Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c22: Chapter XIV: The System (According to Vinaya)

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c22

Language
English

Contents

Chapter XIV: The System (According to Vinaya)

c22.1

THE SYSTEM

c22.3

**Buddhist Education purely Monastic.** The history of the Buddhist system of education is practically that of the Buddhist Order or Saṁgha. Buddhist education and learning centred round monasteries as Vedic culture centred round the sacrifice. The Buddhist world did not offer any educational opportunities apart from or independently of its monasteries. All education, sacred as well as secular, was in the hands of the monks. They had the monopoly of learning and of the leisure to impart it. They were the only custodians and bearers of the Buddhist culture.

c22.4

**Its Rules.** Thus the rules of Buddhist education are those of the Buddhist Order. As has been already pointed out, these rules are not the invention of the Buddha but modelled upon those of numerous other monastic orders professing other faiths and also of Brahmanism itself, the common source from which all such sects arose.

c22.5

**Initiation.** The ceremony of initiation into the Buddhist Order and the Church follows closely the lines of the Brahmanical initiation of studentship as described above. Under the Brahmanical system the youth has to find his teacher to whom he has to formally apply for admission to studentship in the following words: "I am come for the *Brahmacharya*. I desire to be a Brahmachārin." Then the teacher "ties the girdle round him, gives him the staff into his hand, and explains to him the Brahmacharya (the rules of conduct of a religious student), by saying: 'Thou art a Brahmachārin; drink water; perform service; sleep not by day; study the Veda obediently to thy teacher' " [*Āśvalāyana Gṛ. Sū.*, i, 22; *Pāraskara*, ii, 2, 3; *Śat. Br.*, xi, 5, 4 seq.]. The Bodhisattva himself is represented in tradition to say to Uddaka, the Brahman teacher, whom he approached for instruction in saving knowledge: "I desire, O friend, according to thy teaching and thy direction, to walk in the Brahmacharya." And, as the Buddha, he inaugurates his Order by admitting his first disciples in the following words: "Come hither, O monk, the doctrine is duly preached; walk in the Brahmacharya, to put an end to all sorrow." Thus the Buddhist monastic order began as a union of the master and his disciples after the Brahmanical model. The finding of a teacher was a condition of ordination as laid down in the text: "Let no one, O Bhikkhus, who has no *Upājjhāya*, receive the *Upasampadā* ordination." The teacher must be an individual person and not a fictitious one like the Saṁgha as a corporate body. The text does not permit such a fraud on the system: "*Let no one receive the Upasampadā ordination with the Saṁgha as Upājjhyāya*" [*Mahāvagga*, i, 69]. The idea of the individual responsibility of the teacher for his pupil's training and conduct was thus rightly emphasized.

c22.6

**Pravrajyā.** The first step in Buddhist initiation is called *Pabbajjā* of "going forth". It means that a person presents himself for admission into the Order by "going out" of his previous state, whether it be that of a layman and householder or of a wandering ascetic or monk belonging to a different sect. The admission to the Order was thrown open to all the castes. The candidate for admission must take leave of all the visible marks of the life he has left, the marks of caste as of clothes. He casts himself out into the Order which has made a short work of all distinctions of caste on the principle which is deliberately and diametrically its very opposite, the principle of equality and fraternity. In the words of the Buddha himself: "As the great streams, O disciples, however many they may be, the Gaṅgā, Yamunā, Achiravatī, Sarabhū, Mahī, when they reach the great ocean, lose their old name and their old descent, and bear only one name, 'the great ocean,' so also, my disciples, these four castes, Nobles, Brahmans, Vaiśya, and Śūdra, when they, in accordance with the law and doctrine which the Perfect One has preached, forsake their home and go into homelessness, lose their old name and old paternity, and bear only the one designation, 'Ascetics, who follow the son of the Śākya house'". [*Chullav.*, ix, 1, 4]. As instances of persons of low castes being admitted as monks, we may mention Upāli the barber and 'a vulture-tormentor' [*Chullav.*, i, 32].

c22.7

But, though in theory the Order might be recruited from all castes, in practice the admission to it was sought by a few, that small and select class of persons who were spiritually advanced enough to adopt the life of asceticism, renouncing the life of pleasures and 'out-going' activities.

c22.8

**Resemblance with Brahmanical System.** It may also be noted that the *Pabbajjā*, this "going out" of home into the Order, is akin to the Brahmanical system of studentship under which the young disciple has to go out of his own home, the care and company of his parents and relations, to live with his chosen preceptor as an *antevāsī* in his hermitage or Āśrama in a new home and environment under rigorous conditions of discipline and training. Under the Buddhist system, too, the layman admitted to the Order is placed under the discipline of a preceptor who is to control his conduct. As in the Brahmanical system, a minimum age limit was fixed for initiation, viz. eight years, and children below that age were not accepted by the Order. Again, the minimum period of studentship in the Brahmanical system was twelve years; the same is the period of the Buddhist novitiate. Corresponding to the epithet *Brahmachārī* conferred upon a youth after his Upanayana is the Buddhist epithet *Sāmaṇera* applied to the youth who is a *pabbajita*, i.e. has become a homeless one on his performing the ceremony of initial or preliminary ordination (*pabbajjā*).

