Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c14.s4.9

c14.s4.9

Nowhere in this account is the state called in. In the rest of the rules, too, it appears extremely rarely. The references to it are of a trivial nature. For instance, the Pātimokkha, describing various offences to be confessed by Bhikkhus in the assembly, could be recited only by a learned brother and only in a full assembly. If a Bhikkhu had been seized by the king, robbers or relations, a request should be made for his temporary release or for bringing him outside the boundary so that the congregation might be complete.¹ Otherwise the monastic rules hardly refer to the state. Buddhist theory, as worked out elsewhere, expects the state to protect the monks from all molestation, to afford them all facilities, and to endow their institutions with lavish generosity but it does not contemplate any interference in their internal affairs. Even Brahmanic political theory respects the autonomy of heretical associations. Yājñavalkya only wants the king to see that they continue to manage their affairs according to their own rules and traditions.² Nārada wants the king to maintain the usages settled among heretics as among others.³ This is one of the most remarkable points of difference between the theory of economic organisations and that of religious association. The former were interwoven with the communal economic life with which the state was intimately concerned at every point. They constituted a plentiful source of revenue. They handled vast sums which might be turned to the service of the state in emergencies. Religious corporations, on the other hand, had only to be encouraged and patronised.