Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Buddha: His Life, his Doctrine, his Order c10: Part III. The Order of Buddha's Disciples

Buddha: His Life, his Doctrine, his Order c10

Language
English

Contents

Part III. The Order of Buddha's Disciples

c10.1

THE ORDER OF BUDDHA'S DISCIPLES.

c10.2

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE ORDER AND ITS CODES OF LAWS.

c10.3

WE now turn from the examination of the faith which held together the band of Buddha's followers, to the consideration of the outward observances, which religious custom and religious discipline have prescribed for the life of this monastic fraternity. 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.

c10.4

This early appearance of a form of associated life strictly governed by law can cause no astonishment. It is the counterpart of the equally early appearance of a matured and formulated dogmatic; the same characteristic features of the period in which Buddhism developed itself, the same forces of preceding history upon which it rests, explain the one phenomenon as well as the other. The monastic orders professing other faiths, preceding and coeval with Buddha's Order, and, in a not less degree, the common source of all these sects, Brahmanism, have furnished for the formation of a Church polity, as they did in the case of dogmatic speculation, a set of ready-made forms, which Buddhism had only to appropriate.

c10.5

Quickly as the formation of canonical observances seems to have attained a complete state, still there is no need of proving that it cannot have been the work of a moment. In the texts, which contain the rules for the life of the members of the Order, traces are clearly enough discernible which enable us to distinguish earlier and later phases of development. We can trace how a complex of injunctions first grew up, which were regularly propounded about the time of full moon and new moon in the confessional meetings of the Order; constantly recurring technical expressions described in all these rules what degree of guilt the monk incurred who transgressed them. It is quite possible that this old collection of prohibitions, which has come down to us under the title of Pâtimokkha ("unburdening"), the basis of the whole body of Buddhist Church-law, goes back to Buddha's own time, to the confessional meetings held by him with his disciples.* A later layer of the sacred texts shows us how further on the necessity made itself felt in the next period, of supplementing by new regulations the principles laid down in the Pâtimokkha. But no one ventured to add anything on his own authority to the old hallowed formulas. They therefore left the Pâtimokkha itself untouched, but undertook, in the form of commentaries and in new works, a revised and enlarged edition of the canonical rules. They did not hesitate, indeed, to prescribe punishments for transgressions which were not specified as such in the Pâtimokkha. Yet they did not presume in doing so to use the same expressions which had been adopted in the Pâtimokkha, but they employed new words and introduced new forms of disciplinary procedure for bringing to punishment any offences against the newly-constituted ordinances.* Thus the succession of earlier and later periods reveals itself to our research more certainly still and more clearly in the development of the system of connexional law than in that of dogmatic.

c10.6

∗ Not, indeed, in the Pâtimokkha itself, but in another portion of the Church ordinances, bearing likewise the stamp of high antiquity, there is a clue which appears to point directly to the origin of the rules in question within Buddha's own lifetime. In the description of the persons who are not permitted to receive ordination, "he who has shed blood" appears. It cannot be meant that every one is rejected who has inflicted on another a bloody wound, for not even all murderers are excluded, but only parricides, matricides, and murderers of a holy man. Therefore it can hardly be doubted that the traditional explanation is correct, which

c10.7

But, we must add, although the Order of Buddha’s disciples, or members thereof specially called on and qualified to do so, have virtually acted as law-makers, yet in theory the community has distinctly disclaimed all legislative functions. The authority to frame a law for the community belongs to Buddha alone according to Buddhist theory. All commands and prohibitions received their character as binding rules from the fact that Buddha has enunciated, or is supposed to have enunciated them. With his death both the possibility and the necessity for creating new laws has become extinct. The Order has only to apply and expound Buddha’s regulations, in the same way here understands: “who has so wounded Buddha that his blood has flowed.” That this definition originated in a time when it had a meaning will be regarded, if not as absolutely certain, at any rate as more than natural. For the elucidation of the passage in point (“Mahâvagga,” i, 67), cf. “Cullav.” vii, 3, 9.

c10.8

∗ Cf. the Introduction to my edition of the “Vinaya Piṭaka,” vol. i, p. xvii, seq.

c10.9

that it has to carefully preserve the doctrine revealed by Buddha, but it is not called upon nor is it competent to improve or extend. "The Order does not lay down what has not been laid down (by Buddha), and it does not abolish what he has laid down; it accepts the ordinances as he has prescribed them, and abides by them"—so traditional legend represents a Church council to have resolved shortly after Buddha's death.* In the sacred texts, accordingly, all regulations, even those obviously belonging to later periods, appear as if they had been issued by Buddha himself. The inconsistency with which, from this very desire to be consistent, they came to act, is characteristic: they had no scruple in giving out as orders of the exalted, holy Buddha, those very rules made by themselves which they shrank from clothing in the time-hallowed form of the Pâtimokkha institutes. The liturgical conscience was stronger than the historical—if, indeed, that complete indifference with which men in India have at all times regarded or rather have not regarded, literary and historical authenticity will allow us in this case to speak of an historical conscience.