c22.9

**Rules of First Ordination (Pabbajjā).** We shall now describe the other particulars of this preparatory ordination of *Pabbajjā*. In the case of a layman under twenty years of age seeking admission to the Order, he approaches, tonsured, the Vihāra or monastery of his choice with a suit of the yellow robes of the monk in his hands and presents himself before an elder of the monastery for initiation. The elder then invests him with the yellow robe and calls upon him to take the following oath of Three Refuges (*Saraṇattaya*) three times: "I take refuge with the Buddha. I take refuge with the Religion. I take refuge with the Order" [*Mahāvagga*, i, 12, 3-4]. Next, the following Ten Commandments are administered to him (the *dasasikkhāpadāni*), viz. abstinence from (1) taking life, (2) taking what is not given, (3) impure practices, (4) telling a lie, (5) intoxicating drinks, "arrack," etc., (6) eating out of time, (7) dancing, singing, and seeing shows, (8) using garlands, scents, unguents, ornaments, and finery, (9) use of a high or large couch or seat, and (10) receiving gold and silver. It will be noted how most of these interdicts figure in the code of regulations governing the life of a Brahmachārī too. Then the ceremony is over, and the novice is committed to the care of his elder or preceptor who brings him up till he is fit for the higher ordination.

c22.10

**Restrictions to Admission.** With regard to adults or persons above the minimum age limit seeking admission to the Order, there were imposed certain conditions of eligibility which must have restricted recruitment for the Order to some extent and demonstrate the practical good sense and expediency of the Buddhist legislators in spite of their uncompromising spiritual idealism. Thus admission to the Order was not permitted to youths seeking it without the consent of their parents, thus showing the laudable concern of an Order of homeless ascetics for the integrity of the home, for the discipline of family life, and the respect due to its obligations without which family as well as society would be disintegrated and disorganized. This restriction was first introduced by the Buddha at the request of his father who grieved over the loss of all his male heirs by the adoption of the Order by all of them including his grandson Rāhula. The next restriction upon admission was on the ground of gross and glaring physical defects such as serious sicknesses or bodily deformities of which contagious diseases, consumption, leprosy, boils, itches, and fits are given as examples.¹ Serious moral defect was also a bar to admission; confirmed criminals [e.g. a matricide (*Mahāvagga*, i, 64)] were kept out. A due discharge of one’s legal obligations was also insisted upon, the obligations due to the State or resulting from economic transactions under the ordinary circumstances of life under Society and State which the applicant for orders proposed to leave. This rule had the effect of barring out government servants, and especially soldiers, the right to whose services belonged inviolably to the State; and debtors upon the fruits of whose labour their creditors had the first charge; and slaves who must procure their release from their owners. Thus these regulations show how the Order in its concern for the spiritual health and well-being of its members felt a due concern for their physical health, too, and the need of their coming to it with a clean and unblemished record as regards their previous career and life. The *Pabbajjā* did not permit the "going out of", or a self-willed, cowardly, fraudulent, or dishonest escape from, one's obligations to the family, the State, and the Society. The sacredness and inviolability of these moral, political, social, and economic obligations were thus very properly emphasized and recognized by the Order, which did not countenance the violent and revolutionary methods of accomplishing spiritual evolution. Man's inner growth must correspond to the silent and peaceful processes of growth visible in external nature or the objective world.

c22.11

¹ A complete list of persons disqualified on the ground of bodily defects and deformities is given in the Mahāvagga, i, 71. The principle of this disqualification does not seem to be a very commendable one. It was simply a concession to the tastes and susceptibilities of the lay public, to a doubtful sense of decency that would not look with a kindly eye upon the dwarf or the hump-back, upon the lame, the deaf and the dumb, or even the man afflicted with elephantiasis. A sound body was no doubt to be desired, but it was easy to desire it too much. At least the persons afflicted from birth by Nature deserve better treatment than those punished by man. In the list a cripple is on a par with a "proclaimed robber". The weakness of Buddhism, and, indeed, of all proselytizing religions in the early stages of their career is this undue panting after popularity, and even pandering to low and vulgar tastes instead of ignoring and educating them. There might be much native moral excellence behind physical disabilities that would repay proper treatment. The eagerness of early Buddhism to secure aristocratic and opulent adherents has been already noticed as another weakness.

c22.12

In addition to the foregoing chief limitations of admission to the Order the texts lay down a few minor ones. Persons who were found to be "shameless" and not duly "modest" were not to be admitted. This was to be ascertained by the regulation of keeping the proposed pupils under observation for the first four or five days until it was seen how they behaved to the other Bhikkhus of the Order [*Mahāv.*, i, 72]. Again, persons who "furtively" attached themselves to the Order were also to be kept out [ib., i, 62].

c22.13

**Final Ordination of Upasampadā.** The preliminary ordination of the *Pabbajjā* inaugurates the period of novitiate which is ended by the final ordination of the *Upasampadā*, the arrival at the full status of monkhood or a Bhikshu, a full-fledged member of the Order. The period between the two ordinations was twelve years at its maximum and was not continued beyond the twentieth year of the postulant. The period of novitiate was, however, reduced to four months in the case of the postulant being previously a member of another monastic order [*Mahāvagga*, i, 38, 3]. The Brahmanical Vānaprasthas, called the Jaṭilas, fire-worshippers with matted hair, were, however, exempted from all probation (*parivāsa*) on the ground of their advanced doctrines, as also the Śākyas, the Buddha's kinsmen [ib.]. Sometimes, again, the two ordinations were gone through simultaneously ¹ when the grounds for separating them in time did not exist, as in the case of Koṇḍañña and other ascetics with him [*Mahāvagga*, i, 6, 32].

c22.14

¹ It would seem from the texts [*Mahāv.*, i, 6, 7] that the original disciples of the Buddha such as the Five Mendicants, Yasa, and his companions numbering sixty, received the two ordinations together, but an interval between them was prescribed for the later adherents of the church converted by these original disciples, though even in these cases exceptions were allowed. There was an exception even in Asoka's time in the case of the lay devotee Bhaṇḍuka (*Dīpav.*, xii, 62 f.].

