Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The History of Buddhist Thought c10: Chapter II. The Ascetic Ideal

The History of Buddhist Thought c10

Language
English

Chapter II. The Ascetic Ideal

c10.2

BUDDHISM appears first in history as an ascetic movement. It was one of a number of sects, bodies of mendicants who had "gone forth from a house to a houseless state" and who had cut themselves off from the hindrances of worldly ties and pleasures in the pursuit of their ideal.

c10.3

Ascetic practices are found in very early stages of society. They appear in connection with ideas of tabu, or the sanctity of the priest and wonderworker, and the exercise of magic. These have no necessary connection with any particular type of religious belief, and in the earliest known form of religion in India little of an ascetic tendency appears. But the tāpasin, the performer of austerities (tapas), existed, and there was a strong belief in the results to be obtained by such practices. Probably pre-Aryan influences were at work. The adept might acquire marvellous powers and control the course of nature, and the belief that such powers were real certainly existed among the early Buddhists.

c10.4

In the Vedic literature this aspect of religious expression is little in evidence. There we find the sacrifice as the centre and the religious instincts satisfied by the due performance of priestly rites.¹ But with the rise of the doctrine of rebirth human life and its value began to appear in a different aspect. Life with an unending chain of repeated existences became something to be escaped. Schools arose which broke away from the current view and taught a doctrine of release.

c10.5

¹ Cf. CHI., i, 106.

c10.6

Even among the brahmins doubts as to the sufficiency of sacrifice arose. A way of permanent escape was sought, and in the Vedic schools themselves arose a secret doctrine expounding how by a method superseding the ritual of sacrifice emancipation might be won. The non-Vedic schools definitely rejected the brahminical method of sacrifice and the Vedic lore. Some teachers boldly denied the doctrine of the retribution of actions (karma), some declared that nothing could be done to escape it. Others, like the Jains and Buddhists, held that escape from rebirth could be obtained by the knowledge of a special way of life. Both of these movements were ascetic in making renunciation of worldly life essential for final release. Buddhism in particular was a moral protest. There can be no doubt that it was due to the genius of its founder that it was able to moralize the doctrine of karma. It made a clear distinction between action in accordance with really ethical principles and action resting upon inherited beliefs in the mysterious efficacy of ritual and magical ceremonies.

c10.7

There have been great movements in which the practice of the ascetic life has become an enthusiasm, but we always find that it is a new ideal which gives the inspiration.¹ Ascetic practices have seemed to be a wonderful means for attaining the positive end. For the Christian monks of Egypt in the third century the present life was a transitory period of no value in view of the glories soon to come. St. Antony, hearing in church how the apostles had left all, sold his goods, and in reply to the tempter said, “ no one shall separate me from the love of Christ.” St. Pachomius tried in the depths of the desert to “ live the life of the heavenly ones through the love of virtue ”. In those very words we may probably see the other side of the ideal, the attempt to live more than a human life, leading to results that have repeatedly shown themselves in the history of asceticism. What was wanted was a rule of life to guide the enthusiastic impulses. We need not now consider whether the ascetic life should be set up as a vocation at all. It is certain that there are natures to whom the thought of another world or a life beyond the mere pleasures of sense is so vivid that everything except the pursuit of that ideal is worthless and vain. Ascetic movements have succeeded when they have roused individuals to whom the ideal appealed, and when a guide has appeared who knew how to establish a wise rule of life through which such natures could find their realization.

c10.8

¹ The term asceticism is ambiguous. It may mean self-mortification, the actual infliction of pain on himself by the devotee, or it may mean merely abstention from any or all of the pleasures of sense. Against the former practice Buddhism made a definite protest, though it did not entirely eradicate it from the discipline of its disciples, just as it did not destroy the belief in the acquisition of supernormal powers by such means.

c10.9

This is one of the reasons for the great success and long continuance of Buddhism. Its founder had the genius to establish a working system, not intended for all, but for those who realized that there was a life higher than “indulgence in the passions, low, vulgar, common, ignoble, and useless”, and who felt that it could not be attained under the limitations of the social conditions of the time.¹ It was a system, ascetic indeed in its rules of strict celibacy and restrictions on eating, but one in which practices of self-mortification were discouraged. The goal was Nirvāṇa, a state of the individual described as bliss and freedom from rebirth; and the course of training required to attain it was hindered both by self-torture and by indulgence in the passions.

