Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c22: Chapter XIX: Constitution of the Saṅgha

Early Monastic Buddhism v1.c22

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XIX: Constitution of the Saṅgha

v1.c22.1

We shall now turn to the constitution of the Saṅgha that led to the growth of the several Buddhist institutions or saṅghārāmas which trained up the Buddhist monks and sent them out to the world to preach the religion and alleviate human sufferings. A glance at the ancient map of India shows what a large number of such institutions grew up in the different parts of India and how magnificent were some of them, their ruins striking us even to-day with awe and wonder. These Saṅghārāmas wielded at a time a great amount of influence over the people of India. Some of these institutions were built by the devotees at an immense expense and were large enough to accommodate thousands of monks. They were mostly located at a distance from the din and bustle, but not beyond the easy reach, of the city to which the inmates looked for their daily necessaries of life. The sites chosen by them were in many cases valleys separated from the inhabited localities by hills, mountains or forests. In cases where such sites were not available, they were shut out from the world by huge walls with gates guarded by competent gate-keepers. Great discretion was used to keep the site aloof from the distractions of the town or village life, giving at the same time an opportunity to the townsfolk and villagers to frequent the āvāsas for listening to religious discourses and making their offerings. An individual monk or a donor was not allowed to select the site for a monastery. It is enjoined in the Pātimokkha-sutta that it must be done by a group of monks (see Saṅghādisesa rule 6).

v1.c22.2

The *saṅghārāmas* offered shelter to all who submitted to the discipline enforced in them and dedicated their lives to the cause of Buddhism. There appeared from among them brilliant intellects who would shed lustre on any sphere of activities that might be allotted to them. The training imparted by these scholars produced a number of expositors of Buddhist philosophy and religion who carried far and wide the torch of Buddhism within and outside India. In short, these institutions radiated the force which made Buddhism an all-Asiatic faith.

v1.c22.3

To these institutions flocked from different parts of India and sometimes countries outside India men with different aims and inclinations. They remained there under the strict disciplinary rules for years, receiving instructions from distinguished monks; and it was only when they were found thoroughly chastened in body and spirit that they were sent out to the outside world for carrying on the work of the great Teacher. The fame of the institutions at Takṣaśilā, Nālandā, Sārnāth, Ajaṇtā or Amarāvatī reached far-off places like China, Central Asia, Siam, Cambodia and Ceylon, and attracted hundreds of students.

The Saṅghārāmas

v1.c22.s1.1

The members of the Buddhist order at the very beginning of its formation lived mostly in caves and forests, staying for only a short time at a particular place. It was probably the gift of Veluvana to Buddha that constrained him to permit his followers to dwell in hermitages; but he gave his formal consent¹ when he was requested by a merchant of Rājagṛha to accept the sixty *vihāras* (monasteries) that had been built by him for acquiring merit to go to one of the higher worlds. Once the sanction was given, the monks as well as the devotees showed so much zeal in the building of monasteries that it necessitated Buddha to frame a number of rules¹ restraining the monks from drifting into luxury. These monasteries were originally used for residential purposes only, but grew up later on into academic centres even during the lifetime of Buddha.

v1.c22.s1.2

¹ See above, pp. 278, 284.

v1.c22.s1.3

¹ Pātimokkha, section ii.

Headship not by succession or nomination

v1.c22.s2.1

Probably as a member of the clans which favoured democratic constitutions, Buddha became imbued with democratic ideas. He wanted to see his *saṅgha* grow on democratic lines and framed the rules accordingly. He himself, however, acted more as a dictator than as a constitutional head, prescribing rules and giving orders as he thought fit. He consulted the wishes of the people and kings more than those of his followers, and this was probably due to his eagerness to popularize the religion. In spite of the supreme authority wielded by him within the *saṅgha*, he did not like to admit that he was its leader or that the *saṅgha* relied on him as the leader.² From the words of Devadatta and Buddha’s reply to the same,³ it is apparent that the question of the headship of the *saṅgha* after Buddha’s demise was raised, but Buddha would not nominate any, not even his best disciples like Sāriputta and Moggallāna. In the history of Indian religious orders, the absence of the system of nominating a successor to the headship of an order was probably unknown before Buddha and so it was a riddle to men like Gopaka-Moggallāna who enquired of Ānanda how the *saṅgha* could maintain its concord when neither Buddha had named his successor nor had the *saṅgha* elected one to the supreme headship of the whole congregation.¹ Ānanda’s answer was that the *sangha* was not without a guide and that guide was the book of *Pātimokkha* containing the rules prescribed by Buddha himself for the monks. The *Pātimokkha* retained the concord of the *sangha*, for it required all the monks residing in or about a parish (*gāmakhetta*) to assemble on the *uposatha* days (i.e., 8th, 14th or 15th day of a fortnight), listen to the rules recited by one of them selected for the purpose, confess their derelictions, if any, and undergo the penance deemed necessary.² Ānanda added that the monk who was asked to recite the rules was regarded for the time being as the chief of the *sangha* and was called *sanghatthera*, *sanghapitara* or *sanghaparināyaka*. The qualities that an ideal *sanghapitara* or *sanghaparināyaka* was expected to possess were as follows:³ (a) he must be a true *brahmacārin*, observing all the restrictions prescribed in the *Pātimokkha*; (b) he should be vastly learned in the details of the *dhamma*; (c) he must be always satisfied with the food, bed and clothing that he might obtain; and (d) he must be proficient in the four forms of meditations and be in possession of the supernatural powers and *abhiññās*.