c22.15

The higher ordination of the Upsampadā by which a Samaṇera completes his course of probation and enters upon the full membership of the Saṁgha for which he is destined and has been prepared since his Pabbajjā ordination, marks an important point of distinction between the Brahmanical and Buddhist systems of education. Under the former system, the Brahmachārin, on completion of his studentship, and coming of age, returns to his home and family as a *Snātaka* and presently marries and becomes a *Gṛihastha* or householder. His "going out of home" or *pravrajyā* was for a temporary period. In the case of the Buddhist, the "outgoing from home into homelessness" (agārasmā anagāriyaṁ pabbajjā) is final. The Brahmanical system, however, provided for exceptions. Brahmachārīs were given the option to remain as such through life at his teacher's, and, after his death, with his family according to his choice [*Āpast.*, ii, 9, 21, 6; 8; *Gautama*, iii, 3, 7; *Manu*, ii, 247], the special designation of *Naishṭhika* being applied to them as a mark of distinction. But the exceptions became the rule in the Buddhist system. In the Brahmanical scheme, the final renunciation of the home and the world belongs to the third and fourth stage or Āśrama of life when the man, after passing the successive stages of the Brahmachārin, the Snātaka, and the Gṛihastha, becomes a *Parivrājaka*, a Bhikshu or a *Yati* or a *Sannyāsī*, a hermit and a wandering mendicant. The entry upon these stages of life is thus described by Manu: "When the Brahman 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 Prajāpati-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." As Kern well points out, these Brahmacārins for life and the Bhikshus or Sannyāsīs formed the nucleus of different sects, each following the doctrines of its masters [*Manual of Ind. Buddhism*, p. 74].

c22.16

The particulars of the Upasampadā ordination may now be described. While the Pabbajjā is, as has been already seen, a one-sided transaction with which the Order as a whole has nothing to do, the Upasampadā consisted of a ceremony which has to be completed before the Order and by their participation.

c22.17

Democratic Procedure in its performance. Every step in the ordination has to be passed by the Order in a meeting specially convened for the purpose. The quorum for such a meeting was laid down. It required the presence of at least ten members who must be fully qualified elders [Mahāvagga, i, 31, 2]. In border countries, however, where "there were but few Bhikkhus" and hence "difficulty and trouble in getting together a meeting of the Order in which ten Bhikkhus were present", the quorum was reduced by the Buddha to five members including the chairman [ib., v, 13, 11].¹ An ecclesiastical vote of the Chapter of elders was termed *Kammavāchā* (which means "the proceedings at a *Kamma* or ecclesiastical Act, by which some question is decided by vote"). The sense of the meeting was obtained by a vote or Resolution arrived at in either of the two following ways, viz. (1) by a summary decision at which the Resolution before the house (*ñatti*) would be given only one reading (*ñattidutiya-kamma*); (2) a decision by the third reading (*ñattichatutthakamma*). The decision by three readings was applied to all the stages in the ceremony of the Upasampadā ordination. The method of voting was very simple. The assenting members kept silence and the dissenters spoke out. In the case of divided opinions in the Chapter, the question was referred to arbitration by a small sub-committee elected on the spot and possessed of special qualifications laid down. If the question was not settled thus, it was put to the vote. A taker of votes was then elected. He distributed voting slips (*salākā*) of different colours to indicate different opinions [*Chullavagga*, iv, 14, 26], and thus ascertained the vote of the majority. There was a rule that no member should leave the meeting without declaring his vote [*Pāt.*, p. 52].

c22.18

¹ It may be noted that the texts allow the quorum to vary with the purposes of the Saṁgha meetings. "The lowest number which can constitute a Saṁgha is four" [*Mahāv.*, viii, 24, 1], but such a Saṁgha is not entitled to perform the Upasampadā ordination. Saṁghas of five, ten, twenty persons and more are referred to with their different powers [ib., ix, 4].

c22.19

The proceedings of the Ordination may now be described. As has been already stated, the ordination can be conferred only by a Chapter of at least ten elders who should all be learned, competent, and of not less than ten years' standing (*Mahāvagga*, i, 31]. One of them must introduce the novice to the President of the Chapter in a formal resolution, *ñatti*. Then he, or any other member, is appointed by the Chapter to give the candidate preliminary instructions. The instructions are to be given aside. They comprise a series of questions to the candidate to ascertain his eligibility under the specified conditions already stated (regarding his being free from certain diseases, debts, obligations of royal service, his age, the consent of his parents). He was also asked his name, the name of the *Upājjhāya* he had chosen, and whether he had his alms-bowl and robes in due state. He was also instructed as to the manner of answering these questions before the Chapter when they would formally put them to him. On completion of these instructions, the instructor takes permission of the Chapter to present the candidate. The candidate is to present himself in a proper, respectful manner specified. He should "adjust his upper robe so as to cover one shoulder, salute the feet of the Bhikkhus with his head, sit down squatting, raise his joined hands" and entreat the Order three times to confer initiation on him "out of compassion" [*Mahāvagga*, i, 29, 2]. Then a member of the Chapter other than the instructor formally moves the Resolution for initiation of the candidate and, with the permission of the Assembly, "asks him about the Disqualifications" and other requirements, and, on the answers being satisfactory, the Resolution is repeated three times and then declared as carried, the members expressing their assent by silence. At the conclusion of the ceremonies, the hour, date, and season of the ordination, together with the details of the assembly (*Saṅgīti*) are recorded and communicated to the newly ordained monk so that he may also know his spiritual age. Then he is carefully taught the four *Requisites* (*nissayā*) and the four *Interdicts* (*akaraṇīyāni*) of the monastic life. The four Requisites are: (1) eating of the food collected in the alms-bowl only (*piṇḍiyālopabhojana*); (2) wearing robes made of rags collected (*paṁsukūlachīvara*); (3) lodging at the foot of a tree (*rukkhamūlasenāsana*); and (4) using cow's urine as medicine (*pūtimuttabhesajja*). The monk was, however, permitted to accept better things as gifts from laymen.¹ The four Interdicts comprised (1) sexual intercourse, (2) theft, (3) taking life, (4) boasting of superhuman powers (a piece of interesting evidence pointing to the practice of religious swindling among the monastic orders of the times) [*cf.* *Chullav.*, v, 8].