c10.10

The ancient compilations of the laws of the Order share to the fullest extent in all those peculiarities which cause some sections of Buddhist dogmatics to appear to us to be a so very pathless waste. The same subtlety here as there, the same inexhaustible capability of enjoying long abstract series of notions purely for their own sake. Here we have, not rules drawn from life for life, but scholastic lucubrations, unpractical and, strictly speaking, not even clear. The form in which they are usually introduced is most simple. In every case the same outline: At this time, when the exalted Buddha was staying in such and such a place, this and that irregularity occurred. The people who came to know of this were irritated, murmured, and complained: How can monks, who follow the son of the Sakya house, commit such offences, like wanton worldlings—or: like unbelieving heretics, as the case in point has occurred. The spiritual brothers hear the whisperings of the people; they too are irritated, murmur and complain: How can the venerable N. N. be guilty of the like! They mention the matter to Buddha; he calls the disciples together, delivers to them an admonitory address, and then issues the order: I order, O disciples, that so and so shall or shall not be done. Whoso does this is liable to such and such a punishment. Stereotyped like this narrative itself, which recurs thousands of times, are also the figures of the culprits who appear in the narrative, and by their actions afford occasion in every instance for Buddha’s interference. A specific brother turns out to be the culprit, if the matter be an inordinate exaction of pious beneficence. If offences of a lascivious description occur, the actor, as a rule, is the venerable Udâyi. But the longest catalogue of crimes attaches to the Chabbaggiyas, six monks associated together in all mischievous artifices. Whatever Buddha may prescribe, the Chabbaggiyas always find a way of circumventing the law, or, while they comply with it, of mixing up some evil with their performance. When Buddha declares that the twigs of certain plants are to be used for cleaning the teeth, the Chabbaggiyas take long and massive twigs, and beat the novices with them. If a transgressor is to be censured before the Order, the Chabbaggiyas raise objections and thereby defeat the enforcement of discipline. On one occasion when the nuns had dirty water poured over them, the Chabbaggiyas were the actors, and so on through the long texts of the Rules for the Order the Chabbaggiyas figure everywhere as the arch-criminals, whose new discoveries in all regions of mischief the spiritual legislation enacted by Buddha follows up step by step. There is in these narratives undoubtedly many an authentic memory of the evil deeds of this and that black sheep of the flock. But, taken as a whole, it needs scarcely to be said, a picture of what was wont to occur within the Order, based on these cases of spiritual discipline, would only be correct to the same extent as if, for example, one were to admit Stichus, the much renowned slave of the Digests, to pass for an illustration of Roman slaves in general.

c10.11

∗ "Cullavagga," xi, 1, 9, cf. "Suttavibhanga, Nissaggiya," xv, 1, 2. The narrative of the council at Vesâlî ("Cullavagga," xii), also clearly illustrates how the Church, according to the current theory, limited itself throughout to the authentic interpretation of the spiritual law ordained by Buddha.

c10.12

We shall now endeavour to present in a connected form the regulations of the Order, as they are illustrated in the descriptions of countless occurrences scattered here and there in the canonical texts.

c10.13

THE ORDER AND THE DIOCESES—ADMISSION AND WITHDRAWAL.

c10.14

The band of disciples gathered round Buddha, out of which grew the Order and the Church, rested, as without doubt did also the other monastic orders of India so numerous in that age, on the forms, which under the older Brahmanical system governed the relation between the religious teacher and his religious disciples. The use of the same words, which in this case as as well as in that, constituted the solemn expression of this relationship, warrant our inferring the homogeneousness of the last-named system. The youth who desires to commit himself to the guidance of a Brahmanical teacher to learn the Veda, steps before him and says: "I am come for the Brahmacarya (spiritual discipleship). I desire to be a Brahmacârin (spiritual disciple).” And the teacher “ties the girdle round him, gives him the staff into his hand and explains him the Brahmacarya, by saying: ‘Thou art a Brahmacârin; drink water; perform service; sleep not by day; study the Veda obediently to thy teacher.’”* In the very same way, according to Buddhist tradition, the coming Buddha goes in the time of his quest of delivering knowledge to the spiritual teacher Uddaka and says: “I desire, O friend, according to thy teaching and thy direction, to walk in the Brahmacarya.” Uddaka receives him, and the relation thus established is indicated with the very expressions, which are those regularly adopted in the Brahmanical mode of speech, as that subsisting between Âcârya (teacher) and Antevâsin (scholar).† And in the same way later on, when Buddha himself as a teacher receives the first students of his gospel, tradition represents him as doing so in these words: “Come hither, O monk, the doctrine is duly preached; walk in the Brahmacârya, to put an end to all sorrow.”

c10.15

† Thus also when the Buddhists say: “Uruvelakassapo mahâsamaṇe (i.e. bhagavati) brahmacariyaṃ carati,” this amounts to the same as when it is said in the “Chândogya Upanishad”: “Maghavân Prajâpatau brahmacaryam uvâsa;” when Indra resolves to enter into this relation of pupil, it is said of him “abhipravavrâja.”