c10.10

¹ It should be noticed that it differs from Christian asceticism in teaching that the ascetic life is the only means of winning ultimate salvation. Even in medieval Christianity there is no necessary conflict between the two ends, temporal felicity and the beatitude of eternal life.

c10.11

The positive doctrines of the teaching are called the four Noble Truths. (1) The truth that suffering exists; (2) the truth that suffering has a cause, which is “thirst” (taṇhā) or craving for existence; (3) the truth that this craving can be stopped; (4) the truth of the Noble Eightfold Path consisting of the eight practices of self-training by which the Truths may be realized and a permanent state of peace attained. This is the Doctrine,² which all schools have recognized as fundamental, and if it could have been kept free from the metaphysical problems lurking in the references to the self and the world, it might conceivably have remained essentially a religion, a doctrine teaching a way for the salvation of the individual, and discarding everything in human life and thought that appeared to hinder that goal.

c10.12

² Doctrine is here *dhamma* or *dharma*. In pre-Buddhistic use dharma is conceived as a prescribed course of action for anything in nature which may follow a natural or normal process. It may thus be translated “law”. As applied to theories of human action it was much wider than morality, for it included all ritual, and was thus practically religion. The dharma of Buddha consisted in teaching the true doctrine (*saddharma*) of man’s beliefs and actions, and this exists in the Buddha-word, the Doctrine. Another distinct use of the word is in the sense of thing or object, especially objects of the mind, thoughts, or ideas. See Ch. XII.

c10.13

But from the first it never was such a simple agnostic system of quietism. It inherited and took for granted many of the current Hindu dogmas, the belief in rebirth, karma, and cosmological theories. It had to defend itself against rival systems that taught their own methods of salvation, and it had to justify itself against the sacrificial system of the current Hinduism. There were other reformers, especially the Jains, following similar practices, but often with very different presuppositions underlying them. Later it had to meet the metaphysical arguments of the orthodox philosophical schools, and was compelled to find arguments in self-defence. It ended by becoming one—or rather more than one—of the most developed philosophical systems of Indian thought, and it has left its mark on the still existing philosophies of India.

c10.14

Before we can inquire what the doctrine was, and especially what was its most primitive form, it has to be realized that Buddhism had split up into sects before it possessed any written records. This does not in itself imply divergent teaching in the Scriptures. It is clear that for a long period the different schools appealed to the same Scripture. Yet the fact that it was all preserved by memory inevitably led to divergences in the Canon. Owing to the deliberate inclusion of utterances of the great disciples or of discourses attributed to them, as well as any passages which might contain an utterance of Buddha, there was ready opportunity for accretions.¹ But the Buddha-word includes also the rules of the community which was founded for the purpose of practising the new life. To begin by analysing the Doctrine without first examining the community and the circumstances in which it originated would be likely to lead to quite arbitrary results. The movement began not with a body of doctrine but with the formation of a society bound by certain rules. These rules of discipline have developed into the first division of the Scriptures, the Vinaya, and they have not only remained practically identical in most of the early schools, but the Vinaya as a whole has been preserved in such a way that the older and later parts can be easily seen. We can, therefore, start, if not at the very beginning at least with what is one of the earliest documents for the history of the Buddhist community.

c10.15

¹ Buddhaghosa says that of the 84,000 sections (*khandha*) of the Buddha-word 2,000 are by monks. *Vin. com.*, i, 29.

c10.16

The Vinaya now forming the first part of the threefold division of the Scriptures consists essentially of the monastic rules together with a commentary. It is evident that from the first there must have been disciplinary regulations for the members of the Order, but it is also clear that among the existing rules, as now found in the Vinaya, there are ditions and modifications. Some rules, though still reserved, have been abrogated by new conditions, and others have been added owing to the necessity of considering special circumstances. But the nucleus, on account of its use as a formulary of confession, has been preserved separately in a very early form. This collection is known as the Pātimokkha.¹

c10.17

¹ In Sanskrit prātimoksha. In form it is an adjective formed from *pratimokkha* “binding”, from *pati-muc-* “to fasten or bind on (as armour)”, and thus should mean “that which binds, obligatory”. This, however, is not recognized by the ancient Pāli authorities. Buddhaghosa derives it from *pā* “in the sense of freeing from the punishments of hell and other painful births, *Vism.*, 16. The oldest Buddhist explanation in *Vin.*, i, 103 (*Vin. Texts*, 263), is purely fanciful. The probability is that the term along with the Uposatha ceremony itself was borrowed from other sects, and like other obscure terms in this document was not clear to the Buddhists themselves. The spelling *pātimokkha* also suggests this; *pātimokkha* (with cerebral *t*), says Childers, is unquestionably a Burmese error. Cf. S. Lévi, “Observations sur une langue précanonique du Bouddhisme,” *JA.*, 1912, ii, p. 495. There is also a Pātimokkha for nuns modelled on the rules for monks. The Buddhist tradition is that an Order of nuns was formed during Buddha’s lifetime, and though this is probable, the legends about its formation scarcely bear historical investigation.