c22.20

¹ Once Devadatta tried to utilize this concession to discredit the Saṁgha by urging that the genuine Bhikkhus should be dwellers of woods and must not go to villages; should beg for alms and not accept invitations; should clothe themselves in cast-off rags and not accept gifts of robes from laymen; should dwell under the trees and not under a roof; and should abstain from fish. But the Buddha left the exceptions to the free choice of the monks themselves [*Chullav.*, vii, 3, 14, 15].

c22.21

**Rules for Renunciation of Monkhood.** Thus the ordination of the Upasampadā was performed in a most rational and business-like way without the use of any mystical symbols and methods indicative of the special solemnity and significance of the occasion to the person taking orders or of his spiritual transformation and re-birth. But if the admission to the Order was so simple in its process, the withdrawal from it was also not more difficult. Infringement of any of the prohibitions is punished by expulsion from the Order, while an ordained monk might seek separation from the Order if he feels the promptings of the flesh, "if his father, mother, wife, or the laughter and the jest, the pleasantry of old days, are in his thoughts." Only he has to declare his weakness before a witness (who need not be a monk), who must hear and understand him to say that he renounces the Buddha, the Doctrine, and the Order. Thus the Order did not try artificial methods to keep themselves together in the interests of their real spiritual growth, which was not a matter to be forced.

c22.22

**Upādhyāya and Āchārya as Teachers.** We shall now discuss the arrangements for educating the monks. Even the higher ordination of Upasampadā does not give the ordained monk liberty of conduct or independent status. As has been already indicated, he was placed in charge of two superiors qualified by learning, character, and standing, who were called the *Āchārya* and *Upādhyāya*. It is difficult to distinguish their functions from the texts. They are described in *Mahāvagga* [i, 25–33]. The distinction seems to be that the *Upādhāya* was the higher authority entrusted with the duty of instructing the young Bhikkhu in the sacred texts and doctrines, while the *Āchārya* assumed responsibility for his conduct and was thus called also *Karmāchārya* in reference, probably, not merely to his part in the ecclesiastical Act but also to his tutorial responsibility as regards discipline. [See I-tsing, tr. Takakusu, pp. 106, 198.] According to Buddhaghosha [commenting on *Mahāv.*, v, 4, 2], the *Upādhāya* is to be of ten years' and the *Āchārya* of six years' seniority. But, of course, mere seniority is no qualification unless the monk was also learned and competent [ib., i, 35]. In Brahmanical education, however, the *Āchārya* ranks higher than the *Upādhyāya* [Manu, ii, 145; Yājñavalkya, i, 35; and *S.B.E.*, xiii, p. 179 n.]. Thus an *upasampanna bhikkhu* has to live under the control of two teachers for his mental and moral training. This period of training or dependence (*nissaya*) is for at least ten years [*Mahāvagga*, i, 32, 1; but in i, 54, 4 the period is reduced to five years for "a learned and competent Bhikkhu"

c22.23

and extended to "all his life" for an "unlearned one"], after which he was allowed to give a *nissaya* to others, i.e. receive pupils as an *Āchārya*. For it is the *Āchārya* who is called the *nissaya-da* (giver of protection), while his protégé was called *nissaya-antevāsika* (pupil in dependence). The relations between the two are also indicated: "The *Āchāriya*, O Bhikkhus, ought to consider the *Antevāsika* (i.e. disciple living with his teacher) as a son; the *Antevāsika* ought to consider the *Āchāriya* as a father. Thus these two, united by mutual reverence, confidence, and communion of life, will progress, advance, and reach a high stage in this doctrine and discipline" [*Mahāvagga*, i, 32, 1]. Corresponding to the *Āchāriya* and his *Antevāsika* are the *Upājjhāya* and his *saddhivihārika* with similar relations (nissaya) between them [ib., 36, 1]. The higher rank of the *Upājjhāya* is evident from the fact that a *nissaya* or the relationship between the *Āchārya* and *Antevāsika* will be in abeyance in the presence of the *Upājjhāya* [ib.] whom the pupil will be bound to follow for the time being.

c22.24

**Application to Upādhyāya for Admission to Study.** The Bhikkhu has to make a formal application to his proposed preceptor, Upājjhāya, for accepting him as his pupil in the following manner: "Let him who is going to choose an Upājjhāya adjust his upper robe so as to cover one shoulder, salute his feet, sit down squatting, raise his joined hands and say, 'Venerable Sir, be my Upājjhāya,' three times." The Upājjhāya will then indicate by nodding or words his acceptance of the applicant as his pupil (*Mahāv.*, i, 25, 7].