c10.16

The Order of Buddhists presents, as long as the Master is alive, a union of teacher and scholars after the Brahmanical model. The transition of such a community, so to speak, from a monarchical type to a republican, its passing somehow, when the teacher dies, into a confederacy of independent members existing side by side, is wholly unknown to the religious system of the Brahmans.‡ This very transition has completed itself in Buddhism. Buddha died, and his disciples, already at that time scattered over the greater part of India, survived as a monastic community, which had no visible head and saw its invisible head only in the doctrine and ordinance declared by Buddha.* “Be your own light, be your own refuge,” says Buddha, when approaching death, “have no other refuge. Let the truth be your light and your refuge; have no other refuge.” Thus became fixed, what has been described as the trinity of Buddhism, the triad of those sacred powers, in which the newly-entering monk or lay-brother by solemn declaration “takes his refuge:” Buddha, the Doctrine, the Order. Not without hesitation I here venture to hazard a conjecture, which has no support and can have none in tradition: I think that the formula of this sacred triad does not go back to the time of Buddha’s life, but that it had its origin in connection with those very changes which his death wrought for the community of his disciples. Must not Buddha alone, as long as he lived, and the Doctrine of deliverance preached by him have appeared to the believers their refuge? Could anyone call the disciples his refuge, as long as the Master was with them? His death changed everything. Now the Order stood as the sole visible exponent of the idea hitherto embodied in Buddha, as the sole possessor of delivering truth; now he

c10.17

∗ “Âçvalâyana G.,” i, 22; cf. “Pâraskara,” ii, 2, 3; “Çat. Br.,” xi, 5, 4, seq.

c10.18

‡ Not even in that case in which we should be especially inclined to

c10.19

expect to find such a transition, that, namely, where the pupils of the deceased teachers had been life-long (naishṭhika) Brahmacârins. Cf. the statements as to the scholars, whose teacher dies, in “Gautama,” iii, 7, seq., “Manu,” ii, 247, seq.; Bühler on “Âpastamba,” i, 1, 1, 12.

c10.20

∗ Considering the great number and the scattered residences of the members of the Order, it is natural to think it is even probable, that already in Buddha’s lifetime the fraternities of his disciples had an existence independent of Buddha’s personality in essential features. Buddhist tradition also points to this. More intimate knowledge of the facts bearing on this matter is obviously not obtainable by us.

c10.21

who desired to become a partaker of this truth, was obliged to take his refuge also with the Order.

c10.22

The confession of this sacred triad has been couched in these articles, to which has been added in the fourth place the expression of the determination to abide by the precepts of holy living. The formula runs :—

c10.23

"To Buddha will I look in faith: he, the Exalted, is the holy, supreme Buddha, the Knowing, the instructed, the blessed, who knows the worlds, the Supreme One, who yoketh men like an ox, the Teacher of gods and men, the Exalted Buddha.

c10.24

"To the Doctrine will I look in faith: well-preached is the Doctrine by the Exalted One. It has become apparent; it needs no time; it says 'come and see;' it leads to welfare; it is realized by the wise in their own hearts.

c10.25

"To the Order will I look in faith: in right behaviour lives the Order of disciples of the Exalted One; in proper behaviour lives the Order of the disciples of the Exalted One; in honest behaviour lives the Order of the disciples of the Exalted One; in just behaviour lives the Order of the disciples of the Exalted One, the four couples, the eight classes of believers;* that is the Order of the disciples of the Exalted One, worthy of offerings, worthy of gifts, worthy of alms, worthy to have men lift their hands before them in reverence, the highest place in the world, in which man may do good.

c10.26

"In the precepts of rectitude will I walk, which the holy love, which are uninfringed, unviolated, unmixed, uncoloured, free, praised by the wise and not counterfeit, which lead on to concentration."†

c10.27

∗ The different grades of the holy. † So according to the "Samyuttaka Nikâya," vol. iii, fol. sâ; cf.

c10.28

But if the Order be regarded as the ideal unit of believing monks over the whole face of the earth, as the bearer of a holiness which resembles the holiness of Buddha and his Doctrine, yet in actual life the Order never appears in this universal sense. There is really not one order, but only orders, communities of the monks sojourning in the same diocese. Devout persons might indeed present gifts and endowments to the "Church of the four quarters of the world, those present and those absent;" then the monks happening to be present, or the monks present of the diocese concerned, appear to have been regarded as the legitimate representatives of the "Church of the four quarters" for the receiving of such a gift and the administration of property so acquired: but regular standing organization for the superintendence of its concerns the collective Church had none; for the forming of any resolution, the completion of any act in its name, there was a total absence of legal form.

c10.29

The difficulties, which were bound to arise from this, and which have as a fact arisen, are obvious. The band of disciples, which had gathered round Buddha, had grown with unparalleled rapidity into a great spiritual power. Throughout all India and soon beyond the confines of India, in the woods, through the villages, went the Buddhist monks preaching and begging. How then was the "Church of the four quarters, those present and those absent" to undertake in fact the administration of their common concerns? This object could only have been secured by creating a powerful centre, a spiritual regency in which the will of the whole Church would

c10.30

"Mahâparin, S.," p. 17, seq.; "D'Alwis, Kachcháyana," p. 77. He who keeps the vows expressed in this confession, has reached the grade of the "Sotâpanna" (vide p. 319, note 2) on the path of holiness.