c10.18

The Pātimokkha was used at the fortnightly fast-day (posatha), when it was recited at the meeting of the monks held at new moon and at full moon.² Oldenberg held that its present shape, or at least in its most essential parts, might reach back to Buddha’s own time or to that of his personal disciples.³ This view is now strengthened by the fact that we are now able to compare the formulary as used by several schools, Pāli and Sanskrit, and there is essential agreement between them. The arrangement is exactly the same in all, and the rules for the most part agree in their actual wording and numbering.⁴ This implies that we have it practically in the form it had assumed before any sects arose.

c10.19

² The word *uposatha* corresponds to the brahminical Sanskrit term *avasatha*, which was the name for the day before the soma-sacrifice, from which the Buddhist term is no doubt derived. The Sarvāstivādins use the form *poshadha*, which was doubtless the form in their dialect before their canon was turned into Sanskrit.

c10.20

³ *Vin. Texts*, vol. i, p. xi.

c10.21

⁴ The following analysis of the Pātimokkha rests upon the Pāli text (ed. by Minayeff, St. Petersburg, 1869), the Sanskrit of the Sarvāstivādins, published by Finot, *JA.*, i, 1913, pp. 465 ff., and that of the Mūla-Sarvāstivādins in *Mvyut*, 256 ff.

c10.22

According to the regulations in the Vinaya, the Uposatha day (at new moon and full moon) must be formally proclaimed beforehand, and all the monks within one boundary-district must be present unless definite leave of absence has been obtained. The presiding monk begins the recitation of the Pātimokkha by declaring:

c10.23

Let the Assembly, reverend ones, hear me. To-day is the Uposatha of the fifteenth day. If it appears the right time to the Assembly, let the Assembly perform the Uposatha and repeat the Pātimokkha. How is it with regard to the necessary preliminaries for the Assembly? Reverend ones, announce your purity (freedom from disability). I will repeat the Pātimokkha.—We are all listening well and reflecting on it.—He who has incurred a fault should declare it; if there is no fault he should keep silence. Now by your silence, reverend sirs, I shall know that you are pure. Now as there is a reply for each question, so in such a meeting as this it is proclaimed as many as three times. Now should a monk, when it is proclaimed three times, remember a fault that he has committed and not declare it, he is guilty of a conscious falsehood. Now a conscious falsehood, reverend sirs, has been declared by the Lord to be a hindrance (to advance). Therefore a monk who remembers that he had committed a fault, and wishes to be pure, should declare the fault committed, for when declared it will be easy for him (to advance).¹

c10.24

¹ “In theory all sins must be confessed at the recital of the Prātimoksa, but as this ceremony takes place only twice a month, and as an immediate confession is required, it is deemed sufficient that the sinner makes his confession to an elder brother. So at least is the practice nowadays in Ceylon and Burma.” Kern, Man, 87.

c10.25

The introduction, reverend sirs, has been repeated. So, I ask the reverend ones, are you pure in this matter? A second time I ask, are you pure in this matter? A third time I ask, are you pure in this matter? The reverend ones are pure in this matter, therefore they are silent. Even so I understand it.

c10.26

Then follows the recitation of the rules, which are arranged in seven classes according to the degree of gravity. An eighth section gives the rules to be followed at meetings where cases are decided.

c10.27

1. Four Pārājika rules, violation of which involves permanent expulsion.²

c10.28

² Buddhaghosa interprets pārājika as “suffering defeat”, and the Mūla-Sarvāstivādins appear to do the same (Mvyut., 278, 9), but the earliest commentary in the Vinaya gives no suggestion of this meaning. The term was probably adopted from some already existing sect. S. Lévi (loc. cit.) has made it probable that it is the same word as the Jain pāramciya, in the sense of being (permanently) excluded.