v1.c22.s2.2

² Dīgha, II, p. 100; cf. Milindapañha, p. 159.

v1.c22.s2.3

³ Vinaya, II, p. 188.

v1.c22.s2.4

¹ *Majjhima*, III, p. 9.

v1.c22.s2.5

² *Ibid.*, III, p. 10.

v1.c22.s2.6

³ *Ibid.*, p. 11-12.

v1.c22.s2.7

The *sanghatthera* was generally selected from among the older monks. In the account of the Second Council⁴ Sabbakāmi is described as a *sanghatthera* as he was the oldest ordained monk at the time. Generally the *sanghatthera* presided over the functions of *Pātimokkha*-assemblies, but in the deliberations of the Second Council, Revata thera took the lead, perhaps because he was more learned⁵ than Sabbakāmi, though spiritually he did not rise as high as the latter.⁶ The *sanghatthera* was given the highest position in an assembly of monks and it is enjoined in the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta*¹ that he must be respected by all the monks.

v1.c22.s2.8

⁴ *Vinaya*, II, p. 303.

v1.c22.s2.9

⁵ *Ibid.*, p. 299.

v1.c22.s2.10

⁶ *Ibid.*, p. 304.

v1.c22.s2.11

¹ *Dīgha*, II, p. 77.

Cātuddisa-sangha

v1.c22.s3.1

To the constitution of a *sangha*, the term democracy or republic cannot be justifiably applied, for it does not exactly follow the principles on which a democratic or a republican constitution is based. Though there existed the system of election of the President, the moving of a resolution, use of ballot voting by *salākās*, strict adherence to the rules of a meeting and so forth, the constitution of a Buddhist *sangha* differed in many respects from that of a political institution.

v1.c22.s3.2

One of the main differences is that any ordained monk, to whatever locality he might belong, was counted as a member of an assembly if he happened to be present on the day of the sitting of the assembly (which was usually the *uposatha* day) within the limits of the parish. An assembly would not be regarded as complete for an ecclesiastical action if a single monk, not excepting an *āgantuka-bhikkhu* (incoming monk), failed to join it either personally or by proxy (*i.e.* by sending *chanda*, consent).² The only condition for the membership of a *sangha* was ordination and residence on the day of the assembly.

v1.c22.s3.3

² *Majjhima*, III, p. 10.

Quorum

v1.c22.s4.1

In the Buddhist *sangha* there was no question of quorum. No sitting was valid unless all the monks living within the *sīmā* (jurisdiction) of a *sanghārāma* (*āvāsa*) were present personally or by proxy. Some scholars have confused "quorum" with "committees" of the *sangha*, the minimum strength of which is fixed according to the nature of the ecclesiastical business (*sangha-kamma*) to be transacted.¹ In short, there was no question of quorum of a meeting.

v1.c22.s4.2

¹ See above, p. 298.

Sub-committee or a body of assessors

v1.c22.s5.1

The resolutions were formally moved generally from the chair. Every resolution had to be announced thrice and no resolution was carried unless it had the unanimous consent of all present. Hence ordinarily there was no question of majority or voting. The question of majority was raised on rare occasions, e.g. in the holding of a *Pātimokkha*-assembly by the existing members of an *āvāsa* without *āgantuka-bhikkhus*. If the *āvāsikas* (existing members) were larger in number than the *āgantukas*, the actions of the assembly were regarded as valid provided the *āgantuka-bhikkhus* who joined the assembly after the fixed time were apprised of the proceedings of the assembly.² If in the determination of the *uposatha* day (i.e. the 14th or 15th of a fortnight) any difference of opinion took place between the inmates of an *āvāsa* (*āvāsikas*) and the incoming monks (*āgantukas*), it was settled as follows: the opinion of the former prevailed if their number was greater than or equal to that of the latter, but the opinion of the latter prevailed only if their number was greater than that of the former.³

v1.c22.s5.2

² *Vinaya*, I, p. 129.