c10.31

have concentrated itself.[*] But we find that not even the slightest attempt has been made in the whole Church-regulations for carrying out such arrangements.[†] The centre of gravity of all operations of Church-government, if we may speak of such a thing at all, lies within the circumference, within the small corps of brethren dwelling in the same circuit. But in the wandering life of these mendicant monks, in their constant coming and going, which only the three months of the rainy season bring to a certain standstill, the composition of these limited corps is naturally always changing. These monks to-day, to-morrow those have been thrown together, to-day these, to-morrow those exercise decisive authority among the brothers. Continuity and succession in the direction of matters of common interest could not, under these circumstances, possibly exist—and how could there be wanting in the life of this vast ecclesiastical corporation matters which demanded a continuous direction? If the synod of a particular district had come to any resolution for the decision of a doubtful point, or as to the right and wrong in a dispute between spiritual brothers, it was open to every other synod to resolve the contrary, and higher authority there was none, either to re-establish harmony in a synod divided within itself, or to reconcile the rival claims of different synods.* In the early times after Buddha’s death the personal authority of the disciples, who had stood nearest to the Master, may possibly have operated to compensate this want and have checked the outbreak of serious discord: but a condition of things, which depends on the weight of individuals, not upon the sure structure of legal institutions, bears in itself the germ of dissolution. The sacred texts, which became fixed some time towards the end of the first century after Buddha’s death, show clearly what disorder and confusion must have prevailed in the Church at that time; there is reflected in these texts the deep feeling of disaster, which dissensions among the brethren were bound to cause and were already causing, and at the same time the utter incapacity to prevent this disaster. The chapter on Schisms in the Church is constantly treated of, whenever the topic of spiritual life is discussed; the guilt of him who has given occasion for such dissensions is reckoned among the gravest sins; the most impressive admonitions to the brethren are put in Buddha’s mouth, to live in harmony with each other and to make concessions, even when in the right, rather than to allow divisions to arise in the Order. More effective still than these admonitions would have been institutions, possessing the power to watch over the relations between communities and members of communities, over the co-operation of all; such institutions were wholly wanting.

c10.32

∗ We have already referred (p. 158, note 2) to the fact that after Buddha's death none of the disciples was regarded as called to what may be styled the succession. We here insert further the following passage: "At one time the venerable Ânanda was sojourning at Râjagaha . . . , shortly after the Exalted One had entered into Nirvâna. At that time the king of Magadha, Ajâtasattu, the son of the Vedehî princess, was fortifying Râjagaha against the King Pajjota." The minister, who is directing these fortifications, Vassakâra, asks Ânanda: "Venerable Ânanda, has any special monk been marked out by the venerated Gotama of whom he has said: 'This shall be your refuge after my death'—in whom you can now find your shelter?" Ânanda answers the question in the negative. The minister further asks: "Has then the Church named a specific monk, has a multitude of elders appointed him and given an order: 'He shall after the death of the Exalted One be our refuge'—?" This also Ânanda answers in the negative. "If you thus have no refuge, revered Ânanda, how does unity exist among you?" "There is no want to us of a refuge, O Brahman; we have a refuge, the Doctrine.", ("Gopakamoggallâna Suttanta" in the "Majjhima Nikâya." Cf. also supra, p. 198.)

c10.33

† How far the official construction of Church history current in Ceylon has understood the post of the Vinayapâmokkhâ ("Heads of the Church Law") as that of a primate, I do not pretend to determine. But this very notion of the Vinayapâmokkhâ, wholly foreign to the ancient Church law, shows that here we meet a not happy fictitious construction of history.

c10.34

∗ Of the disorder, which hence arising prevailed in the Church law and subsequently undoubtedly also in the Church life, “Cullavagga,” iv, 14, 25, for example, gives us a glimpse.

c10.35

The defect, which lay here, shows itself in nothing more observably than in those very features which a cursory examination might be inclined to regard as its remedy: in the great councils to which such transcending importance is attached in old Buddhist tradition. The sacred texts mentions two such councils. The first is said to have been held at Râjagaha a few months after Buddha's death, for the purpose of compiling an authentic collection of Buddha's discourses and precepts. The second took place, as it is said, a hundred years later at Vesâlî, occasioned by a difference of opinion as to certain licenses, which had come to be practised by the monks of that town. This narrative of the council at Râjagaha is, we admit, to all appearance quite unhistorical, but the legal construction, on which it rests, is not on that account anything the less instructive for us. In the great gathering of disciples, who came together at Kusinârâ after Buddha's death, thought turns upon collecting and arranging Buddha's discourses, so as to possess in them a weapon against profane innovators. It is decided that five hundred chosen brethren of known holiness should perform this great task at Râjagaha, and the assembled monks give them a commission in this behalf by a formal resolution. This resolution decides that the five hundred are to pass the rainy season at Râjagaha and that no other monk is permitted to remain then in that town. Thus the council is held; the arrangement and the wording of the canonical texts is fixed by the five hundred fathers. Now then, if we ask what is the legal nature of this assembly, it is evident, that it is nothing more and nothing less than the assembly of the brethren sojourning in the diocese of Râjagaha. There have come together, because of the resolution passed at Kusinârâ, specially numerous and specially qualified persons, and, in pursuance of that resolution, unqualified persons have kept themselves aloof from that diocese,* but that in no way alters the case, that the deliberations of this so-called council are in fact only the proceedings of one specially prominent diocese, brought about by the resolution of another similar diocesan meeting, but not a Church-proceeding, resting on the authority of the “Church of the four quarters of the world.” It seems that tradition itself was clearly sensible of this, and that it desired to give expression to this, when it represented the venerable Purâna, a monk who had not been a sharer in the deliberations, coming to Râjagaha at their close, and being told: “The fathers, my dear Purâna, have fixed the canon of the Doctrine and Law; accept this canon.” But he answers: “The canon of the Doctrine and Law, my friends, has been admirably fixed by the fathers, but I will adhere to that which I have myself heard and received from the Exalted One.” The fathers make no reply, and cannot, indeed, say anything in reply; the right of the individual to take as much or as little notice as he pleased of the resolution of an assembly such as that at Râjagaha was, could not be disputed with propriety on the basis of this form of Church.†

c10.36

∗ A cogent necessity to do so can scarcely have been brought about by such a decree; the right of every brother to live where he pleases, could hardly be set aside by a resolution like that here spoken of.

