Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c22.44

Language: English

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.