c10.29

1. Sexual intercourse of any kind is forbidden.
2. Taking what is not given is forbidden.
3. “A monk who shall knowingly deprive a human being of life, or seek out an armed person against him, or by uttering the praises of death shall incite to suicide, saying, ‘ho, man! what is this evil, wretched life to thee?’—he is pārājika, and is not in association.”
4. “A monk who, though not having the higher knowledge of possessing the superhuman qualities, shall give out with regard to himself that he knows and perceives that complete knowledge and insight has arisen, and then at another time, whether on being pressed or not, desiring to be purified, says, ‘without knowing, friends, I said now, without perceiving, I said I perceive, speaking vainly and falsely’, unless it was through undue assurance—he is *pārājika*, he is no longer in association.”

c10.30

The third and fourth rules illustrate two points of doctrine. Suicide is condemned without qualification. On Buddhistic and general Indian theory it could only result in another life still burdened with the consequences of the individual’s previous karma. But the Buddhist scholastics appear to have raised the question as to what happens in the case of a person who, by winning the goal of arahatship, has escaped from the chain of birth and death, and for whom there is no rebirth. What if at the moment of escape he commits suicide? It appears never to have been more than an academic question, but the problem is illustrated by several stories of monks who are said to have taken this means to escape falling from arahatship. These are discussed below. The fourth question speaks of superhuman (*uttarimanussa*) abilities.¹ They are superhuman only in the sense that they do not belong to the ordinary man, but have to be acquired by a long course of training, and they are the powers attained by means of the mystic practices of concentration (*samādhi*) known as yoga. These attainments are in the first place states of mind, in which the monk rises by stages so that he becomes gradually free from contact with the world of change. But they also bring with them supernormal physical powers (levitation, the power of projecting an image of oneself at a distance, clairvoyance, etc.), powers which were already claimed by pre-Buddhist adepts. Their mention here is important as early evidence for the view that yoga is an essential part of the primitive doctrine, as seen in the triple division of the disciple’s practice into morality, concentration, and full knowledge.

c10.31

¹ *Vin.*, i, 97, they are specified as the trances, releases, concentration, attainments, the Way or the fruit of the Way. See Ch. IV.

c10.32

*Thirteen Sanghādisesa rules.* Offences involving a period of penance and reinstatement by the Assembly.

c10.33

Five of these deal with minor sexual offences, such as touching a woman or addressing her with wicked words. Two refer to the building of a monk’s dwelling, two to the bringing of false accusations against monks, two to causing dissension in the Order and taking sides in disputes, and two to cases of insubordination, that of a monk who becomes abusive when admonished, and that of one who on account of evil behaviour has been warned to leave the village where he begs and who refuses to do so.

c10.34

These cases were dealt with at a formal meeting of the Order, and the sentence is thus described :

c10.35

If the monk becomes guilty of one or another of these offences, for as many days as he conceals it so many days must he, even though unwilling, be compelled to dwell apart. When the monk has passed this period of probation (parivāsa), he must still for another six nights undergo the mānatta practice ¹ towards the (other) monks. When his period of mānatta is over, the monk is to be restored in a place where the Assembly of monks is as many as twenty. If the Assembly, being less than twenty even by one, should restore him, he is not restored, and those monks are blameworthy. This is the proper course in the matter.

c10.36

¹ Skt. mānatva and mānāpya; on this passage in the Vin. Buddhaghosa (iii, 629) explains bhikkhumānatta as bhikkhūnaṃ mānanabhāva, the paying of some kind of respect to the other monks. This makes it probable that the culprit remained in a special state of subordination, but the origin of the term remains obscure.

c10.37

Two of these rules (6 and 7) throw light on the earliest dwelling-places of the monks. Each monk lived in his own hut (kuṭi). If not having a donor he begged the materials and had it put up for him, he must have it made according to certain measurements, and it must be on a site not likely to cause injury (to living things) and with an open space round it. The other monks must come and approve. Similarly, if he had a large residence (vihāra) put up, given him by a donor ² and intended for his own use, the monks must also give their approval.

c10.38

² Sassāmikam; “ayant un donateur” (Huber); not as in Vin. Texts, i, 9, “to belong (also) to others.”

