyena sahadhammikaµ vuccamŒno upajjhŒyassa vŒdaµ ŒropetvŒ taµ y ' eva titthŒyatanaµ saµkami - Vin.I. 69.).

On a careful examination of the above two versions of the TitthiyaparivŒsa as they appear in the Sutta and Vinaya PiÊakas, we notice a considerable difference between them. The statements in the Suttas clearly state that he who seeks admission to the Buddhist Order and higher monastic sgatus therein (pabbajjŒ and upasampadŒ) must go under probation for four months, after which the Bhikkhus in authority who are satisfied with his conduct admit him into the Order and confer on him the higher monastic status. Thus he is made a Bhikkhu only at the end of this period of probation (Catunnaµ mŒsŒnaµ accayena ŒraddhacittŒ bhikkhè pabbŒjenti upasampŒdenti bhikkhubhŒvŒya - M.I. 391.). This statement of the Sutta version is clear enough on the point that both pabbajjŒ and upasampadŒ come after the period of ParivŒsa. But this passage, which occurs in identical words both in the Majjhima and in the Saµyutta NikŒyas, seems to cause the commentator no small degree of embarrassment. This is unavoidably so because the tradition preserved in the Khandhakas on the imposition of TitthiyaparivŒsa is at variance with that of the Suttas which is presumably of pre- Khandhaka origin.

The details of the Khandhakas on this point place the ParivŒsa on the newcomer after his admission as a sŒmaöera. Here ParivŒsa is a qualifying test for the conferment of higher monastic status or upasampadŒ and not for admission to recluseship as it is in the Sutta versions (... pabbŒjenti upasampŒdenti bhikkhubhŒvŒya.). Hence Buddhaghosa, commenting on the above statements of the Suttas which place both pabbajjŒ and upasampadŒ after ParivŒsa, attempts to dismiss the word pabbajjŒ out of the context as having no meaning of its own (Tattha pabbajjan ' ti vacanasiliÊÊhatŒvasena vuttaµ - MA.III. 106; SA.II. 36f.). At the same time he explains the statements in the Suttas in the light of the Vinaya tradition. In his comments on the Suttas he quotes the version of the Khandhakas (Atha bhagavŒ yo so khandhake titthiyaparivŒso pa––atto yaµ a––atitthiyapubbo sŒmaöerabhèmiyaµ Êhito ... cattŒro mŒse parivŒsaµ yŒcŒm´ ' ti ŒdinŒ nayena samŒdiyitvŒ parivasati taµ sandhŒya yo kho seniya a––atitthiyapubbo ' ti Œdiµ Œha - Ibid.). He states categorically that the a––atitthiyapubba receives his ordination without serving the period of probation under ParivŒsa. It is only after being ordained as a sŒmaöera that he undertakes to serve the period of ParivŒsa in order to qualify for the conferment of upasampadŒ (AparivasitvŒ y ' eva hi pabbajjaµ labhati. Upasampadatthikena pana na atikŒlena gŒmapavesanŒd´ni aÊÊhavattŒni purentena parivasitabbaµ - Ibid.). In this attempt to read into the Suttas an apparently subsequent tradition of the

(Page 116)

Khandhakas, we see the commentator striving to accord with the tradition of the Vinaya which, in course of time, seems to have overstepped some of the traditions of the Suttas on these monastic matters. However, even in the Khandhakas, all details which pertain to the imposition of ParivŒsa on an a––atitthiyapubba who wishes to join the Buddhist Order seem to follow from a statement which reads more or less the same as in the Suttas.

Nevertheless, in the matter of details, we see a divergence in these two accounts.

As against the fossilised traditions of the Suttas which refer to monastic practices, the Vinaya PiÊaka, specially the Khandhakas, reveal a more active and living spirit. As such, it provides within its framework for new situations and changing conditions. This tendency becomes abundantly clear when we study in the Khandhakas the history of the acts of pabbajjŒ and upasampadŒ. In the early history of the SŒsana, all new converts to the faith who wished to enter the monastic life were admitted by the Buddha himself at their request. They express their desire in the stereotyped formula which states that they seek pabbajjŒ and upasampadŒ under the Buddha (LabheyyŒ ' haµ bhante bhagavato santike pabbajjaµ labheyyaµ upasampadan ' ti - Vin.I.12.). The Buddha then merely invites them to come and live the monastic life, practising the Dhamma which is open to all, so that they may make a perfect end of all suffering (Ehi bhikkhu cara brahmacariyaµ sammŒ dukkhassa antakiriyŒyŒ ' ti - Ibid.). That invitation alone,says the text, constituted the conferment of full monastic status (SŒ ' va tassa Œyasmato upasampadŒ ahosi - Ibid.) But as Buddhism spread over wider territories and the new converts who sought the monastic life increased in numbers, the authority for admission could no longer be centralised in the person of the Buddha. Considering the practical difficulties of time and distance involved, the Buddha deems it fit to transfer this authority to his disciples (Etarahi kho bhikkhè nŒnŒ disŒ nŒnŒ janapadŒ pabbajjŒpekkhe ca upasampadŒpekkhe ca Œnenti bhagavŒ ne pabbŒjessati upasampŒdeasat´ ' ti. Tattha bhikkhè c ' eva kilamanti pabbajjŒpekkhŒ ca upasampadŒpekkhŒ ca. YannènŒ ' haµ bhikkhènaµ anujŒneyyaµ tumh ' eva ' dŒni bhikkhave tŒsu tŒsu disŒsu tesu tesu janapadesu pabbŒjetha upasampŒdethŒ ' ti - Vin.I. 22.) Henceforth, by a simple avowal of faith in the Buddha, Dhamma and Saºgha the new converts are to gain both pabbajjŒ and upasampadŒ (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave imehi t´hi saraöagamanehi pabbajjaµ upasampadan ' ti - Ibid.). But the power vested in the disciples, as individuals, for the conferment of upasampadŒ in the above manner was soon withdrawn and the collective organization of the Saºgha made the sole authority for that. This change, no doubt, must have come about with the growing importance of upasampadŒ as the hallmark of full membership in the monastic Order and the possible indiscreet conferment of it according to individual whims and fancies. UpasampadŒ is now to be conferred by a formal resolution before the Saºgha, informing the members of the Saºgha of the identity of the applicant and his preceptor (YŒ sŒ bhikkhave mayŒ t´hi saraöagamanehi upasampadŒ anu––ŒtŒ tŒ ' haµ ajjatagge paÊikkhipŒmi. AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave –atticatutthena kammena upasampŒdetuµ

(Page 117)

Eva– ca pana bhikkhave upasampŒdetabbo. Vyattena bhikkunŒ paÊibalena saºgho –Œpetabbo suöŒtu me bhante saºgho ayaµ itthannŒmo itthannŒmassa Œyasmato upasampadŒpekkho. Yadi saºghassa pattakallaµ saºgho itthannŒmaµ upasampŒdeyya itthannŒmena upajjhŒyena. EsŒ –atti - Vin.1.56.). The SamantapŒsŒdikŒ, in explaining the circumstances which brought about this change, says that the Buddha wished to attach greater dignity to the conferment of upasampadŒ by bringing it under the authority of the collective organization of the Saºgha (RŒdhabrŒhamaöavatthusmiµ kin–cŒ ' pi ŒyasmŒ sŒriputto bhagavatŒ bŒrŒöasiyaµ t´hi saraöagamanehi anu––Œtaµ pabbajja– c ' eva upasampada– ca jŒnŒti bhagavŒ pana taµ lahukaµ upasampadaµ paÊikkhipitvŒ –atticatutthakammena garukaµ katvŒ upasampadaµ anu––ŒtukŒmo. Atha ' ssa thero ajjhŒsayaµ viditvŒ kathŒ ' haµ bhante taµ brŒhmaöaµ pabbŒjemi upasampŒdem´ ' ti Œha - VinA.V. 983.).

On the other hand, we find the earlier act of pabbajjŒ by the avowal of faith in the tisaraöa which was coupled with the act of upasampadŒ reaffirmed in isolation under the new name of sŒmaöerapabbajjŒ (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave imehi t´hi saraöagamanehi sŒmaöerapabbajjan ' ti - Vin. I. 82.) This apparently reflects the phase of monasticism in which young converts were being admitted into the Order as noviciates or sŒmaöera with no immediate thoughts of upasampadŒ. Here, the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ suggests that this reaffirmation was necessary because of the possible misunderstanding regarding the performance of the act of pabbajjŒ after the act of upasampadŒ was isolated from it. Arguing that in the past pabbajjŒ and upasampadŒ were closely identified, the monks would be in doubt, it is said, whether the pabbajjŒ should now be performed like the upasampadŒ by the method of kammavŒcŒ or by the threefold avowal of faith in the original manner. The details of procedure in the imposition of TitthiyaparivŒsa as are described in the Khandhakas thus seem to follow from this distinction between the sŒmanerapabbajjŒ and upasampadŒ and hence the consequent deflection of the tradition in the Vinaya PiÊaka which now stands in marked contrast to the fossilised version of the Sutta PiÊaka.

(Page 118)

CHAPTER XI

In the Kammakkhandhaka of the Cullavagga we meet with another collection of disciplinary acts which are of a more general character in that, unlike the penalties of ParivŒsa and MŒnatta, they are not directly derived from the code of the PŒtimokkha. The Kammakkhandhaka has five different kammas or acts of punishment of varying degrees of severity which are recommended for certain shortcominga and reprehensible features in the behaviour of members of the monastic community. They are :

The following enumeration of monastic failings is given in the Cullavagga as applying to the Tajjaniya, Nissaya, PabbŒjaniya and Ukkhepaniya kammas.

If a Bhikkhu is marked by the qualities of any one of the above groups, the Sºgha may subject him to any one of the five kammas mentioned earlier barring the PaÊisŒraöiya. The PabbŒjaniya-kamma has besides these a few additions of its own which may be summed up as frivolity and misdemeanour through word and deed.

The PaÊisŒraöiya-kamma or the Act of Reconciliation is in a class by itself, in that it concerns itself solely with the relations of the monk with the laymen so far as he tends to damage the interests of the laymen and abuses the Buddha, Dhamma and the Saºgha in their presence. This punishment may be carried out on any monk who is guilty of any one of the offences mentioned in the two following groups:

(Page 119)

Some of these vicious aspects of character for which these punishments are laid down are, however, not unknown to the PŒtimokkha where they are recorded with a different emphasis in relation to its own regulations. These, when viewed in their entirety, are weaknesses which would possibly arise among the members of the Saºgha and are harmful to their religious perfection as well as the solidarity and well-being of their communal life against which not only the Vinaya but also some of the Suttas are eloquent.

Of these, the first and the most outstanding is the group of faults consisting of making strife, quarrels and disputes, and raising legal questions in the Saºgha. These are listed among the conditions which justify prosecution under four out of the five kamma. Monks who are makers of strife seem to have been a positive danger both to the religion and the monastic organization not only among the Buddhists but in other religious groups as well. It is recorded in the SŒmagŒma Sutta that soon after the death of NigaöÊhanŒtaputta, his disciples were divided and they quarrelled and disputed and reviled each other on what they called differences of opinion with regard to the teachings of their master (Tena kho pana samayena nigaöÊho nŒtaputto pŒvŒyaµ adhunŒ kŒlakato hoti. Tassa kŒlakiriyŒya bhinnŒ nigaöÊhŒ dvedhikajŒtŒ bhaö¶anajŒtŒ kalahajŒtŒ vivŒdŒpannŒ a––ama––aµ mukhasatt´hi vitudantŒ viharanti na tvaµ imaµ dhammavinayaµ ŒjŒnŒsi ahaµ dhammavinayaµ ŒjŒnŒmi......niggah´to ' si cara vŒdappamokkhŒya nibbeÊhehi vŒ sace pahos´ ' ti - M.II.243.). Thus they completely lost favour with their lay-followers. (Ye pi nigaöÊhassa nŒtaputtassa sŒvakŒ gih´ odŒtavasanŒ te ' pi nigaöÊhesu nŒtaputtiyesu nibbinnarupŒ virattarèpŒ paÊivŒöarupŒ yathŒ taµ durakkhŒte dhammavinaye..... bhinnathèpe appaÊisaraöe - Ibid..244)

The arrogance and intolerance with which the fellow-religionists despised the views of one another seems to have been the cause of most of these contentions. The Bahuvedaniya Sutta gives a very realistic analysis of the cause of such disputes. There the Buddha says that as far as his teaching is concerned, one should respect and endorse another's views if they conform to the proper canons. In the absence of such mutual respect and tolerance, the inevitable result would be strife and disunity, and people would go about attacking one another with pungent words. The Upakkilesa Sutta records one such instance where disturbances took place in alarming proportions during the life-time of the Buddha himself (Ekaµ samayaµ bhagavŒ kosambiyaµ viharati ghositŒrŒme. Tena kho pana samayena kosambiyaµ bhikkhè bhaö¶anajŒtŒ kalahajŒtŒ vivŒdŒpannŒ a––ama––aµ mukhasatt´hi vitudantŒ viharanti - M.III.152.). The Buddha, being unable to settle the dispute, leaves Kosambi in despair and comes to PŒc´navaµsadŒya where the three disciples Anuruddha, Nandiya and Kimbila are living in perfect concord (Taggha mayaµ bhante samaggŒ sammodamŒnŒ avivadamŒnŒ kh´rodak´bhètŒ a––ama––aµ piyacakkhèhi sampassantŒ viharŒmŒ ' ti - Ibid. 156.). They tell the Buddha that the secret of their success is mutual respect and consideration, and their determination to eliminate the spirit of self assertion. ' We value the company of our fellow-celibates ', each one of them says, ' and we bear nothing but love towards them in thought, word and deed at all times. We willingly fall in line with their likes and dislikes, and thus though we are many in body are only one in mind '(So kho ahaµ bhante sakaµ cittaµ nikkhipitvŒ imesaµ yeva ŒyasmantŒnaµ cittassa vasena vattŒmi. NŒnŒ hi kho no bhante kŒyŒ eka– ca pana ma––e cittan ' ti - Ibid.) We also find this story recorded in the Vinaya PiÊaka.

Speaking of the danger of disputes among the members of the Saºgha, the Buddha says in the SŒmagŒma Sutta that he considers the disputes over disciplinary matters (ajjhŒj´ve vŒ adhipŒtimokkhe vŒ) to be trifling when compared with possible disputes about the teaching or the religious

(Page 120)

life (magge vŒ paÊipadŒya vŒ) which would lead to the detriment and degeneration of great many beings. There is little doubt that the Buddha considered complete discipline in thought, word and deed as essential for all progress. But the above comments clearly show the relatively secondary importance which the Buddha attached to discipline in its mere outward form in contrast to the more fundamental teachings of the doctrine and their practice in the religious life. The Sutta makes a plea, and no legislation, for the elimination of the causes of these disputes which it analyses as consisting of the following:

The perpetuation of such vicious traits by those leading the monastic life, it is said, leads to their lack of respect and regard for the Buddha, Dhamma and the Saºgha and also to the neglect of their own religious life. It is in such a state of affairs that disputes and quarrels would arise among the members of the Saºgha (Yo so Œnanda bhikkhu kodhano hoti upanŒh´...... so satthari ' pi agŒravo viharati appatisso dhamme ' pi...... saºghe ' pi.... sikkhŒya ' pi na paripèrakŒr´ hoti... so saºghe vivŒdaµ janeti - M.II.245 f.). Thus we see that the Suttas approach the problem from a different angle. Leaving it to the Vinaya to legislate against such indiscipline the Suttas analyse the causes of these and attempt to remedy them by advocating personal inner development.

There are some items in the PŒtimokkha which seem to be related in some ways to those monastic failings, viz. disputes etc., referred to above. Their inclusion in the PŒtimokkha reveals the fact that they were not only prevalent in the early days of the SŒsana when the PŒtimokkha was being evolved, but that they were also considered serious enough in their day to be legislated against. Thus a number of minor regulations which are calculated to arrest such indiscipline expressing itself in different ways have come to be laid down. Although the violation of most of these regulations entail no serious punishments, they certainly reveal a stricter and sterner attitude to monastic indiscipline than the Suttas, which counted more on appeals and admonitions for ethical re-orientation. In addition to these disputes which are referred to both in the Vinaya and in the Suttas as bhaö¶ana, kalaha, and vivŒda, we find litigiousness (saºghe adhikaraöakŒraka) too, added to this group at times. The need for this addition evidently arose as a safeguard against the abuse of the machinery which is set up for the maintenance of monastic discipline. The history of SaºghŒdisesa 8 clearly shows how jealous and embittered persons within the monastic community may, in a spirit of revenge, misuse the law.

A close scrutiny of the details of these kamma show that they give to these Acts the widest scope and unrestricted authority for prosecution and punishment in the interests of the religion and the monastic organization. Development of character and cultivation of the religious life, fitting into the harmonious life of the community, maintaining proper relations with the laymen, all these come within the jurisdiction of these Kamma. They also watch over the loyalty to the religion and the Order to which the members belong. The PaÊisŒraöiyakamma makes special provision to safeguard the interests of the laymen in the hands of the monks. The monks are forbidden to do anything which damages the interests of the laymen or to bring about a cleavage between the religion and its lay patrons.

We give below the special situations in which these kamma as forms of punishment are said to have had their origin.

(Page 121)

The most comprehensive chapter in Buddhist monastic legislation comes to us in the Khandhakas under the section known as the Samathakkhandhaka. This deals with seven different ways (satta adhikaraöasamatha) by means of which, it is claimed, that all forms of disciplinary action within the monastic community could be carried out. The seven Adhikaraöasamathas are as follows.

1. SammukhŒvinaya : 'by a verdict in the presence of ' Vin.II. 73 f.

2. Sativinaya : 'by a verdict of innocence' Ibid. 74-80.

3. AmèÂhavinaya : 'by a verdict of past insanity' Ibid. 80-83.

4. PaÊi––Œtakaraöa : 'the carrying out on the acknowledgement' Ibid. 83 f.

5. YebhuyyasikΠ: 'by the decision of the majority' Ibid. 84 f.

6. TassapŒpiyyasikŒ : 'by an act of condemnation for specific depravity' Ibid.85 f.

7. TiöavatthŒraka : 'by the covering up with grass' Ibid. 86-88.

(Page 122)

These lay down procedure for the correction of monastic indiscipline, for the settlement of disputes and strifes among the members of the Saºgha, and for the valid execution of monastic Acts. There is very little doubt about the recognition and prestige which this section of the law enjoyed from the earliest times. For Adhikaraöas seem to have been a matter of common occurrence even in the early days of the SŒsana. The word is used in the sense of going into litigation, of charging a fellow-member of the Saºgha with an offence, maliciously or with valid reasons. The text of SaºghŒdisesa 8 bears testimony to this. (Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhuµ duÊÊho doso appat´to amèlakena pŒrŒjikena dhammena anuddhaµseyya app ' eva nŒma naµ imamhŒ brahmacariyŒ cŒveyyan ' ti. Tato aparena samayena samanuggŒhiyamŒno vŒ asamanuggŒhiyamŒno vŒ amèlak– c ' eva taµ adhikaraöaµ hoti bhikkhu ca dosaµ patiÊÊhŒti saºghŒdiseso - Vin. III. 163.). In the Kakacèpama Sutta, the monk Moliyaphagguna accuses, in a spirit of retaliation, his fellow brethren who criticise the conduct of the nuns with whom he closely associates (Sace ko ci bhikkhu Œyasmato moliyaphaggunassa sammukhŒ tŒsaµ bhikkhun´naµ avaööaµ bhŒsati ten ' ŒyasmŒ moliyaphagguno kupito anattamano adhikaraöaµ ' pi karoti - M.I.122) It is felt that this litigant character of individual monks is not a healthy sign and much is said in praise of those who refrain from such litigations and advocate the effective termination of such conditions wherever they appear (Yaµ ' pi bhikkhave bhikkhu na adhikaraöiko hoti adhikaraöasamathassa vaööavŒd´ ayam ' pi dhammo piyattŒya garuttŒya bhŒvanŒya sŒma––Œya ek´bhŒvŒya samvattati - A.V.167.). The skill in arresting the rise of such disputes and disturbances is considered a qualification for election to responsible monastic positions such as membership in a committee of arbitration which is known as UbbŒhikŒ (Dasah' aºgehi samannŒgato bhikkhu ubbèhikŒya sammannitabbo..... adhikaraöasamuppŒda-vèpasamanakusalo hoti.....Vin.II. 95; A.V.71). It also leads to the personal well-being of the members of the monastic community (Dasahi bhikkhave dhammehi samannŒgato thero bhikkhu yassaµ yassaµ disŒyaµ viharati phŒsu yeva viharati. Katamehi dasahi.... adhikaraöasamuppŒdavèpasamakusalo hoti - A.V.201.).

These seven modes of Adhikaraöasamatha are referred to both in the Suttas and in the Vinaya. (Satta kho pan' ime Œnanda akhikaraöasamathŒ uppannuppannŒnaµ adhikaraöŒnaµ samathŒya vèpasamŒya. SammukhŒvinayo dŒtabbo sativinayo dŒtabbo amèÂhavinayo dŒtabbo paÊi––Œya kŒretabbaµ yebhuyyasikŒ tassa pŒpiyyasikŒ tiöavatthŒrako - M.II.247. See also D.III. 254 ; A.IV.144 ; Vin.II. 73-104 ; IV.207.). We shall first examine them as they are presented to us in the Vinaya PiÊaka. The first of these, the SammukhŒvinaya, recognises the principle that no penalties or punishments should be imposed on an offender in his absence (Na bhikkhave asammukh´bhètŒnaµ bhikkhènaµ kammaµ kŒtabbaµ tajjaniyaµ vŒ nissayaµ vŒ pabbŒjaniyaµ vŒ paÊisŒraöiyaµ vŒ ukkhepaniyaµ vŒ. Yo kareyya Œpatti dukkaÊassa - Vin.II. 73.). PaÊi––Œtakaraöa which appears as the fourth in the Vinaya text provides that such disciplinary action should also be taken with the acknowledgement of the guilty monk. (Na bhikkhave apaÊi––Œya bhikkhènaµ kammaµ kŒtabbaµ tajjaniyaµ vŒ ..... ukkhepaniyaµ vŒ. Yo kareyya Œpatti dukkaÊassa - Vin. II. 83.). Both these conditions are regarded as essential to give validity to the daö¶akamma or acts of punishment which are outside the regulations of the PŒtimokkha in their origin and character. Failure to comply with these requirements would render such an act invalid. In the fourfold division of the adhikaraöas, this latter form of samatha, namely PaÊi––Œtakaraöa seems also to be made use of in the settlement of îpattŒdhikaraöa which is almost entirely based on the PŒtimokkha. SammukhŒvinaya. on the other hand, is a pre-requisite in the settlement of all the four forms of adhikaraöa.

TassapŒpiyyasikŒ which is listed as No. 6 under the Adhikaraöasamatha seems to be very different from the rest in that it has a great deal more in common with the daö¶akamma as a means of maintaining order in the community. In fact, both Samanta-pŒsŒdikŒ and Vimativinodan´ consider this to be on the same footing as the other daö¶akamma. Speaking of the TassapŒpiyyasikŒ, the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ says that the details concerning this are the same as in the Tajjaniya and other

(Page 123)

daö¶akamma (Sesaµ ettha tajjan´yŒdisu vuttanayaµ eva - VinA.VI.1193.) The Vimativindodan´ elaborates further on this comment and says that this is intended to serve as an act of prosecution whereby it would be possible to punish an offender who refuses to accept the judgement of the Saºgha. (Sesaµ ettha tajjan´yŒdisu vuttanayam evŒ ' ti etena tajjan´yŒdisattakammŒni viya idam pi tassapŒpiyyasikŒkammam asucibhŒvŒdidosayuttassa saºghassa ca vinicchaye atiÊÊhamŒnassa kattabbaµ visuµ ekaµ niggahakamman ' ti dasseti - Vmativinodani 452 f.). It is virtually an act of condemnation carried out on a monk for corrupt, shameless and reprehensible behaviour. It is also carried out on one who deliberately lies and attempts to evade a charge laid upon him. The details of the offences for which it is imposed and the proper mode of conducting oneself under this penalty are identical, more or less, with those of the other daödakamma. It lays down no specific punishment but it was perhaps used more effectively as a general act of stigmatisation whereby a vociferous offender was prevented from evading prosecution with a garrulous defence. This stigmatisation would forthwith arrest such indiscipline, The Vimativinodan´ confirms this view (Etasmiµ hi niggahakamme kate so puggalo ahaµ suddho ' ti attano suddhiyŒ sŒdhanatthaµ saºghamajjhaµ otarituµ saºgho c ' assa vinicchayaµ dŒtuµ na labhati taµkammakaraöamatten ' eva ca tam adhikaraöaµ vèpasantaµ hoti - Vimt. 453.). Accordig to the KaºkhŒvitara´ it would result in the complete elimination from the monastic community of a PŒrŒjika offender or the possible correction of a lesser offence committed by one of its members. (YadŒ pana pŒrŒjikena vŒ pŒrŒjikŒsŒmantena vŒ codiyamŒnassa a––en ' a––aµ paÊicarato pŒp ' ussannattŒ pŒpiyassa puggalassa sac ' Œyaµ acchinnamèlo bhavissati sammŒ vattitvŒ osaraöaµ labhissati. Sace chinnamèlo ayam 'ev ' assa nŒsanŒ bhavissat´ ' ti ma––amŒno saºgho –atticatutthena kammena tassapŒpiyyasikaµ kammaµ karoti - Kkvt.155.).

On the other hand, Sativinaya and AmèÂhavinaya provide against any possible miscarriage of justice in the monastic administration. The legal machinery it to be operated with humane considerations and it is not to be abused through malice, jealousy or prejudice. Sativinaya is intended for the exoneration of a guiltless monk who is falsely accused by malicious parties. This absolution from guilt is to be conferred, relying on the mental alertness of the person concerned (Sativepullappattassa sativinayaµ dadeyya - Vin.II. 80.). According to the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ, this is then applicable only to the Arahants and to none below that level of perfection and reliability (Ayaµ pana sativinayo kh´öŒsavass ' eva dŒtabbo na a––assa antamaso anŒgŒmino ' pi - VinA.VI.11-2.). It is to be carried out by a competent body of monks at the request of the aggrieved person. The AmèÂhavinaya seeks exemption for offences committed in a state of unsound mind. The Bhikkhu who is guilty of such an offence, on regaining his mental equilibrium, confesses to the Saºgha the circumstances under which the offence came to be committed and states that he does not remember it thereafter. Inspite of this consideration, it is added, he may be wrongfully prosecuted for the same. The AmèÂhavinaya provides the exoneration of such a monk from the guilt of an offence committed in a state of unsound mind. But it is to be applied only in bona fide cases and the Vinaya legislates against offenders taking shelter under this, claiming falsely a lapse of memory or pretending to be of unsound mind. Under such circumstances the exercise of this power is declared to be illegal.

The YebhuyyasikŒ and the TiöavatthŒraka as disciplinary measures are different from the rest of the Adhikaraöasamathas in that they are not only interested in safeguarding the moral tone of the character of individuals but also are concerned with settling their disputes and adjudicating over breaches of discipline in such a way that the concord of the monastic community may not be impaired. This is the dominant note of the TiöavatthŒraka. It does recognise the existence of contending parties in the Saºgha and the possible break up of the monastic unity through their factional differences. Under such circumstances, even in the face of offences committed (bahuµ assŒmaöakaµ ajjhŒciööaµ hoti bhŒsitaparikantaµ - Vin.II. 86), the members of one faction shall not

(Page 124)

proceed to institute disciplinary action against members belonging to the other group for fear of breaking the unity of the Saºgha (Sace mayam imŒhi Œpatt´hi a––ama––aµ kŒreyyŒma siyŒ ' pi tam adhikaraöaµ kakkaÂattŒya vŒlattŒya bhedŒya samvatteyya - Ibid.). But both parties are to meet in the full assembly of the Saºgha, and with the consent of the Saºgha agree to have the offences committed by their members dealt with by means of this collective disciplinary measure known as ' covering up with grass' (Yadi saºghassa pattakallaµ saºgho imam adhikaraöaµ tiöavatthŒrakena sameyya ÊhapetvŒ thèlavajjaµ ÊhapetvŒ gihipaÊisaµyuttan ' ti - Ibid. 87.). The leaders of the two factions would obtain the sanction of their groups to declare before the Saºgha, for this purpose, the offences committed by themselves as well as by the members of their respective groups (Ekato pakkhikŒnaµ bhikkhènaµ vyattena bhikhunŒ paÊibalena sako pakkho –Œpetabbo... yad ' ŒyasmantŒnaµ pattakallaµ ahaµ yŒ c' eva ŒyasmantŒnaµ Œpatti yŒ ca attano Œpatti ŒyasmantŒna– c ' eva atthŒya attano ca atthŒya sºghamajjhe tiöavatthŒrakena deseyyaµ - Ibid.). The offences which could be treated in this manner were invariably minor in character in that they excluded the major offences (thullavajja) which the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ explains as PŒrŒjika and SaºghŒdisesa. It was also necessary that these breaches of discipline did not involve the laymen (gihipaÊisaµyuttam). It is claimed that by this process of TiöavatthŒraka all participants are absolved of their guilt of any transgression, barring those specified above. Absentees and dissentients do not benefit by this (Eva– ca pana bhikkhave te bhikkhè tŒhi Œpatt´hi vuÊÊhitŒ honti ÊhapetvŒ thèlavajjaµ ÊhapetvŒ diÊÊhŒvikammaµ ÊhapetvŒ ye na tattha hont´ ' ti - Vin.II. 88.).

The YebhuyyasikŒ as described in the Khandhakas is perhaps the most complex of all the Adhikaraöasamathas. It is worked out in a rather protracted manner and is resorted to only after the failure of other methods. When it has been found that it is not possible to settle a monastic dispute within the confines of the monastery where it occurred by the method of SammukhŒvinaya, the Khandhakas suggest that those Bhikkhus who are connected with it should take the matter to the members of another monastery who are greater in number, and by mutual agreement the monks who are the hosts would settle the dispute. However, it is added that such a large group might possibly become unweildy and that no useful purpose would be served by deliberations in such an assembly. In such a situation the monks are empowered to refer the matter to a select committee (ubbŒhikŒ) for a settlement (Sammato saºghena itthannŒmo ca itthannŒmo ca bhikkhè ubbŒhikŒya imam adhikaraöaµ vèpasametuµ - Vin.II. 96.). Ten qualifications are insisted on for consideration for membership in such a committee. These cover not only good and virtuous conduct but also a thorough knowledge of the Dhamma and the Vinaya. Every member of such a committee had also to be a good judge and authority on the exercise of disciplinary powers. If it is discovered that the dispute cannot be settled in this manner, it must be referred back to the whole Saºgha for settlement by the decision of the majority (yebhuyyasikŒ). In the description of the Adhikaraöasamatha in the Khandhakas we fine that the YebhuyyasikŒ assumes a more restricted connotation in contrast to its description in the Sutta version. It is claimed to be an act whereby the Saºgha assures itself that, at the time of a division, the righteous monks would be in the majority. Thus it is not a decision arrived at by merely taking a vote. The SamantapŒsŒdikŒ reiterates the same idea (YebhuyyasikŒya vèpasametun ' ti ettha yassa kiriyŒya dhammavŒdino bahutarŒ esŒ yebhuyyasikŒ nŒma - VinA.VI.1192.). By the method of direct and indirect canvassing the Saºgha must assure itself of a majority for the righteous cause.