c10.37

† It is the same as to the Council at Vesâlî. To remedy the abuses which had arisen in Vesâlî, a number of elders come together in that

c10.38

The force of existing circumstances and the authority of influential personages might perhaps for a time help to make up for, or conceal the utter want of organization; finally, however, the inherent impossibility of a Church without Church-government, with ordinances which were only applicable to the narrow circle of a côterie, was certain to lead to ever increasingly momentous consequences. Those deeply incisive schisms, which early arose and never disappeared, the weakening of the resistance opposed to the Brahmanism at first so successfully attacked, are phenomena certainly not unconnected with that fundamental defectiveness of Buddhist Church-organization. If at last, after a long death-struggle, Buddhism has vanished from its Indian home, leaving not a trace behind, we venture to think, that in the old rules of the community, in what they say and not less in what they leave unsaid, no small part of the preparatory history leading to that distant future is clearly enough depicted.

c10.39

Entry into the Order* was, as a rule, open to everyone. As earthly suffering affects all, as all are bound as it were by bands to the paths of metempsychosis, so too must the liberation from these bands, which Buddha’s teaching promises, embrace all who choose to accept it. Buddha utters at the commencement of his career these words:—

c10.40

“Open thou, O Wise One, the door of eternity;
Let be heard what thou, O Sinless One, hast discovered.”

c10.41

Nevertheless it could not but be that practical necessity

c10.42

place; the resolutions of the “Council” are in reality only resolutions of the diocese of Vesâlî, to which every monk, who comes to Vesâlî, *eo ipso*, belonged, and the composition of which was modified appropriately to the importance of this special cause.

c10.43

∗ We confine our observations for the present to the Order of Monks. We shall speak of the nuns farther on.

c10.44

should cause the imposition of certain restrictions on admission into the Order. The reception of those afflicted with serious bodily deformities and sicknesses was, as a matter of course, forbidden; it was the same with confirmed criminals. Then there were above all several categories of persons excluded, whose entry into the spiritual status would have involved an interference with the rights of third parties: persons who were in the royal service, especially soldiers, could not be admitted, as that would have interfered with the rights of the king as commander of the forces; debtors and slaves could not, for this would have been an infringement of the rights of their creditors and owners; sons, whose parents had not given their consent were similarly excluded. Children, too, were considered unfit for admission into the Order: a person might be received as a novice at the earliest at the age of twelve years,* and as a fully-accredited member at twenty.†

c10.45

† The statements having reference to invalidity of reception ("Mahâvagga," i, 49, seq.; 61, seq.) prohibit, partly the completion of the lower, and partly that of the higher grade of initiation (*vide infra*). In cases of the latter kind the initiation granted contrary to rule must be cancelled; the old codex of the "Pâtimokkha" goes even farther, and, in the only case of the kind which it touches, declares the initiation granted to be *ipso jure* invalid ("Pâcitt.," 65). For cases of the first kind on the contrary there is no such clause; it appears, that in this case the initiation remained in force, even though it had been conceded contrary to rule. Thus we might here have a distinction which may be compared to that of *impedimenta dirimentia* and *impedientia* in the legal system of our own times. In detail the separation of cases falling under the two classes mentioned gives rise to manifold doubts; the redaction of the "Mahâvagga" is in this point not without embarrassment.

c10.46

The ceremony of initiation is completed in two grades: there is a lower, to a certain extent preparatory ordination, Pabbajjâ, i.e., the outgoing, and a higher Upasampadâ, i.e., the arrival. The Pabbajjâ is the going out from a prior state, from the lay-life or from a monastic sect holding another faith; the Upasampadâ is the entry into the circle of the Bhikkhus, the fully-accredited members of the Buddhist Order: just as in Buddha's own life, the departure from home is distinct from the Upasampadâ, the attainment of delivering knowledge, which coincides with the founding of the Order.∗ Between the two steps of initiation, if the postulant has not yet attained the age of twenty years, lies the noviciate, or if he has previously belonged to another monastic order, a probationary period extending over four months.† To outsiders, who look upon the Order as a whole, without considering the difference based on its internal relationship, he is during this term, as well as all his brethren, an "áscetic who follows the son of the Sakya house;"‡ but in the Order he is first treated as a Bhikkhu, a real member, when he has received the higher initiation. Where the grounds mentioned for separating the two steps of initiation did not exist, they appear to have been gone through, as a rule, at the same time.

c10.47

∗ These twenty years are reckoned not from birth but from conception, by a method of computation occurring also in the spiritual law of the Brahmans. ("Mahâvagga," i, 75; cf. "Çânkhâyana G.," ii, 1, seq.)

c10.48

∗ "Milinda Pañha," p. 76; "Mahâvastu," vol. i, p. 3.

c10.49

† So according to "Mahâvagga," i, 38. I give this view the preference to that stated in the "Mahâparinibbâna Sutta," p. 59, according to which the probationary period precedes the Pabbajjâ.

c10.50

‡ Vide e.g., "Mahâvagga," i, 46.

