Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c25: Chapter XVII

Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c25

Language
English

Chapter XVII

c25.1

**Training of Monks.** It was, however, chiefly for purposes of their religious education and spiritual culture that the monks were brought together in the monasteries. We have already seen how the monastery was a kind of federation of groups of teachers and pupils, of junior monks living in dependence upon the seniors. Every Bhikkhu is expected to accept a pupil, "to provide himself with a Sāmaṇera, to give a Nissaya, and to confer the Upasampadā ordination" [*Chullav.*, i, 27]. We have also already discussed the relations that must obtain between these junior monks or pupils and their seniors or teachers, whether *upādhyāyas* or *āchāryas*. We shall now adduce further evidence on the subject as furnished by the earliest Buddhist works.

c25.2

**Parivāsa or Probation.** The Vinaya texts distinguish four principal kinds of probation for the Bhikkhus. The first of these applied when the follower of another of the reforming sects was received into the Buddhist Order. Upon such a person was imposed a Parivāsa (a probation-time) of four months. The probationer is required to submit to a strict course of discipline. He must not enter the village too early nor come back to the Vihāra too late. He must not frequent the society of objectionable persons such as harlots, widows, adult girls, eunuchs, or Bhikkhuṇīs. The probationer is to be condemned when he does not show himself "skilled in the various things his fellow Bhikkhus have to do, is not diligent, not able to consider how things are to be done, not able to do things himself, and not able to give directions to others". He is also to be condemned when he does not show keen zeal when the doctrine is preached to him, or when questions are put on the same. He is also expected to be pleased when the Buddha is praised, and not to be displeased when the sect he has deserted is criticized [*Mahāv.*, i, 38.]

c25.3

A probationary Bhikkhu, further, is not entitled to the full privileges belonging to a regular Bhikkhu. His shall be the worst seat, the worst sleeping-place, and the worst room in the hostel. He must not live on alms personally received. He is not fit for a forest life (for he always needs control and guidance). "He must always live with a regular Bhikkhu." But he must not live with Bhikkhus of communities different from his own. And while living with a regular Bhikkhu he is to observe various forms of showing honour to him [*Chullav.*, ii, 1, 2].

c25.4

**Its Restrictions.** The other three kinds of probation are of the nature of penal discipline for a certain period to be submitted to by Bhikkhus who fall under an ecclesiastical censure. We read of a stupid Bhikkhu who violated rules by living in lay society in unlawful association with the world, for which he was placed on probation under an Act of Subordination passed against him. Later on, he rehabilitated himself by correct conduct. The Act of Subordination would also be passed to punish the offences of staying too long in a public rest-house and frequenting a village on more than ordinary occasions [*Chullav.*, i, 9, 1]. Numerous, indeed, are the forbidden practices of the monks under training. They resemble those forbidden to the Brahmachārins under the Brahmanical system. They are detailed in several texts [e.g. *Chullav.*, i, 13; *Tevijja Suttanta* (Majjhima Sīlam)]. The following practices among others are forbidden: injuring plants or vegetables (whence agriculture is tabooed as an occupation of the Bhikkhu), storing up property, witnessing public spectacles (like theatrical representations, recitations, concerts, musters and reviews of troops [cf. *Pāt.*, p. 43]), engaging in games detrimental to progress in virtue, adorning bodies, indulging in mean talk (including fortune-telling), wrangling and acting as a go-between (between kings, ministers, etc.). [For agreement as to these injunctions between Brahmanical and Buddhist texts, see my *Local Government in Ancient India*, 2nd ed., Clarendon Press, pp. 65-75.]

c25.5

**Disciplinary Measures.** Sometimes, disciplinary measures have to be taken against monks offending not as individuals but as a body. Thus we are told of a Saṁgha that forfeits public support by its ill behaviour and is replaced by another Saṁgha or body of monks. An Act of Banishment is passed against the offending Saṁgha whereby they are turned out of the particular place where they had misbehaved and caused scandal but not out of the Order or Church [*Chullav.*, i, 13, 6].

c25.6

**Games and Sports.** All this discipline and restriction of monastic life left some room for its lighter side, for games and sports which have their own appeal in human nature. A list of such permissible games and sports is given in the *Chullavagga* [i, 13, 2], which mentions even dancing with ladies, besides the following: "Games with eight or ten pieces; with tossing up; hopping over diagrams formed on the ground; removing substances from a heap without shaking the remainder; games of dice and trap ball; sketching rude figures; tossing balls; blowing trumpets; having matches at ploughing with mimic ploughs; tumbling, forming mimic wind-mills; guessing at measures; chariot races; archery matches; shooting marbles with fingers; guessing other people's thoughts; mimicking other people's acts; riding elephants, horses; driving carriages; swordsmanship; wrestling; boxing with fists; and spreading robes out as a stage on which girls were invited to dance." Perhaps the most significant items in this list are those relating to dancing and acting, suggestive of the Art of the Stage. As regards the admissibility of Gambling, we must recall its Vedic origins, showing that it has figured in all ages as a national indoor game of India. It found its way even into the severe and serious atmosphere of Nālandā. Archæological excavation has found there a gaming-die, and gaming dice in Monasteries Nos. 1 and 1*a* and at other Buddhist sites, proving that the austere monks gave in to such innocent recreations [*Arch. S. R.*, 1923-4, p. 74].