(Page 125)

For this purpose three forms of voting are recommended. They are secret ballot (gèÂhaka), whispering in the ear (sakaööajappaka) and open ballot (vivaÊaka). A reliable monk who is not inclined to err on account of his partialities or prejudices (chandŒ dosŒ), confusion or fear (mohŒ bhayŒ) and who is capable of reckoning the votes as they are cast (gahitŒgahita– ca jŒneyya) is appointed to distribute the ballot-sticks salŒkagŒhŒpaka). In the case of secret ballot, two distinct groups of ballot-sticks have to be used (.... salŒkŒyo vaööŒvaööŒyo katvŒ - Vin.II. 99.). The Commentary on the above statement takes vaööŒvaööŒyo to mean that the sticks of each group bear a special sign on them and look different (VaööŒvaööŒyo katvŒ ' ti dhammavŒd´na– ca adhammavŒd´na– ca salŒkŒyo nimittasa––aµ ŒropetvŒ visabhŒgŒ kŒretabbŒ - VinA. VI.1198.). The Vimativinodan´ adds that these differences may be slight or great (VaööŒvaööŒyo katvŒ ' ti khuddakamahantehi sa––Œöehi yuttŒyo katvŒ ten ' Œha nimittasa––am ŒropetvŒ ' ti - Vimt.456.). Going up to each monk in turn, the salŒkagŒhŒpaka, i. e. the one who distributes ballot sticks, should introduce the ballot- sticks and ask him to take the one of his choice. Once the voter has made a decision he is asked not to show his voting stick to any other. At this stage, if the salŒkagŒhŒpaka knows that the unrighteous monks are in the majority, he should then declare the voting null and void on grounds of incorrect procedure and set about taking a vote over again (....duggahito ' ti paccukka¶¶hitabbaµ - Vin.II. 99). But if the righteous monks are in the majority, even by a single vote, then he should announce that the voting has been valid (Ekasmim ' pi dhammavŒdismiµ atireke jŒte suggahitŒ salŒkŒyo ' ti sŒvetabbaµ - VinA. VI.1198.). The SakaööajappakasalŒkagŒha or the method of voting by whispering in the ear is different from the former only in so far as the announcement to ecach monk is made in a whisper and he is asked not to inform the others of his decision (Gahite vattabbo mŒ kassa ci Œroceh´ ' ti - Vin.II. 99). The VivaÊakasalŒkagŒha or the method of voting by open ballot is adopted only where a majority of righteous monks is assured.

The SamantapŒsŒdikŒ seems to know a great deal more about the art of securing a majority for what it calls the just cause. It allows a fresh vote to be taken up to a third time with the hope of securing a majority, dismissing the former on grounds of incorrect procedure. But if no majority is secured as desired even at the third voting, the assembly should then adjourn with the idea of meeting again the next day. This would give time and opportunity to the righteous monks to canvass support for their cause before the next vote is taken and be able thereby to shatter the opposition (Atha yŒvatatiyam ' pi adhammavŒdino bahutarŒ ' va honti ajja akŒlo sve jŒnissŒmŒ ' ti vuÊÊhahitvŒ alajj´naµ pakkhaµ vibhedatthŒya dhammavŒdipakkhaµ pariyesitvŒ punadivase salŒkagŒho kŒtabbo - VinA.VI.1198.). Under the Sakaööajappaka form of voting too, the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ has a very similar comment which reflects the same spirit of defending by all possible means what is chosen to be the righteous position. Gahite vattabbo of the text quoted above which is applicable in general to all monks of the assembly during the SakaööajappakasalŒkagŒha is commented on in the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ as referring to a specal situation, viz. the vote of the Saºghatthera or the president of the assembly. It is said that if he chooses to vote on the side of the unrighteous monks, it should be pointed out to him that it is not in keeping with his age or seniority. Thereafter, if he decides to vote with the righteous monks, a voting-stick of the right kind should be provided. If he does not change his mind, on the other hand, he should be asked to keep his decision a secret.

The interest in the Adhikaraöasamathas as measures for the settlement of disciplinary matters in the Saºgha is further enhanced when we compare and contrast the details regarding these in the Suttas and in the Vinaya. The lists of Adhikaraöasamathas which are given in Pali literature, both Sutta and Vinaya, are identical in all cases. However, the descriptions of the Adhikaraöasamathas given in the SŒmagŒma Sutta seem to be in marked contrast to the account in the Khandhakas. One is immediately impressed by the simplicity of these disciplinary measures as they are described in the Sutta account. The monastic irregularities which come under review and the manner of dealing with them here are far from the complexity which one associates with

(Page 126)

these in the Khandhakas. Allusions to the imposition of daö¶akamma are conspicuous by their absence in the Sutta account. It does not seem to portray such a phase of the Saºgha when the imposition of formal acts of punishment on its members had become a regular feature. On the other hand, what appears to us from the Sutta account is the desire of the members to remedy and rectify any errors and irregularities that might appear in the Saºgha and the frankness and willingness with which these are confessed and atoned for in the company of the fellow members. This difference in the enforcement of discipline comes out with marked emphasis on a study of the form of the Adhikaraöasamatha known as PaÊi––Œtakaraöa. The primary interest of the Khandhakas in this form is for the proper imposition of daö¶akammas. The Khandhakas insist that under the PaÊi––Œtakaraöa no punishment or penalty (i.e. the daö¶akamma mentioned earlier) is to be imposed without the offender admitting his fault. It is essentially a matter of procedure in monastic disciplinary action. On the other hand, the Sutta account takes it as a way in which the repetition of monastic offences may be averted. It seems to provide adequately against what is described as îpattŒdhikaraöa or offences against the injunctions of the PŒtimokkha. A monk who has committed such an offence, whether urged by others or not, recognises it and confesses his guilt. He is then asked to address himself to a senior member of the Order, and owning and admitting his offence, undertake to guard himself in the future. Thus the occurrence and perpetuation of monastic offences would be eliminated.

It is also with the same purpose in mind, as in the case of the PaÊi––Œtakaraöa, that the Khandhakas take up the SammukhŒvinaya. Here too, it is the proper execution of the daö¶akamma that seems to engage the attention of the Khandhakas. But the Sutta account, once again, has no reference whatwoever here to the daö¶amma. It looks upon the SammukhŒvinaya as a disciplinary measure related directly to VivŒdŒdhikaraöa or disturbances in the monastic community arising out of disputes concerning the doctrine or monastic discipline. Under the SammukhŒvinaya, the Sutta recommends that in such a situation all monks should meet together and settle such disputes correctly in a way that would accord with the Dhamma, perhaps here in the broader sense which includes the Vinaya as well. The Sutta suggests that monks should, at such a meeting, apply the criteria of the Dhamma (dhammanetti) and straighten out the differences in conformity to it (Tehi Œnanda bhikkhèhi sabbeh ' eva samaggehi sannipatitabbaµ sannipatitvŒ dhammanetti samanumajjitabbŒ dhammanettiµ samanumajjitvŒ yathŒ tattha sameti tathŒ taµ adhikaraöaµ vèpasametabbaµ. Evaµ kho Œnanda sammukhŒvinayo hoti - M.II. 247.). The commentary on the above passage also takes this allusion to mean a careful and sensible scrutiny to the situation with the criteria of the dhamma (Dhammanetti samanumajjitabbŒ ' ti dhammarajju anumajjitabbŒ –Œöena ghaµsitabbŒ upaparikkhitabbŒ ..... MA.IV.48.).

The Suta account recommends that this same method be adopted for the YebhuyyasikŒ too. If the monks in a particular monastic residence are unable to settle a monastic dispute among themselves, then they are asked to seek the assistance of monks in another monastery where they are greater in number. However, the method of deciding such issues by voting as in the Khandhakas is not envisaged here. The limitations of such a routine method were perhaps too obvious. It is not the mere mechanism of procedure that is vital here. The monastic ideals are to be safeguarded at all costs. Once the method of voting is adopted, and this is the stage the YebhuyyasikŒ has reached in the Khandhakas, one could not hazard any miscarriage of justice by relying solely on the externals of procedure. This naturally necessitated the practice of canvassing for the righteous cause, for the spirit of democracy in the Saºgha, in ay case, had to be channelled for the achievement of its worthy ideals.

In the Sutta account both AmèÂhavinaya and TassapŒpiyyasikŒ bring before us miscreants who try to defend themselves by denying the charges brought against them. The TassapŒpiyyasikŒ in particular is calculated to tighten the ring round such evasive characters (Taµ enaµ nibbeÊhentaµ ativeÊheti - M.II. 248.). Persuation and pressure are continuously applied until the offender stands condemned on his own admission. Here it gives no indication of a daö¶akamma whatsoever. Under the AmèÂhavinaya a guilty monk may, under cross examination, adduce a stage of mental derangement

(Page 127)

as a mitigating factor. He may thereby be completely absolved. The TiöavatthŒraka and the Sativinaya remain more or less the same in both the Sutta and the Vinaya accounts.

The Adhikaraöasamathas, as part of the machinery for the maintenance of monastic discipline, concern themselves with all the four forms of adhikaraöa including îpattŒdhikaraöa. Thus they embrace a wider field of activity than the PŒtimokkha. Hence it is little wonder that the PŒtimokkha, both as text and as ritual, appended to itself in course of time the Adhikaraöasamathas, although as we have pointed earlier one cannot reckon these items of Adhikaraöasamathas as sikkhŒpada. Explaining the recital of the Adhikaraöasamathas at the ritual of the PŒtimokkha (Ime kho pana Œyasmanto satta adhikaraöasamathadhammŒ uddesaµ Œgacchanti - Vin. IV. 207), Buddhaghosa says that they have to be recited in order to ascertain the purity of the Saºgha both with regard to the transgressions listed under îpattŒdhikaraöa as well as those transgressions which bring about the other three adhikaraöas (Uddesaµ Œgacchant´ ' ti ŒpattŒdikaraöasaºkhŒtŒsu avasesŒdhikaraöattayapaccayŒsu ca Œpattisu parisuddhabhŒvapucchanatthaµ uddisitabbaµ Œgacchanti - Kkvt. 153.). As a result of this very close associaton of the Adhikaraöasamathas with the ritual of the PŒtimokkha they evidently came to be identified, perhaps in some circles, as a part of the text of the PŒtimokkha. Buddhaghosa's analysis of the contents of the two Vibhaºgas in the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ makes no discrimination against them. However, in the Sumangalavilasini Buddhaghosa does not add the seven Adhikaraöasamathas in totalling up the sikkhŒpada of the Vibhaºgas.

Whatever might have been the original intention of reading out the list of Adhikaraöasamathas at the PŒtimokkha ritual the point of interest here is the manner in which this new addition is integrated to form a whole with the body of sikkhŒpada which formed the contents of the early recital. At the ritual of the PŒtimokkha, after the recital of the Adhikaraöasamathas too, the question regarding the purity of the members of the assembly which had been asked with regard to each category of offences in the PŒtimokkha is addressed to the Saºgha once again: UddiÊÊhŒ kho Œyasmanto satta adhikaraöasamathŒ dhammŒ. Tattha Œyasmante pucchŒmi kacci ' ttha parisuddhŒ - Vin.IV. 207.

These Adhikaraöasamathas are clearly not offences but are only ways by means of which the collective organization of the Saºgha may arrive at a settlement of monastic disputes and disturbances including the commission of offences (ŒpattŒdhikaraöa). Hence we would normally expect the purpose of the above question to be to ascertain whether there has been any irregularity of procedure in the settlement of monastic disputes among the members of the Saºgha. If that were so we would regard this extension of the process of questioning as an attempt to safeguard the machinery set up for the maintenance of monastic discipline. In this case it would be the Saºgha as a whole and not individual monks who would be held responsible. On the other hand, it could also be a mere mechanical extension of the method of questioning which was applied to the earlier groups of sikkhŒpada. The MahŒsaºghikas show a further extension of this process of questioning. They go beyond the Adhikaraöasamathas to apply the question of purity in terms of a new group of their own which they call dharma and anudharma.

However, in the absence of any conclusive evidence regarding the inclusion of Adhikaraöasamathas in the recital of the PŒtimokkha we have to fall back on the tradition of the commentators who preserve for us at least their view of contemporary trends. Buddhaghosa attempts to explain this final questioning at the end of the PŒtimokkha recital as being calculated to cover all offences coming under the four adhikaraöa (TatthŒyasmante pucchŒmi kacci ' ttha parisuddhŒ ' ti tesu sattasu adhikaraöasamathesu kacci ' ttha parisuddhŒ. Natthi vo ki–ci samathehi vupasametabban ' ti pucchŒmi etena sabbŒpatt´hi parisuddhabhŒvo pucchito hoti - Kkvt.155f.). At the end of the process of detailed and specific questioning regarding the îpattŒdhikaraöa which takes place through the recital of each category of sikkhŒpada in the PŒtimokkha, Buddhaghosa regards this scrutiny under the Adhikaraöasamatha as being the grand finale of the ritual of the PŒtimokkha.

(Page 128)

CHAPTER XII

From the earliest times the Buddha was undoubtedly accepted as the leader of all the disciples who took to the monastic life. The venerable Assaji, who was one of the first five disciples of the Buddha, revealed this position to SŒriputta ParibbŒjaka (Atth ' Œvuso mahŒsamaöo sakyaputto sakyakulŒ pabbajito taµ bhagavantam uddissa pabbajito. So ca me bhagavŒ satthŒ tassa cŒ ' haµ bhagavato dhammaµ rocem´ ' ti - Vin.II. 40 .). Even after the community of the Sanºgha increased in number and spread over wider regions this basic position remained unaltered. In the Bhayabherava Sutta, the Brahmin JŒöussoöi expresses the same view regarding the leadership of the Buddha and the Buddha himself is seen confirming it (Ye ' me bho gotama kulaputtŒ bhavantaµ gotamaµ uddissa saddhŒ agŒrasmŒ anagŒriyaµ pabbajitŒ bhavaµ tesaµ gotamo pubbaºgamo bhavaµ tesaµ gotamo bahukŒro bhavaµ gotamo samŒdapetŒ bhoto ca pana gotamassa sŒ janatŒ diÊÊhŒnugatiµ Œpajjat´ ' ti. Evam ' etaµ brŒhmaöa evam ' etaµ brŒhmaöa. Ye te brŒhmaöa..... Œpajjat´ ' ti - M.I.16.).

However, as we have pointed out elsewhere, it was never the Buddha's desire to exercise too much personal control over the Saºgha, either by himself or through his nominees. The Buddha is, in fact, happy that at an early stage in the history of the SŒsana he was able to discipline his disciples with the minimum instructions : Na me tesu bhikkhusu anusŒsan´ karaö´yŒ ahosi - M.I. 124. On the other hand, it is the wish of the disciples that the Buddha should instruct them : ... a––ad ' atthu mamaµ yeva sŒvakŒ anusŒsaniµ paccŒsiµsanti - M.II. 10. The disciples derived great benefits from the Teacher who placed them on the correct path to spiritual perfection. The disciples in turn emulated their Master and modelled their lives after him. The GopakamoggallŒna Sutta goes on to say that the disciples, however, never equalled the Master. As the founder of the way, he was supremely above them. They come as followers to pursue the path which was indicated by him.

As the leader whose concern was the spiritual well-being of his disciples the Buddha always thought it was his duty to keep them reminded of the Norm and to explain to them the way to the perfection of their religious life. Thus he would explain to them some point of doctrine as the occasion necessitated and conclude his discourse to them by requesting them to apply themselves to the realisation of the goal which is set out in this teaching. At the end of the DvedhŒvitakka Sutta, the Buddha sums up his position as teacher in the following words : ' Whatever, O monks, has to be done by a kind and compassionate teacher for the good of his disciples, that I have done for you. Here, O monks, are the sylvan retreats and solitary abodes. Be earnestly engaged in the perfection of your religious life. Brook no delay lest you have cause for lament afterwards. This is my advice to you. ' (Yaµ bhikkhave satthŒrŒ karaö´yaµ sŒvakŒnaµ hitesinŒ anukampaµ upŒdŒya kataµ vo taµ mayŒ. EtŒni bhikkhave rukkhamèlŒni etŒni su––ŒgŒrŒni. JhŒyatha bhikkhave mŒ pamŒda ' ttha mŒ pacchŒ vippaÊisŒrino ahuvattha. Ayaµ vo amhŒkaµ anusŒsan´ ' ti - (M.I. 118.). In the Sallekha Sutta the Buddha addresses these same words to Cunda. In the IndriyabhŒvanŒ Sutta he does so after explaining to înanda what was regarded in Buddhism as the true cultivation of the senses.

Not only did the Buddha give counsel himself but he also expected the lives of his disciples to be regulated through the guidance and instruction of other senior members of the Order. The Saµyutta NikŒya gives a number of instances where the Buddha requests the venerable MahŒ Kassapa to admonish the Bhikkhus as much as he does (Ovada kassapa bhikkhè karohi kassapa bhikkhènaµ dhammikathaµ. Ahaµ vŒ kassapa bhikkhè ovadeyyaµ tvaµ vŒ ahaµ vŒ bhikkhènaµ dhammikathaµ kareyyaµ tvaµ vŒ ' ti - S.II. 203, 205, 208.). However, it is said that the venerable MahŒ Kassapa declined

(Page 129)

this invitation saying that the Bhikkhus of the day were not amenable to instruction and were resentful of such advice. It is mentioned repeatedly that he stated that the monks of his day were temperamentally unsuited for such correction (DubbacŒ kho bhante etarahi bhikkhè dovacassakaraöehi dhammehi samannŒgatŒ akkhamŒ appadakkhiöaggŒhino anusŒsaniµ - S.II. 204, 206, 208.). This possible intolerance of advice and correction from fellow members of the community seems to be evident even in the early days of the SŒsana. The history of the SaºghŒdisesa 12 shows how the venerable Channa resented such advice from fellow monks. From an analysis of this incident and the legislation that followed it becomes clear that in the corporate organization of the Saºgha every member was expected to contribute his share towards mutual correction of their religious life. Every member was also expected to allow himself to be corrected by others (MŒ ' yasamŒ attŒnaµ avacan´yaµ akŒsi vacan´yaµ eva ŒyasmŒ attŒnaµ karotu. îyasmŒ ' pi bhikkhè vadetu sahadhammena bhikkhè ' pi Œyasmantaµ vakkhanti sahadhammena. Evaµ saµva¶¶hŒ hi tassa bhagavato parisŒ yad ' idaµ a––ama––avacanena a––ama––avuÊÊhŒpanenŒ ' ti - Vin. III.178.). The SaºghŒdisesa rule referred to above makes legal provision to enforce the acceptance of such correction by fellow monks. For he who resists such advice stubbornly up to a third time would be guilty of a SaºghŒdisesa offence which, it should be realised, is second only to a PŒrŒjika in its gravity.

Besides this legalised aspect of the acceptance of instruction from fellow members of the community which we find in the Vinaya PiÊaka, we also find in the Sutta PiÊaka numerous references where the willingness to accept instruction is referred to as a great monastic virtue. It is spoken of as leading to unity and concord among the members of the Saºgha (Yam ' pi bhikkhave bhikkhu suvaco hoti saovacassakaraöehi dhammehi samannŒgato khamo padakkhiöaggŒh´ anusŒsanim ayam ' pi dhammo sŒrŒn´yo piyakaraöo garukaraöo saµgahŒya avivŒdŒya sŒmaggiyŒ ek´bhŒvŒya saµvattati - A.V. 90.). It is also said to contribute to the stability and continuity of the SŒsana for a long time (Ayam ' pi bhikkhave dhammo saddhammassa ÊhitiyŒ asammosŒya anantaradhŒnŒya saµvattati - A.II.148 ; III.180 ; V. 338). Thus we see that in the corporate life of the Saºgha the offer and acceptance of such advice for mutual welfare became a reality (.... padakkhiöaggŒh´ anusŒsanin ' ti therŒ ' pi naµ bhikkhu vattabbam anusŒsitabbaµ ma––anti - A.V.27.). This practice, we further discover, had been extended to the Bhikkhun´ Saºgha as well and the Buddha himself is seen requesting the venerable Nandaka to give counsel to the Bhikkhunis. Both the Sutta and the Vinaya PiÊakas bear testimony to the fact that it became a regular feature for the Bhikkhuni Saºgha to be advised by competent and qualified members of the Bhikkhu Saºgha. It is also evident that the Bhikkhunis regularly looked forward to it (Ekamantaµ ÊhitŒ kho mahŒpajŒpat´ gotam´ bhagavantaµ etadavoca ovadatu bhante bhagavŒ bhikkhuniyo anusŒsatu bhante bhagavŒ bhikkhuniyo karotu bhante bhagavŒ bhikkhun´naµ dhammikathan ' ti. Tena kho pana samayena therŒ bhikkhu bhikkhuniyo ovadanti pariyŒyena - M.III. 270.). In fact. under the third garudhamma it is incumbent on the Bhikkhunis to go to the Bhikkhu Saºgha regularly for ovŒda.

Notwithstandig the venerable MahŒ Kassapa's reticence we find a great claim made for the usefulness of such counsel and correction for those who have chosen to lead a life of religious zest. According to the circumstances such anusŒsan´ or counsel would vary in each context. But it was always calculated to guide and direct the disciple who still has to accomplish his avowed mission (Ye kho te brŒhmaöa bhikkhè sekhŒ appattamŒnasŒ anuttaraµ yogakkhemaµ patthayamŒnŒ viharanti tesu me ayaµ evarèp´ anusŒsan´ hoti - M.III. 4.). Such was the spiritual leadership provided by the Buddha which was respected and recognised quite independent of the subsequent achievements of the disciples. The same Sutta as quoted above makes it clear by saying that even under the guidance of the Buddha himself some disciples may fail to attain NibbŒna. That is how the TathŒgata plays the limited role of a guide (Evaµ eva kho brŒhmaöa tiÊÊhat ' eva nibbŒnaµ tiÊÊhati nibbŒnagŒm´ maggo tiÊÊhŒm ' ahaµ samŒdapetŒ. Atha ca pana mama sŒvakŒ mayŒ evaµ ovadiyamŒnŒ evaµ anusŒsiyamŒnŒ appekacce accantaniÊÊhaµ nibbŒnaµ ŒrŒdhenti ekacce na ŒrŒdhenti. Ettha kvŒ ' haµ brŒhmaöa karomi maggakkhŒy´ brŒhmaöa tathŒgato ' ti - M.III. 6.).

(Page 130)

It is possible to state that there must have been besides the Buddha a number of senior members of the Saºgha who were concerned with the progress of the religious life of their fellow members. The two chief disciples of the Buddha, SŒriputta and MoggallŒna, no doubt, figure prominent among them. In the Anaºgana Sutta the venerable MoggallŒna himself gives pride of place to the venerable SŒriputta. The venerable SŒriputta gives here his fellow monks a long discourse on the defiling traits of the mind. At the end of it the venerable MoggallŒna remarks that SŒriputta's clear analysis served to purge the minds of those disciples who were lacking in faith but had taken to the monastic life to eke out an existence and were corrupt, stupid and undisciplined (Tesaµ ŒyasmŒ sŒriputto iminŒ dhammapariyŒyena hadayŒ hadayaµ ma––e a––Œya tacchati - M.I. 32.). The devoted and faithful disciples, MoggallŒna further remarks, would relish and rejoice over these words of instruction (Te Œyasmato sŒriputtassa imaµ dhammapariyŒyaµ sutvŒ pipanti ma––e vacasŒ c ' eva manasŒ ca - M.I. 32.). The sole purpose of such instruction is conceived to be the guidance of fellow monks so as to keep them out of evil and place them on the path of virtue (SŒdhu vata bho sabrahmacŒr´ akusalŒ vuÊÊhŒpetvŒ kusale patiÊÊhŒpeti - Ibid.).

However, as pointed out by the venerable MahŒ Kassapa it has not always been an easy or pleasant task to criticise and correct the conduct of a fellow member, for many miscreants were ill-tempered and resentful of correction. The history of SaºghŒdisesa 12 lends further support to this view (Bhikkhu pan ' eva dubbacajŒtiko hoti uddesapariyŒpannesu sikkhŒpadesu bhikkèhi sahadhammikaµ vuccamŒno attŒnaµ avacan´yaµ karoti mŒ maµ Œyasmanto ki–ci avacuttha kalyŒöaµ vŒ pŒpakaµ vŒ aham ' p ' Œyasmante na ki–ci vakkhŒmi kalyŒöaµ vŒ pŒpakaµ vŒ. ViramathŒyasmanto mama vacanŒyŒ ' ti - Vin.III. 178.). The recurrence of such situations seems to have been long recognised as a reality in the SŒsana. The AnumŒna Sutta which the venerable MoggallŒna addressed to fellow members of the Order is evidently calculated to spotlight such situations and indicate ways and means of remedying them. The Sutta enumerates sixteen evil qualities which make a monk unworthy of advice from fellow members. Those which are referred to as dovacassakaraöadhammŒ include sinful thoughts, diverse expressions of violent temper, and abuse and counter attack of the critics. Besides these, they also embrace such weaknesses as jealousy, treason, fraud and deceit, and stubbornness in many ways. The presence of such evil traits would make the members of the Order distrust a fellow celibate and consider it indiscreet to offer advice and criticism even at his bidding (PavŒreti ce ' pi Œvauso bhikkhu vadantu maµ Œyasmanto vacan´yo' mhi Œyasmanteh´ ' ti so ca hoti dubbaco dovacassakaraöehi dhammehi samannŒgato akkhamo appadakkhiöaggŒh´ anusŒsaniµ. Atha kho naµ sabrahmacŒr´ na c ' eva vattabbaµ ma––anti na ca anusŒsitabbaµ ma––anti na ca tasmiµ puggale vissŒsaµ Œpajjitabbaµ ma––anti - M.I. 95.). The venerable MoggallŒna therefore makes a plea for the correction of these failings (Sace Œvuso bhikkhu paccavekkhamŒno sabbe ' p ' ime pŒpake akusale dhamme appah´ne attani samanupassati ten ' Œvuso bhikkhunŒ sabbesaµ y ' eva imesaµ pŒpakŒnaµ akusalŒnaµ dhammŒnaµ pahŒnŒya vŒyamitabbaµ - Ibid.).

However, inspite of everything, the need for constant guidance and correction of the disciples became increasingly imperative. Thus while the Sutta PiÊaka praised the willingness of monks to accept such conusel from fellow members as a great monastic virtue and indicated how the monks should qualify themselves to be worthy of it, the Vinaya on the other hand made it almost incumbent on them to lead their monastic life under such guidance. In the early days of the SŒsana when the Buddha had only a limited number of Bhikkhus under his wing, it was found possible to regulate their lives without any enforced injunctions. The messageof the Buddha was more or less personally conveyed to them. The loyalties of the early disciples to the Master were so sincere that a gentle reminder was all that was needed to regulate a disciple's conduct, for he undoubtedly knew what was expected of him. This is what is implied in the remarks which the Buddha made regarding his disciples in the Kakacèpama Sutta. The Master once addressed his disciples and said the following : ' There was a time when the Bhikkhus pleased me (by their conduct)...... It was not necessary that I should lay down instructions for them. It was only a suggestion that they needed.' But with

(Page 131)

the spread of Buddhism over wider territories there was a corresponding increase in the number of admissions into the Order. We know from the evidence of the Vinaya PiÊaka that latterly the Buddha did not personally preside over such admissions. Further, with these increasing numbers, there entered into the Order men of varying degrees of maturity as well as sincerity. They were not all prompted by a genuine desire to seek spiritual perfection in the monastic life. In the Anaºgana Sutta the venerable MahŒmoggallŒna makes a complete survey of such cases. In the interests of the SŒsana and the spiritual betterment of the monks themselves, they needed constant exhortation and compulsory training in discipline. The words of the venerable SŒriputta in the above Sutta were praised by the venerable MoggallŒna as serving this purpose. Besides such counsel given from time to time, we also notice the Khandhakas devoting much time to the regulation and correction of the conduct of the members of the Order. As pointed out by the Buddha himself such bad conduct would not only have contradicted the lofty ideals and aspirations of the monastic life but also would have discredited the members of the Order in the eyes of the public on whose good-will they were entirely dependent for their sustenance. The Khandhakas refer to instances where owing to the lack of teachers and regular instruction the members of the monastic community conducted themselves without decorum and propriety (Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhè anupajjhŒyakŒ anovadiyamŒnŒ ananusŒsiyamŒnŒ dunnivatthŒ duppŒrutŒ anŒkappasampannŒ piö¶Œya caranti - Vin.I. 44, 60.). The Buddha rules out such bad conduct as being reprehensible. He repeatedly pointed out that such conduct would lead to loss of faour with the public and bar the new movement which was initiated by him from winning fresh converts and stabilising itself among the old (Ananucchaviyaµ ananulomikaµ appaÊtirèpaµ assŒmaöakaµ akappiyaµ akaraö´yaµ. N ' etaµ bhikkhave appasannŒnaµ vŒ pasŒdŒya pasannŒnaµ vŒ bhiyyobhŒvŒya...... appasannŒna– c ' eva appasŒdŒya pasannŒna– ca a––athattŒyŒ ' ti - Vin. I.45.).

The system of discipline which is set out in the Khandhakas attempts to remedy this situation by the appointment of two categories of teachers called UpajjhŒya and îcariya who would preside over the conduct of the members of the Saºgha. Barring the central authority of the Buddha in his day as the founder of the organization, these two constituted the spiritual leadership of the monastic community. Referring to these, the commentarial tradition of the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ defines an UpajjhŒya as a teacher who could judge correctly and point out to his pupils what is right and wrong (AnupajjhŒyakŒ ' ti vajjŒvajjam upanijjhŒyakena garunŒ virahitŒ - VinA.V. 977.). A very different role is assigned to the îcariya in the same work. He is the teacher from whom the pupils acquire their refinement and culture (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave Œcariyan ' ti ŒcŒrasamŒcŒrasikkhŒpanakaµ Œcariyaµ anujŒnŒmi - Ibid. 985.). As we trace the role of the UpajjhŒya and the îcariya in the Khandhakas we see in places what approximates to a difference in their respective duties. When a pupil elects his îcariya and invites him to fill that role, the formal invitation in terms of which he has to do it gives us some indication that the îcariya appears to be his proximate teacher under whose immediate supervision he takes up residence. For he is made to say: ' Be thou my îcariya. I shall live under thee.' (Acariyo me bhante hohi Œyasmato nissŒya vacchŒmi - Vin. I. 60.). But under the election of an UpajjhŒya we do not discover any such specification of relationship. However, as the pupil reaches maturity in the Order and seniority of status (upasampadŒ) is conferred upon him he comes to owe his allegiance to the UpajjhŒya. At the earliest stage in the history of the SŒsana, when the act of upasampadŒ assumed a formal character, it became necessary to announce in the assembly of the Saºgha the name of the UpajjhŒya under whose responsibility the Saºgha confers seniority of status on the noviciate (SuöŒtu me bhante saºgho. Ayaµ itthannŒmo itthannŒmassa Œyasmato upasampadŒpekkho. Yadi saºghassa pattakallaµ saºgho itthannŒmaµ upasampŒdeyya itthannŒmena upajjhŒyena. EsŒ –atti - Vin.1. 56.).