c22.25

**Pupil's Daily Duties.** The Buddhist system, like the Brahmanical, enjoins upon the pupil the duty of serving his preceptor as a part of education. The pupil is to rise early from bed and give his teacher teeth-cleanser and water to rinse his mouth with; then, preparing a seat for him, serve him rice-milk in rinsed jug, and, after his drinking it, wash the vessel and sweep the place. Afterwards he is to equip him for his begging round by giving him fresh undergarment, girdle, his two upper garments, and his alms-bowl rinsed and filled with water and then is to dress and equip himself smartly if he wants to accompany his teacher but must not walk too far from or near him. He is not to interrupt his teacher in speaking, even if he makes a mistake. In returning, the pupil must get back ahead of the teacher to be ready with necessary things and help him to change his clothes. Then after serving him with some food, if required, he is to help him in bath by getting him cold or hot water as may be desired, and, in case of bath in the *Jantāghara* (Sans. *yantragṛiha*, i.e. a bathing place for hot sitting baths), to provide him with kneaded powder for rubbing the body with, moistened clay for besmearing the face with, as a protection against the heat of the fire, and a chair belonging to the bathroom. He is to attend to his teacher there without disturbing his seniors or dislodging his juniors from their seats. If the pupil has to bathe himself, he must finish it quickly so as to be in time with his body dried and dress changed to receive his teacher out of the bathroom with water for washing his feet, a footstool, and a towel [ib.].

c22.26

After bath comes an interval of teaching if the teacher is so inclined. The teaching would be in the form of answering questions or delivering a discourse [ib., 14].

c22.27

Another line of menial work for the pupil was to sweep clean the Vihāra where his teacher dwells by removing all furniture in the room for the purpose, including the bedding and bedstead, carpet and mattress, which were to be sunned and dusted. Then he has to put all the things in their proper place again. He had also to clean out other apartments of the Vihāra such as store-room, refectory, fire-room, etc. [ib., 15, 16]. Elsewhere there is a detailed description as to how the junior Bhikkhu must clean the Vihāra [*Chullav.*, viii, 1, 3].

c22.28

Thus has the pupil to serve his teacher, and him alone, for he is not to render such service to, or accept it from, anybody else. Nor is he to give or receive anything without his teacher's permission. He is not to enter the village or go to a cemetery or go abroad on journeys without his teacher's permission [ib., i, 25, 24]. The permission might be granted if he would travel with a learned Bhikkhu in his company to control him [ib., ii, 21, 1].

c22.29

Lastly, if his teacher is sick, he must nurse him as long as his life lasts and wait until he has recovered [ib.].

c22.30

**Teacher's Duties.** This whole-hearted devotion of the pupil to his teacher had its counterpart in the corresponding attitude and conduct of the teacher towards his pupil. If the duties of the pupil are exacting, those of the teacher also are planned on a similar scale. First, he must give the Bhikkhu under his charge all possible intellectual and spiritual help and guidance "by teaching, by putting questions to him, by exhortation, and by instruction". Second, where the pupil lacked his necessary articles such as an alms-bowl or a robe, the teacher was expected to supply them out of his own belongings. Third, if the pupil falls ill, the teacher must nurse him as long as his life lasts, and wait until he has recovered. During this period of his illness, the teacher is to minister to his pupil in the same way as the pupil serves him in health, down to even rising from bed early to give his pupil "the teeth cleanser and water to rinse his mouth with", getting water for the washing of his feet, etc. [*Mahāv.*, i, 26].

c22.31

**Pupil Helping Teacher.** The relations between the teacher and pupil were expected to be so intimate that the latter even tried to minister to his teacher's mental troubles. To remove his teacher's "discontent" or "indecision", the pupil would first try his own means and beguile him by religious conversation or get the help of others. The pupil was also to combat by discussion any false doctrines which the teacher might take to or to get others to do it [*ib.*, i, 25, 20–2].

c22.32

The relations of the pupil toward his teacher did not, however, transcend those toward the Order as a whole to which they both owed a common allegiance as members. Where the teacher offended gravely against the Order, the pupil was to get him duly punished by the Order, and, when the penal discipline is duly undergone, to get the Order to rehabilitate his teacher. In the case of the Order passing any unduly severe sentence, the pupil is to do what he can to get it modified, mitigated, or nullified by arguing with the Order on the one hand, and seeing that the teacher "may behave himself properly, live modestly, and aspire to get clear of his penance that the Order may revoke its sentence".

c22.33

**Expulsion.** There were also rules for the expulsion of a pupil by his teacher. "In five cases a Saddhivihārika ought to be turned away: when he does not feel great affection for his Upajjhāya, nor great inclination towards him, nor much shame, nor great reverence, nor great devotion" [ib., i, 27, 6].

c22.34

**Termination of Studentship.** There are again enumerated five cases of cessation of a nissaya between the Upajjhāya and Saddhivihārika or the Āchāriya and Antevāsika, viz. when the teacher "is gone away, or has returned to the world, or has died or is gone over to a schismatic faction or when he gives order to the pupil to separate" under rules of expulsion stated above [ib., i, 36].

c22.35

**Qualifications of a Teacher.** The duties of the teacher point to the qualifications required of him. Without these a monk was not entitled "to give a *nissaya*" or "ordain a novice". These are exhaustively enumerated [*Mahāvagga*, i, 36]. He must be well up "in what belongs to moral practices, self-concentration, wisdom, emancipation, and the knowledge and insight thereto"; must be "able to help others to full perfection" in these; must be "believing ('not guilty of heresy'), modest, fearful of sinning, strenuous, of ready memory, not guilty of transgressions in morals or conduct, not uneducated or foolish"; and must be "able to train a pupil in the precepts of proper conduct, to educate him in the elements of morality, to instruct him in what pertains to the Dhamma, to instruct him in what pertains to the Vinaya, to discuss or to make another discuss according to the Dhamma a false doctrine that might arise"; and so forth [ib.].