c25.7

**Studies of Monks of different grades.** From the discipline of the monks under training we now pass on to their studies. The ordinary instruction of a pupil-monk seems to have comprised the "giving of recitation, holding examination, making exhortation, and explaining Dhamma" [*Chullav.*, viii, 7, 4]. We read of some Bhikkhus specializing in reciting the Dhamma, of some in propounding the Suttantas, some in the Vinaya, and of some specializing as preachers of the Dhamma [*Mahāv.*, iv, 15, 4]. The Bhikkhus as students were assigned to different classes according to their progress in studies. The lowest class seems to have been made up of students "who were repeaters of the Suttantas". The method recommended for this rote-learning was "to chant over the Suttantas to one another". The next higher class was of those students "who were in charge of the Vinaya" which they would master by discussing it with one another. To a yet higher class belonged those Bhikkhus who were training themselves up as teachers of the Dhamma. And, as part of this training, they were required to talk over the Dhamma one with another before they should preach it to others. There were, lastly, Bhikkhus of the highest classes who were given to meditation, i.e. the practice of the four *Jhānas* or meditations [for the definition of which see Rhys Davids'

c25.8

*Buddhism*, p. 176, and Mrs. Rhys Davids' *Buddhism*, pp. 199, 200]. Besides these classes of students, some Bhikkhus were distinguished and classed as Epicurians, being "wise in worldly lore and abounding in bodily vigour". All these different classes of students were separately lodged in the hostel lest their mixing up should cause disturbance to their different studies [*Chullav.*, iv, 4].

c25.9

**Cultivation of Vernacular.** Thus a community of Bhikkhus was like a school made up of different forms or classes representing different grades of talent, maturity, and progress in studies. But the Bhikkhus also differed from one another in other respects. Hailing from different parts of the country, they differed in their dialects, besides "differing in name, lineage, birth, and family". We are told of two Bhikkhu brothers who were "Brahmans by birth, excelling in speech, excelling in pronunciation" trying to reduce this confusion of tongues among Bhikkhus by a proposal to adopt Sanskrit as their common language. Said they: "The Bhikkhus corrupt the word of the Buddhas by repeating it in their own dialect. Let us, Lord, put the word of the Buddhas into Sanskrit verse (*chhandas*)." But the Buddha did not approve of the proposal, because it would not conduce to conversions but rather hinder them. Sanskrit would repel the ordinary people or masses who were to be reached through their own vernaculars. The religion of the Buddha meant for the classes as well as masses thus cultivated, and was preached through, the popular speech as distinguished from the difficult and refined language, Sanskrit, especially in its earlier form, *Chhandas* or Veda-dialect, for which the two Brāhman brothers pleaded. The Buddha with perfect wisdom ruled: "I allow you, O Bhikkhus, to learn the word of the Buddhas each in his own dialect" [*Chullav.*, v, 33, 1]. Thus Buddhism gave an impulse and impetus to the study of the vernacular dialects of the country which so much facilitated its spread to distant and different countries by means of missionaries as organized under the great emperor Asoka for instance.

c25.10

The above story indicates that Sanskrit was supplanted and superseded as a medium of instruction in the Buddhist schools by the vernacular dialects.

c25.11

**Subjects tabooed.** Along with Sanskrit were tabooed several subjects of study, viz. the Lokāyata system together with the "low arts" of divination, spells, omens, astrology, sacrifices to gods, witchcraft, and quackery [*ib.*].