However, speaking of the various duties to be performed by those who preside over the discipline of the members of the Order, the Khandhakas seem to look upon both UpajjhŒya and îcariya as playing similar roles in the maintenance of monastic discipline. But there can be

(Page 132)

little doubt that each one of them carried an emphasis of his own. Both are required to be competent to develop their pupils on the following lines:

1. ...to guide them in the discipline for the acquisition of decorum and propriety.
1. ...to guide them in the discipline leading to the attainment of the monastic ideal.
1. ...to regulate their life in terms of the Dhamma.
1. ...to regulate their life in terms of the Vinaya.
1. ...to dispel any incorrect views they come to entertain by analysing them in terms of the Dhamma.

(PaÊibalo hoti antevŒsiµ vŒ saddhivihŒriµ vŒ abhisamŒcŒrikŒya sikkhŒya sikkhŒpetuµ ŒdibrahmacariyikŒya sikkhŒya vinetuµ abhidhamme vinetuµ abhivinaye vinetuµ uppannaµ diÊÊhigataµ dhammato vivecetuµ vivecŒpetuµ - Vin. I. 64f.). The antevŒs´ and saddhivihŒr´ referred to here are the pupils of the îcariya and the UpajjhŒya respectively, both of whom seem to exercise authority over the development of discipline on similar lines. The significance of abhisamŒcŒrikŒ sikkhŒ and ŒdibrahmacariyikŒ sikkhŒ in terms of which the îcariya and the UpajjhŒya have to train their pupils has already been discussed under s´la and sikkhŒ. Suffice it here to say that as has been already pointed out these two forms of sikkhŒ are capable of exhausting between them the whole range of monastic discipline. The two terms abhidhamma and abhivinaya which are further referred to and in terms of which the pupils are to be trained by their teachers are equally comprehensive and may well echo an earlier phase of the SŒsana when the whole of the Buddha's teaching was reckoned in terms of Dhamma and Vinaya. Thus abhidhamme vineti and abhivinaye vineti would therefore cover the disciple's personal spiritual development as well as his monastic discipline. However, Budddhaghosa is seen narrowing the scope of the term abhidhamma here when he defines it as abhidhamme ti nŒmarèpaparicchede vinetuµ na paÊibalo ti attho. This attempt of Buddhaghosa to define the term abhidhamma here as meaning a special branch of knowledge which is really in the field of the Abhidhamma PiÊaka is both unnecessary and unwarranted. This has already been pointed out by Oldenberg and Miss Horner. But Buddhaghosa was evidently very strongly influenced by a tradition which attempted at all costs to claim for the Abhidhamma equal antiquity with the Sutta and the Vinaya. Finally, the teacher should safeguard his pupil against entertaining false views regarding the Dhamma and hasten to correct them whenever their presence is detected.

The importance of spiritual leadership in the rapidly expanding monastic community is further recognised in the Khandhakas as is evident from the discussions on nissaya. At one stage the Buddha seems to have thought it fit to lay down that a pupil should live ten years under the guidance of his teacher, îcariya or UpajjhŒya. Such a teacher must himself claim ten years standing in the SŒsana to be qualified to offer such guidance (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave dasavassŒni nssŒya vatthuµ dasavassena nissayaµ dŒtuµ - Vin.I. 60.). Subsequently it is added that the teacher who provides such guidance should not only possess his seniority of ten or more years but also be a competent and able one (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave vyattena bhikkhunŒ paÊibalena dasavassena vŒ atirekadasavassena vŒ nissayaµ dŒtuµ - Op.cit. 62.). In course of time, under changing circumstances, it was conceded that an able and efficient pupil need spend only five years under such tutelage. However, an incompetent one may be required to spend all his life under such conditions (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave vyattena bhikkhunŒ paÊbalena pa–cavassŒni nissŒya vatthuµ avyattena yŒvaj´vaµ - Op.cit. 80.). NissayapaÊippassaddhi or the

(Page 133)

withdrawal of the condition of being under the guidance of the teacher is effected only under special circumstances. Five such conditions are mentioned in the Khandhakas in relation to the UpajjjhŒya. The dependence of a pupil on his UpajjhŒya may be terminated on the latter's departure, leaving the Order, death or joining another religious group. It may also happen at the express wish of the teacher (Pa–c ' imŒ bhikkhave nissaya-paÊippassaddhiyo upajjhŒyamhŒ. UpajjhŒyo pakkanto vŒ hoti vibbhamanto vŒ kŒlaµkato vŒ pakkasaµkanto vŒ Œöatti yeva pa–cam´ - Vin.I. 62.). In the case of the îcariya these five considerations are repeated and a sixth condition is added, which reads to the effect that whenever the UpajjhŒya as the higher authority comes to supersede the îcariya the pupil's dependence on the îcariya is terminated: upajjhŒyena vŒ samodhŒnaµ gato hoti - Ibid. Here we are inclined to agree with S. Dutt in his interpretation of this point. He reads the above phrase to mean ' when the UpajjhŒya and the îcariya are together, nissaya towards the latter ceases.' The SamantapŒsŒdikŒ explains it in a manner which makes it appear unnecessarily formal and mechanical. This last consideration apparently takes note of the possible overlapping of the services of the UpajjhŒya and the îcariya in the role of nissayadŒyaka. Certain concessions are also given with regard to life under nissaya to monks who are proceeding on a journey, are incapacitated on account of illness and to those who have chosen residence in the forest in their own interest.

With such a vital role to play in the monastic community the îcariya and the UpajjhŒya were placed in loco parentis to their pupils by the Buddha. The teacher, îcariya or UpajjhŒya, should look after his pupil with paternal concern (îcariyo bhikkhave antevŒsikamhi puttacittaµ upaÊÊhapessati - Vin.I. 45, 60.). Similarly a pupil must look upon his teacher with filial regard (AntevŒsiko Œcariyamhi pitucittaµ upaÊÊhapessati.... Evaµ te a––ama––aµ sagŒravŒ sappatissŒ sabhŒgavuttino viharantŒ imasmiµ dhammavinaye vuddhiµ virèÂhiµ vepullaµ Œpajjissanti - Ibid.). The TheragŒthŒ states that such mutual respect in the monastic community is an essential step in the ladder of spiritual progress (Yassa sabrahmacŒr´su gŒravo nèpalabbhati parihŒyati saddhammŒ maccho appodake yathŒ. etc. _ Thag. 387 f.). The teacher, thus placed in this honoured position, is expected to benefit his pupil in diverse ways of which his contribution to the pupil's spiritual progress ranks uppermost. The Khandhakas which define his proper service to the pupil go on to say that he should further the latter's progress by means of uddesa, paripucchŒ, ovŒda and anusŒsan´. The Samanta-pŒsŒdikŒ explains uddesa as pŒlivŒcanŒ and paripucchŒ as pŒliyŒ atthavaööanŒ, thus making it clear that it was necessary for the pupil to gain a knowledge of the teachings of the Master together with their explanation under his teacher. It was one of the duties of the teacher to see it perfected. He was also expected to regulate the pupil's day to day life by means of ovŒda and anusŒsan´. Under ovŒda the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ indicates that the teacher should forewarn his pupil regarding impropriety of behaviour (OvŒdo ti anotiööe vatthusmiµ idaµ karohi idaµ mŒ karitthŒ ' ti vacanaµ - VinA.V. 982.). If the pupil happens to slip into an error the teacher should then give him further advice (AnusŒsan´ ' ti otiööe vatthusmiµ - Ibid.).

The pupil who thus develops his religious life under the tutelage of his îcariya or UajjhŒya has also a part to play in safeguarding the spiritual well-being of his teachers. In the closely knitted life of the monastic community every member, both young and old, was expected to contribute his share towards mutual correction of the irreligious life and also to let himself be corrected by others. This was observed earlier under the SaºghŒdisesa12 where the following comments are made : ' May you, O sir, admonish the Bhikkhus. The Bhikkhus too, will admonish you. Thus the disciples of the Buddha are nurtured in this manner through mutual advice and correction.' (îyasmŒ ' pi bhikkhu vadetu sahadhammena. Bhikkhè ' pi Œyasmantaµ vakkhanti sahadhammena. Evam-samva¶¶hŒ hi tassa bhagavato parisŒ yadidaµ a––ama––avacanena a––ama––a-vuÊÊhŒpanenŒ ' ti - Vin. III. 178.). Thus

(Page 134)

a pupil was expected to help his teacher in the perfection of his religious life in the following ways:

This reciprocity of relations between the teacher and the pupil seems to extend to many spheres of monastic life besides the furtherance of spiritual well-being. The Khandhakas describe in great detail the services which a pupil should render to his teacher. In the day to day life of the monastic community a pupil is expected to attend to the physical needs of his teacher. He shall commence his duties at daybreak by providing water and other requisites for the teacher to wash his face. He shall then prepare a seat for him and shall attend on him while he is at his meals. He shall also take good care of the teacher's possessions such as the bowl and the robe. He shall keep the teacher's place of residence in perfect order, taking good care of its belongings. In cases of illness, he shall attend on him all his life looking forward to his recovery. The teacher, in turn, has many duties which he shall fulfil towards his pupil. He shall see that his pupil comes to possess such necessaries like the bowl and the robe. Further to this, if the pupil happens to be indisposed, there devolves also on the teacher the additional duty of attending to all his physical needs such as were described in relation to the duties of a pupil towards his teacher.

The relationship of teacher and pupil is thus seen to be established on a basis of mutual respect and consideration. From the very inception of monastic community life such safeguards were provided in order that the machinery for its administration may not get out of control or breakdown under the strain of abuse or corruption. The first signs of the necessity to restrict the number of pupils under a single teacher appears with the incident of the two noviciate pupils of the venerable Upanada who abused each other. In those early days of the SŒsana when the monastic community was evolving itself into shape as a respected institution we are not surprised that the first prompt action taken against the possibility of such an incident was the ban that was imposed that no teacher should keep more than one pupil (Na bhikkhave ekena dve sŒmaöerŒ upaÊÊhŒpetabbŒ. Yo upaÊÊhŒpeyya Œpatti dukkatassa - Vin.I. 79.). The disciplinary machinery of the Vinaya was used to enforce this condition as is clear from the imposition of a DukkaÊa offence on one who fails to respect it. However, the spirit underlying this was the consideration that a teacher should have proper control over his pupils and should be able to direct their lives so as not to allow them to drift away from the path of

(Page 135)

the holy life. Consequently we find the first restriction modified soon afterwards and a teacher is allowed to have as many pupils as he could guide and instruct (...yŒvatake vŒ pana ussahati ovadituµ anusŒsituµ tŒvatake upaÊÊhŒpetuµ - Vin. I. 83).

In executing the proper responsibility towards the pupils a teacher is empowered to make use of certain disciplinary measures whenever the need arises. Having specified as to what should be the proper mode of conduct of a pupil towards his teacher, the Vinaya proceeds to ensure that this order is not violated except under the pain of punishment. A teacher is given the right to turn away a pupil who does not conform to this pattern of conduct. But it is also left possible for the pupil to tender an apology to his teacher and be pardoned by him for any of his transgressions. Likewise young noviciate monks who show no respect or courtesy to the senior members of the community are also liable to be subject to punishment. The freedom of movement of such miscreants may be curtailed and certain restrictions may be imposed on them. At the same time it is interesting to note the extra safeguards the Vinaya provides against possible abuse of power by those who are placed in positions of trust to regulate the lives of the juniors. Several interesting examples may be cited. No teacher shall refuse to forgive his pupil whom he has turned away if he comes back to him with a sincere apology. The law shall also not be abused to turn away a really good pupil. At the same time it is also made incumbent on the teacher to turn away without discrimination every pupil who violates the accepted pattern of conduct ( asammŒvattanto). Any teacher who disregards these considerations shall be himself guilty of a DukkaÊa offence.

Despite all these attempts to maintain law and order in the monastic community, we discover on the evidence of the Vinaya PiÊka itself rebellious and disruptive forces at work within the SŒsana. These miscreants are generally associated with the ' band of six' or Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus. These Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus and their followers attempt to wreck the machinery which is set up fot the maintenance of monastic discipline. In the introduction to PŒcittiya 63 we discover them challenging the validity of ecclesiastical acts which have been correctly performed by the Saºgha. At PŒcittiya 76 they make false accusations against innocent Bhikkhus. The most reprehensible example of such behaviour is the conduct of Mettiyabhummajaka Bhikkhus who falsely accuse the venerable Dabbamallaputta of a PŒrŒjika offence. These miscreant monks are seen over and over again attempting to bring chaos and bitterness into the life in the monastic community. Prompted by his personal animosity against the Buddha, Devadatta too, appears to have taken a leading part in such activity. The circumstances which led to the promulgation of SaºghŒdisesa 10 clearly illustrate the subtle move by Devadatta to break up the unity of the Buddhist Saºgha. This tendency assumed dangerous proportions when such a move was either led by a body of people which was large enough to canvass opinion in its favour or was pioneered by one who by his power or popularity was able to influence a considerable section of the community and the public. When Devadatta stood condemned for his attempts to disrupt the unity of the Saºgha, KokŒlika attempted to convert a group in support of Devadatta. This schismatic tendency is seen to have been widely prevalent even in the earliest days of the SŒsana. Under the history of the Tajjaniya-kamma it is recorded that the followers of Paödukalohitaka Bhikkhus went around inciting groups of monks to fight others. Similar behaviour on the part of Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus isseen in PŒcittiya 3 where they are seen indulging

(Page 136)

in tale-bearing with a view to creatig dissensions in the Saºgha. On the otherhand, Assajipunabbasuka Bhikkhus of K´ÊŒgiri who became very popular among the people of the neighbourhood were able to mislead them completely as to what constituted the proper form of monastic behaviour. The unwarranted friendship and familiarity of these Bhikkhus had won for them such confidence with the lay people that they refused to regard as acceptable even the more restrained and dignified behaviour of any other monk. Thus these groups of miscreant monks were fast establishing themselves as the true representatives of the Buddhist Saºgha. The danger of this was soon realised and the Buddha hastens to enlist the support of the leading disciples like SŒriputta and MoggallŒna to eradicate such vicious elements. It is already evident that they had become considerably powerful and were even capable of physical violence. SŒriputta and MoggalŒna make mention of this to the Buddha who then suggests that they should go reinforced with large numbers to deal with these miscreant monks. In carrying out disciplinary action against them, the Buddha tells SŒriputta and MoggallŒna that they are only exercising their authority as leaders in the SŒsana (Gacchatha tumhe sŒriputtŒ k´ÊŒgiriµ gantvŒ assajipunabbasukŒnaµ bhikkhènaµ k´ÊŒgirismŒ pabbŒjaniyakammaµ karotha. TumhŒkam ete saddhivihŒrino ' ti - Vin.II. 14 ; III.182.). For ever afterwards these two dynamic characters, SŒriputta and MoggallŒna, served as the model of good monastic living. The Buddha himself endorsed this view and held that every good disciple should emulate them (Saddho bhikkhave bhikkhu evaµ sammŒ ŒyŒcamŒno ŒyŒceyya tŒdiso homi yŒdisŒ sŒriputtamoggallŒnŒ ' ti. EsŒ bhikkhave tulŒ etaµ pamŒöaµ mama sŒvakŒnaµ bhikkhènaµ yadidaµ sŒriputta-moggallŒnŒ ' ti - A.II. 164.)

(Page 137)

CHAPTER XIII

At the time the Buddha set up his Order of Bhikkhus, there was in Indian society the widespread but groundless belief that woman is inferior to man. The position which the woman lost under the dominance of the BrŒhmaöas had not yet been retrieved. The Brahmins of the day evidently showed little sympathy for her sad lot. Altekar describes the position of woman in India at the time as follow : ' The prohibition of upanayana amounted to spiritual disenfranchisement of women and produced a disastrous effect upon their general position in society. It reduced them to the status of êèdras... What, however, did infinite harm to women was the theory that they were ineligible for them (Vedic sacrifices) because they were of the status of the êèdras. Henceforward they began to be bracketed with êèdras and other backward classes in society. This we find to be the case even in the Bhagavadg´tŒ (IX.32).' In the Manusmrti we witness the cruel infliction of domestic subservience on woman. The road to heaven is barred to her and there is hard bargaining with her for the offer of an alternative route. Matrimony and obedience to the husband are the only means whereby a woman can hope to reach heaven.

This hostile attitude to woman both in religion and in society was repeatedly criticised and challenged by the Buddha on numerous occasions. In the Kosala Saµyutta the Buddha contradicts the belief that the birth of a daughter was not as much a cause of joy as that of a son, a belief which the ritualism of the BrŒhmaöas had contributed to strengthen. The Buddha pointed out clearly that woman had a dignified and an importnt part to play in society, and he defined it with great insight, fitting her harmoniously into the social fabric. She is a lovable member of the household, held in place by numerous relationships, and respected above all, as the mother of worthy sons. The sex did not matter, he argued, and added that in character and in her role in society, she may even rival men.

Kindred Sayings, I. p.111

(Page 138)

But it is not unusual to find scholars who have missed this singular virtue of Buddhism. It would be grossly unfair to say that the Budha did not devote much attention to the duties and ideals of laywomen or that he showed indifference to or contempt of women. Speaking of Buddhism and Jainism Altekar unjustly says : ' Both these were ascetic religions, and they have not devoted much attention to the duties and ideals of lay women. The founders and leaders of both these movements showed the indifference to, or contempt of women, which is almost universal among the advocates of the ascetic ideal.'

The instances are numerous where the Buddha defines and describes the duties of woman in society. Further, the Buddha recognises the fact that these do not constitute the whole of her life. It is not with a view to limiting their life solely to the secular affairs of the household that the Buddha laid down a code of good living for women, but to serve as a complement to the good life already enjoined in his religion to all his followers irrespective of their sex. A host of these considerations as they are addressed to women are grouped together in the Saµyutta NikŒya in a chapter solely devoted to them. A good lay woman endowed with religious devotion, moral virtue and liberality as well as wisdom and learning, makes a success of her life in this world. For it is said:

Her virtuous character gives to her life in the household poise and dignity (Pa–cahi bhikkhave dhammehi samannŒgato mŒtugŒmo visŒrado agŒraµ ajjhŒvasati. Katamehi pa–cahi. PŒöŒtipŒtŒ pa´ivirato ca hoti . ...saurŒmerayamajjapamŒdaÊÊhŒnŒ paÊivirato ca hoti - S.IV. 250.). The following are also given as virtues by means of which she can make her life fruitful, both here and hereafter: Saddho (religious devotion), hirimŒ ottŒp´ (sense of shame and fear), akkodhano anupanŒh´ (not given to anger), anissuk´ (not jealous), amacchar´ (not niggardly), anaticŒr´ (chaste in behaviour), s´lavŒ (virtuous), bahussuto (learned), Œraddhaviriyo (zealous), upaÊÊhitassat´ (mentally alert), pa––avŒ (wise). We notice that all these virtues enumerated so far are within the reach of a woman living in the household. She is not rooted out of her domestic setting. The good and successful life of the laywoman, as much as of the layman, seems to have loomed large in the ethics of Buddhism. In the Aºguttara NikŒya two sets of virtues are given whereby a woman is said to strive for success in this world as well as in the other : idhalokavijaya and paralokavijaya (Catèhi kho visŒkha dhammehi samannŒgato mŒtugŒmo idhalokavijayŒya paÊipanno hoti ayaµ sa loko Œraddho hoti. Katamehi catèhi. Idha visŒkha mŒtugŒmo susamvihitakammanto hoti saºgahitaparijano bhattu manŒpaµ carati sambhataµ anurakkhati... Catèhi kho visŒkha dhammehi samannŒgato mŒtugŒmo paralokavijayŒya paÊipanno hoti parassa loko Œraddho hoti. Katamehi catèhi. Idha visŒkha mŒtugŒmo saddhŒsampanno hoti s´lasampanno hoti cŒgasampanno hot pa––Œsampanno hoti - A.IV. 269 f.).

It is also worth noting here that the Buddha accepts the reality and significance of the institution of marriage for woman. But unlike in Hindu society, it was not the only means for the social elevation of woman. In Hinduism, a woman is supposed to become a dvija, a truly initiated member of the religion and the society, only after her marriage. The virtues referred

(Page 139)

to in the Aºguttara NikŒya are household duties of a woman as wife which lead to domestic peace and concord. They are also calculated to keep the family administration in gear and secure for the family economic stability. This significant part which she is called upon to play is meticulously defined and it reveals neither indifference to nor contempt of women on the part of the Buddha. The good laywoman has also her duties for the development of her religious life. It is a course of graduated training which does not conflict with her household life. It is, in fact, smoothly woven into it. Religious devotion (saddhŒ), moral virtue (s´la), and a generous disposition (cŒga), for instance, form part of it. This healthy combination of social and religious virtues of woman is further witnessed in the Aºguttara NikŒya where it is said that the following eight virtues pave the way for her to proceed to heaven:

They are : 1.organises the work of the household with efficiency, 2.treats her servants with concern, 3.strives to please her husband, 4.takes good care of what he earns, 5.possesses religious devotion, 6.is virtuous in conduct, 7.is kind, 8.is liberal. The first four items of this list are identical with the first four of the five good qualities ascribed to the virtuous wife in the SiºgŒlovŒda Sutta, the fifth being general efficiency (dakkhŒ) and enterprise (analasŒ sabbakiccesu) - D. III. p.190.

It was also held in Indian belief that woman was intellectually inferior to man and therefore had no capacity to reach higher spiritual attainments. This idea clearly echoes in the Saµyutta NikŒya where MŒra, as the personification of the forces of evil, strives in vain to dissuade a Bhikkhuni [ Ther´ SomŒ ] from her religious endeavours.

These words of MŒra are undoubtedly resonant of the beliefs of the day and the Buddha was vehement in contradicting them. Bhikkhuni SomŒ to whom MŒra addressed these words answered. Illustrating the Buddhist attitude to the spiritual potentialities of woman she said :

However, there is evidence that this age-old scepticism about the spiritual potentialities of woman died hard. Even in the face of success achieved by Bhikkhunis in Buddhism, a groundless belief seems to have prevailed which distrusted the capacity of woman for spiritual perfection. On the eve of her final passing away, when MahŒpajŒpati Gotami visits the Buddha to bid him farewell, he calls upon her to give proof of the religious attainments of the Bhikkhunis in order to convince the disbelieving sceptics.

(Page 140)

Buddhism. with its characteristic note of realism, also recognises the inherent qualities of woman which make her attractive to the opposite sex. Nothing else in the world, it is said, can delight and cheer a man so much as a woman. In her, one would find all the fivefold pleasures of the senses. The world of pleasure exists in her.

The power which the woman derives through this may, at the same time, extend so far as to make man throw all reason to the winds and be a pawn in her hand, under the influence of her charm. Thus, it is even possible that a mother may err in relation to her son or vice versa : Kin nu so bhikkhave moghapuriso ma––ati na mŒtŒ putte sŒrajjati pètto vŒ pana mŒtar´ ' ti. The Aºguttara is equally emphatic when it says : NŒhaµ bhikkhave a––aµ ekarèpam ' pi samanupassŒmi evaµ rajan´yaµ evaµ kaman´yaµ evaµ madan´yaµ evaµ bandhan´yaµ evµ mucchan´yam evaµ antarŒyakaraµ anuttarassa yogakkhemassa adhigamŒya yatha y ' idaµ bhikkhave itthirèpaµ. Itthirèpe bhikkhave sattŒ rattŒ giddhŒ gadhitŒ mucchitŒ ajjhopannŒ te d´gharattaµ socanti itthirèpavasŒnugŒ.... A.III. 68. Therefore a man might say without exaggeration that woman is a trap laid out on all sides by MŒra (yaµ hi taµ bhikkhave sammŒ vadamŒno vadeyya samantapŒsŒ ' ti mŒtugŒmaµ y ' eva sammŒ vadamŒno vadeyya samantapŒso mŒrassŒ ' ti - A.III. 68.). These observations are made, however, not as a stricture on their character but as a warning to the men, who in seeking their company, might err on the side of excess. It is true that at times they tend to be overstressed, but obviously with no malice to women. There is pointed reference to the unguarded nature of the man who falls a prey to these feminine charms.

Thus it becomes clear that it is not in the spirit of Budhism to brand woman as a source of corruption for man. Note the words ' a man of heedless mind ' in the above quotation. It would be interesting to contrast here the words of Manu who says : ' It is the nature of woman to seduce men in this world ' (SvabhŒva eva nŒr´öŒµ narŒöŒµ iha dè©anaµ - Manu. II.213.). The Jains too, inspite of their admission of women into their Monastic Order, do not seem to have differed very much from the Brahmins in their attitude towards women. The îcŒraºga Sètra, in the course of a religious admonition known as the Pillow of Righteousness, makes the following comment which stigmatises woman completely: ' He to whom women were known as the causes of all sinful acts, he saw (the true state of the world).' The position of woman in Jainism is summed up as follows : " Right in the earliest portions of the Canon woman is looked upon as something evil that enticed innocent males into a snare of misery. They are described as ' the greatest temptation ', ' the causes of all sinful acts ', ' the slough ', ' demons ' etc. Their bad qualities are described in exaggerated terms. Their passions are said to destroy the celibacy of monks ' like a pot filled with lac near fire '. " In

(Page 141)

Buddhism, on the other hand, the caution which men are called upon to exercise in their dealings with the opposite sex springs solely from the Buddhist attitude to kŒma or the pleasures of the senses. KŒmŒ are described in Buddhism as leading to grief and turbulence. KŒmŒ thwart the path to transcendental happiness . This attitude is eloquently manifest in the counsel given to AriÊÊha in the Alagaddèpama Sutta.

Of this vast field of sense experience, sex is only a segmant but it is admittedly one with irresistible appeal and thus required a special word of warning, particularly to those who are keen on the pursuit of mental equipoise. The Buddha says that if it were left unbridled, it would, in expressing itself, shatter all bounds of propriety (Kin nu so bhikkhave moghapuriso ma––ati na mŒtŒ putte sŒrajjati putto vŒ pana matar´ ' ti - A.III. 68.). Hence the desire to lead a chaste and moral life, eschewing, even completely, the gratification of sex desires, can as much be the aspiration of a woman as of a man. Besides this philosophic attitude to the pleasures of the world in which the woman admittedly plays a dominant part, there seems to be nothing in Buddhism which looks upon sex or woman as being corrupt in themselves.

Thus it becomes clear that the philosophy of early Buddhism had no reservations whatsoever regarding the spiritual emancipation of woman. In the ocean of saµsŒra her chances swimming across to the further shore were as good as those of man. Emancipation of the mind through perfecton of wisdom which is referred to as cetovimutti pa––Œvimutti was the goal of religious life and for this the way which had proved most effective was the life of renunciation. The woman was as much encumbered by household life as man and in her spiritual earnestness she would have equally well echoed the words of the man who chooses renunciation. She would say with him that the household life is full of impediments and contrast it with the life of pabbajjŒ (SambŒdho gharŒvŒso rajopatho abbhokŒso pabbajjŒ - M.I.179.).

But according to the evidence of the Pali texts the admission of women into the life of pabbajjŒ in Buddhism does not seem to have been effected with as much ease as one would expect. According to these, the Buddha appears to have shown some reluctance to admit women into the Order. When MahŒpajŒpati Gotami requested the Buddha to consent to the entry of women into his Order he is said to have put her off three times, saying: 'Do not be interested O, Gotami, about the entry of women into my Order.' This does seem to imply that the presence of women in the monastic institution of brahmacariya was considered, for some reason or other, to be detrimental to its well- being. In an atmosphere where women were considered a danger to spiritual life, their presence in the inner circle of religious life as members of the monastic community would have naturally called for serious comment. However, there is evedence that Jainism had already broken through this barrier against women. But the vicissitudes of the Jaina monastic community, in the relations between the two orders of monks and nuns, as well as of nuns and laymen, could not apparently have been very heartening to the Buddha. Speaking of the reforms introduced by MahŒv´ra with the addition of the fifth vow of chastity to the earlier cauyŒma saµvara of PŒr§va, Jacobi says, 'The argumentation in the text presupposes a decay of morals of the monastic order to have occurred between PŒr§va and MahŒv´ra...'. There is also evidence from another quarter of the promiscuity in the behaviour of male and female mendicants in the Buddha's day. The Buddha takes note of this in the CulladhammasamŒdŒna Sutta where he speaks of Samaöas and BrŒhmaöas who repudiating the view that sensual pleasures are detrimental to spiritual progress, mingle freely with female mendicants, vociferuously enjoying their company. They are reported as saying

(Page 142)

'Whatever can be the basis for pleading for the renunciation of sensual pleasures? What future calamity can lie in wait for us? Blissful indeed is the contact of the soft and tender hands of these young female mendicants.'

However, the Buddha concedes to înanda that women, having taken to the life of pabbajjŒ in Buddhism. are capable of attaining the higher fruits of religious life as far as Arahantship. (Bhabbo Œnanda mŒtugŒmo tathŒgatappavedite dhammavinaye agŒrasmŒ anagŒriyaµ pabbajitvŒ sotŒpattiphalam ' pi sakadŒgŒmiphalam ' pi anŒgŒmiphalam ' pi arahattaphalam ' pi sacchikŒtun ' ti - A.IV. 276 ; Vin.II. 254.). The considerations which seem to have weighed heavy in the mind of the Buddha regarding the admission of women into the Order are concerned more with the wider problem of the monastic organization as a whole. He would have been undoubtedly most averse to stand in the way of the personal liberty of woman. But in the interests of the collective good of the institution of brahmacariya, which was the core of the religion, women had to make certain sacrifices, surrendering at times even what might appear to have been their legitimate rights, This is evident from the eight conditions (aÊÊha-garudhammŒ) under which the Buddha granted them permission to enter the Order.