c10.39

3. Two aniyata rules, undetermined cases, in which the monk might be charged under one or other of the existing rules.

c10.40

These are (1) if a monk should sit together with a woman on a secluded seat, and (2) if he should sit with a woman on a seat not secluded, but convenient for addressing her with wicked words. In the first case a lay woman of trustworthy speech might charge him with a pārājika offence or a saṅghādisesa or a pācittiya. In the second case she might charge him with a saṅghādisesa or a pācittiya offence.

c10.41

4. Thirty nissaggiya pācittiya rules. Offences requiring expiation ³ and involving forfeiture. Although the monk must have no possessions, there were four objects (requisites) that were considered indispensable, a set of three robes, bowl, bed, and medicine,¹ but rules were made to prevent his obtaining absolute possession of them. They had in theory to belong to the Order, and as the monk might receive them as alms, rules were required to prevent his acquiring a store of property.

c10.42

³ This translation depends upon the derivation of pācittiya from Sanskrit prāyaścittika, but this is not the term used in the Sanskrit versions of the Pātimokkha, which have pātayantika and pāyantika. It is another example of the fact that the document is so old that the later Buddhists were not sure of the original terms. Cf. S. Lévi, loc. cit.

c10.43

¹ There was a later division of the requisites into eight : three robes, bowl, razor, needle, girdle, and water-strainer. The bed and medicine do not appear in it, probably because with the institution of large monasteries the monk would find them provided for him.

c10.44

1. *Ten rules concerning robes.*

c10.45

These refer to the length of time during which an extra robe might be kept, to repair and exchange of robes, and to receiving them as alms. He might not ask a lay person for a robe unless he had lost his own, nor might he suggest the kind he was to receive.

c10.46

2. *Ten rules on material for rugs and the use of money.*

c10.47

The material of which the rug was made was prescribed, and it had to be used for six years. The monk might accept the material for it under certain conditions. Gold and silver must not be accepted or used in transactions, and buying and selling were forbidden.

c10.48

3. *Ten rules concerning bowl, medicine, and robes.*

c10.49

A monk might not keep an extra bowl beyond ten days, nor exchange his bowl if it was broken in less than five places. Medicine (ghee, butter, oil, honey, raw sugar) must not be stored more than seven days. There are special rules for robes in the rainy season and for having them woven. Nothing intended to be given to the Order was to be applied by the monk to his own use.

c10.50

5. *Ninety-Two Pācittiya rules. Faults requiring expiation.*

c10.51

This miscellaneous set of rules chiefly contains regulations intended for the harmonious intercourse of the monks, and for the avoidance of abuses leading to luxury in dress or eating or to anything which might distract the monk in his striving to realize the Truths. Some of the most characteristic rules occur here. They are in no systematic order, but may be grouped as follows :

c10.52

Moral rules, such as lying, abusive language, slander, prevarication which irritates, disrespectful behaviour, stirring up ill-will, reviving a decided matter, concealing a monk’s serious offence, ordaining a person below the age of twenty, irregular behaviour at proceedings of the Order, suggesting difficulties of conscience to a fellow monk, eavesdropping during a quarrel, telling an unordained person of one’s supernatural powers, or revealing a serious offence to him.

c10.53

Rules for conduct towards women. Ten rules regulate the relations of the monks with the nuns, especially the official duty of giving them exhortation, restrictions on making gifts to a nun or doing services for her if she is not related.

c10.54

Behaviour in the vihāra, rules on sleeping, use of furniture, encroaching on a monk who has arrived before, turning another out of a common dwelling-place, or striking or threatening him.

c10.55

Rules concerning food, eating at the wrong time, eating food that has been put by, going in numbers to receive a meal, beginning to eat again after having finished, asking for medicaments when not sick, drinking strong drink. A monk must not ask another to go with him for alms and then refuse to go, nor must he with his own hand give food to certain classes of heretics.

c10.56

He must not travel by appointment with a caravan of robbers or with a woman, or cross the threshold of a king without being announced, or go and see an army on the march or in battle-array; if he enters a village late in the day he must inform a monk if one is there.

c10.57

He must not cause an unordained person to recite the Doctrine word by word, or preach more than five or six words to a woman without a discreet man being present, or ordain a person under twenty years of age.

c10.58

He must not deprive any living thing of life, or drink water with living things in it, or sprinkle such water on grass or clay, or dig or cause to dig the ground; he must not light a fire to warm himself or bathe oftener than every half month except at the proper seasons.

c10.59

There are several rules for the use of the requisites, bedsteads, chairs, needlecases, etc. A new robe must be marked with blue or black (to distinguish it). The size of robes and rugs is prescribed.