c22.36

**Number of Pupils.** Regarding the number of pupils a teacher could entertain, we have the following direction: "I allow, O Bhikkhus, a learned, competent Bhikkhu to ordain two novices or to ordain as many novices as he is able to administer exhortation and instruction to" [ib., i, 55].

c22.37

**Residential Schools or Vihāras.** The unit of the Buddhist educational system was thus this group of young Bhikkhus or monks living under the guardianship of a common teacher, the Upajjhāya or Āchāriya, who was individually responsible for their health and studies, manners and morals, their spiritual progress. We have already discussed the methods by which each such individual group or knot of a teacher and his pupils was organized, and the relations and regulations which obtained within the limits of each group. But these groups or schools were not always existing as isolated and independent units or institutions in the Buddhist world, as they did so largely in the Brahmanical world of culture. They federated themselves into a larger unit called the Vihāra or monastery. Thus we have to view them as parts of that larger organization and in their relations to its general, collective life which developed its own code of discipline and regulations binding upon all. While Brahmanical culture depended upon the system of individual schools and ideal successions of teachers and disciples, the Buddhist culture was the product of confederations of such schools in larger monastic institutions comprising numbers of teachers and students (sometimes as many as 10,000, as at Nālandā) promoting and partaking of a wider, collective, academic life with its own advantages as an educational and educative agency and factor. We shall now describe the rules and regulations governing this larger academic life of the monastery as a seat of education and a centre of culture of the times, that collective life in which the individual life of each educational group was merged.

c22.38

**A Vihāra as a Federation of different individual groups of Students and Teachers.** Since the Monastery was a federation of individual educational groups or schools, the efficiency of its organization depended upon the 'federal' principles of administration which aimed at three distinct objects, viz. (*a*) the independence and efficiency of each constituent group of pupils bound to an individual teacher, (*b*) the adjustment of relations between the different constituent groups, and (*c*) the framing of laws governing the establishment as a whole and binding upon all its members, the teachers and the taught alike. We have already dealt with the disciplines and regulations by which the first of these objects was realized, the system of relations existing between an individual teacher and his pupils united in a common pursuit of culture. We shall now deal with the methods connected with the other two objects of the federal educational institution or a religious guild.

c22.39

**Regulation of Relations between these Groups in a Vihāra.** Special rules were called for to maintain the harmony of relations between different groups. Disciplinary steps against the novices of a group had to be taken through the head of the group, the Upajjhāya of the novices concerned. Once the Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus¹ laid a ban upon novices without the consent of their Upajjhāyas, who, searching after and not finding them, complained, "How is it that our novices have disappeared?" and on being told the cause of their disappearance protested, "How can the Chhabbaggiya Bhikkhus lay a ban upon our novices without having obtained our consent?" On this, the Blessed One prescribed the rule: "Let no one, O Bhikkhus, lay a ban upon novices without consent of the Upajjhāyas" [*Mahāvagga*, i, 58]. The next mischief of the Chhabbaggiya Bhikkhus was to draw the novices of senior Bhikkhus over to themselves. This dissolution of their following put their teachers, the Theras, to serious personal inconvenience and on their complaint the Blessed One ruled: "Let no one, O Bhikkhus, draw the followers of another Bhikkhu over to himself" [ib., i, 59]. Thus this rule was required to stop intrigues of the Professors of a Vihāra with students and preserve a proper standard of academic etiquette and decorum governing the delicate relations among the staff. There were, however, certain cases agreed to, on which disciplinary action against the offending novices would be in operation directly and automatically without any reference to their Upajjhāyas. The most serious of them were ten in number, comprising the following: destroying life, stealing, committing impurity, lying, drinking intoxicating liquors, defaming the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Saṁgha, holding false doctrines, and misconduct with Bhikkhunīs. These offences were to be punished by immediate expulsion of the offenders from the Order. There are enumerated five other less serious cases when a novice was directly punishable, viz. "when he is intent on the Bhikkhus receiving no alms, meeting with misfortunes, and finding no residence, when he abuses and reviles the Bhikkhus and when he causes divisions between Bhikkhus and Bhikkhus" [*Mahāv.*, i, 57, 1]. At first the novices committing these offences were punished by being forbidden entrance to the Saṁghārāma or monastery, and they retaliated by "going away, or returning to the world or going over to Titthiya schools" whereupon it was prescribed that they should be forbidden only the places "where they live or which they used to frequent" [ib., i, 57, 2].

c22.40

¹ The company of the "six Bhikkhus" with their attendants, among whom were included Paṇḍuka, Lohitaka, Assaji, and Punabbasu. They are represented throughout the *Vinaya-Piṭaka* as constantly and consistently violating the regulations or finding loopholes and exceptions not covered by them for mischief making.