1. A nun who has been ordained (even) for a century must greet respectfully, rise up from her seat, salute with joined palms, do proper homage to a monk ordained but that day.
1. A nun must not spend the rains in a residence where there is no monk. (See Bhikkhun´ PŒc. 56 : Vin. IV. 313.).
1. Every half- month a nun should desire two things from the Order of monks : the asking (as to the date) of the Observance day, and the coming for the exhortation. (See Bhikkhun´ PŒc. 59 : Ibid. 315)
1. After the rains a nun must ' invite ' before both Orders in respect of three matters : what was seen, what was heard, what was suspected. (See Bhikkhun´ PŒc. 57 : Ibid. 314.)
1. A nun, offending against an important rule, must undergo MŒnatta (discipline) for half a month before both Orders.
1. When, as a probationer, she has trained in the six rules for two years, she should seek ordination from both Orders.
1. A monk must not be abused or reviled in any way by a nun.
1. From today admonition of monks by nuns is forbidden, admonition of nuns by monks is not forbidden.

Book of the Discipline, V. 354-55.

The insistence on these aÊÊha-garudhammŒ is the most vital issue, much more than the delayed consent of the Buddha, in the founding of the Bhikkhun´ SŒsana. The delay, it may in fact be argued, would have proved useful to emphasise the conditions which he was going to lay down. It is these conditions alone which gave the women access to the monastic life in Buddhism (Sace Œnanda mahŒpajŒpati gotam´ aÊÊhagarudhamme paÊigaöhŒti sŒ ' va 'ssŒ hotu upasampadŒ - Vin. II. 255.). The Dharmagupta Vinaya in the Chinese version compares them to a bridge over a great river by means of which one is enabled to cross over to the further bank. These garudhammŒ are observances which pertain to monastic propriety and procedure in the Order of Bhikkhunis in relation to the Bhikkhus. The women are not to violate these as long as they remain in the monastic community. In the establishment of the Bhikkhun´ SŒsana, these conditions seem to have engaged greater attention than even the formulation of the code of moral precepts, which incidentally is not even mentioned at this stage. There is no doubt that in maintaining the vigour and vitality of the Saºgha, whether of the Bhikkhus

(Page 143)

or of the Bhikkhunis, the code of the PŒtimokkha played a vital part. But it seems to be equally true to say that in bringing the newly inaugurated Bhikkhun´ Saºgha in to a healthy relationship with the older institution of the Bhikkhu Saºgha, the aÊÊha-garudhammŒ were calculated to play a greater role. They take no note of moral considerations. A perfect functioning of the latter, in the case of the Bhikkhunis too, was apparently taken for granted at this early stage of their SŒsana. That a similar state of affairs did exist even in the Bhikkhu Saºgha in its early history is evident in the Kakacèpama Sutta.

On a closer examination of the aÊÊhagarudhammŒ we are led to make the following observations. According to these the Bhikkhu Saºgha is looked upon as the more mature and respnsible body, evidently on account of its seniority, which is capable of leading the way for the Bhikkhun´ Saºgha. This is clearly evident from the garudhammŒ 2 and 3. The Bhikkhunis are expected to recognise the spiritual leadership of the Order of Bhikkhus. At least at the outset, the Bhikkhunis had to seek the assistance of the Bhikkhus in such vital monastic rituals like the pŒtimokkhuddesa and bhikkhunovŒda. But it is evident that, as circumstances recessitated and experience proved opportune, the Buddha did transfer some of these powers to the Bhikkhunis themselves. However, the recognition of the leadership of the monks over the community of nuns and this position of the Bhikkhus in loco parentis to the Bhikkhunis seem to have continued much longer. Even when the authority to recite the PŒtimokkha by themselves was finally transferred to the Bhikkhunis, the Bhikkhus were still left with the right to instruct them on its proper performance (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave bhikkhèhi bhikkhun´naµ Œcikkhitum evaµ pŒtimokkham uddiseyyŒthŒ ' ti - Vin. II. 259.). There is also evidence of a similar reservation of power in the transference of authority to the Bhikkhunis to impose penalties and punishments on their fellow members. The Bhikkhus who carried out these acts at the outset are latterly barred from doing so and are authorised only to explain to the Bhikkhunis the proper procedure. (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave bhikkhèhi bhikkhun´nam Œcikkhitum evaµ kammaµ kareyyŒthŒ ' ti - Vin. II. 260.). In the matter of bhikkhunovŒda too, it was a Bhikkhu who was appointed to remind the Bhikkhunis regularly of the proper observance of the aÊÊhagarudhammŒ. Thus on account of this complete dependence of a Bhikkhuni on the leadership of a Bhikkhu, the second of these eight garudhammŒ forbade the Bhikkhunis from going into residence for the rains- retreat in a place where there were no Bhikkhus. The third garudhamma too, implies the reliance of the Bhikkhunis on the Order of Bhikkhus in the performance of the two functions of uposathapucchaka and ovŒdèpasaºkamana. Both the Bhikkhus and the Bhikkhunis seem to have been vigilant about the proper observance of these functions which they considered, no doubt, to be vital for the healthy progress of the newly established Order of nuns. (i. Bhikkhuniyo tŒ bhikkhuniyo etadavocuµ kattha ayyŒyo vassaµ vutthŒ kacci ovŒdo iddho ahos´ ' ti. N ' atthi ayye tattha bhikkhè. Kuto ovŒdo iddho bhavissat´ ' ti. YŒ tŒ bhikkhuniyo appicchŒ ...vipŒcenti kathaµ hi nŒma bhikkhuniyo abhikkhuke ŒvŒse vassaµ vasissant´ ' ti - Vin.IV. 313. ii. Tena kho pana samayena bhikkhuniyo uposatham ' pi na pucchanti ovŒdam ' pi na yŒcanti. Bhikkhuè ujjhŒyanti kh´yanti vipŒcenti kathaµ hi nŒma bhikkhuniyo uposathaµ ... na yŒcissant´ ' ti - Ibid. 315.). At the first sign of slackness with regard to these there is a storm of protests and we notice that the authorities take immediate action to remedy it. These considerations are brought within the legal framework of the Bhikkhun´ SŒsana and the failure to observe these come to be declared punishable offences. In other words they become part of the Bhikkhuni´ PŒtimokkha. In the study of the sikkhŒpada of the Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha we have already noted this interesting phenomenon of the change over into legal statutes of what was once observed as honoured conventions.

(Page 144)

The garudhamma 4, 5 and 6 concern themselves with some of the other major items of administration in the Buddhist monastic community, viz. (i) the performance of the pavŒraöŒ at the end of the rains- retreat, (ii) the imposition of necessary penalties on the commission of a grave offence, and (iii) the conferment of upasampadŒ or higher monastic status. As far as the Bhikkhunis are concerned, they are barred under these garudhammŒ from performing any of these acts within their own Order of the Bhikkhun´ Saºgha. These acts of the Bhikkhunis are not considered valid unless they are carried out jointly together with the monks. However, practical considerations soon necessitated amendments to these and we see in the revised version of these conditions the sanction given to the Bhikkhunis to perform these acts, in the first instance, by themselves. Then they are expected to bring their decisions before the Bhikkhu Saºgha for ratification. The following is the amended procedure for the conferment of upasampadŒ on a Bhikkhuni by the Bhikkhu Saºgha : anujŒnŒmi bhikkhave ekato upasampannŒya bhikkhun´saºghe visuddhŒya bhikkhusaºghe upasampadan ' ti - Vin.II. 271, 274. It shows that the candidate had been already approved by the Bhikkhun´ Saºgha. The Bhikkhunis were also allowed to perform their pavŒraöŒ in two stages before the two assemblies, first among themselves and then before the Bhikkhu Saºgha (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave ajjatanŒ pavŒretvŒ aparajju bhikhusaºghe pavŒretun ' ti - Ibid. 275.).

Thus, from the manner in which the Buddha directed the activities of the Bhikkhunis it becomes clear that he did realise that as the Bhikkhunis formed a part of the single body of the Saºgha, their decisions would affect not only themselves, but also the rest of that vast organization. Hence the Bhikkhus were given the right to advise and assist the Bhikkhunis in their affairs, and thus regulate the destinies of the SŒsana. Public opinion must have played a considerable part in bringing Bhikkhunis under the wing of the Bhikkhu Saºgha. At any rate, it appears to have been considered wise to have all the important monastic activities of the Bhikkhunis linked up with the more established and senior group of the Bhikkhu Saºgha. However, when and wherever this advisory role had to be transferred from the collective organization of the Bhikkhu Saºgha to a single individual, the Buddha took every necessary precaution to avoid possible abuse of privilege. He has laid down a very comprehensive list of eight requirements which should be satisfied before a monk could be selected to the role of a bhikkhunovŒdaka to give counsel to the congregation of nuns. There seems to be little doubt about his anxiety and his foresight regarding the safety and well-being of the female members of his Order. A monk who is entrusted to preside over their welfare should conform to perfect standards of moral virtue. He should also possess a thorough knowledge of the teaching of the Master and know well the complete code of the PŒtimokkha covering both the Bhikkhus and the Bhikkhunis. He should be of pleasant disposition, mature in years and acceptable to the Bhikkhunis, and above all, should in no way have been involved in a serious offence with a Bhikkhuni.

The three remaining garudhammŒ 1, 7 and 8, appear to have baffled some students of Buddhism as being contrary to the Buddha's general attitude to women. However, if these are examined carefully in their context, this apparent contradiction becomes less glaring. They all strive to see that the Bhikkhunis do not, under any circumstance, assert their superiority over the Bhikkhus. We notice that even in the observance of sikkhŒpada, the Bhikkhunis are to follow the lead of the Bhikkhus wherever the sikkhŒpada are common to both groups. The Buddha advises the Bhikkhunis to follow the Bhikkhus in the practice of such sikkhŒpada (...yathŒ bhikkhè sikkhanti tathŒ tesu sikkhŒpadesu sikkhathŒ ' ti - Vin.II. 258.). But referring to the sikkhŒpada which are peculiar to the Bhikkhunis, he suggests that they should be followed, as they are laid down, according to the letter of the law(...yathŒ-pa––attesu sikkhŒpadesu sikkhathŒ ' ti - Ibid. 258.). What seems to follow from these words of instruction to the Bhikkhunis is that even if there was a difference between the text of the sikkhŒpada laid down for the Bhikkhus and their practice at the time, the Buddha did not think it wise, for purposes of communal harmony, to leave room for the Bhikkhunis to be critical of this discrepancy. Such a challenge would have completely undermined the prestige and the authority of the older institution ot the Saºgha, quite out of proportion to any degree of moral good it could bring about by the correction of Bhikkhus by the Bhikkhunis.

(Page 145)

There is evidence to show that the Buddha was always concerned with the esteem in which the public held his monastic organization. Such a consideration was vital for its existence and prosperity. The first remarks which he made to his erring disciples as he criticised their conduct always pertains to this (N ' etaµ moghapurisa appasannŒnaµ vŒ pasŒdŒya pasannŒnaµ vŒ bhiyyobhŒvŒya - Vin.I. 58 ; II. 2 ; III. 21, 45.). As much as the Buddha wanted his disciples to correct their mistakes and be of faultless conduct, he did not want any of them to divulge to any one other than a Bhikkhu or a Bhikkhuni the more serious offences of their fellow members. Such an intimation was allowed only with the approval of the Bhikkhus (Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhussa duÊÊhullaµ Œpattiµ anupasampannassa Œroceyya a––atra bhikkhusammutiyŒ pŒcittiyaµ - Vin.IV. 31.). One who violates this injunction is guilty of a PŒcittiya offence (PŒc. 9). This provision was undoubtedly made with the best of intentions and should not be misjudged as contributing in any way to the perpetuation of monastic offences, On the other hand, it is in fact repeatedly declared that it is irregular for a monk to conceal intentionally an offence of one member from the rest of the community. PŒcittiya 64 of the monks and PŒrŒjika 2 and SaºghŒdisesa 9 of the nuns are all calculated to avoid such a possibility. All these precautions, therefore, seem to be a part of a system of internal security set up by the Buddha in the interests of the monastic organization. They emphasise the Buddha's concern both for the public esteem and for the moral soundness of his Order.

There seems to be a general agreement about the fact that the eight garudhammŒ were laid down by the Buddha as a condition governing the establishment of the Bhikkhun´ SŒsana. However, strange as it may seem, after the Bhikkhun´ SŒsana was instituted under the leadership of Gotami, she appears before înanda to make the request that the Buddha should remove the first garudhamma and allow Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis to pay courtesies to each other according to seniority alone. This could hardly be true to the spirit in which Gotami accepted the garudhammŒ. We are inclined to think that she was here undoubtedly subjected to undue pressure of her own group.

This dissentient note which we find recorded in the Cullavagga, it is imortant to note, does not seem to have found general acceptance elsewhere. Of the Chinese Vinaya texts we have examined, it is only the Mah´§Œsakas who record it and that too with a different emphasis. According to their text Gotami, prior to her being ordained, sends înanda to the Buddha to request him to make this change. The Buddha refuses to do so and says that since he has now allowed women to enter the Order they should follow what has been laid down and not go against it. In the Cullavagga too, the Buddha declines to make this concession. But in trying to give a reason for this attitude of the Buddha, the Theriya tradition attempts to make out that in the organization of the SŒsana social considerations, as much as moral and ethical values, loomed large in the mind of the Master. In the Cullavagga he is reported as saying : 'Not even the Titthiyas who propound imperfect doctrines sanction such homage of men towards women. How could the TathŒgata do so?'

We should also here consider the fact that any concession for the abrogation of what had already been laid down after careful deliberation would be grossly contradictory to the ideal which the Buddha and his early disciples appear to have upheld regarding the observance of the rules and regulations laid down for the guidance of monastic life. The reply which the Buddha seems to have

(Page 146)

given to Gotami in the Chinese version of the Mah´§Œsaka Vinaya is definitely more in keeping with this spirit. But we should take note of the fact that this reply would run contrary to the Theriya tradition, which at some stage, seems to have accommodated the idea that the Buddha conceded the abrogation of the minor rules.

As far as we are aware there is one other Vinaya tradition which records a challenge of the garudhammŒ. The Chinese version of the Dharmagupta Vinaya has a chapter entitiled 'Bhikkhun´ Khandhaka' wherein the question is asked whether the Bhikkhunis cannot accuse the Bhikkhus under any circumstances. The Buddha replies to say that they could not do so even if the Bhikkhus violated the rules of discipline or were guilty of offences. These two protests on the part of the Bhikkhunis seem to show that the Bhikkhuni´ Saºgha, or at least a section of it, resisted what it considered to be harsh legislation.

At the same time one has to view dispassionately the position of the Buddha, who as the head of the Bhikkhu Saºgha which was already a well-groomed institution, had to safeguard against its disintegration through dispute and discontent. The fifth accusation levelled against înanda at the First Council, that he agitated for the admission of women into the Order, is a clear indication that even after the recognised success of the Bhikkhun´ SŒsana there was a section of the Bhikkhus who formed as it were a consolidated opposition against it. The motive for such an attitude could have been generated by the fear of being eclipsed by the newer Order. The Chinese version of the Mah´§Œsaka Vinaya includes a statement which is ascribed to the Buddha which seems to lend support to this assumption. The Buddha says that if there were no Bhikkhunis in the SŒsana, then after his death the male and female lay-devotees (upŒsakŒ and upŒsikŒ ) would have honoured the Bhikkhus in diverse ways. But now that the Bhikkhunis had entered the Order it would not happen so. It is difficult here to decide how and why the presence of Bhikkhunis in the SŒsana should have brought about such a radical change in the attitude of laymen and lay-women towards the Bhikkhus. Why were the Bhikkhus deprived of the honour that would have been theirs had not the Bhikkhunis appeared on the scene? Are the Bhikkhunis to be held responsible for the loss of prestige of the Bhikkhus? At any rate, this record of the Mah´§Œsakas was undoubtedly representative of a section of the opinion of the day regarding the Bhikkhun´ SŒsana.

The Pali records of the Theriya tradition which belong to an earlier phase of the history of the SŒsana give expression to a similar feeling in the chastisement of înanda in whom ultimately lay the responsibility for the admission of women into the Order. An echo of this is felt in the Mah´§Œsaka Vinaya where înanda apologises to the Buddha for having requested him to permit women to enter the Order. But the Buddha absolves him saying that he did so unwittingly under the influence of MŒra. The Theriya tradition is not alone again in expressing the fact that the presence of women in the SŒsana would reduce its life span by half. We find it recorded in the Chinese version of the Dharmagupta Vinaya that the Buddha told înanda that if women did not enter the Order it would have lasted 500 years longer.

(Page 147)

It becomes clear from what has been said so far that at the time of crystalization of Theriya traditions two ideas regarding the establishment of the Bhikkhun´ SŒsana stood out clearly. A section of the Bhikkhu Saºgha was reproachful of înanda because he interceded with the Buddha for the sake of the Bhikkhunis. The admission of women was also considered a categorical danger to the successful continuance of the SŒsana. In the light of all this evidence a study of the garudhammŒ reveals to us the fact that the Buddha was keenly conscious of the need to steer clear of the possible rivalries of the Bhikkhus and the Bhikkhunis and maintain healthy and harmonious relations between the two groups.

(Page 148)

CHAPTER XIV

Inspite of the numerous comments and criticisms which are associated with the founding of the Order of Bhikkhunis it is clearly evident that it soon became a recognised component of the religious organization of the Buddha.

The catuparisŒ or the fourfold assembly, which included both Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis together with laymen and laywomen, was the dynamic institution of Buddhism which gave the religion its vitality and its validity. In the PŒsŒdika Sutta the Buddha tells Cunda how the stability of the religion depends on the achievements of this fourfold assembly which includes both Bhikkhunis and laywomen, showing that women were by no means an appendix but an integral part of the corpus of the religion (Santi kho pana me cunda etarahi therŒ bhikkhè sŒvakŒ vyattŒ vin´tŒ visŒradŒ ... therŒ bhikkhuniyo sŒvikŒ ... upŒsakŒ sŒvakŒ... upŒsikŒ sŒvikŒ .... Etarahi kho pana me cunda brahmacariyaµ iddha– ca ph´ta– ca vitthŒrikaµ bŒhuja––aµ puthubhètaµ yŒva ' d ' eva manussehi suppakŒsitaµ - D.III.125 f.). This significance of the Bhikkhun´ SŒsana is further attested in the MahŒparinibbŒna Sutta, where heedless of an anachronism, it is said that the Buddha, not long after his enlightenment, told MŒra that he would not pass away into parinibbŒna until his fourfold assembly, including the Bhikkhunis, i.e. Bhikkhu, Bhikkhun´, UpŒsaka and UpŒsikŒ, is well and firmly established (Na tŒvŒ ' ham pŒpima parinibbŒyissŒm´ yŒva me ...bhikkhuniyo na sŒvikŒ bhavissanti viyattŒ vin´tŒ visŒradŒ ...sappŒÊihŒriyaµ dhammaµ desessanti - D.II.113.). The presence of women in the monastic life is accepted as a reality and most admonitions which were addressed to the Bhikkhus were equally applicable to the Bhikkhunis as well (Yassa kassaci bhikkhave bhikkhussa vŒ bhikkhuniyŒ vŒ kŒyavaºko appah´no kŒyadoso kŒyakasŒvo vac´vaºko...manovaºko... evampapatitŒ te bhikkhave imasmŒ dhammavinayŒ seyyathŒ ' pi taµ cakkaµ chahi divasehi niÊÊhitam - A.I.112 f.). However, there soon evolved a separate code of conduct for the use of the Bhikkhunis which took into consideration the differences not only of sex but also of temperament between the Bhikkhus and the Bhikkhunis.

In the study of the Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha we have already observed how both the text and the ritual of the PŒtimokkha grew out of the restrictive regulations which the Buddha had to lay down from time to time to discipline the monks who were leading the life of brahmacariya under him (YannènŒ ' haµ yŒni mayŒ bhikkhènaµ pa––attŒni sikkhŒpadŒni tŒni nesaµ pŒtimokkhuddesaµ anujŒneyyaµ - Vin.I.102.). As this first collection of the Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha grew, associated for the most part with monks alone, some of its rules no doubt came to possess a peculiarly masculine relevance. Nevertheless, the PŒtimokkha as a code meant to further the life of brahmacariya would have applied in its essence to the women as well when they sought admission to be ordained as Bhikkhunis under the Buddha. Recognising the character of woman from diverse angles, both social and religious, the Buddha had to make relevant changes in the PŒtimokkha of the Bhikkhus to make it acceptable to the Order of the Bhikkhunis. Yet it remained essentially the same, the guide to the monastic life of those men and women who renounced the world.

(Page 149)

The evolution of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha out of the PŒtimokkha which was laid down for the Bhikkhus seems to have confused some scholars considerably with regard to its size and contents. We shall therefore first examine this phenomenon. The regulation of the discipline of the newly established Bhikkhuni´ SŒsana does not seem to have necessitated any structural alteration of the original PŒtimokkha. The original classification of sikkhŒpada into different categories is accepted in the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha, almost in toto, the group of Aniyatas of the Bhikkhu PŒtikokkha being the only one to be left out in the latter. On a closer examination, however, it would be discovered that these two Aniyata dhammas are themselves a further development out of the Bhikkhu PŒcittiyas 44 and 45 which have been made applicable to the Bhikkhunis as well. On the other hand a number of individual rules which are peculiar to the male members alone had to be left out while a host of new rules came to be added to cover the special needs of the women in the monastic community.

The four PŒrŒjikŒ of the Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha are increased to eight in the code of the Bhikkhunis. Nos. 1, 2, and 4 of these additional rules which are peculiar to the Bhikkhunis (asŒdhŒraöa pa––atti) pertain to sex life in some way or another and can therefore be looked upon as secondary rules deriving from PŒrŒjika 1 of the Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha. However, in the life of the Bhikkhunis, they are considered serious enough to be ranked under PŒrŒjika. Thus half the number of PŒrŒjika rules laid down for the Bhikkhunis deal with sex. These sikkhŒpada not only attempt to safeguard the chastity of the brahmacŒrin´ but also try to keep the whole body of Bhikkhunis above reproach. Unchaste behaviour of female mendicants was a reality in contemporary society and seeing the possibility of similar incidents within his own monastic Order, the Buddha was prompted to provide these extra safeguards. There is evidence of incidents in the history of the SŒsana in which Bhikkhunis were involved which were serious enough for public censure. The MahŒvagga records the incident of the sŒmaöera Kaö¶aka who violated the chastity of a Bhikkhuni (Tena kho pana samayena Œyasmato upanandassa sakyaputtassa kaö¶ako nŒma sŒmaöero kaö¶akaµ nŒma bhikkhuniµ dèsesi - Vin.I. 58.). Provoked perhaps by the recurrence of such events the public also did at times make hasty and groundless accusations implicating Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis. A widowed father who had taken to the monastic life along with his young son once became the target of such an accusation. The father was accused, as a Bhikkhu, of having had the child through a Bhikkhuni (AbrahmacŒrino ime samaöŒ sakyaputtiyŒ. Ayaµ dŒrako bhikkhuniyŒ jŒto ' ti - Vin. I. 79.).

The Bhikkhunis were forbidden to indulge in frivolous behaviour with members of the opposite sex. A number of rules of the Bhikkhunis which supplement the contents of the SaºghŒdisesa and PŒcittiya groups of the Bhikkhus regulate the conduct of the Bhikkhunis with adequate caution so that they may not fall victims to the lustful desires of unscrupulous men. The following rules of the Bhikkhunis deserve special mention here : SaºghŒdisesas 3, 5 and 6 and PŒcittiyas 11-14, 36.

(Page 150)

The other additional rule (No.3) in the PŒrŒjika group of the Bhikkhunis makes it an offence for a Bhikkhuni to follow a monk who had been lawfully subjected to a boycott by the Saºgha (ukkhittŒnuvattikŒ). Such indiscreet partisan loyalties, whether on the part of the Bhikkhus or of the Bhikkhunis, would have made it difficult to maintain law and order and to ensure harmony within the monastic community. PŒcittiya 69 of the Bhikkhus warns monks against associating a miscreant Bhikkhu who had been lawfully subjected to punishment. According to the history of this sikkhŒpada an act of boycott had been carried out by the Saºgha on a monk named AriÊÊha who held fast to a heresy, and the rest of the community were barred from seeking his company under the pain of a PŒcittiya offence. In the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga, the loyalties of Bhikkhuni ThullanandŒ towards the same miscreant Bhikkhu AriÊÊha assumes major proportions and leads to the promulgation of a PŒrŒjika sikkhŒpada. In contrast, it is worth noting that a Bhikkhuni who associates with another Bhikkhuni who had been subjected to a boycott under similar conditions is declared to be guilty only of a PŒcittiya offence (YŒ pana bhikkhun´ jŒnaµ tathŒvŒdiniyŒ bhikkhuniyŒ akatŒnudhammŒya taµ diÊÊhiµ appaÊinissaÊÊhŒya saddhiµ sambhu–jeyya vŒ saµvaseyya vŒ saha vŒ seyyaµ kappeyya pŒcittiyaµ - Bhikkhun´ PŒcittiya No. 147).

Let us probe further into this apparent discrimination. Both in the Sutta and the Vinaya we come across a number of instances of Bhikkhunis who show strong emotional attachment to Bhikkhus of their choice. Such Bhikkhunis, who often happened to be of frivolous character, seem not only to dedicate their whole life for the service of their chosen comrades, but also to engage themselves actively in canvassing for them the patronage of the laymen. Thi is clearly evident in the Bhikkhu PŒcittiya 29 where Bhikkhuni ThullanandŒ underrates the greatness of SŒriputta, MoggallŒna and other elders in the presence of a house-holder who had invited them. Here, she does so in order to exalt her own favourites like Devadatta, KokŒlika and others whom she presents as the stalwarts of the SŒsana. We witness a further embarrassing situation in PŒÊidesaniya 2 where the Chabbaggiya Bhikkhunis personally supervised the feeding of their comrades, the Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus, and saw to it that they got the choicest dishes to the neglect of the rest (ChabbaggiyŒ bhikkhuniyo chabbaggiyŒnaµ bhikkhènaµ vosŒsantiyo ÊhitŒ honti idha sèpaµ detha idha odanaµ dethŒ ' ti. ChabbaggiyŒ bhikkhè yŒvadatthaµ bhu–janti a––e bhikkhè na cittarèpaµ bhu–janti - Vin.IV.177.) This emotionalism of the Bhikkhunis appears to have gone a step further. In an attempt to defend their comrade monks and maintain their prestige, at times, the Bhikkhunis became pugnacious and

(Page 151)

offensive. Bhikkhuni ThullanandŒ once abused the elder MahŒ Kassapa calling him the erstwhile heretic because she took exception to his criticism of înanda. Thus the Bhikkhunis ventured to silence the critics and shield themselves and their erring comrades. The attitude of Moliyaphagguna towards the criticisms hurled at his favourite nuns with whom he used to mingle freely and similar reactions on the part of the nuns themselves show that these emotions which the Buddha referred to as being characteristic of lay householders (gehasitŒ chandŒ gehasitŒ vitakkŒ) would have been a menace to the healthy and harmonious life of the community. If this tendency of the Bhikkhunis was allowed to continue without restriction it would have served to support and encourage the rebellious dissentients in the Saºgha. Evidently such Bhikkhus considered the ability to command and count on the support of the Bhikkhunis to be a great asset. Thus it is clear that the vissicitudes of the Bhikkhu SŒsana would have warranted the inclusion of this additional PŒrŒjika of theBhikkhunis (No. 3.) ' that no Bhikkhuni shall follow a Bhikkhu who had been lawfully subjected to a boycott by the Saºgha and who subsequently had made no amends for it.'

The seventeen SaºghŒdisesa rules of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha consist of seven which the Bhkkkhunis hold in common with the Bhikkhus (sŒdhŒraöa pa––atti), and ten additional rules which apply to the Bhikkhunis alone. The SaºghŒdisesa rules 1- 4 of the Bhikkhus deal with sex abuses or minor sex relations of a Bhikkhu with a woman and therefore have no relevance to the Bhikkhunis. On the other hand, we have already noted that cosiderations regarding the sex relations of Bhikkhunis with the male members of the lay society were relatively enhanced in gravity and included under the Bhikkhun´ PŒrŒjikas 1 and 4. The other two rules of the Bhikkhu SaºghŒdisesas (Nos. 6 and 7) which are left out of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha refer to the construction of dwelling places (kuÊi and vihŒra). Nevertheless, PŒcittiya 19 of the Bhikkhus which also happens to deal with dwelling places of monks (vihŒra) finds its parallel in the following PŒcittiya rule of the Bhikkhunis : Mahallakaµ pana bhikkhuniyŒ vihŒraµ kŒrayamŒnŒya yŒva dvŒrakosŒ aggalaÊÊhapanŒya ŒlokasandhiparikammŒya dvatticchadanassa pariyŒyam appaharite ÊhitŒya adhiÊÊhŒtabbaµ. Tato ce uttarim appaharite pi ÊhitŒ adhiÊÊhaheyya pŒcittiyaµ.' With the omission of these six rules of the Bhikkhu SaºghŒdisesa the Bhikkhunis are still left with seven sŒdhŒraöa pa––atti or rules which they hold in common with the Bhikkhus under the category of SaºghŒdisesa. The ten new rules which take their place under the Bhikkhun´ SaºghŒdisesas deal with a variety of themes.

No.1 forbids nuns from entering into hostilities with the laymen. (YŒ pana bhikkhun´ ussayavŒdikŒ vihareyya gahapatinŒ vŒ gahapatiputtena vŒ dŒsena vŒ kammakŒrena vŒ antamaso samaöaparibbŒjakenŒ ' pi ayampi bhikkhun´ paÊhamŒpattikkaµ dhammaµ ŒpannŒ nissŒraº´yaµ saºghŒdisesaµ - Vin. IV. 224.

Nos. 2 and 4 provide against the indiscreet admission of doubtful characters into the Bhikkhun´ Order without proper investigation and the illegal reinstatement of a properly expelled nun.

Nos. 3. 5 and 6 safeguard the nuns from the dangers of lustful men.

Nos. 7-10 attempt to curb the rebellious and disruptive elements of the Bhikkhun´ Order who operate either singly or in groups. These four new rules of the Bhikkhunis seem, more or less, to reinforce the Bhikkhu SaºghŒdisesa 9 -13 which are also applicable to the Bhikkhunis and which deal with similar situations.Thus we see that with the establishment of the new Order for Bhikkhunis the code of monastic discipline is being made more and more comprehensive.

(Page 152)

Both the Bhikkhus and the Bhikkhunis have the same number of thirty Nissaggiya PŒcittiya rules. But only the following 18 rules of the Bhikkhus are held in common by the Bhikkhunis as well. They are 1-3, 6-10, 18-20, 22, 23, 25-28, 30. The 12 rules of the Bhikkhus which do not apply to the Bhikkhunis are as follows :

Nos. 4 and 5 deal with engaging the services of a Bhikkhuni to wash or dye a robe and receiving a robe from a Bhikkhuni respectively.