c10.60

Several rules in this section show a more developed communal life than that implied in the Saṅghādisesa rules, and the whole section has probably been collected or put into shape at a later period than the previous rules. Besides the single huts as dwellings for the monks, we find vihāras belonging to the Order. There is also furniture common to the Order, beds, chairs, etc., and common sleeping places, and among the requisites a needle-case, which must not be of bone, ivory, or horn.

c10.61

6. Four Pāṭidesaniya rules. Faults that must be confessed.

c10.62

1. A monk must not accept and eat food from a nun who is on her begging rounds if she is not related to him.

c10.63

2. If the monks are invited to a meal (by a layman) and a nun stands giving orders about serving the food, the monks must rebuke her and say “go away, sister, while the monks are eating”. If they do not, they must confess their fault.

c10.64

3. If a monk (not being ill and not invited) accepts food from a believing family which is too poor to give alms, and which has been “put under discipline”¹ by the Order, he must confess his fault.

c10.65

¹ Sekhasammata. The term is interpreted as above in Vin., iv, 178. The intention was to prevent the almsgiving becoming a burden to lay people who were willing but too poor to give.

c10.66

4. A monk who lives in the jungle must not have food brought to him without warning the givers (that the place is dangerous), unless he is sick.

c10.67

7. *Seventy-five Sekhiya rules. Rules of training.*

c10.68

These are chiefly rules of behaviour in the daily life of the monk. Six or seven refer to being properly dressed, others to behaving decently and modestly while on begging rounds and to special acts requiring modesty.

c10.69

Twenty are rules of behaviour in eating. Ten rules prescribe the conditions for preaching the Doctrine to lay people. All the rules are given in the first person in a form convenient for being recited. “With downcast eye will I go among the houses. This is a training to be observed (8).” “Paying attention to my bowl will I eat my alms. This is a training to be observed (32).” “Not to a person wearing slippers, unless he is sick, will I preach the Doctrine. This is a training to be observed (61).” Similar rules follow forbidding preaching to a person with a sunshade, a stick, or a sword in his hand, wearing sandals, lying on a couch, having his head wrapped up, or walking in front, etc.

c10.70

The differences in the Sanskrit rules are greatest in this section, but they are often more apparent than real. To the rule not to preach the Dhamma to anyone in a cart the Sanskrit adds rules that it is not to be preached to one on an elephant or a horse.

c10.71

8. *Seven Adhikaraṇa-samatha rules.*

c10.72

These are simply a classification of the different ways of proceeding in cases that arise under the above rules.

c10.73

(1) When the accused or the disputants are present, in which case (2) the accused may claim that he is innocent, or (3) that he may have been out of his mind, or (4) he may confess his guilt. (5) Proceedings may be by a majority of the meeting. (6) The accused may be obstinate. (7) The proceeding called “covering with grass” may be followed when the disputants mutually agree to drop the charges and peace is made.

c10.74

The Pātimokkha gives the rules of life for the monk, not for the man who may come into active association with any form of social life. For the monk some of these activities are entirely cut off, not on the ground that they are sinful in themselves, but that they are a hindrance to the attainment of the ideal at which he aims—the knowledge of the Truths. They become sins for anyone who has deliberately renounced them on the ground that they conflict with progress on the Noble Eightfold Way.

c10.75

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 Pāli are divided into two series (*Mahāvagga*, *Cullavagga*). They give the rules for admission to the Order, the regulations for Uposatha (this part contains the introduction to the Pātimokkha, quoted above, p. 16), rules for spending Retreat (*vassa*), the ceremony at the end of Retreat (*pavāraṇā*), rules for foot-wear, medicines, food, and robes, the carrying out of legal proceedings and settling disputes, as specified in the last part of the Pātimokkha, and rules for the daily life of monks and novices.

c10.76

Although it is clear that there must have been such rules from the first, we cannot separate the nucleus with the same certainty as in the case of the Pātimokkha. Nevertheless we find the classification of the Mūla-Sarvāstivādin rules ¹ mostly in the same order and with similar titles, showing that the general arrangement goes back, like the Pātimokkha, to a time before the origin of distinct sects.