v1.c22.s5.3

³ *Ibid.*, I, p. 132-3.

v1.c22.s5.4

There was a system of *ubbāhika* which is usually translated by the term 'voting' but it bears quite a different sense. It corresponds to something like the formation of a sub-committee or a body of assessors. The method of *ubbāhikā* was restored to when there was a dispute relating to a particular question of discipline (*vivādādhikaraṇa*) and when there was no possibility of settling it in an assembly without unnecessary discussions. In a case like this, two or more monks possessing the requisite qualifications¹ were selected from among the members of the assembly and their names were placed before the assembly for approval, and were adopted if the members be unanimous. The selected monks were then entrusted with the duty of settling the dispute. This method of *ubbāhikā* was adopted in the Second Council to settle the disputes between the Vajjian monks and Yasatthera. It was by *ubbāhikā* that four monks of the eastern countries and four of Pāṭheyya were chosen, and the decision of this subcommittee of eight was placed before the whole *saṅgha* for confirmation.²

v1.c22.s5.5

¹ For details, see *Vinaya*, II, p. 95-6.

v1.c22.s5.6

² *Vinaya*, II, p. 305.

Voting

v1.c22.s6.1

When the selected monks failed to settle a dispute, the matter was referred back to the *saṅgha*, which then proceeded to appoint one of the members possessing requisite qualifications as *salākāgāhāpaka*.³ The votes were then taken by means of *salākā* (marked sticks) and the will of the majority was accepted as just. As great responsibility rested on the *salākāgāhāpaka*, many rules had to be framed to guard any misuse of power by him. Such occasions were rare in the *saṅgha*; hence the question of majority or voting is not a subject that has been discussed at length in the *Vinaya Piṭaka*.

v1.c22.s6.2

³ *Ibid.*, II, p. 84.

v1.c22.s6.3

Thus we see that the constitution of the *sangha* was clearly democratic in principle but differed in many vital points from a democratic institution of the present day.

v1.c22.s6.4

A study of the *Vinaya Piṭaka* further reveals that the *bhikkhus*, apart from religious practices, were required to act through the corporate body, the *sangha*, and never individually, and it is for this reason that it is said in the *Mahāparinibbāna-sutta*¹ that so long as the monks will assemble frequently, transact business in concord, adhere to the rules already prescribed and avoid laying down new rules, the progress of the *bhikkhu-sangha* is assured and not its decline.

v1.c22.s6.5

¹ Digha, II, p. 76-7.

v1.c22.s6.6

As the members of the order had no individual rights, it became incumbent on the organizers of the *sangha* to frame rules for the receipt and proper distribution of properties, food, clothing and other requisites of a monk.

Ownership of monasteries

v1.c22.s7.1

Monks as a rule take the vow of poverty, hence individually they cannot own any property. The *vihāras* cannot be given to a monk; they can be given only to a *sangha* of monks and that again should preferably be to the *āgatānāgata-cātuddisa-sangha*, *i.e.* a *sangha*, the members of which are not only the *bhikkhus* of the four quarters but also those who will be *bhikkhus* in future. In some of the donative inscriptions of a later period (3rd century B.C. to 5th century A.D.) there are specific directions, dedicating the monasteries to a particular sect. This tendency developed when the Buddhist *sangha* had split up into many rival sects, and the devotees of one sect wanted to give their support to their own sect only.² When for the first time Buddha permitted his followers to accept *āvāsas*, *ārāmas*, *vihāras* or *pariveṇas*, he enjoined that they should be given to *āgatānāgata-cātuddisa-saṅgha*.¹ Even while accepting the Jetavana vihāra from Anāthapiṇḍika, he directed the donor to give it to *āgatānāgata-cātuddisa-saṅgha*.²

v1.c22.s7.2

² Aspects of Mahāyāna Buddhism, p. 314 n.

v1.c22.s7.3

¹ *Vinaya*, II, p. 147.

v1.c22.s7.4

² *Ibid.*, p. 164.

v1.c22.s7.5

The *saṅgha*, therefore, became the owner of the properties given away by the devotees, but the ownership was not absolute, for it could not alienate the properties nor even divide them among the members of the order.³ This restriction was applied not only to the landed properties including the grass, shrubs, etc., but also to the articles of furniture, utensils made of earth or iron, spades and such other things of common use in an *ārāma*.⁴ To what extent individual ownership was denied, becomes apparent from the fact that on the death of a monk, his robes and other articles of use became the property of the *saṅgha*,⁵ and the *saṅgha* is advised to distribute the robes and other small articles by proper announcement in an assembly among the monks or novices who served the deceased *bhikkhu* during his illness. This power of the *saṅgha* is denied in the case of heavy articles, for they were inalienable and indivisible.⁶

v1.c22.s7.6

³ *Ibid.*, II, p. 170-1.

v1.c22.s7.7

⁴ *Ibid.*

v1.c22.s7.8

⁵ *Ibid*, I, p. 303.

v1.c22.s7.9

⁶ *Ibid*, I, p. ; II, p. 171.