c10.51

We directed attention above (p. 336) to the analogy which prevails between the reception of a Buddhist believer into the Order and the reception of the young Brahman by his teacher. This is the place to institute a comparison between the first of the two steps in Buddhist initiation and another stage in the Brahmanical system, the entry of the Brahman into the state of a hermit or wandering beggar. “When the Brahman,” we read in Manu’s Institutes, “who is living in the state of a householder, sees his skin becoming wrinkled and his hair becoming grey, if he sees his son’s son, then let him go forth into the forest. Let him leave all food, such as one enjoys in the village, and all household furniture behind him; to his sons let him commit his wife, and let him go to the forest, or let him go forth with his wife. Let the Brahman make the Prajâpati-offering and give all his possessions as remuneration of sacrifice; his holy fire let him take up in his own body, and thus let him go forth from his house.* For the Brahman, who leaves his home and becomes a homeless ascetic, his own act of outgoing only is necessary; and Pabbajjâ, i.e., “the outgoing” is therefore used by the Buddhists of the first step of initiation, by which the change of a layman into an ascetic takes place, “outgoing from home into homelessness” (agârasmâ anagâriyam pabbajjâ).

c10.52

Pabbajjâ, as is implied by its very essence, is a one-sided act on the part of the “outgoer.” He alone speaks, and of what he says the Order as such takes no notice; every older, fully-accredited monk can receive his declaration. The candidate puts on the yellow garment of the *religieux*, has his hair and beard shaved off, and says three times in reverential attitude to the monk or monks present: “I take my refuge in the Buddha. I take my refuge in the Doctrine. I take my refuge in the Order.”

c10.53

To full membership of the Order, to be a Bhikkhu, the novice was raised by the ordination of Upasampadâ, which, differing from the lower form, consisted of a ceremony completed before the Order and by their participation. The outer forms were most simple; the old Order was wont when it undertook ceremonial operations, to express what had to be expressed, with bare business-like precision, and nothing more. We find in the ceremony of ordination nothing of the ceremonies which we are accustomed to look for in Church observances, no sound, in which we might hear ringing the depths and the poetry of the religious idea. Instead, we here meet, in truly Indian fashion, the careful concise expression of all the precautions, which the Order takes before admitting a new member into their midst. The postulant speaks before the assembled chapter of the monks, cowering reverently on the ground, raising his joined hands to his forehead, saying: “I entreat the Order, reverend sirs, for initation. May the Order, reverend sirs, raise me up to itself; may it have pity on me. And for the second—and for the third time I entreat the Order, reverend sirs, for initiation. May the Order, reverend sirs, raise me up to itself; may it have pity on me.” Now follows a formal examination of the postulant. “Hearest thou me, N. N.? Now is the time come for thee to speak truly and to speak honestly. I ask thee, how things are. What is, thou must say thereof: It is. What is not, thou must say thereof: It is not. Art thou afflicted with any of the following diseases: leprosy, goître, white leprosy, consumption, epilepsy? Art thou a human being?¹ Art thou a man? Art thou thine own master? Hast thou no debts? Art thou not in the royal service? Has thou the permission of thy father and mother? Art thou full twenty years of age? Hast thou the almsbowl and the garments? What is thy name? What is thy teacher’s name?” If the answer to all these questions be satisfactory, the motion for the conceding of initiation is put to the Order and repeated thrice: “Reverend sirs, let the Order hear me. N. N. here present desires as pupil of the venerable N. N. to receive ordination. He is free from the obstacles to ordination. He has the almsbowl and garments. N. N. entreats the Order for ordination with the said N. N. as his teacher. The Order grants N. N. ordination with the said N. N. as his teacher. Whoever of the venerable is for granting the said N. N. ordination with the said N. N. as his teacher, let him be silent. Whoever is against it, let him speak.” If, after thrice repeating this motion, no dissentient voice is heard, it is declared passed. “N. N. has from the Order received ordination with the said N. N. as his teacher. The Order is in favour of this ; therefore it is silent; thus I understand.” Next, when they have measured the shadow, *i.e.*, determined the time of day, in order to fix the *ancienneté* of the newly-ordained member, and have announced the particulars therefore, they communicate to the young member of the Order the four rules of monastic austerity in external life: The food of him, who has gone from home into homelessness, shall be the morsels which he receives by begging. His clothing shall be made out of the rags which he collects. His resting-place shall be under the trees of the forest. His medicine shall be the stinking urine of cattle. If pious laymen prepare him a meal, if they give him clothing, shelter, medicine, it is not forbidden him to take them, but he is to look upon this harsh form of mendicancy as the proper and appointed mode of life for a monk.

c10.54

∗ The word “going forth” (pra-vraj) can be used equally well, whether the entry upon the condition of a hermit or upon that of a mendicant monk be spoken of. “Âpastamba,” ii, 9, 8. 19.

c10.55

¹ That is, not a serpent-demon in human form, and the like.

c10.56

Finally the four great prohibitions are communicated to the member, the fundamental duties of monastic life, by an infringement of which the guilty person brings about his inevitable expulsion from the Order :—

c10.57

“An ordained monk may not have sexual intercourse, not even with an animal. The monk who has sexual intercourse, is no longer a monk; he is no disciple of the son of the Sakya house. As a man whose head is cut off, cannot live with the trunk, so also a monk who practises sexual intercourse is no longer a monk: he is no disciple of the son of the Sakya house. Thou must abstain therefrom all thy life.