c22.41

**Common Regulations binding on all Groups in a Vihāra.** We shall now proceed to consider the general rules and regulations governing the common life of a monastery to which all members were subject irrespective of their status and standing. These were naturally determined by the ends of monastic life and discipline, those supreme ends for which all other ends of life were sacrificed as being unworthy, for which the enjoyments and obligations of worldly life were renounced by persons associating themselves in a common struggle. All that was even remotely likely to affect the whole-hearted pursuit of those ends was to be rigorously and ruthlessly abjured. The gulf between the ascetic life and the worldly life was always to be kept sufficiently wide so as not to be crossed. It is, however, to be recalled that the Buddhist Order of ascetics was only one among others flourishing in its times. These Orders all agree as to the ends and the general character of the-means, the ascetic practices to be pursued towards the ends, but they must naturally differ as to the exact forms and details of those practices. Buddhist asceticism developed its own system of rules and regulations according to its particular view and definition of the ascetic life. It followed the Middle Path, avoiding the one extreme of self-indulgence and the other of self-mortification. Taking the evil of the world and life to be *dukkha*, pain or sorrow, in the ultimate analysis, Buddhism could not approve of any positive and artificial additions to the sum of life’s sufferings by the infliction of pain or disease on one’s own self or on others. The Buddhist canonical classification of mankind divided it into (1) self-tormentors or self-burners (*attantapo*), i.e. those who practise penance or *tapas*, (2) tormentors of others, such as butchers, fowlers, hunters, fishermen, thieves, executioners, gaolers, and all perpetrators of cruelties, (3) tormentors of both self and others, such as “the great functionaries who, when holding sacrificial ceremonies, perform rites involving some personal discomfort, and also have herds of animals slaughtered and keep their slaves in fear of punishment”, and (4) tormentors neither of self nor of others, such as those who have left the home and the world for the life of recluse, renouncing the cares and connections that torment the world, owning no property in animals or human beings and are thus filled with charity and compassion for all living beings and hence “become cool” (*sītabhūta*) and not in a state of burning [*Majjhima*, i, 341, 411; ii, 159; *Aṅguttara*, ii, 205; *Puggala*, 55, cited in the article on Buddhist Asceticism of Mrs. Rhys Davids in the *Encycl. of Religion and Ethics*]. The ascetics of Buddhism belonged to the fourth class of humanity. We have already referred to the turning-point in the Buddha’s life when he lost faith in the prevailing systems of uncompromising self-mortification as aid to spirituality which he condemned as a merely “bitter course of painful hardship” and was eager to find out “another path to Enlightenment”.

c22.42

This particular ascetic ideal of the mean or “middle path” between the extremes of self-indulgence and self-suppression is systematically and consistently worked out in all the details of Buddhist monastic life and discipline which may be conveniently considered in relation to the three primary requisites of human existence, viz. food, clothing, and shelter.

c22.43

**Two Bases of Monasticism: Chastity.** But before going into these details of monastic life we should have a clear idea of the two fundamental principles which mark out monastic life, apart from its details, from the ordinary layman’s life of the world. The structure of worldly life has its basis in marriage and property; that of the life monastic rests on their very opposites, viz. celibacy and poverty. One of earliest expressions of the ascetic ideal describes those following it thus: "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" *Satap. Br.*, xiv, 7, 2, 26]. To become a monk meant the dissolution of the marriage tie. "As a man whose head is cut off cannot live any longer with his trunk alone, thus a Bhikkhu who practises sexual intercourse is no Samana" [*Mahāv.*, i, 78, 2]. The texts make a monk address his forsaken wife as his quondam partner and as sister [ib., i, 78, 1; Oldenberg's *Buddha*, p. 355 n.]. Monkhood meant, indeed, a dissolution of all blood-relationships. The Buddha, after his monkhood, is addressed by his son Rāhula not as father but as Samaṇa, while his wife is hardly even recognized [*Mahāv.*, i, 54, 1–2]. The relations of the monk do not, however, necessarily disown him. From their standpoint the relationship continues and is open to the monk for resumption whenever he wants it. As has been already stated, Buddhism is indifferent to such backslidings of monks. In the *Suttavibhaṅga* [*Pār.*, i, 8, 2], a monk's longing for worldly life thus expresses itself: "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," thereby showing that his old connections, personal and material, may be resumed. A monk was also allowed, even when he has entered upon *Vassa* or residence during the rainy season, to visit his sick relations such as his parents, brother, or sister, if they desired it [*Mahāv.*, iii, 7]. He was also allowed to give robes to his father and mother if he so desired [ib., viii, 22].

c22.44.1

**Poverty: Possessions or Property not permissible to an individual Monk.** Next to the vow of chastity is that of poverty as an essential mark of monastic life. A monk must live by mendicancy and not by his property, the fetter which binds man to the world. Hence he is called a Bhikshu, Bhikkhu, beggar. The Bhikshu is known even to the *Rigveda* [x, 117]. The poor are always with us. The Rigveda enjoins the rich to support the poor as a duty. Going from home into homelessness meant the surrender of all property and embracing poverty, the superior sanctity and glories of which are very often proclaimed in the texts. "It is difficult for the man who dwells at home to live the higher life in all its fulness, in all its purity, in all its bright perfection. I wish therefore to cut off my hair and beard, to clothe myself in the orange-coloured robes, and to go forth from the household life into the houseless state." Thus declares an intending *bhikkhu* [*Mahāv*., v, 13, 1], and the declaration was the most usual one in such cases. The following passage expresses the standing attitude towards family life and property regarded as fetters holding in bondage the spirit struggling for freedom: "Wise people do not call that a strong fetter which is made of iron, wood, or hemp; passionately strong is the care for precious stones and rings, for sons and a wife" [*Dhammapada*, v, 345].