c10.77

¹ *Mvyut.*, 276. See below, App. II. L. Finot, “Fragments du Saptadharmaka,” *JA.*, 1913, ii, p. 550. In Jan., 1874, J. F. Dickson was present at a recitation of the Pātimokkha in Ceylon. See his description of the ceremony with text and translation in *JRAS.*, 1876, pp. 62 ff. He has also given a description of the ordination service (*upasampadā*) with Pāli text and translation, as he witnessed it in May, 1872. (*The Upasampadakammavācā*, Venice, 1875.) The Sarvāstivādin form has been translated from the Chinese by Huber in Finot’s edition, and that of the Dharmaguptas by Beal in *A catena of Buddhist Scriptures* from the Chinese, London, 1871.

c10.78

The different recensions of the Vinaya still extant all agree in keeping the nucleus of rules which form the Pātimokkha quite distinct. New rules had to be added to meet changed circumstances, and special interpretations were adopted to meet exceptional cases such as arise under any system of casuistics. But the added rules and new offences were not incorporated with the old. The old list with the special names of the offences remained, and rules for additional faults, though still attributed to Buddha, were described by new names. In the Theravāda and Sarvāstivāda schools this corpus of ecclesiastical law remained without violent change for centuries, and was even taken over by Mahāyāna, a movement which in doctrine produced such a revolution.

c10.79

The Vinaya describes the monastic community as divided by boundaries (*sīmā*). Each boundary or parish had to be of convenient extent so that all the members who happened to be within it could attend the Uposatha meeting. Within this boundary each assembly (*sangha*) was self-governing.

c10.80

There was no hierarchy, but seniority was reckoned by the number of years from ordination, nor did a central authority exist to check any tendency to change or development in new directions. It is possible, says Oldenberg, that in the early period after Buddha’s death the personal authority of the disciples who had been nearest to the Master may have tended to repress any serious schism; but a state of things resting on personal influence, not on the sure structure of legal institutions, bears in itself the germ of dissolution. Against this it is possible to maintain that a legal system seeking to enforce its authority over a wide area would have been the very thing to produce violent reaction and opposition. What we find, in fact, for a long period is not dissolution but gradual development. Schools arose, but of their origin we have little definite knowledge, and it is in those which have survived that we find the lines of the development of Buddhist thought.

c10.81

There is a list of thirteen ascetic practices (*dhutangas*) which shows that there were differences of view about the extent to which austerities should be practised. These are (1) wearing clothes taken from a dustheap, (2) wearing only three robes, (3) getting food only by begging, (4) begging straight on from house to house, (5) eating food only at one place, (6) eating from one vessel only, (7) refusing food offered after the proper time, (8) living in the forest, (9) living at the foot of a tree, (10) living in the open air, (11) living in a cemetery, (12) taking any seat that is offered, (13) sleeping in a sitting posture. They do not appear to be primitive as a whole, as they are not mentioned in the Vinaya proper.¹ The vinaya, however, has a list of four “supports” (*nissaya*), which are to be taught to the disciple after his ordination as being the strict rule, though relaxations are permitted: (1) living only on broken meats (corresponding to the third dhutanga), (2) wearing clothes taken from a dustheap, (3) sleeping at the foot of a tree, (4) using only decomposed urine as medicine. These rules are still enjoined on the monk at the ordination service, and less severe practices are allowed as “ extras ” (atireka).¹ Some of them also appear again in another connection.

c10.82

¹ They occur in the supplementary *Parivāra*, *Vin.*, v, 193. Buddhaghosa discusses them fully, *Vism.*, 59. In Sarvāstivādin works they are called *dhutaguṇa*. *Mvyut.*, 49, and *Dhs.*, 63, have a list of twelve. They omit (4) and (6) and add *nāmatika*, wearing a certain kind of cloth. *Dhuta* means “one who has shaken off”, i.e. the bonds or depravities; the separate practices are *angas* “items”, or *guṇas* “qualities”.

c10.83

¹ Vin., i, 58.

c10.84

In the rules of the Vinaya concerning schism the story of the schism of Devadatta, the cousin of Buddha, is told.² Towards the end of Buddha’s life he aimed at becoming leader, and being repulsed he proposed that five rules should be made compulsory : (1) That monks should dwell all their lives in the forest, (2) that they should live only on alms begged, (3) wear only clothes taken fron a dustheap, (4) dwell at the foot of a tree, (5) not eat fish or flesh. The first four are among the dhutangas. Buddha is said to have refused to make them compulsory, but pointed out that all were permissible except sleeping at the foot of a tree during the rainy season. The schism is said to have been soon suppressed, and nothing more is heard of it. The Chinese traveller, Fa Hien, however, writing in the fifth century A.D., mentions the existence of a body that followed Devadatta. It has been assumed that this proves the continued existence of Devadatta’s followers in complete obscurity for a thousand years. All it really tells us is that there was then a body that followed Devadatta’s rules. Some schools certainly appear to have treated his memory more favourably than the Theravādins did, for the Lotus (ch. XI) says he is to become a Buddha, and that he helped Buddha in his former existence to attain the Perfections, apparently by putting hindrances in his way, which made the Perfections all the greater.