c25.12

**Subjects Taught.** Thus from the evidence just cited, it is clear that the curriculum of the monks included what are termed Suttanta, Dhamma, and Vinaya, together with Suttas and Sutta-Vibhaṅga. The meanings of these terms as used in the earlier texts are different from their accepted and later meanings. Thus there is a passage in the *Pātimokkha* (p. 50) which refers to the Dhammas as being included in the Suttas, the former comprising the scheme of offences given in the *Pātimokkha*, and the latter standing for the separate clauses of that Formulary [cf. also *Chullav.*, iv, 14, 22, 23; iv, 14, 19; ix, 5, 1; *Mahāv.*, i, 36, 14; i, 37, 14]. The use of the word *Sutta* is not yet confined to the texts of what is afterwards known as the Sutta-Piṭaka. "In the oldest tradition the discourses or conversations now called *Suttas* seem not to have been called by that name, but are referred to as *Suttantas*" [*SBE.*, Vol. 13, pp. xxviii–xxx]. We read of some devout men or women well versed in reciting some well-known Suttantas [*Mahāv.*, iii, 5, 9, 12]. We also read of brethren "reciting the Dhamma, those versed in the Suttantas intoning some Suttantas together, the custodians of the Vinaya discussing the Vinaya, and the preachers of the Dhamma discoursing about the Dhamma" [ib., iv, 15, 4; *Cullav.*, iv, 4, 4; vi, 6, 2]. Lastly, as regards the term Sutta-vibhaṅga, it is used to indicate "some part of the Vinaya literature apparently distinct from the Suttas of the *Pātimokkha*. 'The Suttas have been handed down to him, but not the Suttavibhaṅga'" [*SBE.*, op. cit.].

c25.13

**Teaching mainly oral.** Education in the age of these earlier Buddhist texts was not yet depending upon written literature. This, however, does not mean that the art of writing was not developed then. It is referred to as a source of livelihood or an occupation in the *Mahāvagga* [i, 49, 1]. The *Vibhaṅga* recommends to the Bhikkhuṇīs the art of writing [*SBE.*, vol. 13, p. xxxiii], while the Sutta-Vibhaṅga in explaining another passage from the same refers to the possibility of causing the death of a person by mischievous and misleading representations in writing [*SBE.*, op. cit.]. But the evidence available does not point to the use of writing for the purpose of preserving and transmitting an extensive sacred literature. As Doctors Rhys Davids and Oldenberg point out [ib.], there is not the least trace of any reference to manuscripts in the detailed accounts which the Vinaya texts give of the whole of the personal property of the Buddhist Ārāmas and Vihāras, of which all possible items from the bigger furniture to the smallest needle are enumerated or referred to. Along with manuscripts there are no references to such accessories of writing as ink, pen, style, leaves, or other materials for writing, nor to the operations connected with the copying out of manuscripts which must have occupied a large part of the activities of the monks should they have had to do with written literature for their education. But besides this negative evidence, there is positive evidence proving the very limited use of writing in those days for purposes of education. The Bhikkhus of a certain place not knowing the *Pātimokkha*, one of them is commissioned to learn it from a neighbouring fraternity and import the knowledge [*Mahāv.*, ii, 17, 5, 6]. Similarly, we read of a lay-devotee or a Upāsaka inviting a fraternity of Bhikkhus to hear him recite an important Suttanta so that they might learn it and preserve it from oblivion [ib., iii, 5, 9]. These passages show that the system of oral tradition was as much the characteristic of Buddhist as of Brahmanical education, though the causes of its adoption might be different in the two cases. It cannot consistently be supposed of Buddhists that they considered the writing of their sacred texts as an irreverent treatment of them or a sacrilege when they were so advanced in their views or so heterodox as to prefer the popular speech to the refined and sacred Sanskrit and abolish all distinctions of caste within the pale of their fraternity. The disuse of writing was more probably due to the scarcity of any convenient practical material on which the known characters might be inscribed, as pointed out by Rhys Davids and Oldenberg [*SBE.*, op. cit.].

c25.14

**Regular and Special Teachers.** Besides the regular teachers, the Upādhyāyas and Āchāryas, arrangements were also made for the imparting of instruction by distinguished teachers who were acknowledged as authorities and specialists in their subjects. Thus Upāli was such a specialist in the Vinaya, the *Vinayadhara*: "and so many Bhikkhus, old and middle-aged and young, learnt the Vinaya from the Venerable Upāli" [*Chullav.*, vi, 13, 1]. Thus the Vinaya classes that Upāli taught were very popular and largely attended. Upāli delivered his discourses standing, out of respect for the senior monks. And the seniors heard him standing, out of respect for the subject of his discourse. The rule in such cases was for the teacher or lecturer to sit on a seat of equal height or higher, while his audience, if his seniors, might sit on seats of equal height or lower [ib.]. Listening to religious discourses as a means of instruction is also instanced in another passage which describes how Devadatta “instructed and incited and aroused and gladdened the Bhikkhus far into the night with religious discourse” and yet the Assembly was still alert and sleepless, whereupon he said to Sāriputta: “Will you, friend Sāriputta, be so good as to think of some religious discourse to address to the Bhikkhus? My back is tired and I would stretch myself a little.” Then Sāriputta discoursed on the marvels of preaching, followed by Moggallāna, who discoursed on the marvels of Iddhi [*Chullav.*, 4, 2–3]. One of the ideal Saṁghas whose seat was at the Eastern Bamboo Park made it a rule that every five days they should “spend a whole night, sitting together, in religious discourse” [*Mahāv.*, x, 4, 5].