Office-bearers for distribution of food etc.

v1.c22.s8.1

In regard to food and the daily necessaries of life also, an attempt has been made to keep the sense of individuality in the background as far as possible. If a devotee wished to offer food to the monks, he had to invite the whole *saṅgha* and not any particular individual or individuals. In days of scarcity, provision was made for invitations by batches, and so *saṅghabhatta* (food for the whole *sangha*) was allowed to be replaced by *uddesabhatta*, *nimantana*, *salākābhatta*, etc.¹ *i.e.* the devotees might provide food not for all the monks of the *sangha* but for some, who, however, were not to be selected by the hosts. This naturally gave rise to troubles. To avoid these, it became necessary to fix the responsibility of selection upon a particular monk possessing the requisite qualities.² He was called a (i) *Bhatuddesaka* or the distributor of food. His appointment had also to be made formally by the *sangha* with the unanimous consent of all the members. Besides him there were other office-bearers whose duty was to distribute rice-gruel (*yāgu*), fruits (*phala*) and hard food (*khajjaka*) and they were called (ii) *yāgubhājaka*, (iii) *phalabhājaka* and (iv) *khajjakabhājaka* according to their respective charges.

v1.c22.s8.2

¹ *Vinaya*, II, p. 175. See above, p. 289.

v1.c22.s8.3

² *Ibid.*, p. 176.

v1.c22.s8.4

With the increase in the number of monks and devotees bestowing gifts on the *sangha*, it became indispensable to appoint further office-bearers for maintaining concord in the *sangha*. They were: (v) *senāsanagāhāpaka*, *i.e.*, the monk who was entrusted with the duty of accepting *vihāras*, *parivenas*, etc., on behalf of the *sangha*;³ (vi) *senāsanapaññāpaka* or the distributor of beds and seats within a monastery, cave-dwelling, etc., (vii) *bhaṇḍāgārika* or the store-keeper; (viii) *cīvarapaṭiggāhāpaka* or the receiver of upper robes; (ix) *cīvarabhājaka* or the distributor of upper robes; (x) *sāṭiyagāhāpaka* or the receiver of under-garment; (xi) *appamattakavissajjaka* or the distributor of trifling things, like needles, girdles and stores; (xii) *pattagāhāpaka* or the receiver of bowls.

v1.c22.s8.5

³ *Ibid.*, II, pp. 167, 176.

v1.c22.s8.6

Besides the above there were other office-bearers for different kinds of work. Some of these were (xiii) *navakammika*⁴ or the monk entrusted with the supervision of the new construction or repair of monasteries; (xiv) *ārāmikapesaka* or the overseer of labourers engaged for construction or repair work; (xv) *sāmaṇerapesaka* or the overseer of the novices; (xv) *āsanapaññāpaka*¹ or the arranger of seats at the meetings of monks, and (xvii) *sālā-kāgāhāpaka*.²

v1.c22.s8.7

⁴ *Ibid.*, p. 160.

v1.c22.s8.8

¹ *Vinaya*, II, p. 177.

v1.c22.s8.9

² See above, p. 319.

v1.c22.s8.10

In the appointment of every office-bearer, the usual formality must be observed, *i.e.* a monk possessing the requisite qualifications was selected first, then his name was announced thrice before an assembly, and if there be none dissenting, he was formally appointed to the office for which his name was proposed.

v1.c22.s8.11

Every act of the *sangha* was performed in this way. Without the formal announcement and sanction of the assembly, no ecclesiastical act could be performed or was regarded as valid. This discipline in working was strictly enforced and this was the secret of the great power which the *sangha* developed and by which it spread itself all over Asia. It was in and through an organization like this that scholars like Nāgārjuna and Asaṅga, Vasubandhu and Āryadeva, missionaries like Bodhidharma and Atīśa, disputants like Dharmakīrti and Diṅnāga, writers like Vimuktasena and Kamalaśīla, expositors like Subhūti and Kaccāyana, translators like Kumārajīva and Jinamitra radiated rays of light that dazed the whole world.

Linked texts (13)