c10.85

² Vin., ii, 196.

c10.86

In the differences of the later schools there is little about discipline, but an interesting sidelight on the use of money is thrown in an Avadāna (Damamūka, No. 8). A child was born with two gold coins in his hand. Whenever he opened them gold coins appeared. In due time he entered the Order, and when asking permission of the monks he bowed down, placing his hands on the ground, and on getting up there were two coins. This was because in the time of Buddha Kanakamuni he had been a poor woodcutter, and seeing a great feast being given to the monks he had offered them two coins that he had earned. It was his reward to have been born wealthy ever after, for he of his want had given more than they all.

c10.87

The question of meat-eating also led to differences in practice. There is a Vinaya rule (Mahāv., vi, 23) which forbids the eating of the flesh of elephants, horses, dogs, and certain other kinds. Evidently the usual kinds are not forbidden, and a little later (vi, 31) there is the story of Buddha accepting meat from a Jain general. He justified himself on the ground that the ox had been already killed, and not specially for him. This was the occasion for the promulgation of the rule that “no one shall knowingly eat meat intended (for the recipient). I prescribe that fish and meat are pure in three particulars: when it has not been seen, heard, or suspected (that it was intended for the recipient)”. The word *macchamaṃsa* naturally means “fish and flesh”, though it has been translated merely “fish”, but the whole context shows that meat is permitted. A similar story is told in the *Majjhima* (i, 368), where the same three restrictions are mentioned referring only to meat.

c10.88

This remained the rule, and Hiuen Tsiang tells how on his travels he met communities who “eat only the three pure aliments”, but he himself refused to accept them.¹ A custom had grown up in Mahāyāna of abstaining from all meat, probably due to rivalry with the stricter rules of other sects. This motive is quite clear in the *Laṅkāvatāra-sūtra*, which has a whole chapter on meat-eating. It points out that even the followers of heretical systems forbid it, and the followers of Buddha’s teaching should avoid censure. But it also gives good reasons against the practice, one may be eating one’s nearest relative, the practice is not good for health, and most of all it causes pain to living creatures. The three permissible conditions of the Vinaya are expressly condemned.

c10.89

¹ *Life* (Beal), p. 38; cf. T. Watters, *On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India*, i, 53.

c10.90

The rules for novices (*sāmaṇeras*) are contained in the ten rules of training ²:

c10.91

² *Khuddakapāṭha*, 2; *Vin.*, i, 83; cf. *Abhk.*, iv, 69.

c10.92

(1) Refraining from killing living things;
(2) from taking what is not given;
(3) from unchastity (or incontinence);
(4) from falsehood;
(5) from intoxicants;
(6) from eating at unseasonable times;
(7) from seeing displays, dancing, singing, and music;
(8) from the use of garlands, scents, and unguents;

c10.93

(9) from the use of a high or a big bed;
(10) from receiving gold and silver.

c10.94

The first five form the rules for laymen, to which the next three are added during a period of fasting (upavāsa), i.e. on the Uposatha days.

c10.95

It has been a matter of discussion whether a layman can win arahatship. The question is not properly put, for the real question is whether he can exercise the necessary training while living in a house. If he can and does, then he becomes an arahat, but he at the same time ceases to be a layman. The question seems to have arisen from the existence of certain legends which tell of laymen suddenly winning complete insight. If such a one does cast off all the fetters, he has freed himself from everything that binds him to a life of pleasure. But some schools held that arahatship could be reached even while he was enjoying such pleasures (kāmabhogin). This view is treated by the Kathāvatthu (iv, 1) as a heresy.¹

c10.96

¹ See the literature quoted by La Vallée Poussin in Abhk., iv, 29; B. C. Law, “Nirvāṇa and Buddhist laymen,” Annals of the Bhandarkar Or. Research Inst., 1933, p. 80.

Linked texts (18)