Nos. 11-17 are a set of very specific and circumscribed rules which deal with the making of rugs and coverlets out of silk and wool and their use.

No. 21 forbids the retention of an extra bowl beyond ten days. This rule, however, finds a place among the Bhikkhun´ Nissaggiyas in a stricter form. The new rule requires that no Bhikkhuni shall make a collection of bowls. This, in its context, is taken to mean that she shall not possess an extra bowl even for a single day. Buddhaghosa points out this difference between the two versions of the rule (Ayam eva hi viseso. Tattha dasŒ ' haµ parihŒro ettha ekŒ ' ham pi natthi - VinA.IV. 916.). Commenting on the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga Buddhaghosa looks upon this rule of the Bhikkhunis as a new one which replaces the former.

No. 24 specifies the time when a Bhikkhu should make a quest for a rain garment and the time when he should start wearing it. This together with the rule which deals with life in forest residences (No. 29) were apparently considered as having no relevance to the life of the Bhikkhunis.

No. 29 indicates a concession granted to the forest-dwelling monks regarding c´varavippavŒsa.

The Bhikkhun´vibhaºga, on the other hand, has the following rules added to the rest of the Bhikkhu Nissaggiya rules :

No.1. The Nissaggiya PŒcittiya group of the Bhikkhunis begins with this revised rule regarding the possession of bowls to which we have referred earlier under Bhikkhu Nissaggiya 21.

Nos. 2 and 3 deal with faulty practices in the acceptance and distribution of robes.

Nos. 4-10. This section details the abuse of offers made by laymen to provide the Bhikkhunis with their needs either individually or collectively to the congregation as a whole. The indiscreet behaviour of the Bhikkhunis in this direction had proved both irksome and embarrassing to the public.

Nos. 11 and 12 which deal with the choice and acceptance of robes are closely allied to Nos. 2 and 3.

PŒcittiya is not only the largest of all the groups of sikkhŒpada laid down for the Bhikkhunis as in the case of Bhikkhus too, but is also the group which has an overwhelmingly large collection of additional rules, amouting to ninety-six, which is four more than the entire group of Bhikkhu

(Page 153)

PŒcittiyas. Of the ninety-two Bhikkhu PŒcittiyas, the Bhikkhunis take seventy which they hold in common with the Bhikkhus. Thus the Bhikkhunis have a total of 166 sikkhŒpada under the group of PŒcittiya. The additional rules of the Bhikkhunis may roughly be analysed as pertaining to the following themes.

We have already noted above that 70 rules of the Bhikkhu PŒcittiya also apply to the Bhikkhunis. Of the twenty-two rules which are therefore peculiar to the Bhikkhus alone and do not apply to the Bhikkhunis, ten deal solely with relationships of Bhikkhus with Bhikkhunis (Nos. 21-30). Out of the bhojanavagga of the Bhikkhus which deal with food, four rules do not apply to the Bhikkhunis (Nos. 33, 35, 36, 39). The Bhikkhu PŒcittiya 41 which refers to the offer of food by a Bhikkhu to a naked ascetic, a male or female wandering ascetic, does not occur in the Bhikkhun´

(Page 154)

PŒtimokkha. The Bhikkhunis have in its place a new sikkhŒpada which leaves out the reference to the naked ascetic and replaces it with a householder : Bhikkhuni´ PŒcittiya 46. However, inspite of this change, these two sikkhŒpada look very similar to each other. Compare the Bhikkhu PŒcittiya 41:

with the Bhikkhun´ PŒcittiya 46:

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the motives which led to the promulgation of these two sikkhŒpada are different in each case. The PŒcittiya rule of the Bhikkhunis (No.46) should be studied together with No.28 of the same group where both the motives and the persons concerned are identical, the only difference being that in one a robe instead of food is given away by a Bhikkhuni. Under both these sikkhŒpada the Bhikkhuni concerned is guilty of bribing laymen, for the sake of personal gain or glory, with something belonging to the Bhikkhunis (Ten kho pana samayena thullanandŒ bhikkhun´ naÊŒnam ' pi naÊakŒnam ' pi .... samaöac´varam deti mayham parisati vaööaµ bhŒsathŒ ' ti - Vin.IV.285). The apparently corresponding sikkhŒpada of the Bhikkhus (Bhikkhu PŒc. 41), on the other hand, has its origin in an incident which is considerably circumscribed. What appears to be quite a harmless act did unexpectedy subject some members of the Order to ridicule in the hands of the heretics. In an attempt to safeguard against the recurrence of such incidents the following general rule, Bhikkhu PŒcittiya 41 is laid down: 'No monk shall give, with his own hands, any food unto a naked ascetic, a wandering ascetic, male or female.'

The Bhikkhu PŒcittiya 64 is left out of the Bhikkhun´ PŒcittiyas, perhaps because there is a similar ring in the second additional PŒrŒjika of the Bhikkhunis (vajja-paÊicchŒdika). This rule of the Bhikkhunis, however, refers only to the concealment of PŒrŒjika offences while the Bhikkhu PŒcittiya 64 covers both groups of offences, PŒrŒjika and SaºghŒdisesa, under the term duÊÊhullŒ Œpatti.

No. 65 is covered under the new Bhikkhun´ PŒcittiya 71.

Nos. 67 and 83 have relevance to Bhikkhus alone.

No. 85 gives permission to monks to enter the village out of hours under specified conditions. Perhaps we may infer that in leaving it out of the Bhikkhun´ PŒcittiya, it was intended that the Bhikkhunis were not to be given even a conditional entry except during proper hours.

No. 89. It is difficult to understand why this rule, which specifies the size of a nis´dana (=a mat to sit on) for the Bhikkhus, does not apply to the Bhikkhunis. The fact that nis´danas were recognised as part of the belongings of the Bhikkhunis as well is proved by the presence of the parallel of the Bhikkhu PŒcittiya 60 under the PŒcittiya of the Bhikkhunis (PŒcittiya 141 in the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha). Moreover, the parallel of the Bhikkhu PŒcittiya 87, which gives specifications about µa–ca (bed) and p´Êha (chair), also find a a place in the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha (PŒcittiya 173 in the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha).

No. 91 gives specifications of the size of the vassikasŒÊika (=a cloth for the rains). This, as well as the Bhikkhu Nissaggiya 24 which also refers to the vassikasŒÊika, do not apply to the Bhikkhunis.

(Page 155)

The eight PŒÊidesaniya rules of the Bhikkhunis are extremely simple in character and seem in fact to be a splitting up of the single rule which bars a Bhikkhuni, unless she is ill, from obtaining by request and using ghee, oil, honey, molasses, fish, meat, milk and curd. The Bhikkhus, on the other hand, have four PŒÊidesaniya rules of their own which also deal with food but are wider in their scope. Nos. 1 and 2 determine the relations of Bhikkhus with Bhikkhunis at meals, and hence have no relevance to the Bhikkhunis themselves. Nos. 3 and 4 refer to certain situations in which a monk who is not ill should not help himself to food. No. 4 deals with it specifically in relation to forest residences. Therefore this rule would not apply to the Bhikkhunis. No. 3 embodies an undoubtedly singnificant consideration. It prescribes against possible exploitation of pious lay patrons by inconsiderate monks, who while helping themselves to a meal, would fail to consider the economic stability of the people who provide them with food. Here the Buddha decrees that the Bhikkhus should formally decide among themselves not to strain those families of devoted laymen whose resources are depleted. The Bhikkhus shall not call on them and accept food unless on invitation or in cases of illness.

Both Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis share the same set of seventy-five Sekhiya dhammas.

The text of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha seems to have presented a number of problems to the scholars who ventured to examine it. Miss Durga N. Bhagavat who apparently approached it solely through the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga of the present Vinaya PiÊaka discovered therein only a fragment of it. She has erred so far as to mistake this abridged version for the complete text. The result of this has been obviously disastrous as has already been pointed out by Miss Horner. Miss Horner suggests that the Nuns' Vibhaºga in its present form may be regarded as an abridged version of some more complete Vibhaºga for nuns. In support of this she adduces as evidence the fragment of the PrŒtimok©asètra of the SarvŒstivŒdins published by Finot. The Bhik©un´-prŒtimok©a in it, it is pointed out, contains the end of one sikkhŒpada and the beginning of another which are identified as SaºghŒdisesas for nuns corresponding to Monks' SaºghŒdisesa 8 and 9. This leads us to the legitimate inference that there existed at some stage among the SarvŒstivŒdins a complete, unabridged PrŒtimok©a for the Bhik©unis. However, the earlier hypothesis of the existence of ' a more complete Vibhaºga for nuns ' is not necessarily established thereby, because there is evidence to show that the PrŒtimok©asètras which came to be recited fortnightly at the Uposatha meetings existed quite distinctly apart from the Vibhaºgas, and very naturally in an unabridged form.

On the other hand, as we examine the early literary history of the Vinaya PiÊaka we discover evidence which point to the existence of a complete and unabridged text of the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga. Buddhaghosa, while describing the Vinaya texts which were rehearsed at the First Council, speaks of the Ubhato Vibhaºga consisting of the MahŒvibhaºga and the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga. These two texts, it is said, were gone through separately each in its entirety. The MahŒvibhaºga, says Buddhaghosa, consists of 220 rules (Evaµ v´sŒdhikŒni dve sikkhŒpadasatŒni mahŒvibhaºgo ' ti kittetvŒ Êhapesuµ - DA.I. 13). We should note here how precise Buddhaghosa is in not adding, as most scholars do when they speak of 227 rules of the PŒtimokkha, the 7 Adhikaraöasamatha dhammas

(Page 156)

to the list of disciplinary rules. The Bhikkhun´vibhaºga consists of 304 rules, and not 311 for the same reason. (Evaµ t´ni sikkhŒpadasatŒni cattŒri ca sikkhŒpadŒni bhikkhun´vibhaºgo ' ti kittetvŒ... Ibid.) This shows that at least the tradition which Buddhaghosa inherited knew of an early reckoning of the contents of the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga independent of the MahŒvibhaºga, and it leads us to surmise on the independent existence of a complete Bhikkhun´vibhaºga.

Further it is worth noting that Buddhaghosa, while speaking of the literary activity of the First Cuncil, does not speak of an independent rehearsal of either of the PŒtimokkhas apart from the Vibhaºgas, although he goes so far as to include both the Khandhakas and the ParivŒra under the Vinaya literature rehearsed at the First Council. The two PŒtimokkhas were apparently reckoned as being part and parcel of the two respective Bibhaºgas at that stage. This is clear from the manner in which the elder MahŒ Kassapa questioned the venerable UpŒli from the first PŒrŒjika onwards inquiring not only about the rule but also about the details connected with it.

Even as far as the function of the PŒtimokkha was concerned, it is evident that in the early days of Buddhist monasticism much importance was attached to the meaning and interpretation, and all the implications of the sikkhŒpada. It was also necessary for the proper enforcement of the law that those who were in authority knew all the circumstances leading to the promulgation of the various sikkhŒpada. Therefore it is not unusual to find a monk being challenged regarding the authenticity of a particular item of discipline which he wishes to enforce. Thus, the maintenance of acceptable good monastic conduct being the live function of the PŒtimokkha, it was necessary for a monk, specially for one who was in authority such as a Vinayadhara or a BhikkhunovŒdaka, to learn both codes of the PŒtimokkha in detail with all the explanations. Note the significance of the following observations: 'If a monk is not well-versed in both codes of the PŒtimokkha with all their details and explanations, then if he were to be questioned as to where the Buddha has laid down such and such an injunction, he would not be able to give an answer. Then there would be many who would advise him to first learn his Vinaya.' (No ce bhikkhave bhikkhuno ubhayŒni pŒtimokkhŒni vitthŒrena svŒgatŒni honti suvibhattŒni suppavatt´ni suvinicchitŒni suttaso anuvya–janaso idaµ pana ŒyasmŒ kattha vuttaµ bhagavatŒ ' ti puÊÊho na sampŒyati. Tassa bhavanti vattŒro ingha tŒva ŒyasmŒ vinayaµ sikkhassè ' ti - A.V. 80 f.). There is no doubt, that all these requirements imply a thorough knowledge of the texts of the Vibhaºga. Buddhaghosa, in fact, explains suttaso of the above passage as vibhangato. In the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ, he explains the phrase vitthŒrena svŒgatŒni which also occurs in the above passage as implying a knowledge of the twofold Vibhaºga (Tattha ubhayŒni kho pana ' ssa pŒtimokkhŒni vitthŒrena svŒgatŒni hont´ ' ti ubhato vibhaºgavasena vuttŒni - VinA. V. 990.).

However, it is clear that Buddhaghosa was aware of the existence in his own day of the two PŒtimokkhas as independent literary works, besides the two Vibhaºgas, in the Vinaya PiÊaka. In a general description of the Vinaya PiÊaka, Buddhaghosa adds to its contents the two PŒtimokkhas as well, which now take their stand side by side with the Vibhaºgas, the Khandhakas and the ParivŒra. (Tattha paÊhamasaºg´tiyaµ saºg´ta– ca asaºg´taº ca sabbam pi samodhŒnetvŒ ubhayŒni pŒtimokkhŒni dve vibhaºgŒni dvŒv´sati khandhakŒ soÂasaparivŒrŒ ' ti idaµ vinayapiÊakaµ nŒma.). He also makes it clear in this statement that not all the contents of the extant Vinaya PiÊaka were rehearsed at the First Council.

(Page 157)

It is not possible to determine with any certainity the time when the PŒtimokkha (of the Bhikkhus and the Bhikkhunis) were thus extracted from the Vibhaºgas. All that we can safely infer from the statements of Buddhaghosa is that it certainly took place before his time, but at a date which does not go so far back as the First Council. Hence the absence in the Cullavagga of any reference to the PŒtimokkha as a Vinaya treatise during the recital of the Vinaya at the First Council. The independent existence of the Bhikkhu and Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha in their entirety, at least during the time of Buddhaghosa, is clearly evident in the KaºkhŒvitaraö´ of Buddhaghosa. We notice there that Buddhaghosa is familiar with an unabridged text of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha. In commenting, however, on the sikkhŒpada of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha, he recognises the items which the Bhikkhunis hold in common with the Bhikkhus (sŒdhŒraöa pa––attiyo) and refers back for their explanation to his comments on those identical sikkhŒpada in the Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha. He commences his Bhikkhun´pŒtimokkha-vaöönŒ with a comment on the first PŒrŒjika, the first of the eight PŒrŒjikas of the Bhikkhunis which incidentally also happens to be a sŒdhŒraöa pa––atti. (YŒ pana bhikkhun´ chandaso methunaµ dhammaµ paÊiseveyyŒ ' ti vuttaµ tattha chandaso ' ti methunarŒgapaÊisamyuttena chandena c ' eva ruciyŒ ca.... Kkvt. 157.). Therefore he refers to the rest of the common sikkhŒpada in the following terms: 'Here and in the instances which follow, the rest should be understood with the help of the explanations given under the common injunctions which the Bhikkhus share with the Bhikkhunis.' (Sesaµ ettha itoparesu ca sŒdhŒraöasikkhŒpadesu vuttanayŒnusŒren ' eva veditabbaµ - Kkvt. 157.). That in the KaºkhŒvitaraö´ Buddhaghosa was commenting on a complete text of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha is further evident in the remarks which he adds after his comments on the first six rules of the Bhikkhun´ SaºghŒdisesas which are peculiar to the nuns alone. Noting that the next three SaºghŒdisesas, i.e. nos. 7, 8 and 9, are held in common with the Bhikkhus, Buddhaghosa says that their explanations are to be known in terms of what has been said about the triad which begins with the sikkhŒpada on sa–caritta (sa–carittŒdittaye vuttanayen ' eva vinicchayo veditabbo - Kkvt. 165), and refers them back to the Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha. They were, nevertheless, reckoned as forming a part of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha, for Buddhaghosa proceeds to number the sikkhŒpada which follows these three as the tenth (Dasame kinnu' mŒ ' va samaöiyo ' ti - Kkvt. 165.). When Buddhaghosa, following this order, regards the suceeding sikkhŒpada as No.11, the editor of the KaºkhŒvitaraöi (P.T.S.) hastens to make the following comment : ' This really refers to the SaºghŒdisesa 8 as given at Vin.IV.238 and not to No.11. There are only 10 in the recognised Pali Canon.' It should here be pointed out that this attempted correction is not only unwarranted but is also dangerously misleading. After SaºghŒdisesa 13 of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha, Buddhaghosa is aware of the existence of four more sikkhŒpada for the Bhikkhunis under the SaºghŒdisesa which the Bhikkhunis share in common with the Bhikkhus (Saºgha-bhedŒdisu catusu vuttanayen ' eva vinicchayo veditabbo - Kkvt. 166.). Thus Buddhaghosa winds up his comments on the SaºghŒdisesas of the Bhikkhunis with commendable accuracy, thereby establishing the existence of 17 sikkhŒpada in that group.

Attention has already been drawn to the change of emphasis in the ritual of PŒtimokkha at a time when the mere recital of the sikkhŒpada at the assenbly of the Bhikkhus, without any evident probe into the incidents of indiscipline, constituted the ritual of the Uposatha. At such a function, it was obviously the text of the PŒtimokkha rules that mattered. The details of interpretation and application which were closely connected with the rules and thus formed an essential part of the Vibhaºga would have been eventually left out. This, perhaps, explains the extraction of the rules of the PŒtimokkha from the body of the Vibhaºgas and the formation out of these of the two manuals of Bhikkhu and Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha, intended undoubtedly to be used for recital at the ritual of the Uposatha. Thus it is the consequent independent existence of the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha, in its entirety, which in all probability, could have justified the abridgement of the text of the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga into the form in which we have it today. The Bhikkhun´vibhaºga was an abridged text even at the time of Buddhaghosa and the Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha as well as the

(Page 158)

Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha had already acquired an independent position in the Vinaya PiÊaka. Thus in marked contrast to the KaºkhŒvitaraöi which is Buddhaghosa's commentary on the two PŒtimokkhas, Buddhaghosa commences his Bhikkhun´vibhaºgavaööanŒ in the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ with the first additional PŒrŒjika of the Bhikkhunis which he treats as No.1, for he proceeds to the rest of the four asŒdhŒraöa pa––atti as dutiya, tatiya and catuttha, i.e. second, third and fourth respectively. He follows the same method in the SaºghŒdisesa as well as in the other succeeding groups of sikkhŒpada. In the SamantapŒsŒdikŒ we discover an implicit admission of Buddhaghosa that the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga which is before him is an abridged text containing only the asŒdhŒraöa pa––attiyo. Commenting on the phrase uddiÊÊhŒ kho ayyŒyo aÊÊha pŒrŒjikŒ dhammŒ he first refers to the four PŒrŒjikas laid down for the Bhikkhus (...bhikkhè Œrabba pa––attŒ sŒdhŒraöŒ cattŒro - VinA.IV. 906) and offers four only as the contents of the PŒrŒjika group of the Bhikkhun´vibhaºga (...ime ca cattŒro ' ti - Ibid.). Affirming as it were our earlier assumption that the recital at the ritual of the Uposatha was now the immediate and perhaps the single purpose of the PŒtimokkha, Buddhaghosa says that the PŒtimokkha recital brings before us the complete list of Bhikkhun´ sikkhŒpada (...evaµ pŒtimokkhuddesamaggena uddiÊÊhŒ kho ayyŒyo aÊÊha pŒrŒjikŒ dhammŒ ' ti evam ettha attho daÊÊhabbo - Ibid). This establishes beyond doubt the position that in Buddhaghosa's day there existed an abridged Bhikkhun´vibhaºga and an unabridged Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha.

(Page 159)

APPENDIX I

Let us examine the statements in the Khandhakas under the authority of which a monk who was guilty of an offence (sŒpattika) was barred from participating in the ritual of the PŒtimokkha. A careful scrutiny of these two accounts shows that this authority was derived from the story of the Suspension of the PŒtimokkha in the Cullavagga. When Vin.I.125 says that the Buddha has decreed that no guilty monk shall participate in the performance of the Uposatha it has evidently in mind this incident of the Cullavagga. This story of the Suspension of the PŒtimokkha appears also in two other Canonical texts, viz. the UdŒna and theAºguttara NikŒya.

It is interesting to compare here this version of the Theriya trdition with that of the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins. The following observations emerge from such a comparison:

1. In the MèlasarvŒstivŒda account, it is not the Buddha but the Saºghasthavira who presides over the assembly at which the guilty monk is discovered. Thus the entire Theriya version that the Buddha up to this incident held the monopoly of reciting the PŒtimokkha in the assembly of the monks finds no support among the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins. It is clearly stated in the MèlasarvŒstivŒda account that the Buddha had ordered that the Saºghasthavira should recite the PŒtimokkha every fortnight. (Uktaµ bhagavatŒ saºghasthavirena tvardhamŒsaµ prŒtimok©asètroddesa udde©Êavya iti - Gilgit MSS. III. 3.107 f.). This order, at any rate, is prior to the incident of the discovery of the guilty monk in the assembly which had met for the recital of the PŒtimokkha.

2. The MèlasarvŒstivŒdins do not draw the elder MahŒ MoggallŒna into the picture. It is the Saºghasthavira himself who uses his 'divine eye' to spot out the guilty monk.

3. In the MèlasarvŒstivŒda account, unlike in the Theriya tradition where the elder MoggallŒna uses his power of clairvoyance (cetopariya–Œöa), the use of the 'divine eye' or the 'divine ear ' for this purpose is condemned and forbidden by the Buddha. One who does so is guilty of an offence.

It appears from the above analysis that the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins too, agree with the TheravŒdins in their tradition that no guilty monk shall participate in the recital of the PŒtimokkha. This is evidently true of most Vinaya traditions for they had been firmly stratified before the break up of the monastic community into distinct schools. Inspite of their elimination of the Buddha and the elder MoggallŒna from this incident, the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins are loosely linked with the TheravŒdins in this matter in that the uddŒna gŒthŒ which prefaces their Po©adhasthŒpanavastu mentions the role of MoggallŒna in penalysing the guilty monk : Asaudhapo©adhŒdbhik©ur maudgalyŒöena nŒ§itah - Gilgit MSS.III. 3.107. But there is no doubt that the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins found the whole setting of this incident to be somewhat clumsy and in part unacceptable.

(Page 160)

This leads uf further to examine the contents of this chapter in the Cullavagga on the Suspension of the PŒtimokkha and observe the procedure adopted in excluding the guilty monk from the recital of the PŒtimokkha. The elder MoggallŒna tells the guilty monk that he has no right to sit together with the Bhkkhus : Natthi te bhikkhèhi saddhiµ saµvŒso ' ti - Vin.II. 237. It is difficult to see from where the venerable MoggallŒna derives the authority for such an accusation. It appears possible only under the terms of PŒrŒjika offences about which alone the Vinaya says that no monk who is guilty of any one of them shall have the right of co-residence with fellow Bhikkhus. It is further added that such a monk forfeits his right of being a Bhikkhu. (UddiÊÊhŒ kho Œyasmanto cattŒro pŒrŒjikŒ dhammŒ yesaµ bhikkhu a––ataraµ vŒ a––ataraµ vŒ ŒpajjitvŒ na labhati bhikkhèhi saddhiµ saµvŒsaµ yathŒ pure tathŒ pacchŒ pŒrŒjiko hoti asaµvŒso - Vin. III. 109.).

Then in terms of what criteria is the pŒrisuddhi or purity of the monk concerned challenged in this context? There is not a single specific charge which makes him a sŒpattika in the sense that is familiar to us in the Vinaya. Is it to be inferred that no sikkhŒpada had been laid down up to this stage? If that is conceded then this monk should have enjoyed the normal benefit of an Œdikammika, i.e. of being exempted from guilt in the absence of sikkhŒpada : anŒpatti Œdikammikassa. If sikkhŒpada had already been laid down then this non-specific and all-inclusive charge seems hardly justifiable.

If up to the time of this incident no sikkhŒpada had been laid down then it is hardly possible to imagine that the monks would have been in a position to start forthwith a PŒtimokkha recital of their own. (Note: Na dŒnŒ ' haµ bhikkhave itoparaµ uposathaµ karissŒmi pŒtimokkhaµ uddisissŒmi. Tumhe ' va ' dŒni bhikkhave itoparaµ uposathaµ kareyyŒtha pŒtimokkhaµ uddiseyyŒtha - Vin.II. 240.) At any rate, if this incident, contrary to the evidence of Vin.I.102, marks the real beginning of the recital of the PŒtimokkha by the Bhikkhus, then it is also to be argued that the recital of the PŒtimokkha by the Bhikkhus begins with the assumption that guilty monks should be excluded from the recital. But we have already seen that all available evidence point to the contrary. Thus the assumption that all participants at the recital should be pure has to be regarded as the development of a relatively later concept. The story that the Buddha suspended his recital of the PŒtimokkha to the Bhikkhus because of the presence of the guilty monk in the assembly contrives to lend support to this growing idea.

We should also like to examine at this stage some evidence which comes to us from the Chinese versions of the Buddhist Vinaya. According to the Vinaya of the Mah´§asakas the Saºghasthavira who presides at the PŒtimokkha recital asks the assembly as to what the Saºgha is going to do. The Bhikkhus in reply recommend that various forms of disciplinary action such as the Tajjaniya-kamma be carried out on certain monks. They also specify that penalties like MŒnatta be imposed. It can hardly be denied that these statements are in perfect accord with what has been laid down in the Suttas of the Theriya tradition. Nevertheless, side by side with this older tradition the Mahi§Œsakas accomodate a tradition which is akin to that of the Khandhakas regarding the Suspension of the PŒtimokkha.

(Page 161)

On the other hand, the MahŒsaºghikas seem to feel that the non-specific charge which is brought against the guilty monk is inadequate for purposes of prosecution. So they have a new story according to which the monk who stands accused had stealthily picked up a golden lotus petal which was a part of the decoration of the Uposatha hall and had fallen on the ground. This new situation which is added to the story enables the venerable MoggallŒna, perhaps on account of the offence of stealing, to give the verdict that from that day the monk who was involved would not be regarded as a samaöa. He is further told that he should not be any more among the members of the Saºgha. The MahŒsaºghikas also go so far as to make the Buddha declare the action of MoggallŒna in dragging the guilty monk out of the assembly to be illegal.

We would consider this divergence in the MahŒsaºghika tradition to be a very significant one. In the light of other evidence in the Suttas and in the Vinaya we are led to consider the exclusion of the guilty monk from the ritual of the PŒtimokkha as striking a discordant note. In presenting a new and a legally more acceptable basis for the exclusion of the guilty monk, the MahŒsaºghikas undoubtedly reveal their distrust of the soundness of the Theriya tradition and the validity of the act of exclusion as described in the Cullavagga. The MahŒsaºghikas, while they inherit along with the Theriya group and other early divisions of the Saºgha the earlier story of this incident in toto, seem to challenge its conformity to orthodox canons.

There is yet another point in this story which runs contrary to what appears to be historically acceptable. The story of the Cullavagga tries to make out that up to the detection of the guilty monk in the assembly of the Saºgha it was the practice of the Buddha to recite the PŒtimokkha for the Bhikkhus. We have already observed that the MèlasarvŒstivŒdins differ from the Theriya tradition on this point in keeping the Buddha out of the PŒtimokkha recital. The only other Canonical reference in the Theriya tradition to the recital of the PŒtimokkha by the Buddha comes to us from the MahŒpadŒna Sutta. But this quasi-historical Sutta makes this statement in terms of a Buddha of the past. Placed in a legendary and supernatural setting the Buddha Vipassi, the first of the group of six previous Buddhas, expresses his desire to order his disciples to return to Bandhumat´ at the end of every six years, after their missionary travels, to participate in the PŒtimokkha recital. Thereupon a great BrahmŒ appears on the scene and requests him to make the order and pledges their support to see that the disciples do so. The Sutta goes on to describe how the divinities thereafter play their role in reminding the Bhikkhus annually, in anticipation, about their return to the capital for the PŒtimokkha recital. When the appointed time comes they make a further contribution by transporting the Bhikkhus to the venue of the recital in a single day by their supernatural power. When the assembly of Bhikkhus meets, the Buddha Vipassi recites before them three stanzas which are traceable to the Buddhavagga of the Dhammapada. The Sutta describes this as the recital of the PŒtimokkha by the Buddha Vipassi.

Strangely enough, we discover in the last of these stanzas a reference to the restraint in terms of the PŒtimokkha (PŒtimokkhe ca saµvaro). We are already familiar with this concept of discipline and are aware of its connotation. The Commentary to the Sutta explains this as the restraint in the highest s´la which is identifiable with the code of the PŒtimokkha. Thus when the PŒtimokkha as a code of discipline seems to have been well established and its functions appear to have been well known during the life time of the Buddha how does one explain this unnecessary regressing to present the PŒtimokkha and its recital as being primitively simple. As there is no reliable evidence

(Page 162)

at all, excepting what we implicitly get in the story of the Suspension of the PŒtimokkha, to show that the Buddha did preside for some time over a form of PŒtimokkha recital we are compelled to regard the other abundant evidence pointing to the early existence of a PŒtimokkha recital which the Buddha instituted for the Bhikkhus and which the Bhikkhus themselves performed from its inception as being more positive and reliable.

It is only with a considerable recognition of such an institution that one could expect the emergence of a standardised concept like pŒtimokkhe ca saµvaro. To take this concept back to antiquity and link it up with a primitive and less organized institution appears to be a serious distortion. This retrospective use of the term PŒtimokkha to refer to the mere recital of the three stanzas by the Buddha appears to be unhistorical. Furthermore, the past to which it is drawn is also enveloped in what comes more in the realm of myth and legend. Thus it is undoubtedly a projection from the present and the historical to the past and the legendary. This tendency to delve into the past, in a search as it were for precedent and traditional sanction, is clearly seen in many instances in the life story of the Buddha and the history of the SŒsana. Such sanction seems to be sought both for what has historically taken place and also for what is intended to be approved as historical and acceptable. The whole of the MahŒpadŒna Sutta seems to illustrate this tendency.

We discover in the DhammapadaÊÊhakathŒ a story which appears to give a cross reference to this semi-legendary account of the Buddhas of the past of the MahŒpadŒna Sutta. In a very brief story entitled înandattherauposathapa–havatthu the venerable înanda states that although the Buddha has given details regarding the parentage, disciples etc. of the seven Buddhas including the Buddha Gotama himself he has said nothing about the nature of the Uposatha of the past Buddhas. Therefore he raises the question whether their Uposatha was the same as the present one or different from it. The Buddha replies to say that there is no difference in the content of what is recited at the Uposatha. The only diference is in the frequency of its performance (YasmŒ pana tesaµ buddhŒnaµ kŒlabhedo eva ahosi na gŒthŒbhedo - DhpA. III. 236.). Establishing the identity of the Uposatha of all the seven Buddhas he says that they all recited three admonitory stanzas before their assemblies. These stanzas are the same as those mentioned in the MahŒpadŒna Sutta with reference to the Buddha Vipassi. This story strives to establish, above all, that the Buddha Gotama did perform some form of admonitory Upssatha and that it is distinctly in the tradition of the Buddhas of the past. In doing so this story of the DhammapadaÊÊhakathŒ goes a step further than the MahŒpadŒna Sutta which speaks of the Uposatha only of Buddha Vipassi. Nevertheless, there is no serious divergence between the two accounts.