c22.44.2

We have already noticed the Interdict administered to a *Sāmaṇera* on his ordination that he must on no account receive gold and silver as presents. Violation of this Interdict was regarded as a serious offence. "Whatsoever Bhikkhu shall receive gold or silver, or get someone to receive it for him or allow it to be kept in deposit for him—that is a Pāchittiya offence involving forfeiture" [*SBE*., xiii, p. 26]. The method of procedure laid down for dealing with this offence was that the offending Bhikkhu must first surrender the treasure to the Saṁgha who would then transfer it to some *Ārāmika* or *Upāsaka* for getting in exchange honey, ghee, or oil to be the common property of the Saṁgha save the guilty Bhikkhu who would be deprived of its enjoyment. If, however, the layman does not agree to the proposed utilization of the gold and silver, he will be asked to throw them away. If he is not agreeable to either of the two proposals for disposing of the untouchable treasure, then, as a last way out of the difficulty, a Bhikkhu was to be formally appointed by the Saṁgha, distinguished for his moral pre-eminence, to be the "Bullion-remover" (*Rūpiyachhaḍḍaka*) with instructions to cast it away so as to leave no sign to indicate where it might be (*animittaṁ katvā*) [ib.]. The Saṁgha, or any member thereof, was not allowed on any pretext whatsoever to accept or seek for gold or gifts in cash. Gifts in kind alone were acceptable, but not their money values [*Mahāv*., vi, 34, 21].

c22.44.3

Thus, if a layman tendered to a Bhikkhu "the value in barter of a set of robes", it was ordained that the Bhikkhu must humbly say he could not accept "the robe-fund", but only the robes, which further must be bought only by his agent and not by himself, so that he might not have any direct contact with cash [*Pāt*., p. 23]. The regulations for Retreat during the rainy season prescribe that the Bhikkhu must remove from a place where he stumbles upon "ownerless treasure", the very sight of which was thus to be avoided! [*Mahāv.*, iii, 11, 4]. The rule regarding gold and silver was applied to some extent to a jewel. A Bhikkhu picking up a jewel or anything deemed a jewel must lay it aside "that he to whom it may belong may take it away" [*Pāt.*, p. 53]. It is this uncompromising attitude towards the encroachments of greed that kept the Saṁgha for centuries in its pristine purity, free from all earthly contamination. But the operation of the ordinance further shows that the forms or kinds of property which the individual Bhikkhu could not hold, the Saṁgha in its corporate capacity could not also hold. The contrary view is very often taken, but erroneously. The forms of property which were legitimate for the individual were alone legitimate for the Order too.

c22.45

**Possessions permitted to the Saṁgha.** In one place, indeed, we find an inventory of the various classes of goods and property which are declared to be "untransferable" to the individual monks but are always to be treated as the indivisible common property of the entire Saṁgha and "not to be disposed of either by the Saṁgha or by a company of two or three Bhikkhus (a Gaṇa) or by a single individual". The list includes the following "five things", viz. (1) A park (*Ārāma*) or the site for a park, (2) A Vihāra or the site for it, (3) A bed or a chair or a bolster or a pillow, (4) A brass vessel, jar, pot, or vase; implements like a razor, axe, hatchet, hoe, or spade, (5) Creepers, bamboos, muñja, babbaja, or common grass or clay; and (6) things made of wood or crockery [*Chullav.*, vi, 15, 2]. It is, however, clear from another passage [*Mahāv.*, viii, 27, 2] that some of these things might form part of the possessions of an individual monk on whose death they would be disposed of according to the general principle indicating the line of division between the collective property of the Saṁgha and the individual property of its members. It is, nevertheless, undeniable that the vow of poverty so rigorously enjoined upon the individual monk was not at all meant for the Saṁgha which the Buddha himself permitted to grow rich by permitting it to receive the benefactions of its lay well-wishers which flowed in an abundant stream under the Buddha's direct encouragement. The Buddha, however, dictated the forms, in which alone these gifts of property would be acceptable to the Saṁgha. Even these forms are found to cover a wide range including parks, pavilions, and lotus-ponds and buildings of various descriptions from the cave and the cell and the attic to storied houses and vihāras equipped with all appurtenances for healthful life [iii, 5, 6, ib.], and sometimes even materials for buildings [ib., iii, 8]. The Saṁgha also received property by bequests of the dead [*Chullav.*, x, ii, and *Mahāv.*, viii, 27, 5, already cited]. The Saṁgha in receipt of things too valuable for their use were permitted to barter them "in order to increase their stock of legally permissible furniture" [*Chullav.*, vi, 19, 1]. The Buddha freely permitted the dedication of all such gifts to the Saṁgha and encouraged it by pronouncing it to be very meritorious and prescribed the duty of his disciples to offer all facilities required by donors for the transfer or execution of their gifts [cf. *Mahāv.*, iii, 5]. There is, however, no evidence to show that the Order held property in the forms of slaves, horses, or live stock, or even lands for agricultural pursuits which were forbidden the Bhikkhu in the following injunction: "A monk who digs the earth or causes it to be dug is liable to punishment" [*Pāt.*, *SBE.*, xiii, p. 33], but the *Mahāvagga*¹ [vi, 39] has a passage alluding to cultivation or sowing of the land belonging to the Ārāma of the Order. While the Saṁgha was thus allowed to receive property of various kinds and grow steadily rich, there was no relaxation permitted in the vow of poverty imposed upon the individual monk who could not count as his exclusive possessions more than the following eight articles viz. the three robes (to be described later), a girdle for the loins, an alms-bowl, a razor, a needle, and a water-strainer not only to remove the impurities of his drinks but also to intercept destruction of life. These are all objects for individual and exclusive and not for collective and common possession and enjoyment. This self-imposed poverty of the monk was proclaimed daily by his begging rounds.

First 46 of 49 passages. Read on

Linked texts (16)