c10.58

“An ordained monk may not take what has not been given to him, what is called a theft—not even a blade of grass. The monk, who takes ungiven a pâda* or a pâda’s worth or more than a pâda, (commits) what is called a theft, is no longer a monk; he is no disciple of the son of the Sakya house. As a dry leaf which has separated itself from the stalk cannot again become green, so also a monk, who takes ungiven a pâda or a pâda’s worth or more than a pâda, what is called a theft, is no longer a monk; he is no disciple of the son of the Sakya house. Thou must abstain therefrom all thy life.

c10.59

“An ordained monk may not knowingly deprive any creature of life, not even a worm or an ant. The monk, who knowingly deprives a human being of life, even by the destruction of a fœtus, is no longer a monk: he is no disciple of the son of the Sakya house. As a great stone, which has been split into two parts, cannot again be made into one, so also a monk—and so on.

c10.60

“An ordained monk may not boast of any superhuman perfection, as much as to say: ‘I like to dwell in an empty house.’ The monk, who with evil intent and from covetousness falsely and untruly boasts of a superhuman perfection,† be it a condition of abstraction, or of rapture, or of concentration, or of elevation, or of the path of deliverance, or of the fruit of deliverance, he is no longer a monk; he is no disciple of the son of the Sakya house. As a palm-tree, the top of which has been destroyed, cannot again grow, so also a monk—and so on.”

c10.61

∗ A coin or a trivial metallic weight. † When we here, next to the offences of unchastity, theft and murder, find the false and fraudulent assumption of spiritual perfections mentioned

c10.62

The communication of these four great prohibitions concludes the ceremony of ordination. We see, that in it no liturgical elements come to the front which might to a certain extent serve to express by solemn symbolism the putting off of the natural man and the putting on of a new man, or the cohesion of the old believers and the young member into a spiritual unity.* We have before us merely a process of spiritual law, not

c10.63

as the fourth of the major sins, this entitles us to infer, with what offensive preference this branch of religious swindling must have been cultivated already even in that age in Indian monastic circles. The sacred texts (“Vinaya Piṭaka,” vol. iii, p. 87, seq.) narrate as an illustration to Buddha’s ruling on this point, that a community of monks in the Vajji territory once endured great distress by famine. It was proposed that they should take service with the laity to obtain the means of living; a more quick-witted monk, however, advised that every brother should attribute the highest spiritual perfections to the other brethren in the hearing of the laity: “This monk has attained such and such a degree of abstraction”—“this monk is a saint”—“this monk possesses the threefold knowledge”—and more of the like. The suggestion is accepted, and the laity say in astonishment: “It is lucky, very lucky for us that such monks are spending the rainy season in our midst. Never in days gone by have monks come to us for the rainy season such as these monks are, rich in virtue and noble.” Naturally then the liberality of the laity corresponds in full to the high opinion which they entertain of the spiritual merit of their guests, so that the latter survive the period of famine, “blooming, well-fed, with healthy complexion and healthy skin.”

c10.64

∗ The assertion often made, that the person entering the Order changes his family-name for a cloister-name, is erroneous or at any rate supported

c10.65

a mystic transformation which comes over and permeates the person of the ordained. The consequence of this conception, as rational as it is bare, is that there is nothing to prevent the breaking off of the relation thus established, either on the part of the Order* or on the part of the ordained. If the latter be guilty of any serious transgression, especially if he infringe the four great prohibitions, imposed on him at ordination, it becomes the right and the duty of the Order to renounce him. On the other side, to the monk, who has a lingering fondness for a worldly life, the exit from the Order is always open: the Order makes no effort to detain him. It is better for him "to renounce monastic practice and to admit his weakness," than, remaining in the spiritual state, to commit sin. Whoever says: "My father is in my thoughts," or "my mother is in my thoughts," or "my wife is in my thoughts," or "the laughter and the jest, the pleasantry of old days is in my thoughts," may return to the world. He can do so silently—the Order permits him to depart—; but the proper way for him is to declare before a witness, who hears and understands him,† his resolution, that he renounces Buddha, the Doctrine, and the Order. He departs without enmity; if he desires again to re-establish his connection as a lay-brother or as a novice with the comrades of his quondam spiritual life,

c10.66

† It does not appear to have been required that this declaration should be made before a monk. Cf. "Vinaya Piṭaka," vol. iii, p. 27.

c10.67

only by solitary cases. Ânanda, as member of the brotherhood, is called "the venerable Ânanda," Kassapa of Uruvelâ is called "the venerable Kassapa of Uruvelâ."

c10.68

∗ The technical expression for this is: the Order "destroys him" (nâseti). A list of the cases in which this occurred—these are by no means confined only to offences against the four great prohibitions—may be found compiled in the Index to the "Vinaya Piṭaka," vol. ii, p. 346 (s. v. nâseti).

c10.69

they do not repel him. Though this unlimited possibility of recession may have brought evils in its train—it is admitted, that it has led to gross abuses in the present day*—yet its influence on the moral health of monastic life may be regarded as more beneficial than otherwise. Apart from the fact that the Order would have been wholly deficient in the external power to bind its members by forcible means of any kind whatever, nothing could have been more decidedly opposed to the nature of Buddhism than such constraint. Every man might go the way which the strength or the weakness of his nature, the merit or demerit of past existences led him : the doors of the Order stood open, but no impatient or pertinacious zeal pressed the reluctant to enter or impeded the return of the wayward to the world.