Buddhaghosa, in his comments on the Vera–jabhŒöavŒra, has attempted to integrate this tradition with the history of the SŒsana. This, he says, is the general practice of all Buddhas and the Buddha Gotama too, did recite a form of ovŒda pŒtimokkha for twenty years in the history of the SŒsana up to the promulgation of the sikkhŒpada. But this twofold PŒtimokkha as ovŒda and ŒöŒ in two distinct chronological stages is a product of commentarial tradition. The only Canonical reference to two stages of the PŒtimokkha recital is the story of the Suspension of the PŒtimokkha in the Cullavagga. However, we are not told there that these are two distinct types of PŒtimokkha recital. All that we are told is that the Buddha refused to recite the PŒtimokkha any more in the company of the Bhikkhus and asked them to do it themselves. In the MahŒpadŒna Sutta the Buddha Vipassi himself recites the admonitory stanzas and this alone constitutes the PŒtimokkha recital in his SŒsana. At no stage is this replaced by another form of recital in the MahŒpadŒna Sutta. Even the account in the DhammapadaÊÊhahathŒ preserves this singleness of character of the recital of the

(Page 163)

Buddhas of the past. This form of ovŒda pŒtimokkha which originally was associated with Buddha Vipassi of distant antiquity is extremely simple and primitive and seems characteristic of a legendary past.The Canonical texts do not seem to mix this up with the PŒtimokkha recital of the Buddha Gotama's SŒsana which is more historical in character. It is Buddhaghosa who attempts to trace the change over of the PŒtimokkha from ovŒda to ŒöŒ and give it a historical sequence and the story of the Suspension of the PŒtimokkha in the Cullavagga seems to facilitate this. In this attempt of Buddhaghosa we see the romanticised tales of the Buddhas of the past invading the truly historical accounts of the life and the SŒsana of the Buddha Gotama.

On the other hand, it is interesting to analyse at this stage the contents of the Vera–jabhŒöavŒra which has a relevance to this question. In reply to a question by the venerable SŒriputta the Buddha discusses the history of the monastic organizations of the six Buddhas of the past. They are classified into two groups of three each on a purely chronological order. It is said that the three earlier Buddhas, Vipassi, Sikh´ and Vessabhè, did neither lay down sikkhŒpada nor institute the PŒtimokkha recital for their disciples. Their discourses on the Dhamma were very meagre. In consequence of this, their monastic organizations disintegrated soon after their death. Of the latter three, Kakusandha, KonŒgamana and Kassapa, we discover that their organizations flourished because they preached the Dhamma extensively to their disciples and also laid down sikkhŒpada and instituted the recital of the PŒtimokkha. No more is said here of the nature of this PŒtimokkha recital, either of Gotama or of the Buddhas of the past. Nor is there any indication about one form of recital being replaced by another.

Even though we may not regard this portion of the Suttavibhaºga to be as old as the rest which deal with the text of the PŒtimokkha, we cannot but be impressed by its conformity to the early traditions of the Sutta and the Vinaya. What we mean by this is the recognition of the fact that the promulgation of the sikkhŒpada and their recital by the Bhikkhus at the PŒtimokkha assembly together formed the basic structure of the SŒsana and its earliest institutions which safeguarded it. Thus we see that what is said about the Buddhas of the past in the Vera–jabhŒöavŒra is a very accurate projection into the past of a distinct historical setting.

Hence the idea of a primitive form of PŒtimokkha recital by the Buddha Gotama seems to be in all probability a product of wishful construction which besides whatever other purpose it serves helps the legislation against the presence of guilty monks at the PŒtimokkha recital For it is at this point that the Buddha abolishes the practice of the ovŒda pŒtimokkha under protest and hands over the recital of the PŒtimokkha to the Bhikkhus. What is more significant here is the legislation whic followed this incident. (Na ca bhikkhave sŒpattikena pŒtimokkhaµ sotabbaµ. Yo suöeyya Œpatti dukkaÊassa - Vin.II. 240.). The presence of the guilty monk in the assembly being the provocation which led to the abolition of the ovŒda pŒtimokkha the Buddha laid down the rule, applicable to the ŒöŒ pŒtimokkha of the Bhikkhus, that no guilty monk shall participate in the PŒtimokkha recital. The incident of the abolition of the ovŒda pŒtimokkha undoubtedly provides a very convincing situation for this new legislation. However, we have already pointed out that it is clearly a deviation from the original spirit of the PŒtimokkha recital.

(Page 164)

APPENDIX II

The history of the SŒsana, both in the Sutta and the Vinaya PiÊakas, shows that there were rebellious monks in the Order. Their protests against the disciplinary measures adopted by the Buddha are widely scattered in the Pali texts where such monks are described as being militant and intolerant of any advice (DubbacŒ kho bhante etarahi bhikkhè dovacassakaraöehi dhammehi samannŒgatŒ akkhamŒ appadakkhiöaggŒhino anusŒsaniµ - S.II. 204.). The words of Subhadda, who was discovered expressing his joy on the passing away of the Buddha, mark the climax of this tendency. There was a formidable move in this direction even during the life time of the Buddha and he was well aware of it. In the LaÊukikopama Sutta, the Buddha states very clearly that there exists a group of misguided disciples who when being told by him to give up certain ways of life which are unworthy of a monk refuse to do so. They in turn accuse the Buddha of being meticulous and pronounce judgement on him that he worries over worthless trifles. They show their displeasure not only at him as the law-giver but also at the other good disciples who abide by these laws (Evaµ eva kho udŒyi idh ' ekacce moghapurisŒ idaµ pajahathŒ ' ti mayŒ vuccamŒnŒ te evaµ Œhaµsu kiµ pan ' imassa appamattakassa oramattakassa adhisallikhat ' evŒ ' yaµ samano ' ti. Te ta– c ' eva nappajahanti mayi ca appaccayaµ upaÊÊhŒpenti ye ca bhikkhè sikkhŒkŒmŒ - M.I. 449.).

A specific instance of such accusation against the Buddha is recorded in the Aºguttara NikŒya where a Bhikkhu named Kassapagotta of Paºkadha protests at a discourse of the Buddha in which he deals with monastic discipline (Atha kho kassapagottassa bhikkhuno bhagavatŒ sikkhŒpadapaÊisaµyuttŒya dhammiyŒ kathŒya bhikkhè sandassante samŒdapente samuttejente ahud ' eva akkhanti ahu appaccayo adhisallikhat ' evŒ ' yaµ samaöo ' ti - A.I. 236.). Regardless of the avowed purpose of Buddhist monasticism these rebels appear to have looked upon sikkhŒpada as measures calculated to restrict their freedom and the liberty to do things as they wish. This is clearly evident from the history and the text of PŒcittiya 72 which is laid down against the disciples who speak disparagingly of the sikkhŒpada of the Vinaya PiÊaka (Sace ime vinaye pakata––uno bhavissanti amhe yena icchakaµ yad ' icchakaµ yŒvad ' icchakaµ Œka¶¶hissanti parika¶¶hissanti. Handa mayaµ Œvuso vinayaµ vivaööemŒ ' ti. Also : Yo pana bhikkhu pŒtimokkhe uddissamŒne evaµ vadeyya kiµ pan ' imehi khuddŒnu-khuddakehi sikkhŒpadehi udduÊÊhehi yŒvad ' eva kukkuccŒya vihesŒya vilekhŒya saµvattant´ ' ti sikkhŒpadavivaööake pŒcittiyaµ - Vin.IV.143.). This is undoubtedly the reason why a section of the monastic community expressed their sense of freedom on the death of the Master and stated in no uncertain terms that they were in a position to act on their own choice and would not be pestered any more with instructions on propriety and procedure ( SumuttŒ mayaµ tena mahŒsamaöena. UpaddutŒ ca mayaµ homa idaµ vo kappati idaµ vo na kappat´ ' ti. IdŒni pana mayaµ yaµ icchissŒma taµ karissŒma yaµ na icchissŒma na taµ karissŒmŒ ' ti - Vin.II. 284).

The Buddha was not only aware of the gathering momentum against the organization of discipline but also felt it necessary to pay sufficient heed to it. On the one hand, he would keep the good disciples informed of this calamitous situation as is clear from the words of the Buddha to UdŒyi in the LaÊukikopama Sutta. He would praise the virtues of the law-abiding Bhikkhus as he did when he discovered the attitude of the venerable Upasena Vaºgantaputta to the code of monastic discipline (SŒdhu sŒdhu upasena na apa––attaµ pa––Œpetabbaµ pa––attaµ vŒ na samucchinditabbaµ yathŒpa––attesu sikkhŒpadesu samŒdŒya vattitabbaµ - Vin.III. 231.). Such willing submission to monastic discipline was a cause of joy to the founder of the Order. In the Kakacèpama Sutta the Buddha

(Page 165)

is happy to recollect his associations with such disciples. There was a time, says the Buddha, when the monks won his heart by their good behaviour. He also often held out such good monks as an example to the rest. The venerable MahŒ Kassapa was a dominant personality of that category about whose exemplary character the Buddha repeatedly mentioned (Kassapena vŒ hi vo bhikkhave ovadissŒmi yo vŒ kassapasadiso. Ovaditehi ca pana vo tathattŒya paÊipajjitabban ' ti - S.II. 195.).

On the other hand, the Buddha also took more active disciplinary measures by incorporating in the code of discipline itself legislation against such vicious moves to undermine monastic discipline. The rebels directed their attack against the regulations of the Vinaya, their main target being the sikkhŒpada of the PŒtimokkha. Out of a sense of fear of prosecution the miscreants thought it advantageous to keep as many members of the Order as possible ignorant of the contents of the Vinaya. It is said that they therefore spoke very disparagingly of the Vinaya to every one. They challenged the usefulness of the recital of the lesser and minor rules (khuddŒnukhuddakŒni sikkhŒpadŒni) at the ritual of the PŒtimokkha. It only wearies and vexes the listeners, they said (Kiµ pan ' imehi khuddŒnukhuddakehi sikkhŒpadehi uddiÊÊhehi. YŒvad ' eva kukkuccŒya vihesŒya vilekhŒya saµvattat´ ' ti - Vin.IV.143.). They oppose the recital at the Uposatha of the whole code of PŒtimokkha regulations. The lesser and minor rules are slighted and an attempt is made to eliminate them from the PŒtimokkha recital. This means that the conduct of no monk would be questioned any more in terms of these sikkhŒpada. This attitude would stand in marked contrast to the assumption of the Vajjiputtaka monk who thought that he had to discipline himself in terms of all the sikkhpada which were being recited fortnightly at the Uposatha ceremony and which he said were over a hundred and fifty in number. It is unmistakably clear that this is one of the first attempts to get rid of some of the monastic regulations which had found a place in the code of the PŒtimokkha. According to the Suttavibhaºga this move was headed by the Chabbaggiya monks and their followers who in the history of the SŒsana had gained a fair degree of notoriety by their self-willed actions. Even if one would attempt to dismiss this gang as a fictitious group, they are no doubt symbolic of the rebels in the SŒsana who were unworthy of their monastic garb and were a constant cause of irritation both to the good monks and the laymen.

This same tendency of the miscreants to resist correction by fellow members of the monastic community in terms of the regulations of the PŒtimokkha is also clearly evident in SaºghŒdisesa 12. These two sikkhŒpada (SaºghŒdisesa 12 and PŒcittiya 72) are clear proof of a two-pronged attack launched by the champions of lawlessness and anarchy. Rules of propriety and good behaviour which require conformity to fixed standards are either to be rejected or, on a policy of 'strict non-interference', the offenders who violate these regulations are not to be questioned. But the Buddha was not to be led into believing in the sincerity or the correctness of such suggestions and we see him legislate against them with firm determination. Any monk who challenges the right of other Bhikkhus to offer counsel in terms of the regulations of the PŒtimokkha and who stubbornly offers resistance does so under the pain of a SaºghŒdisesa. No monk shall also speak of the regulations of the PŒtimokkha in a disparaging manner, referring to their recital as being of no consequence.

It is important to recognise the fact that there seems to have existed even during the time of the Buddha a category of sikkhŒpada which carried the designation 'lesser and minor ' or khuddŒnukhuddaka. It is reasonable to believe that the inviolable rules of the PŒrŒjika group would have been in a class by themselves in marked contrast to the rest. No remedy or redress was possible with the offenders of this category. This is perhaps why the Vinaya makes special mention that every monk, on being conferred the higher status of UpasampadŒ, should be told of these

(Page 166)

four inviolable rules : anujŒnŒmi bhikkhave upasampŒdetvŒ dutiyaµ dŒtuµ cattŒri ca akaraö´yŒni Œcikkhituµ - Vin. I. 96. Hence the four PŒrŒjikas would naturally form the group of major rules. The Aºguttara makes repeated reference to a group of 'lesser and minor' rules. These are regarded as being a part of the disciplinary code of the monk. These deal with offences of which any monk could be guilty but for which he could make amends and be absolved therefrom. For they are not declared to be inviolable (So yŒni tŒni khuddŒnukhuddakŒni sikkhŒpadŒni tŒni Œpajjati ' pi vuÊÊhŒti ' pi. Taµ kissa hetu. Na hi m'ettha bhikkhave abhabbatŒ vuttŒ - A.I. 231 f.). Besides these, the Aºguttara mentions another set of sikkhŒpada which have to be inviolably perfected. They would therefore naturally be regarded as the only major ones (YŒni kho tŒni sikkhŒpadŒni ŒdibrahmacariyikŒni brahmacariyasŒruppŒni tattha dhauvas´lo ca hoti Êhitas´lo ca samŒdŒya sikkhati sikkhŒpadesu - A.I. 231 f.)

The distinction between the major and the minor rules thus seems to be a valid one. As PŒrŒjika or Akaraö´ya these major items of discipline are the primary requirements without which the monastic life in Buddhism could not be contemplated. Hence they are called ŒdibrahmacariyikŒni. However, this does not amount to a denial of the validty of the other group of sikkhŒpada which are called 'lesser and minor' or khuddŒ-nukhuddaka. On the other hand, the need to regulate the life of a monk in terms of those regulations is fully recognised. For along with the possibility that a monk may violate any one of these rules is also mentioned the possibility of his absolution from the consequent guilt through correction: Œpajjati ' pi vuÊÊhŒti ' pi. Hence a disciple has to face them and adjust himself accordingly and not attempt stubbornly to resist them. This accords well with the spirit of PŒcittiya 72 which, though negatively, recognises the usefulness of the recital of even the minor rules at the PŒtimokkha ritual.

However, the rebellious monks too, appear to have carried on a ceaseless campaign to achieve their end. Their propaganda for the abolition of the ' lesser and minor ' rules was evidently gaining more and more ground towards the last days of the Buddha. The MahŒparinibbŒna Sutta opens, more or less, with the Buddha's advice to his disciples regarding the conditions which lead to their progress and well-being. Under these aparihŒniya dhamma the Buddha includes what he appears to consider to be the healthy attitude of the disciples towards the regulations governing their monastic life (YŒvak´va– ca bhikkhave bhikkhè apa––attaµ na pa––Œpessanti pa––attaµ na samucchindissanti yathŒpa––attesu sikkhŒpadesu samŒdŒya vattissanti vuddhi y ' eva bhikkhave bhikkhènaµ pŒÊikaºkhŒ no parihŒni - D.II. 77.). This concern of the Buddha for the recognition of the code of monastic discipline as a whole is clearly evident in his remarks to the venerable Upasena Vaºgantaputta who maintained that nothing should be added to or removed from the codified law, and that one should conduct oneself in accordance with it (SŒdhu sŒdhu upasena na apa––attaµ pa––Œpetabbaµ pa––attaµ vŒ na samucchinditabbaµ yathŒpa––attesu sikkhŒpadesu samŒdŒya vattitabbaµ - Vin.III. 231.).

As the Buddha finally lay in his deathbed, during the last moments of his life, it is said that the Buddha indicated to înanda that as he had not chosen to appoint an heir to succeed him as the leader of the SŒsana, the Dhamma and the Vinaya would succeed him as their guide (satthŒ). The MahŒparinibbŒna Sutta which records this statement has also three other last-minute communications of the Buddha to the Saºgha. Among them we discover a very abrupt and unprefaced suggestion which is ascribed to the Buddha. The Buddha is said to have told înanda that the Saºgha, if it so desires, may on his death do away with ' lesser and minor ' rules (îkaºkhamŒno Œnanda saºgho mamaccayena khuddŒnukhuddakŒni sikkhŒpadŒni samèhanatu - D. II. 154.).

(Page 167)

In the light of what we have discussed so far regarding the history of the khuddŒnukhuddaka sikkhŒpada in monastic discipline this appears to be a very strange suggestion. It is almost incredible that a person of the Buddha's calibre should have conceded such a laxity to be effective only after his death. We cannot understand it either as an expression of the wisdom of his last days or as an attempt to wash his hands of the guilt of a possible catastrophe in the monsastic order as a result of the abolition of some of the rules of discipline. Before we proceed to examine the historical significance of these statements which are recorded in the MahŒparinibbŒna Sutta it should be pointed out that in the Pa–casatikakkhandhaka of the Cullavagga we find the venerable înanda reporting to the assembly of the First Council two out of these four statements. After reciting the contents of the Dhamma before the assembly he places before them the suggestion of the Buddha that the Saºgha may, if it so desires, do away with the ' lesser and minor ' rules. He is promptly asked by the members of the Saºgha whether he ascertained from the Buddha the identity of these ' lesser and minor ' rules. He had failed to do so and when he is found fault with for this omission he simply confesses that it did not occur to him that he should do so (Ahaµ kho bhante asatiyŒ bhagavantaµ na pucchiµ - Vin.II. 289.). According to the Cullavagga, diverse opinions are thereupon expressed by the members of the assembly as to what constitute the ' lesser and minor ' rules. But when we discover that reference to ' lesser and minor ' rules has already been made elsewhere with a fair degree of certainty as to their identity, it becomes somewhat dificult to explain this assumed ignorance or the diversity of opinion regarding this matter.

Assuming that at least a section of the Saºgha was agreed on the abolition of the 'lesser and minor ' rules and was anxious about it we could argue that even they would have been hesitant to support the abolition of these rules in their entirety as they would have been understood at the time. Some of those rules were certainly regarded as sufficiently important to command recognition throughout the history of the SŒsana. That being so the real question would have been as to which of these ' lesser and minor ' rules could, in course of time, be dispensed with. As the arguments of the venerable MahŒ Kassapa at the First Council show this would have been undoubtedly a question which few would have dared to answer in public for fear of serious repercussions among the laity (Sant ' amhŒkaµ sikkhŒpadŒni gihigatŒni gih´ pi no jŒnanti idaµ vo samaöŒnaµ sakyaputiyŒnaµ kappati idaµ vo na kappat´ ' ti. Sace mayaµ khuddŒnukhuddakŒni sikkhŒpadŒni samèhanissŒma bhavissanti vattŒro dhèmakŒlikaµ samaöena gotamena sŒvakŒnaµ sikkhŒpadaµ pa––attaµ yŒv ' imesaµ satthŒ aÊÊhŒsi tŒv ' ime sikkhŒpadesu sikkhiµsu. Yato imesaµ satthŒ parinibbuto na ' dŒn ' i me sikkhŒ-padesu sikkhant´ ' ti - Vin.II. 288.).

Let su now examine the statement recorded in the Theriya tradition that the Buddha did tell înanda that the Saºgha, after his death, could do away with the ' lesser and minor ' rules if it so desired. In both places where this statement occurs it is înanda himself who states that the Buddha told him so. A comparative study we made of the Chinese versions which are parallel to the Pali Vinaya account has yielded us some valuable evidence. In the SarvŒstivŒda, Mah´§Œsaka, and Dharmaguptaka accounts, as in the Pali text, înanda himself reports that the Buddha made this sugestion. In all the three Chinese texts înanda gives the deteriorating physical condition of the Buddha in his deathbed and the consequent pain which he was suffering as an excuse for not interrogating him further regarding the identity of these rules. In the SarvŒstivŒda and Mah´§Œsaka accounts he gives the high regard in which he held the sikkhŒpada as another reason for not pursuing this matter any further. This makes it quite clear that înanda did not obviously belong to the camp which championed this move. The texts of the SarvŒstivŒdins and the Mah´§Œsakas represent înanda as being reluctant to sponsor such a move. Thus we are more or less compelled to observe that we detect here the results of an attempt to make a cat's paw of înanda in this manoeuvre. What we

(Page 168)

would consider to be the most convincing evidence for this assumption comes to us from the MahŒsaºghika version of this incident in the Chinese texts. Strangely enough the MahŒsaºghikas do not present înanda as conveying this information to the Saºgha himself. In fact, he appears to know nothing about it and plays a perfectly silent role throughout this episode. He suffers it all in silence for it is the others who seem to know and talk about the task which is said to have been assigned to him.

Feeling diffident as it were, even with the authority which the Buddha is supposed to have given them to abolish the ' lesser and minor ' rules, the MahŒsaºghikas make an attempt to say in a convincing manner that the Buddha had planned to do it himself before his death. But now it is înanda's responsibility that it did not happen so, for he had been asked by the Buddha to remind him about it before his death and he failed to do it. The following is the statement in the MahŒsaºghika Vinaya in the Chinese versions :

The MahŒsaºghika account carries a further statement which attempts to reinforce this idea.

Now we come to what may be regarded as the most significant statement of all in the MahŒsaºghika account. In the discussion that followed the announcement about the abolition of 'lesser and minor ' rules there was diversity of opinion as to their identity, and the congregation was drifting further and further away from any finality of decision. In the MahŒsaºghika account alone we discover that at this stage the Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus were most dismayed at the failure to implement this suggestion. It was obviously their cause which was being defeated. In an attempt to rescue it from this plight the Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus darted forth to announce in the assembly that if the Buddha were living all the rules would have been given up.

In view of the marked divergence in the traditions of the MahŒsaºghikas and the TheravŒdins on this matter let us probe further to discover the loyalties and leanings of each group. In the MahŒsaºghika account, when the venerable MahŒ Kassapa asks the assembly as to which collection of scriptures they should recite first it is the unanimous opinion of the Saºgha that it should be the Dharma PiÊaka. We know that this is completely at variance with the Theriya tradition which seems to emphasise more the importance of the Vinaya. Considering the attempts made by them to safeguard the proper maintenance of monastic discipline at all stages in the history of the SŒsana it could unhesitatingly be said of them that they had a very high regard for the Vinaya. What Buddhaghosa records as having been said at the First Council that the Vinaya is the life-blood of the SŒsana (vinayo nŒma buddhasŒsanassa Œyu) is reminiscent of this attitude. Thus we see a very clear line of division between these two groups.

One would hardly be surprised to find among the MahŒsaºghikas a tendency to bring about a laxity in monastic discipline. It accords well with what is alleged to be their attitude to the Vinaya. The account in their Vinaya texts which we have discussed above shows the ingenuity with which they introduce the story which discloses the wish of the Buddha to repeal the

(Page 169)

minor rules himself. On the other hand, one does feel that this alleged suggestion by the Buddha to repeal the minor rules strikes a harsh and discordant note in the Theriya tradition. It is perhaps this unacceptability to the orthodox tradition which made it to be brought up as a dilemmatic problem by King Milinda before the venerable NŒgasena. 'Were then these lesser and minor precepts wrongly laid down, or established in ignorance and without due cause, that the Blessed One allowed them to be revoked after his death?' (Kin nu kho bhante nŒgasena khuddŒnukhuddakŒni sikkhŒpadŒni duppa––attŒni udŒhu avatthusmiµ ajŒnitvŒ pa––attŒni yaµ bhagavŒ attano accayena khuddŒnukhuddakŒni sikkhŒpadŒni samèhanŒpeti - Trenckner, Milindapa–ho, p. 142.).

The problem that is posed here is if the Buddha wished these rules to be revoked after his death then they cannot really be important rules which were laid down after careful consideration. On the other hand, if they were really such important rules he could not possibly allow the Bhikkhus to revoke them after his death. NŒgasena attempts to solve the problem by admitting both propositions. i.e. that the rules were well laid down and that the Buddha had ordered the Bhikkhus to revoke them if they so desired. But NŒgasena adds that this order of the Buddha was only to test his disciples. ' But in the second case it was to test the Bhikkhus that he said it, to try wherher, if leave were granted them, they would, after his death, revoke the lesser and minor regulations, or still adhere to them.' (Taµ pana mahŒrŒja tathŒgato bhikkhè v´maµsamŒno Œha ukkalissanti nu kho mama sŒvakŒ mayŒ vissajjŒpiyamŒnŒ mam ' accayena khuddŒ-nukhuddakŒni sikkhŒpadŒni udŒhu Œdiyissant´ ' ti - Miln. 143.).

It is clear from the above statements that the venerable NŒgasena is of the view that an abolition of any rule laid down by the Buddha for the guidance of his disciples does not accord with the true Theriya tradition. We find that Buddhaghosa reiterates the same. He says that the Buddha himself knew that even if he had made a specific order for the abolition of the lesser and minor rules, without leaving it to the option of the Saºgha, the venerable MahŒ Kassapa would not abolish them at the time of the first Council (Passati hi bhagavŒ samèhanathŒ ' ti vutte ' pi saºg´tikŒle kassapo na samèhanissat´ 'ti. TasmŒ vikappena eva Êhapesi - DA.II. 592.). Therefore the Buddha left it to the option of the Saºgha.

Following the statements of the venerable NŒgasena in the Milindapa–ha if we take this suggestion for the abolition of the lesser and minor rules to be a test of the attitude of the disciples who survived the Buddha, then we would discover to our utter dismay that none, perhaps other than the venerable MahŒ Kassapa, would show themselves to be true disciples of the Buddha. For not only were the members of the First Council quick to chastise înanda for not ascertaining from the Buddha the identity of the rules which they may revoke but also were quick to propose the abolition of various categories of rules. Not one, out of respect for the law laid down by the Buddha, proposed its acceptance in toto. It was the venerable MahŒ Kassapa who, as the President of the Council, finally proposed that the suggestion for the abolition of the lesser and minor rules be rejected and that the law as laid down by the Buddha be accepted in toto.

However, there seems to be a post-Milindapa–ha tradition which, more or less, stigmatizes the venerable MahŒ Kassapa saying that he did so because he was ignorant as to what the lesser and minor rules were. It praises, on the other hand, the venerable NŒgasena who very categorically identifies khuddaka and anukhuddaka with DukkaÊa and DubhŒsita respectively. This interpretation of NŒgasena, it would appear, could absolve to some extent those who championed the abolition of the khuddŒnukhuddaka sikkhŒpada from the charge of being unorthodox. For they would not then be directing their assault against any real sikkhŒpada except the Sekhiyas violation of which also constitute DukkaÊa offences. Barring this group of DukkaÊas, both DukkaÊa and DubbhŒsita are derivative

(Page 170)

offences and are not the direct outcome of the violation of any sikkhŒpada. But Buddhaghosa warns us against taking the words of NŒgasena to serve as a defence. We are told that he was only being tactful in his conversation with non-believers (NŒgasena-tthero hi paravŒdino okŒso mŒ ahos´ ' ti evaµ Œha - DA.II. 593.).

Thus we feel that even among the followers of the Theriya tradition certain sections seem to have supported the suggestion for the abolition of the lesser and minor rules and at times even frowned on the stalwarts of the Theriya group who upheld the orthodox views. However, this suggestion, when placed in the context of the Theriya Vinaya traditions, sounds unmistakably to be of Chabbaggiya origin, for the Chabbaggiyas as we have shown, on the evidence of both the Theriya and MahŒsaºghika records, have always been the symbol of the dissentients.

This brings us to yet another problem. How did such a statement which does not accord with the traditions of the Theriya school come to be recorded in their literature? In answer to this we would commend the following points for consideration.

1. The first observations to be made on this is the fact that the two works in which this statement is recorded, viz. the MahŒparinibbŒna Sutta and the Saºg´tikkhandhaka of the Cullavagga, both belong to a relatively later stratum in the Canonical Pali literature.

2. The two Khandhakas of the Cullavagga which deal with the two Saºg´ti are both in point of time and contents relatively outside the scope of the Vinaya PiÊaka.

3. The Cullavagga account of the first Saºg´ti includes besides this statement on the abolition of the leser and minor rules another statement which records a dissent and is not wholly favourable to the Theriya tradition. This is the refusal of the venerable PurŒöa to accord fully with the recital of the Dhamma and the Vinaya which the monks of the Theriya group had carried out in his absence.

4. Even the Khandhakas show traces of the presence of traditions which at times appear to be far removed from the original spirit of the Vinaya. These become very glaring when the older tradition happens to be preserved intact, at times, in the Vinaya texts of other schools. This points to the fact that the stratification of the contents of the Khandhakas did spread over a period of time which was long enough to allow the adoption of discordant traditions either out of choice or under pressure from within or without. Unlike the Suttavibhaºga, the nature of the contents of the Khandhakas also would have made this process of ssimilation possible.

(Page 171)

APPENDIX III

While the purity and the prestige of the early Buddhist Saºgha was being safeguarded by the regular performance of the PŒtimokkha ritual, the MahŒvagga witnesses certain sections of the community of monks who were holding factional meetings for the purpose of reciting the PŒtimokkha within their own groups (Tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyŒ bhikkhè yathŒparisŒya pŒtimokkhaµ uddisanti sakŒya sakŒya parisŒya - Vin.I.104.). This would certainly have been in violation of the spirit in which the ritual was instituted in the early days of the SŒsana. Legislating against such a situation which would herald the disintergration of the Saºgha, the Buddha declares it to be a DukkaÊa offence and calls for unity of the Saºgha in the performance of the Uposatha.

But considering the increasing membership of the corporation of the Saºgha and the vastness of the territory over which it was spreading, there seems to have appeared the need to determine as to what would be a convenient unit for the collective activities of the Saºgha. We notice in the GopakamoggallŒna Sutta that the village in which the monks lived had served as the unit of such monastic activities. When the Buddha insisted on the unity of the Saºgha in their monastic activities, the monks seem to have been perplexed by the theoretical position whether the unity of the Saºgha implied the inclusion of all members of the community living in the land, literally on earth : KittŒvatŒ nu kho sŒmagg´ hoti yŒvatŒ ekŒvŒso udŒhu sabbŒ paÊhav´ ' ti.- Vin. I. 105. This, we have no doubt, was hardly meant to be taken as a real position and would have been recorded here more for the purpose of pointing out the relevance of practical considerations. An area of residence (ekŒvŒso) became the obvious choice as an operational unit and on the recommendation of the Buddha the area of residence is delimited by boundaries, accepted and agreed upon by the Saºgha as the region of co- residence within which the Saºgha was expected to perform its activities collectively : SammatŒ s´mŒ saºghena etehi nimittehi samŒnasaµvŒsŒ ekèposathŒ - Ibid.106. This marks the birth of S´mŒ in Buddhist monastic history.

It is clear from the evidence of the MahŒvagga that in the early days of the Buddhist community not all ŒvŒsa or centres of monastic residence enjoyed the status of being S´mŒ or independent units of monastic activity. EkŒvŒsa meant a region of residence within which all members acted collectively as one single body (saºgha). The SamantapŒsŒdikŒ portrays beautifully this state of affairs in the early history of the SŒsana when it says that the eighteen great monasteries in the vicinity of RŒjagaha formed collectively a single unit of common communal activity. (RŒjagahaµ hi parikkhipitvŒ aÊÊhŒrasa mahŒvihŒrŒ sabbe ekas´mŒ. DhammasenŒpatinŒ nesaµ s´mŒ baddhŒ. TasmŒ veÂuvane saºghassa sŒmaggidŒnatthaµ Œgacchanto ' ti attho - VinA.V. 1049.). Any one of the ŒvŒsa within the region may turn out to be, by the choice of the Saºgha, the venue of the ritual of the Uposatha (Tena kho pana samayena rŒjagahe sambahulŒ ŒvŒsŒ samŒnas´mŒ honti. Tattha bhikkhè vivadanti amhŒkaµ ŒvŒse uposatho kar´yatu amhŒkaµ ŒvŒse uposatho kar´yatè ' ti - Vin.I.108.). We hear of members of one ŒvŒsa going to another as guests for the purpose of performing the Uposatha there. (îgantukŒ bhikkhè na jŒnanti kattha vŒ ajj ' uposatho kar´yissat´ ' ti - Ibid. 107.). Thus it was possible for the inmates of many ŒvŒsa to operate as members of one S´mŒ in their activities.

In performing the ritual of the Uposatha the monks had to operate collectively and no sectional meetings were allowed within that region (Tehi bhikkhave bhikkhèhi sabbeh ' eva ekajjhaµ sannipatitvŒ uposatho kŒtabbo. Yattha vŒ pana thero bhikkhu viharati tattha sannipatitvŒ uposatho kŒtabbo. Na tv ' eva vaggena saºghena uposatho kŒtabbo - Ibid. 108.). All monks living within it, heedless of the distance they had to travel and the hardships of the journey, congregated at an appointed place for the purpose

(Page 172)

of the PŒtimokkha recital. In the interests of the guest monks it was considered necessary to decide beforehand upon a site for the performance of the ritual, viz. an uposathŒgŒra. Thus, on account of the prior knowledge of the place, the participants would be enabled to arrive there in time without any confusion. The Saºgha may choose for this purpose any one of the five buildings sanctioned for monastic residence. Once selected an uposathŒgŒra continued to be recognised as such until the decision is revoked by the Saºgha. It is clear from the following statement about the thoughtless selection of two such buildings at the same site and the subsequent order made by the Buddha to cancel one and use the other (Tena kho pana samayena a––atarasmiµ ŒvŒse dve uposathŒgŒrŒni sammatŒni honti.....AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave ekaµ samèhanitvŒ ekattha uposathaµ kŒtuµ - Vin.I.107.). In case the uposathŒgŒra turns out to be too small for the congregation which assembles, then the Saºgha is empowered to declare as much of the courtyard of the building (uposathapamukha) as necessary to be valid territory in which the participants may take their seats for the ritual of the PŒtimokkha. This is clearly a matter of ritualistic detail quite additional to the early spirit of the PŒtimokkha recital. For it is said with reference to an incident which historically takes precedence over this that the ritualistic validity of the ground on which a monk sat during the PŒtimokkha recital was a matter of no concern as long as he was able to hear from there the PŒtimokkha as it was being recited (SammatŒya vŒ bhikkhave bhèmiyŒ nisinnŒ asammatŒya vŒ yato pŒtimokkhaµ suöŒti kato 'v ' assa uposatho - Ibid. 108.).

Although the delimitation of a region of S´mŒ was approved, S´mŒ in its early stages was not subjected to restrictions of size. Some of them became very large extending up to four, five and six yojana. The monks who had to travel long distances to the venue of the recital were unable to arrive in time. Hence three yojana soon came to be fixed as the maximum allowable size of a S´mŒ. No S´mŒ was also to extend beyond a river unless there was a permanent bridge or a regular ferry providing a safe crossing. The incidents connected with this proviso make it clear that it is based on practical considerations and has no ritualistic significance whatsoever.

Based on this institution of S´mŒ which is thus established by delimitation of a specified region to be a unit of co-residence and common Uposatha, the members of the Saºgha are given a concession to set apart one of their three robes for safe keeping, as a stand-by to be used in case of damage to the others. This legislation was actually provoked by the incident in which the venerable MahŒ Kassapa who on his way from Andhakavinda to participate in the Uposatha at RŒjagaha got his robes wet while crossing a river and had to attend the ritual in his wet robes for want of a change of clothing. This concession of keeping out of one 's possession one out of the unit of three robes (tic´varena avippavŒsasammuti) is applicable within the aforesaid SamŒna-saµvŒsaka-s´mŒ, but leaving out its urban areas, for it is out side these that this concession would have been most needed. (YŒ sŒ bhikkhave saºghena s´mŒ sammatŒ samŒnasaµvŒsŒ ekuposathŒ saºgho taµ s´maµ tic´varena avippavŒsaµ sammanatu ÊhapetvŒ gŒma– ca gŒmèpacŒra– ca - Vin.I.109.).

The MahŒvagga also makes provision for regions in which monks reside but wherein no S´mŒ has been officially proclaimed. In the case of such towns and villages (gŒmagahaöena c ' ettha nagaram pi gahitaµ eva hoti - VinA.V.1051) their own boundaries are accepted to circumscribe the area of co-residence for the monks (AsammatŒya bhikkhave s´mŒya yaµ gŒmaµ vŒ nigamaµ vŒ upanissŒya viharati yŒ tassa vŒ gŒmassa gŒmas´mŒ nigamassa vŒ nigamas´mŒ ayaµ tattha samŒnasaµvŒsŒ ek ' uposathŒ -

(Page 173)

Vin.I.110 f.). This seems to reflect the conditions which are referred to in the GopakamoggallŒna Sutta and are perhaps characteristic of a stage of pre-s´mŒ antiquity (Te mayaµ tad ' ah ' uposathe yŒvatikŒ ekaµ gŒmakkhettaµ upanissŒya viharŒma te sabbe ekajjhaµ sannipatŒma - M.III. 10.).

To this group of unbounded S´mŒ of gŒma and nigama is also added the forest regions in which monks reside. From any such place of residence an area of a radius of sattabbhantara i.e. seven abbhantara is marked out as the region of samŒnasaµvŒsa and ekuposatha (AgŒmake ce bhikkhave ara––e samantŒ sattabbhantarŒ ayaµ tattha samŒnasaµvŒsŒ ekuposathŒ - Vin.I. 111.). Such a Sattabbhantara S´mŒ enjoys also the privilege of tic´varavippavŒsaparihŒra (- tic´varena avippavŒssasammuti). The MahŒsakuludŒy´ Sutta perhaps portrays an earlier phase of monastic life when it says that even the forest-dwelling monks come regularly to the midst of the Saºgha for the recital of the PŒtimokkha. In course of time further independent units of monastic residence seem to appear as the community expands and spreads over wider territories. As a result of this we also note a corresponding change in the concept of S´mŒ.

S´mŒ, which originally indicated a practical and convenient unit of residence of the Saºgha for their common communal activities (samŒnasaµvŒsŒ ekuposathŒ ) and referred to as SamŒnasaµvŒsaka S´mŒ, seems to have soon changed its character to mean also the venue in which the Saºgha may perform its monastic activities like the conferment of PabbajjŒ and UpasampadŒ. This gives rise to what is latterly known as the Khaö¶a S´mŒ. The SamantapŒsŒdikŒ suggests that this smaller unit of Khaö¶a S´mŒ should, in fact, be established first before the establishment of the SamŒnasaµvŒsaka S´mŒ (Imaµ pana samŒnasaµvŒsakas´maµ sammannantehi pabbajjupasampadŒd´naµ saºghakammŒnaµ sukhakaraöatthaµ paÊhamaµ khaö¶as´mŒyo bandhitabbŒ - Vin. A.V.1041.).

In a monastic residence which is complete with all its accessories like the Bodhi tree, Cetiya and the Alms-hall, the Khaö¶a S´mŒ should be located in a quiet corner [not in the centre of the monastic residence] at a place which is not frequented by many people (Sace hi bodhi-cetiya-bhattasŒlŒd´ni sabbavatthèni patitÊÊhŒpetvŒ katavihŒre bandhanti vihŒramajjhe bahènaµ samosaraöaÊÊhŒne abandhitvŒ vihŒrapaccante vivittokŒse bandhitabbŒ - Ibid.). Considering the quorum for valid monastic acts (which range from four to twenty monks), it is said that the Khaö¶a S´mŒ should be large enough to accomodate not less than twenty-one monks (SŒ heÊÊhiamparicchedena sace ekav´sati bhikkhè gaöhŒti vaÊÊati tato oraµ na vaÊÊati... Ibid.). It is also conceded that a large monastery could have as many as two, three or more Khaö¶a S´mŒ (Sace pana vihŒro mahŒ hoti dve ' pi tisso ' pi tad ' uttari ' pi khaö¶as´mŒyo bandhitabbŒ - Ibid. 1042.).

Any watery abode like a river, natural lake or the sea is said to be, by its very nature, suitable for the performance of all monastic acts. 'Its very nature ' here may mean the fact that such places being ' uninhabited ' it requires no further legislation to exclude aliens. Here, under normal circumstances, there would be no danger of trespassers (SŒ pana attano sabhŒven ' eva baddhas´mŒsadisŒ. Sabbam ettha saºghakammaµ kŒtuµ vaÊÊati. SamuddajŒtassaresu ' pi es ' eva nayo - VinA.V. 1052.). Thus we see the emergence of the Udakukkhepa S´mŒ. It is a region in a river, a natural lake or the sea which covers ' the distance that a man of average (height) can throw water all round.' (NadiyŒ vŒ bhikkhave samudde vŒ jŒtassare vŒ yaµ majjhimassa purisassa samantŒ udak ' ukkhepŒ ayaµ tattha samŒnasaµvŒsŒ ekuposathŒ -Vin.I. 111.).

The MahŒvagga itself gives indications of a steady elaboration of the concept of S´mŒ. What was originally introduced for the convenient administration of the monastic community soon turns out to be a cause of dispute in itself. With the fragmentation of the central S´mŒ and the consequent multiplicity of smaller units there arose the danger of some of them overlapping the others (Tena kho pana samayena chabbaggiyŒ bhikkhè s´mŒya s´maµ sambhindanti - Vin.I.111. Also : Tena kho pana

(Page 174)

samayena chabbaggiyŒ bhikkhè s´mŒya s´maµ ajjhottharanti - Ibid.). To avoid such overlapping of territory of each monastic group it soon became necessary to provide a ' buffer state ' (s´mantarikŒ) between two regions which are marked out as S´mŒ (AnujŒnŒmi bhikkhave s´maµ sammannantena s´mantarikaµ ÊhapetvŒ s´maµ sammannituµ.- Ibid.).

This ritualistic concern with which the validity of each S´mŒ seems to have been guarded appears to have been a subject of absorbing interest in the history of the SŒsana. This would have been necessarily so as the authority for the enforcement of discipline in Buddhist monastic life had to be secured at an impersonal level through the validity of monastic procedure. S´mŒ undoubtedly was the corner-stone of this structure. The Khandhakas have already witnessed the interest shown in it. The SamantapŒsŒdikŒ shows how it has proceeded so far as to produce divergent views on many issues according to the inclinations of the diverse groups that developed within the Theriya fold.

The wealth of Vinaya literature written in Ceylon in Pali on the theme of S´mŒ shows what a live problem it had turned out to be even after the authoritative commentarial notes of Buddhaghosa on this subject. A Ceylonese thera by the name of VŒcissasra is said to have compiled the S´mŒlaºkŒra in the 13 th century. The Buddhist monastic community of Burma seems to have been equally interested in this problem. The Burmese thera ChapaÊa compiled a T´kŒ to the S´mŒlaºkŒra of VŒcissara. Of this work, Mabel Bode says : ' The S´mŒlaºkŒrapakaraöa of ChapaÊa was a result of the Talaing thera's studies in Ceylon.' A considerable amount of literary activity on this subject seems to have gone on in both countries, perhaps with mutual influence. Another treatise compiled in Ceylon similar to the S´mŒlaºkŒra of VŒcissara is the S´mŒsaºkarachedan´ of Sr´ RŒhula (15th century).

The importance attached to the ritualistic validity of S´mŒ does not appear to have been peculiar only to the Southern schools of TheravŒda Buddhism in Burma and Ceylon. It does seem to have been shared by some of the schools of Buddhism in the Far East as well. The Kaidan (the equivalent of S´mŒ in the Far East) must have enjoyed some prestige in China and Japan at a very early date. Kanjin (Chien-chen in Chinese pronunciation) who introduced the Vinaya or Ritsu sect (= Lè-tsung of China) from China to Japan built a Kaidan for performing the ceremony of admission to the Order. What is more important here is the point which stresses the ritualistic significance of this new establishment. Monks and nuns of the land who had already been ordained but whose admission to the Order was considered invalid for any reason were re-ordained by him. After many entreaties by Dengyo Daishi, the founder of the Tendai sect in Japan, another Kaidan was established at Hieizan in 827 A.D. This seems to have led to the decline of the fortunes of the Ritsu sect. However in the 12 th century, Shosho shonin, in a bid to revive the Ritsu sect, wrote a treatise called Kaidan Shiki on the ceremonial to be observed at ordinations. Nevertheless, we have no doubt that with the birth of new and rival sects the Kaidan probably had to face a competitive process of change and modification.

The history of Buddhist monasticism in Ceylon has also witnessed a major dispute regarding the validity of a S´mŒ which was being used for the conferment of UpasampadŒ. It assumed such proportions that Burma too, was drawn into it. Its histroy in brief is as follows. In 1845 A.D. an

(Page 175)

Udakukkhepa S´mŒ 'consisting of a permanent raft fixed in the middle of the lake called MŒdugaºga at Balapitimodara [ in Ceylon ] and having an approach to it by a bridge from the bank ' was established. Sometime afterwards, ' a famous learned priest called LaºkŒgoda SirisaddhammavaµsapŒla Dh´rŒnanda ' found fault with it ' as being confused and undetached, and consequently irregular and invalid... In consequence of his representations and his protest against the vaildity of the rite of ordination performed in the said S´mŒ many priests who had received that rite there had themselves re-ordained in properly defined S´mŒs... There were, on the other hand, several who from various motives upheld the validity of that S´mŒ and the ecclesiastical acts performed therein: thus disputes and dissensions arose in the Society and rent the unity and harmony which had hitherto prevailed.'

At this time two Ceylonese priests named Dhammakkhandha and Vanaratana went on a visit to Burma and informed the High Priest (Saºgha RŒja) of Mandalay about the controversy that was raging in Ceylon with respect to the validity of the Balapitimodara S´mŒ in which the ordination of the Amarapura priests had been hitherto held... This pontiff (Saºgha RŒja) having learnt the particulars of the case and after consulting the most eminent members of the Buddhist clergy in that country, drew up a memorandum embodying their decision on the matters in dispute, and sent the document in charge of these priests to the address of the principal priests of the Amarapura Society in Ceylon. This authoritative decision which was adverse to the views held by those who maintained the validity of the aforesaid S´mŒ not having been accepted as conclusive by them, the Saºgha RŒja of Burma sent a second epistle supporting the statements made in the first with the help of copious quotations from the Pali texts and commentaries, and exhorting the recalcitrant priests to yield to reason and authority.

When this epistle was read in a public assembly of the Buddhist clergy and laity, the then High Priest of the Amarapura Society and his colleagues who, for some time, upheld the vaildity of the disputed S´mŒ became convinced of its faultiness and renouncing their preconceived notions on the subject joined the party of LaºkŒgoda. A number of priests at Dodanduwa who stood aloof from the contending factions also gave in its adherence on this day to the united factions, and thenceforward the three parties in alliance performed their ecclesiastical functions together in peace and harmony. But this epistle as well as two others accompanied with diagrams on the subject, subsequently addressed to the Amarapura priests of Ceylon by two learned members of the Burmese church, had no effect on those who persisted in their error...

Things were in this state when the priest VimalasŒra Thera of the Ambagahapitiya VihŒra at Velitota, who had received his ordination at the faulty place of consecration, wrote some epistles addressed to the late King of Burma and to the leading ministers and priests of that country, propounding certain questions having reference to the validity or invalidity of the disputed S´mŒ at Balapitimodara... The questions submitted by VimalasŒra were, at the instance of the King and his ministers, referred to a Committee of the most learned Buddhist priests of Mandalay under the presidency of the best Vinaya scholar of that country named SirisaddhammavamsapŒla JŒgara MahŒ Thera. This Committee embodied their opinions on the different points submitted to them in the form of a report, which was printed and published in Burma, and copies of it were sent to Ceylon for distribution among the priests here. The decision arrived at by this learned Committee was again adverse to the opinions of VimalasŒra and his party, and the S´mŒ at Balapitimodara was condemned as defective and faulty. One would have supposed that this would settle the whole question and put an end to the controversy and strife once and for ever ; but it was not so...

With the praiseworthy object of conciliating the factious brethren in Ceylon and uniting the Amarapura Society in the bonds of peace and brotherhood, the Committee aforementioned, named Sirisaddhammavamsa JŒgara MahŒ Thera, and who had come on a visit here, convened an asembly of the principal priests of Ceylon in order to advise and exhort the oppositionists to yield to reason and discipline.... This priest, in a great public assembly held at Velitara exhorted VimalasŒra and his party to stand to reason and to submit to authority; but the oppositionists actuated by policy rather than by wisdom, disregarded the sober admonition...

(Page 176)

After the great Thera JŒgara left the island, the leader of the oppositionist band, VimalasŒra Thera, printed and published a work entitled S´mŒlakkhaöad´pan´ in which he attempted to set at naught the generally received opinions of the ancient elders of the church who, in his estimate,were not infallible and were liable to error. This book has been widely circulated among the Amarapura section of the Buddhist clergy both in and out of the island, and its tendency is to perpetuate and widen the breach which has unfortunately occurred among the brethren of the Amarapura clergy.

In order, therefore, to counteract the evil effects which this work is calculated to produce among the laity and clergy, and to correct the errors and misrepresentations which it contains... we have thought it incumbent upon us to publish a reply to that work by the title of 'S´mŒnayadappana or A Mirror of the System of Consecrated Boundaries.'

We lament the fact that we are not in a position to produce an equally comprehensive version for the defence from the school of VimalasŒra Thera. However, it is clear that in these two works we come to possess two Vinaya treatises on the question of S´mŒ submitted from opposite camps. These two masterly studies of the 19th century, while being undoubtedly a valuable addition to our Vinaya literature, also indicate the changing trends in the history of the SŒsana in the island.

(Page 177)

(Page 178)

(Page 179)

(Page 180)

(Page 181)

(Numbers are referred to the page numbers of the printed book)

AbbhŒna (Act of) 111 (See also reinstate)

Abhidhamma (PiÊaka) 14 n. i, 58,132

abhidhamme (in terms of the Dhamma) 132

AbhijjhΠ67f.

AbhisamŒcŒrika(-sikkhŒ) 53f., 132

Abhivinaye (in terms of the Vinaya) 132

abrahmacariyavŒsa 25

abrahmacariyŒ veramaö´ 52

abrogation 145,146

absolution 2, 98, 101,102,103,123,166

îcŒraºga Sètra 140

îcariya 131-3

Acela Kassapa 115

Act of Banishment 118,121 (See also PabbŒjaniya kamma) ; of Censure 118,121 (See also Tajjaniya Kamma) ; of Reconciliation 118,121 (See also PaÊisŒraniya kamma) ; of Subordination 118,121 (See also Nissaya kamma) ; of Suspension, 109,118,121 (See also Ukkhepaniya kamma)

Adhikaraöa 108,121,122,127

Adhikaraöasamatha 77,79,121-127,155

adhipa––Œ sikkhŒ 67

AdhiÊÊhŒna (- uposatha) 106

îdibrahmacariyika (-sikkhŒ) 53f,132 ; (sikkhŒpada) 166

Œdikammika 160

administration (monastic) 9,17,48,82,123,134, 144, 173

ŒgatŒnŒgata 9

Aggika JaÊila 114

agnyŒgŒra 95

ŒhŒre paÊikkèlasa––Œ 60

AjŒtasatthu (King) 99

Ajita Kesakambali 26

îj´vaka 25,27

Œj´vapŒrisuddhi 55, 62, 64, 66, 87

Œj´vavipatti 62

Akaraö´ya 83 ; cattŒri akaraö´yŒni 83,166

akusala kamma 45, 52, 67, 68,

îlŒra KŒlŒma 6, 25

Altekar, A.S. 137,138

Amarapura (sect) 175 -176

amends (make amends) 99, 105, 106, 112, 113, 151, 166

am¨tatva 21

AmèÂhavinaya 121, 123, 126

anŒd´navadasso 47

AnŒgŒmin 69, 86 n. 2

anagŒriya 74

anŒgatabhayŒni 74, 76

înanda 11, 26, 60, 70, 92,128,142,145 - 7,151, 162, 166 - 8,169,

înandattherauposathapa–havatthu 48 n.6, 162

ŒöŒ pŒtimokkha 160 n.4, 162 - 3

anŒsakŒyana 23

anassŒsika brahmacariya 25, 26

Andhakavinda 172

Aºguttara NikŒya 1, 3, 43, 53, 54, 57, 60, 64, 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 138,139, 159, 164, 166

Aniyata 77, 149

a––atitthiyapubba 114,115,116

antevŒs´ 132.

anupŒdŒ parinibbŒnatthaµ 36

AnurŒdha 33

Anuruddha 119

anusayasamugghŒtattham 36

AnuvŒdhikaraöa 108

aparihŒniya dhamma (seven) 71,166

apaÊicchanna 110

ApaÊicchannaparivŒsa 111 see ParivŒsa

îpatti 102 - 103,108.

îpattŒdhikaraöa 108, 122, 126, 127

appamŒnŒ cetovimutti 32.

appama––Œ (= brahmavihŒra) 26

catasso appama––Œyo 30

Arahant 28, 36, 37, 86,123

Arahantship 28, 31, 37, 43, 44, 54, 60, 63, 67, 68, 69, 73,142

arahattaphala 6

Œra––aka 76,172 n. 3

ara––akatta 71

araöyŒyana 23

arati 31

AriÊÊha 141,150

ariyamagga (= brahmacariya) 26

ariyasaccŒni 33

ariyavaµsŒ (four) 57 - 58

asŒdhŒraöa pa––atti 149,158

ŒsavŒnaµ khaya 27

ŒsavŒnaµ khayatthaµ 36

ŒsavaÊÊhŒniya dhamma 48, 49, 50

ascetic 114 ascetic ideal 138 fire-worshipping ascetics 114 naked ascetics 114,153,154

asceticism 4, 6, 26, 40, 76

Asoka 9

Τramin 21

Assaji 34,128

Assaji and Punabbasu 59,121,136.

Atharvan (Atharava-veda) 22, 24, 25

îtman (Œtman) 23, 28

aÊÊha garudhamma 142 - 6

AÊÊhakathŒcariyŒ 97

aÊÊha vatta 273

austerities 6, 8, 19, 23, 26, 27, 29, 40, 41, 76, 88

ŒvŒsa 9, 10, 171

bŒhusaccamahatta 49 (See also ŒsavaÊÊhŒniya dhamma)

BalapiÊimodara 174 n 8, 175

ballot 125

Bandhumat´ 161

Basham, A.L. 26 n.1.

BaudhŒyana 22

Belvalkar, S.K. and Ranade, R.D. 21 n.1 and 3

BhaddŒli 46, 48, 49, 59

Bhagavadg´tŒ 28, 137

Bhagavat, Durga N. 149 n.1, 155

BhŒradvŒjagotta (Brahmin) 27

(Page 182)

Bhikkhu 2,6,7,8,10,11,12,19,20,53,62,77,79,80,81-4,86,88,91,92,95,100,104-6, 109,111,112,114,115,118,123,124,128,130,133,136,137,142-7,148-55, 157-8,160-5,168,169

bhikkhumŒnatta 113

Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha 143,148 - 9,157

Bhikkhu Saºgha 129, 142 - 4, 146 - 7

Bhikkhu SŒsana 151

Bhikkhun´ 12,20,62,79,88,112,129,142-7,148-58

Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha, 143,149,151,152 n.4,153f,155-8

Bhikkhun´pŒtimokkhavaööanŒ 157

Bhikkhun´ SŒsana 148, 149

BhikkhunovŒda 143,144

BhikkhunovŒdaka 156

Bhiksun´prŒtimoksa 155

bhojane matta––utŒ 58,59,60,63.

Bloomfield, M. 24

Bode, Mabel Haynes 174

Bodhisatta 25, 33-35, 37, 39, 41, 72

boycott 109,121,150-1 (See also Ukkhepaniya kamma)

Brahma 23,24,25,27,28,29

BrahmΠ29, 30, 31,161

Brahman 22, 27, 28

Brahma-companionship 30

Brahma-life,6; Brahma-reaching, 23,27; Brahma-union,29; Brahma-world, 23,24, 29,30,31

BrahmacŒr´ 1,22,24,25,37,38

BrahmacŒrin´ 149

Brahmacariya, 1,5,6,20.25,26,29,30,31,32,33,35,36,37,38,41,43,53,56,59,141,142,148,153;

brahmacariyassa keval´ 36

brahmacarya 21-25

brahmakŒya 28

brahmanirvΚa 28

brahmapatti 27,29

brahmasaµstha 21

BrahmavihŒra (four) 26, 30, 31, 32

BrŒhmaöas (literature) 137

brŒhmaöa (person) 29,141

Brahmanic 4, 20-22,24,27

Brahmanism 1, 29

Brahmin 1, 6, 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 30, 42, 86,137,140

Brahminhood 22, 24

Brahmin Sages (seven) 25

B¨hadŒraöyaka Upanisad 24

Buddha 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9,10-12, 14,17,18.19, 20, 24, 25 - 32, 33 - 5, 37 - 41, 43 - 53,57- 59, 62, 64, 67, 69-76, 78, 79, 81, 83-6, 90-3, 97-100,106,108,114-120, 128- 33,135-9,141-9,151,156,159-69,171-2

Buddhas (of the past) 49, 70, 71, 161- 3

Buddhaghosa 3,13,19, 26, 27, 43, 44, 46, 47,50, 52, 53,55,57,58, 61-5, 67, 69, 87, 96 97,103104,108,109,110, 115, 127, 132,152,155-8,162,163,166 n 1, 168, 169, 170,174

Burma 174,175

Cakkavatti 52

Canonical 2, 3,12,18, 36, 44, 55, 57, 58, 63, 64, 91, 97,161,162,163,170

CŒtuddisa Saºgha 9,10,15

catunavutiparivŒsikavatta 112

catupaccaya 8, 57,58, 63

catuparisΠ148

CatupŒrisuddhis´la 61, 63 -7

caturaºgasamannŒgata brahmcariya 26 n.2, 4, 27 n.1, 40

Catur î§rama Dharma 5, 21-3

causal genesis 33, 34

cauyŒma saµvara 141

celibacy 4, 24, 37, 38, 40, 47, 52, 84,140

cenobitic (monk) 5. 6, 9

cetaso Œvaraöa 68

Ceylonese 64,174,175

Chabbaggiya (monks) 46,101,135,150,165,168,170. (nuns) 150

Chain of Causation 33, 34

Chalmers, Lord 2

chandapŒrisuddhi 97,103

ChŒndogya Upanisad 21, 23, 24

Channa 121,129

ChapaÊa (Burmese Thera) 174

chastity 84,114,141,149

Chien- Chen (= Kanjin) 174

China 174

Chinese 18, 20.104,142,145-6,160,161,168

Citta (Gahapati) 86,121

cittaklesa 68

code 15. 20. 38, 52, 61, 78, 80, 82, 89, 90, 92, 93-4,98,102,109,110,118,134,138, 142,14,148-9,156,164,165,166

codified 61,77, 83, 84,166

Commentaries (Pali) 2, 3,18, 36, 97,175

Commentary (Old) 3,16, 83, 96

Commentator 2, 4,103,109

Community 6, 7, 8,10, 20, 46, 48, 49,5 4, 62, 65, 69, 75, 77, 82, 89, 91-2, 95, 97, 99, 101,102,108 - 9,113, 118,120-3,126,128,129,131,132-5,141,142,143,144, 145,149,150,151,153,159,164,165,171,173,174

conceal 110-22, 113, 145

conduct 5, 6,10,11,12,16, 37,41,44,45,53,55, 82, 84, 89, 94,105,106,112,113,114,115, 121,122,124,130-1,134,135,145,148,149,156,165,166

confess 98,101,103,104,110,111,123,126

confession 6,15, 79, 98-99,101-3,104,105,106,110

confessional meeting 15, 77, 94

court 10

CèlŒbhaya 64-5

Cullavagga 13,14,16,100,101,104,110-1,118,145, 57,159,160,161,162,163,167,170,406

Cunda 70,128,148

Dabbamallaputta 135

dŒna (= brahmacariya) 26

daö¶akamma 112,122,123,126,134

dasa atthavasa 51 (ten considerations which prompted the Buddha to lay down sikkhŒpada)

dasa sikkhŒpadŒni 52.

Dengyo Daishi 174

Devadatta 8, 70, 75, 88, 99,135,150.