c10.70

“Community of mendicants” (Bhikkhusangha) was the name given to themselves by this fraternity of fully-accredited, ordained monks. This name indicates that among their duties that of poverty ranked next in order to chastity. This had always been so, ever since there was a monastic system in India. A Vedic text belonging to the age of the first rudiments of this monasticism says of the Brahmans who renounce the world: "They cease from seeking for children, and seeking for possessions, and seeking the worldly, and they itinerate as beggars. For what seeking for children is, that is also seeking for possessions; what seeking for possessions is, that is also seeking for the worldly; the one is seeking as much as the other."* So the Buddhist monk also renounces all property. No express vow imposes on him the duty of poverty; both the marriage tie and the rights of property of him who renounces the world, are regarded as *ipso facto* cancelled by the "going forth from home into homelessness."† Property was felt to be a fetter, which holds in bondage the spirit struggling for freedom: "Very straitened," it is said, "is life in the home, a state of impurity: freedom is in leaving the home"—"Leaving all property behind must one go thence"—"In supreme felicity live we, who possess nothing; cheerfulness is our diet, as of the gods of the regions of light"—"As the bird, wherever he flies, carries nothing with him but his wings, so also a monk is content with the garment, which he is wearing, with the food, which he has in his body. Wherever he goes, he everywhere carries his property with him."

c10.71

∗ “It happens every day that monks who have entered the cloister under the compulsion of parents, or to avoid the service of the king, or from poverty, from laziness, from a love of solitude or of study, or from any other worldly motive, again quit the cloister, to succeed to an inheritance, to marry, &c. In further India it is even the custom for young men, even princes, to assume the monk's cowl for a term only, at least for three months.”—Köppen, i, 338.

c10.72

∗ "Çatapatha Br.," xiv, 7, 2, 26.

c10.73

† More accurately expressed: the monk, who is resolved to remain true to the spiritual life, looks upon his marriage as dissolved, his property as given away. The wife whom he has forsaken, is strictly termed in the texts "his quondam partner" (purâṇadutiyikâ, "Mahâvagga," i, 8, 78; "Suttavibhanga," Pâr. i, 5); he addresses her, like every other woman, as "sister" (Pâr. l.c. § 7). It is in no way inconsistent with this, if the family of a monk, which desires his return to a worldly status, looks upon his marriage and his rights of property as continuing, and if he himself, longing for a worldly life, says to himself: "I have a wife, for whom I must provide"—"I have a village, on the income of which I desire to live"—"I have gold, on it I shall live" ("Suttavibhanga," Pâr. i, 8, 2).—In one direction the spiritual law permitted a noteworthy operation of the old rights of property surrendered by the monk to take effect: in certain cases where the receiving of any new article whatever for monastic house-keeping was forbidden, e.g., a new almsbowl, he was permitted to take the object in question, if it had been made for him "from his own means." ("Suttav. Nissaggiya," xxii, 2, 2; xxvi, 2, seq.) Cf. Mayr, "Indisches Erbrecht," p. 145.

c10.74

The simple needs, which in the climate of India belong to the life of a monk, and the common life of a monastic order, are easily satisfied. "Clothing, food, lodging, medicine for the sick"—this is the standing enumeration of what the Order looked for from the pious beneficence of the laity, and seldom looked for in vain. What did not come within the narrow circle of these immediate necessaries of life, could as little constitute part of the property of the Order as that of the individual monk.* Lands, slaves, horses and live stock, the Order did not possess, and was not allowed to accept. It did not engage in agricultural pursuits, nor did it permit them to be carried on on its account. "A monk," as the old confessional formula says, "who digs the earth or causes it to be dug, is liable to punishment.”* But most strictly was the receiving of gold and silver forbidden to Buddha’s disciples, individually as well as collectively. The benefactor, who desires to give a monk not the things themselves which he requires, but their money value, delivers the money to operatives, and the monk then receives from them what is intended for him. The provisions of the rules of the Order to meet the case, where a brother permits gold or silver to be tendered to him in spite of the prohibition, show how lively was the feeling of what was here at stake for the spirit of their common life, and how care was taken with an anxiety which has something touching about it, to guard against the dangerous consequences of such sinful greed. When the guilty monk has penitently confessed his transgression before the assembled monks, if one of the laity attached to the Order be in the neighbourhood, the gold is given to him, with these words: “Friend, take this into thy keeping.” If he wishes, he can then purchase for the monks what they are permitted to receive, butter, oil, or honey. This they may all enjoy; only he who has received the gold, is not allowed to have any share of it. Or the layman may cast the gold away. If it is not possible for the Order to get rid of the dangerous possession in this way, one of the brethren is to be chosen to be the “thrower away of the gold,” who has five qualities: who is free from desire, free from hate, free from infatuation, free from fear, and who knows what casting away and what not casting away means. He is to throw the gold or the silver away, and is to take care that the place where it lies is not to be recognized by any sign. If he makes any signs, he is liable to punishment. Already at an early date severe struggles arose in the Order regarding this prohibition of the receipt of gold and silver,[*] but it was successfully maintained in its integrity for centuries. By nothing so clearly as by this prohibition and by the obedience which it has obtained, is it guaranteed that the ancient Buddhist Order did really remain free and pure from all hankering after worldly power as well as worldly enjoyment. Never could it have so completely surrendered the possession of gold and therewith all possibility of outer action, had it not been in truth precisely that alone which it professed to be, a community of those who sought for peace and deliverance in separation from everything earthly.

First 74 of 173 passages. Read on

Linked texts (26)