(Page 183)

Dhamma 5,12,14,15,17,18,19, 28, 34, 47, 48, 51, 52, 61, 74,82,88, 91-3,95,104,108- 110,114,116,118,119,120,121,124,126,132,163,166,167,170

dhammabhèta 28

Dhammaceti (King) 174 n.4

dhammakŒya 28

DhammŒlaºkŒra (Thera) 174 n.8

dhammanetti 126

Dhammapada 52, 59, 161

DhammapadaÊÊhakathŒ 48 n.6, 66, 161 n.4, 162

DhŒna–jŒni (Brahmin / sutta) 29-30

Dharma 5, 21

Dharma PiÊaka 168

Dharmagupta Vinaya 142, 146, 167

dharmaskandha 21,23

Dh´rŒnanda, LankŒgoda (Thera) 175

D´pavaµsa 168 n.7

D´pavihŒra (See Sumana Thera) 64

disciple (s) 1,5,7,10,14,18,19, 24, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 52, 54, 55, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70-2, 73, 74, 76, 78, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 97,102,108,115,116,119,128,129,130,133,136,145,161, 162, 163, 164,156,166,169

discipline 2,4, 6,10,12,13,14,16,17,18,19,21,42, 43, 44, 46, 48, 49, 51-4, 56, 59, 61, 63, 64-5, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 98, 99,102, 105.106.107, 108,113,120,123,124,126,127,128,131-2,135,146,148,149,156,161,164-5, 165, 166, 167,168,174

dispute 118,119,120,122,123-4,126,127,146,175

dissentient 19,145,151,170

divine 3

Dodanduwa 175

dosa 24, 31, 32, 39, 68-9

dovacassakaraöadhamma 69,130

DubbhŒsita 50,169

duggati 3,4

DukkaÊa 50, 62, 86, 97,134,135,169,171

dukkha 33, 35-6, 53, 54

Dutt, Nalinaksha 1

Dutta, Sukumar 1,2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,14,15,17,78,79, 83, 92, 93-5, 102,133, 161 n.6

duÊÊhullŒ Œpati 110,154.

Egypt 5

Eightfold Path 30, 37

ekŒvŒsa 97,171

EkavihŒriya (Thera) 73

ekuddesa 95

ekèposatha 173

Eliot, Sir Charles 174 n.7

emancipation 20, 21, 37, 85, 141

enlightenment 6, 19, 26, 27, 30, 33, 36, 39, 40, 48, 50, 60,148

eremitical 7, 8

ethical 21, 22, 24, 52, 69

etymology 2, 3, 8

Europe 5

exclusion 20,101,106,159,161

excommunication 109

exoneratiion 123

expel 47, 52,151

faith 33, 39, 79,114,116 -7,130

Finot, M. 155

First Council 12,13, 79, 90,146,155 -7,167,168,169

food 41-2, 59 - 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 75, 76, 82

forest-dwelling 6, 7, 71, 72, 76, 90, 91,152,173

gahapatic´varadhara 76

gŒmakkhetta 95

gŒmantavihŒra 7, 76,172 n.3

garudhamma 129 AÊÊha garudhamma (eight conditions governing the admission of women into the Buddhist Order of Nuns) 145,146,147

goal 17, 20, 22-3, 24, 27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36 -7, 39, 41, 43, 53, 54, 73,128,141

Gotama (Buddha) 1, 5, 6, 7,10, 25, 34, 48, 49, 88,162 - 3

Gotami, MahŒpajŒpat´ 139,141,145,146

Griffith, R.T.H. 25

guidance 22, 45,130,132,146,169

guilt (Œpatti ) 15, 46, 47, 98 - 99,100,101,102-3,104,106,108,109,123,124,126,160,166;

guiltless 123

guilty 20, 47, 96, 98,100 -1,103,104,105,106,109,110,-111,112,113,118,122,123, 126. 134,135,145,146,150,154,159-60,161,163,166

gèÂhaka 125

heaven 3, 25,137,139

hell 27

heresy 108 -9,112,121,134,150

heretic 111,154

Hieizan 174

Horner, I.B. 1, 5, 7,15, 84, 85,113 n.1, 132,155

Hume, R.E. 23 n. 4-6, 27 n.5

husband 137,139

immortality 20, 21

India 1, 4, 5, 20, 21, 86,137

Indian 1, 5, 21, 40,137,139

Indra 24

indriyagutti 65

indriyasaµvara 30, 55 - 6, 58, 60 -1, 54, 65

Indriyasaµvaras´la 61, 64

indriyesu guttadvŒro 44, 55

institution (s) 1, 2,10, 21-2, 24, 46, 48, 70, 71, 91, 93, 94,105,106,107,134,137, 142, 143,144,146,148,153,162

intoxicants 52

Introductory Formular 15, 93 - 4

inviolable 52

i©Êam 23

Interrogatory Portions 15

Isipatana 35

Jacobi, Hermann 141

JŒgara (Burmese Thera) 175

jŒgariyŒnuyoga 58, 60,

Jaina 8, 40, 95,140,141

(Page 184)

Jainism 18, 38,138,140,141

JŒnussoni (Brahmin) 71 - 2, 128

Japan 84,174

JŒtaka 26, 52

JaÊilas 25 Aggika JaÊilas 114

JhŒna 85, 86 n.2

J´vaka 31

kaidan (= s´mŒ) 174

Kaidan Shiki (of Shosho shonin) 174

Kakacèpama 32

Kakusandha (Buddha) 163

KŒla 39

KalyŒn´ Inscriptions 174 n.4

kŒma 31, 38, 56, 141

kŒmabhog´ 38

kŒmesu micchŒcŒrŒ veraman´ 52

kŒmacchanda 68 - 9

kŒmarŒga 68

Kammakkhandhaka 118

kammapatha (satta and dasa) 52, 67

Kaö¶aka 149

Kanjin 174

KaºkhŒvitaraö´ (MŒtikŒ aÊÊhakathŒ) 96,103,123,157 - 8

Kassap (Buddha) 48,163

Kassapa (JaÊila) 6

Kassapagotta (Bhikkhu) 164

kaÊhina ubbhŒra 90

kŒyavèpakaÊÊha 70

Khandhakas 12,15 - 6,18, 53 - 4, 90,100,108,111 - 2, 114 - 7,121,124,125 - 6,131 - 4, 156,159,160,170,174

khandhakavatta 53

khuddakŒpatti 49 - 50

khuddŒnukhuddaka 165 - 7,169

KiccŒdhikaraöa 108

Kimbila 119

K´ÊŒgiri 121,136

KokŒlika 135,150

komŒrabrahmacariya 1, 22

KonŒgamana (Buddha) 163

Koravya (King) 40

Kosala Saµyutta 137

Kosambi 119

kusala dhamma 3

kusala kamma (dasa) 52

lŒbhaggamahatta 49

laity 16, 20, 95,167,175,176

Law, B.C. 17, 79 n.3

law 77, 79, 81, 83, 84, 92, 94, 96,100,101,106,109,120,122,135,150,153,156,164,166

lawlessness 48,165

law-maker 10

laxity 46, 48,166,168

layman 3, 8, 38 - 9, 41 - 2, 45, 47, 52 -3, 62, 84 - 5, 89, 93, 95,118-9,124,138,141, 146,148,150 - 5,165

laywoman 352

leadership 20,128,129,131 - 2,143,145

legal 46 - 7, 51, 61. 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 88,102,118 - 9, 123,129,143

legalize 48, 54, 61, 83

legislation 20, 48, 51, 81, 98,100,120 -1,129,140,163,165,173

litigiousness 120

lobha 39, 68

Lomahaµsana JŒtaka 26

lèkhappasanna 8

Lè-tsung (= Ritsu) 174

MacchikŒsaö¶a 86

MŒdugaºga 175

Magadha 93

MŒgandiya (ParibbŒjaka) 115

MahŒ aÊÊhakathŒ 39

Mahaka 86

MahΠKassapa (Thera) 7, 8, 48, 57, 58, 60, 70 -1, 76, 79, 90, 90, 128 - 30, 151, 156,165,167- 9, 172

MahŒnŒma (Sakya) 90

MahŒpajŒpati see Gotami

MahŒsaºghika 18,104,111,114,127,161,168 -170

mahatta 49

MahŒvagga (Vinaya) 3, 7, 9,15,16,25, 78, 83, 92-100,103 - 4,106,149,171 - 3

MahŒvibhaºga 79,155

MahŒv´ra 141

Mah´sŒsaka Vinaya 78, 104, 145 - 6, 160, 167

Majjhima NikŒya 45, 55, 68, 91, 115

MakhŒdeva (King) 30, 40

Makkhali GosŒla 25

Malalasekera, G.P. 174 n 2, 5

MŒnatta 110 -113, 118, 142, 160

mŒnattacŒrika 111-2

manoduccarita 67

manokamma 67 - 8

manosucarita 67

Manu 22,140

Manusm¨ti 22,137

MŒra 41, 59, 139 - 40, 146,148

mŒtikŒ 80

mauna 23

Max Muller 1

MedhŒtithi 22

mendicancy 1, 4, 6, 8,19, 25, 38, 39, 40, 42

mendicants 4, 95,141 - 2, 149

mental 53, 67 - 8

methuna 37, 46 - 7

methunavirati (= brahmacariya) 26

mettΠ30, 32

Mettiyabhummajaka 135

micchŒdiÊÊhi 67 - 9

micchŒj´va 45, 62

Middle Path 68

Milinda (King) 63,169

Milindapa–ha 44, 45 n.3, 63, 169

mind 67 - 8, 71 - 2, 75

minor rules 18, 146, 164 -170

miraculous (powers) 85 - 6

missioner 5

MogallŒna 8, 25,130 -1,136,150,159 - 61

moha 24, 31- 2, 39, 68 - 9

mohakkhaya 69

mok©a 33

Moliyaphagguna 122, 151

monasteries 4, 7,124,126,171,173

(Page 185)

monastic 4,10,13,18, 31, 37, 38, 40, 42, 43 - 51, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 62 - 3, 65, 70-71, 74 - 6, 77 - 8, 80, 82 - 3, 88 - 90, 91 -2, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99,101,102,103,105,106 108, 109,110,113,114 - 6,118,119,120 - 2,123,124,126,127,128,129,130 - 6,140,141, 142, 143,144-7,148 -50,153,159,163,164 -7,168,171,173 - 4

monasticism 1, 3,4,5,6,7,13,18,20,31,37,43,45,47,53,56,58, 60, 64, 66,74, 83, 85,87,95, 102,106,112,117,156,164,174

Monier- Williams 1, 4, 6

monks 3, 5, 6, 7,11,16,17, 33, 37- 8, 39-40, 41-2,44,45,46,47,50,51,52,53,55,57,58,59, 62, 63, 64, 67, 69, 70, 71, 75, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87- 90, 91, 95 -9,100- 1, 102 - 6,108,110 - 3,117,118 - 27,128 - 32,135 - 6,140 - 6,148,150,151,154 - 6,159- 61,163- 6,170 - 3,174

moral 6, 21 - 3, 27 - 8, 52, 55, 69, 83, 85, 87, 89,118,123,141,142,144 - 5

morality 16, 26, 29, 48, 54

mother 137, 140

muditΠ30, 31

Muö¶aka Upanisad 23 - 4

MèlasarvŒstivŒda (Vinaya) 99,104,159

Mèlasar- PrŒtimoksasètra 113

MèlasarvŒstivŒdins 111,159,161

MèlŒya PaÊikassana 111

murder 16

Nagai, M. 84

NŒgasena 45, 63,169 -70

nai©Êika 22

–Œöadassanatthaµ 36

Nanda 70

Nandaka 129

Nandiya 119

Nara 174 n.6

nemantanika 76

NhŒtakamuni 73

nibbŒna (NirvŒna) 30, 33, 36, 44, 60, 68,129

nibbŒnapariyŒya 67

NigaöÊhanŒtaputta 119

nirodha 33

Nissaggiya 77, 88 - 9,152,154

Nissayas (four) 8, 42, 75, 76

nissaya (= dependence of a pupil on his teacher) 132

nissayadŒyaka 133

Nissaya kamma 112,118,121

nissayapaÊippassaddhi 132

n´varaöa (pa–ca) 55, 58, 67, 68

nun (s) 4,16, 87, 99,113,122,141,142,143,144,145,148,151,155,157,174

offence (s) 14,15,16, 46 - 8, 49, 50, 75, 77, 78, 83, 85, 87, 88, 95, 97, 98,100,101- 3 105,106,108 -11,112,113,118,121,122,123 - 4,126,127,134,135,143,144,145, 146,150,154,159,160,161,166, 169,170,171

offender (s) 15, 46, 47, 51, 75, 78, 79, 89, 98, 99,101,104,106,108 -1,113,121-3,126,165

Oldenberg, H. 1, 3, 4,10,13 -14,16 -17,19, 77, 80, 81, 82, 99 n.1,109 n.3, 113 n.1, 132

orambhŒgiya saµyojana 69

ovŒda 129,133,143

ovŒda pŒtimokkha 162 - 3

pabbajjΠ5, 8, 20, 35, 37, 38 - 9, 82, 84,115,116 - 7,141, 142,173

PabbŒjaniya kamma 109 n.3, 112,118,121

pabbajita 5, 31, 37, 38, 56, 69, 83, 87, 95

Paccayasannissitas´la 61, 63, 64, 65, 66

PŒc´navaµsadŒya 119

PŒcittiya 46, 50, 60, 62, 77, 80, 81 - 3, 86 - 90, 94,103 108 - 9,110,135,145,149,150, 151 - 4,164,166

padhŒniyaºga (five) 3 n.3

Pakudha KaccŒyana 26

paµsukèlac´vara 75

paµsukèlika 76

pa–can´varaöa 30 See also n´varaöa

pa–casikkhŒpadas´la (= brahmacariya) 26

pa–cavaggiya (bhikkhu) 17, 33

Panduka and Lohitaka 121,135

Paºkadha 164

pa––Œ 36, 43, 54, 65, 66

pa––atto 12

pantheistic 27

pŒpadhamma 62

Papa–casèdan´ 50, 71

PŒrŒjika 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 62, 77, 79, 80, 82 -7, 95,100,101,106,109,110,123, 124,129,135,145,149,150 -1,154,156,157,158,160,166

paramŒtman 22 n.3

ParibbŒjaka 93

parinibbŒna 148

paripucchΠ133

parisuddhŒj´vo 55, 62

pŒrisuddhis´la 63, pariyanta- 63, apariyanta- 63, paripuööa- 63, aparŒmaÊÊha- 63, paÊippassaddhi- 63

ParivŒra 28, 62,156

ParivŒsa 110 -12,114 - 6,118, ApaÊicchanna- 111, PaÊicchanna- 111,113, SamodhŒna- 111, Titthiya- 111,114 - 5,117

parivŒsika 111 - 2

ParivrŒjakas (paribbŒjaka) 6, 7,12, 25

pariyattisŒsana 37

PŒrsva 141

Pasenadi Kosala (King) 1, 39, 70

PaÊiccasamuppŒda 33, 34

paÊicchanna 110

paÊicchannaparivŒsa 111,113 See ParivŒsa

PŒÊidesan´ya 77, 88,150,155

PŒtimokkha 2, 3, 4,10, 21, 28 - 38, 45, 43, 48 - 9, 54, 55, 61, 62, 64, 65, 77- 82, 84, 88 89 - 90, 91- 4, 95 -107, 109 -11, 118, 119,120,122,126,127,134,143,144,148, 149, 155 - 8,159 - 63,165 - 6,171 - 3

PŒtimokkhas 88 n.8, 156-7,158, Bhikkhu PŒtimokkha 88 n.8, 148 - 9,157 - 8, Bhikkhun´ PŒtimokkha 88 n.8,149,151,152 n.4,153 - 4, 155,157 - 8

PŒtimokkhuddesa 143

PŒtimokkhuddesaka 93

PŒtimokkha- reciter 96, 98 - 9,104

pŒtimokkhasaµvarasaµvuto 55, 64, 65 n.1. 66

PŒtimokkhasaµvaras´la 61, 62, 64 - 5

PaÊi––Œtakaraöa 121,122,126

(Page 186)

paÊipattisŒsana 37

PaÊisambhidŒmagga 63

PaÊisŒraöiya kamma 112,18,120,121,

PavŒraöŒ 80,105 - 7,111,112,144

PŒveyyaka (monks) 76

penalty 47, 95, 99,102,105,108,109 -13,118,122,123, 126,134,143,144,160

piö¶apŒtika 76

piö¶iyŒlopabhojana 8, 75

Pindola BhŒradvŒja 86

PokkharasŒt´ (Brahmin) 29

Posadha (ceremonies) 95

pasadhasŒlŒ 95

PosadhasthŒpanavastu 99,104,159

Prabhu, Pandhari Nath 138 n.5

PrajŒpati 24

Prasna Upanisad 23

PrŒtimoksasètra 18,104,111,113,155

preceptor 112,116

probation 111,114 - 5

procedure 10, 44, 75, 82, 89, 93,108,109,110,117,122, 125,126,127,143,160,164,174

property 9

propriety 18,164,165

prosecute 46, 99,133

prosecution 20, 46, 47, 78, 82, 96, 99,108,113,119,120,123,161,165,

pubbakaraöa 97,105

pubbakicca 96 -7,103,105

punish 46, 97, 98,194,123

punishment 15, 20, 47, 51, 52, 77, 78, 82, 89, 96, 98 - 9,102,105,108,109,110 -11,112, 113,118,120,122,123,126,134,135,143,150

Puööa MantŒniputta 37

puöyaloka 21

pupil 113,131 - 5, 153

PurΚa 170

Pèraöa Kassapa 25 - 6

purity 95, 96, 98,100,101,102 - 5,106,127,160,171

pètimuttabhesajja 75

quarrel 118,119,120,121

RŒdha (Brahmin) 9

rŒga 24, 31, 32, 68 - 9

rŒgavirŒgattham (=brahmacariya) 36

Rains-retreat (vassŒvŒsa) 143,144,153

RŒjagha 86,171,172

RŒmŒnuja 24

ratta––umahatta 49

RaÊÊhapŒla 40

rebellious 46, 48, 59,151,164,166

recital (of the PŒtimokkha =uddesa) 14,15, 20, 77, 78, 80, 90, 91, 92 - 4, 95,107,127, 157 - 60, 161, 162 - 3, 165,166,172,173

recluseship 3

regulation (s) 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 61, 75, 78, 82, 83, 92,106,113,118,119,120, 122,131,145,148,149,153,165,166,

reinstate 111,151

release 4, 33, 34

renunciation 5, 8, 24, 37, 38 - 9, 40, 47, 69, 84,141 - 2

residence 75, 76, 82,171,172,173

restraint 6

rhinoceros 8, 57

Rhys Davids, C.A.F. 1, 5

Rhys Davids, T.W. 1, 3, 4,10,13 -14,16 -17, 44, 77, 79 n.3, 99 n.1.

Ritsu (sect) 174

ritual 13,14,15, 20, 48 - 9, 78,90, 91, 92 - 3, 95 - 6, 97- 9,100 - 3,104 -7,127,148,157- 9, 161, 165,166,171,172

ritualistic 21, 29, 91, 94, 97,101,102,104,105,106,107,172,174

rukkhamèlasenŒsana 75

sadŒrasantosa (= brahmacariya) 26

saddhΠ65

saddhamma 61

saddhivihŒr´ 132

sŒdhŒraöapa––atti 150 n.4, 151,157

SakadŒgŒmin 69

sakalabrahmacŒr´ 36

sakaööajappaka 125

sakkŒyadiÊÊhi 69

SakuludŒy´ (ParibbŒjaka) 91

salŒkagŒhŒpaka 125

samŒdhi 36, 43, 54, 66

samaöa 43,141,161

samaöadevaputta 3

samŒnasaµvŒsa 173

samŒnasaµvŒsakas´mŒ 173

samŒnas´mŒ 97

sŒmaöera 1, 52,112,114,115,117,149

sŒmaöerapabbajjŒ 117

SamantapŒsŒdikŒ 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 78, 96, 97,116, 117,122,123,124 - 5, 127, 131, 133,156,158,171,172 n.3.173,174

samatha 70, 71

Samathakkhandhaka 121

sammappadhŒna (four) 3 n.3

sammŒvattanŒ 111

SammukhŒvinaya 121 - 2,124,126

SamodhŒnaparivŒsa 111 See ParivŒsa

sampannapŒtimokkha 3,15

sampannas´la 15, 64

saµsŒra 22, 27, 36, 56,141

samsaric 3, 34, 36

samudaya 33

samyag–Œna 23

saµyojana 68 saµyoyana-pahŒnattham 36

Saµyutta NikŒya 3, 27, 31, 36, 38, 39, 44, 48, 49, 64, 68, 70, 76, 86,115,128,138,139

Sandaka (ParibbŒjaka) 26

Sandha 166

Saºgha 6, 8, 9,10,11,14,15,16,18,19, 20, 31, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 69, 72, 77, 78, 82 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96 - 8,100,101,102,103,104,105-7,109 -11, 113, 114, 116,117,118- 20,121,122,123,124, 125,126,127,128,129,130,131,134,135,136,142, 143,144,148,150,151,160,161,166 - 8,169,171 - 3

SaºghŒdisesa 48, 49, 50, 62, 77, 80, 88, 90,100,101,106,109 -11,113,120,122,124,129, 130,133,135,145,149,151,154,155,157,165

(Page 187)

saºghakamma 97

sºghamŒnatva 133

Saºgha Rja (of Mandalay) 175

Saºghasthavira 159,160 (= saºgatthera ) 125

saºg´ti 79,170

êaºkara 21, 23 - 4

Sa–jaya (ParibbŒjaka) 6, 25

sa––Œvedayitanirodha 85

SannyŒs´ 1

santuÊÊh´ 30, 44, 55, 57 - 9, 66

SappadŒsa 39

SŒratthad´pan´ (Vinaya T´kŒ) 50

SŒriputta 7, 8, 25, 26, 29, 30, 33, 34, 37,48, 49, 50, 93,128,130,131,136,150,163

SarvŒstivŒdin 18,155,167

SŒsana 2, 3, 7,10,11,13,15,18, 20,45, 50, 51, 53, 61, 71, 75, 76, 91, 92, 102, 109, 116,120,122, 128, 129,130 -1,132,134,135 - 6,142,143,,144,146,147,149,150, 162 - 3, 164, 165, 166,167,168,171,174,176

pariyattisŒsana 37, paÊipattisŒsana 37, sŒsana (= brahmacariya) 26

êatapatha BrŒhmaöa 95

sati 65

satisampaja––a 30, 44, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60

Sativinaya 121,123,127

sattabbhantara 173

sattrŒyaöa 23

Second Buddhist Council 79

sekhadhamma 54

sekhapaööatti 53, 54

Sekhiya (Sekhiyadhamma) 18, 50, 62, 77, 74, 79,155,169

Seniya BimbisŒra (King) 93

Seniya (JaÊila) 114

sensual 19, 41, 56,142

seÊÊha (= brahma) 27

sex 37, 46,148,149,151,153

Seyyasaka (Thera) 121

Shinran (Shonin) 84

Shinshè (sect) 84

Shosh shonin 174

Siddhattha 25 n.9

Sikh´ (Buddha) 163

sikkhΠ36, 43, 53, 54, 55, 63, 66,132; tisso sikkhΠ43, 44, 54, 63,

sikkhŒpada 11,15, 46, 47, 48 - 54, 55, 60, 61 - 2, 77 - 8, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85 - 6, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92-4, 98,127,149,150,151 n.3,152- 8,160,162-3,164,165-7,169-70

s´la 3,11, 36, 37, 43-7, 51, 52, 53,54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 61 - 6, 67, 75,77, 82 - 4,87- 8, 90, 95,132,161; cèlas´la 45, 64; majjhimas´la 45, 61, 64; mahŒs´la 45, 62, 64; five s´las 95; eight s´las 95; magga and phala s´la 64; sikkhŒpadas´la 61. See also CatupŒrisuddhis´la, PŒtimokkhasaµvaras´la, Indriyasaµvaras´la, îj´vapŒrisuddhis´la, Paccayasannissitas´la

S´lakkhandha 30, 45, 55

s´laratana 64

s´lasampanna 3, 44, 45, 51, 55, 64, 90

s´lavŒ 45,55

S´mŒ 20, 95, 97,105,171- 6; Khaö¶as´mŒ 173; SamŒnasaµvŒsakas´mŒ 172 - 3; Sattabbhantaras´mŒ 173; Udakukkhepas´mŒ 173,175

S´mŒlakkhaöd´pan´ 174 n.8, 176

S´mŒlaºkŒra 174

S´mŒlaºkŒrapakaraöa 174

S´mŒnayadappana 174 n.8,176

s´mantarikŒ 174

S´mŒsaºkarachedan´ 174

sinehadosa 68

society 137- 9,149

solitary 6, 7, 8, 69, 70, 71, 76

solitude 8, 71, 75

SomΠ(Bhikkhuni) 139

SotŒpatti 68

spiritual 5, 6, 7,10, 21, 31, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 51, 54, 55, 58, 60, 62, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 76, 85, 86, 88, 92, 99,100,128,129,131,132,133 - 4,139, 141,143

§ramaöa 1, 4

srŒmamaöera 1

Srimadbhagavadg´tŒrthaprakŒsikŒ 28 n.3

strife 118,119,122

student 5, 25

studentship 22, 24

Sri Lanka 64

Subhadda 12,115,164

suddhi (catubbidhŒ suddhi : desanŒsuddhi saµvarasuddhi pariyeÊÊhisuddhi paccavekkhanŒsuddhi ) 65

Sudhamma 121

Sudinna 46 - 7, 84

êèdra 137

sugati 3,4

suicide 82

Sumana 64

SumaºgalavilŒsin´ 55,127

Suspension of the PŒtimokkha 100,101,106,159,160,162,163

sutta (= rules of the PŒtimokkha) 14,17 n.1, 79, 80; suttato 79; suttaso 156

SuttanipŒta 1, 6, 35, 37, 39

SuttanipŒta AÊÊhakathŒ 31

Sutta PiÊaka 5,11,14 n.1, 17,18, 45, 58, 59, 83, 92,108,114,115,129,130,132,164

sutta (s) of the Sutta PiÊaka 77, 78, 80, 83, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99,105,115 -6, 117, 119,120,122,124,125 - 6, 150,160,161,163

Sutta-

(Page 188)

SabbŒsava 63

Sallekha 67, 69,128

SŒmagŒma 119,125

SŒma––aphala 44, 45, 52 n.2, 55, 58, 61, 99

SammŒdiÊÊhi 33

Sandaka 26

Saºg´ti 30,58

Sekha 44, 51

TevijjΠ29, 30

Tissametteyya 37

Udumbarikas´hanŒda 70

Upakkilesa 119

Vatthèpama 59, 67, 68, 69

Suttavibhaºga 11,13,14,15 - 6,17 n.1,18, 46, 48 - 9, 50, 62, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 85, 93 - 4,109,150 n.4,163,165,170

Tajjaniya kamma, 112,118,121,122,135,160

TŒlapuÊa (Thera) 73,74

tapas 21, 23, 25, 27

TŒrukkha (Brahmin) 29

TassapŒpiyyasikŒ 121,122,126

Taw Sein Ko 174 n.4

teacher 5, 6,19, 21 - 2, 24, 26, 28, 53, 75,128,131,132 - 5,153

tecattŒr´savatta 112

tec´varikatta 76

Tendai (sect) 174

theft 16

TheragŒthŒ 32, 58,133

TheravŒdins 18,159,168,174

Theriya 18,104,145 -7,159,160 -1,167,168,16970,174

Thomas, E.J. 1,16

Thullaccaya 50, 62

ThullanandΠ150 -1

thullavajja 124

TiöavatthŒraka 121,123,124,127

tiracchŒnavijjŒ 62

Tissa Metteyya (Thera) 37

tisso sikkhŒ 43, 44, 54, 63. See sikkhŒ

TitthiyaparivŒsa 111,114,115,117. See ParivŒsa

traivedikaµ vrataµ 22

tutelage 112,121,132,133

UbbŒhikŒ 122,124

Ubhato Vibhaºga 54, 79,155

Ubhato Vinaya 79

UdŒy´ 59, 70,164

Uddaka RŒmaputta 6, 25

Uddesa 14,15, 77, 78 - 9, 90, 91, 94, 95,133

uddhambhŒgiya saµyojana 69 n.2

Ukkhepaniya kamma 108 - 9,112,118,121

ukkhitta 109

ukkhittŒnuvattikŒ 150

UpajjhŒya 131 - 3

upakurvΚa 22

upakkilesa 67, 68

UpŒli (Thera) 72, 79,156,168

Upananda 134

Upanisad (s) 22 - 4, 38

Upanisadic 23, 24, 27

uparibhŒvapariyŒya 67

UpasampadΠ10, 75, 82, 83,112,114 - 7,131,144,153, 165,173,174

upasampanna 52, 83

Upasena Vaºgantaputta (Thera) 71, 90,164,166

upavŒsa 95

upekkhΠ30

Uposatha 15, 77, 78, 80, 91, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99,100, 101,105,111,112,155,157- 9, 162,165,171,172; adiÊÊhŒna-uposatha 106

uposathŒgŒra 172, 411

Uposathakamma 77

uposathaºga (= brahmacariya) 26

uposathapucchaka 104

Uruvela Kassapa (JaÊila) 25

uttarimanussadhamma 85

Vacchagotta (ParibbŒjaka) 115

VŒcissara (Thera) 174

Vairocana 24

vajjapaÊicchŒdikŒ 154

Vajjiputtaka 43, 51, 91,165

Vakkali (Thera) 72

VassakŒra (Brahmin) 92

VassŒvŒsa (= Rains retreat) 90,105,153

vassikasŒÊika 154

Veda (s) 22, 24

Vedic 1, 95,137

(Page 189)

Velitota 175

vepullamahatta 49 See also ŒsavaÊÊhŒniya dhamma

Vera–jŒ 50

Vera–jabhŒnavŒra 71,162 - 3

Vessabhè (Buddha) 163

Vessavaöa (MahŒrŒjŒ) 70

veyyŒvacca (= brahmacariya) 26

Vibhaºga 12,13,16, 53, 79 - 80, 82,127,155,156,157

vijjŒvimuttiphalasacchikiriyatthaµ 36

VimalasŒra (Thera) 174 n.8,175,176

Vimativinodan´ (Vinaya T´kŒ) 78,102,113,122,123, 125

Vimuttimagga 61, 66

Vinaya 11,12 -13,15,16,17,18,19, 46, 48, 53, 61 - 2, 65, 72, 74, 75, 79 - 80, 83, 87, 91, 96, 97, 99.104,105,108,109,115,119,120,122,123,124,125,126,127, 130,132,134, 135,146,150,156 -7,159 - 61,163,165,166,167,168,170,174,176

Vinayadhara (s) 10,12,156

Vinaya PiÊaka 4, 9,10 -11,12,13,14,15,17,18,19 - 20,25,47,50,52,53,54,58,59, 65, 77, 78, 86,101,107 - 8,111,115,116,117,119,122,129,131,135,155,156, 158,164,170

Vinayavinicchaya 80

vipassanΠ70, 71

Vipass´ (Buddha) 48, 94,161,162,163

virŒga 85

viriya 65

viriya (=brahmacariya) 26

virtue 3

visaµyoga 85

Visuddhimagga 44, 45, 53, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65

VivŒdŒdhikaraöa 108,126

VivaÊakasalŒkagŒha (=voting by open ballot) 125

Vrata (ceremonies) 95

vyŒpŒda 67, 68, 69

wife 137,139

Winternitz, M. 13,16

woman 137 - 47,148 - 51

yaj–a 21, 23, 25

yasagga 49

YebhuyyasikΠ121,123 - 4,126