c25.15

**Some Special Teachers.** The texts tell us of the names of some of these distinguished teachers who were known as the *Thera* (senior) Bhikkhus. They are: Sāriputta, Mahā-Moggallāna, Mahā-Kachchāna, Mahā-Koṭṭhita, Mahā-Kappina, Mahā-Chunda, Anuruddha, Revata, Upāli, Ānanda, and Rāhula. These Thera Bhikkhus are described as travelling together through the country of Kaśī [*Chullav.*, i, 18, 1]. Another passage in Vinaya [*Mahāv.*, viii, 24, 5–6] mentions the Theras, the brothers Isidāsa, and Isibhatta (at Sāvatthī), Nilavāsī, Sāṇavāsī, Gopaka, Bhagu, and Phalika-sandāna at Pāṭaliputta. The pupils of these Theras are sometimes mentioned, e.g., Kakudha, a Koliyan, the pupil of Moggallāna [*Chullav.*, vii, 2, 2].

c25.16

**Spurious Teachers.** The Vinaya mentions five kinds of false teachers who falsely give out that their “conduct, mode of livelihood, preaching of the Dhamma, system of exposition and insight arising from knowledge”, are above all reproach. Their disciples, knowing the falsity of these pretensions, are spoken of as protecting them against exposure, lest the public stop honouring them with gifts of the requisite clothing, food, lodging, and medicine for the sick, though they anticipate that “sooner or later they will become known by that which they themselves will do” [ib., vii, 2, 3].

c25.17

**Discussion as a Method of Education.** The Buddhist system of education, like the Brahmanical, lays equal stress upon the efficacy of the method of debate and discussion in Education. In fact Buddhism, being more proselytizing than Vedism or Brahminism, was more interested in the cultivation by its leaders and votaries of the powers of debate by which it could spread and win converts from other religions. The Buudna’s whole career of forty-five years of ministry was practically a continuous

c25.19

A MUTTRA SCULPTURE (*c.* first century B.C.)

c25.20

Showing an Assembly of monks seated in three rows and addressed by their leader standing, with a parasol in his left hand indicating his rank (pre-Gandhāra).

c25.22

round of debates and discussions with the exponents of other Schools of Thought or answering of questions put to him at the Assemblies of his own disciples. The canonical Buddhist Texts are full of references to the conversions of the Buddha, following his delivery of a discourse. Indian religion had already then, as we have seen, split up into any number of Schools and Sects whose followers, organized into ascetic brotherhoods like the Buddhists, were constantly meeting at Assemblies for discussions of their different doctrines. The *Sutta Nipāta* (382) characterizes these Brāhmaṇa ascetics, *Parivrājakas*, as *Vādaśīla*, disputatious, *Vitaṇḍas*, and *Lokāyatas*, sophists, casuists, and materialists. There are many instances recorded in Buddhist Texts of the leaders of Brahmanical ascetic sects meeting the Buddha at discussions. Similarly, Jainism also had to take its part in the religious disputations of the day. We read how the followers of Pārśva led by Keśī had a fateful discussion with those of Mahāvīra under Gautama in the Park called Tinduka at Śrāvastī, as a result of which Jainism divided into two sects. There were similar controversies between the followers of Mahāvīra and Gosāla, followed by a similar schism.

c25.23

The places of such important discussions which marked cultural and religious life in those days were public halls which are called in Pāli texts *Santhāgāras* or *Samayappavādaka-śālās*. They also mention some places where such discussions actually took place: the Hall in Queen Mallikā's park at Śrāvastī for "discussion of different systems of opinion"; the Gabled Pavilion erected by the Lichchhavis in the Mahāvana outside Vaiśālī; the sweet-smelling Champaka grove on the lake of Queen Gaggarā at Champā; or the Moranivāpa (where peacocks were fed) at Rājagṛiha, a Parivrājaka centre under Sakuladāyī [see my *Hindu Civilization*, pp. 218–224].

c25.24

Buddhist literature throws considerable light on the rules for the conduct of such discussions and proceedings of the *Saṁgha*. The earliest work describing the methods of disputation is the *Kathāvatthu* [i, 1–69] of Asoka's time. The *Chullavagga* gives an elaborate account of the working of *Saṁghas* as democratic parliamentary assemblies [ib., pp. 209–216]. We may only refer here to a special treatise on the subject of debate, *Sapta-daśa-bhūmi-śāstra-yogāchārya* of Maitreya of about A.D. 400, which was translated into Chinese in A.D. 646 and was known to the great Asaṅga at Ayodhyā [Watters' *Yuan Chwang*, I, 355–6]. The fifteenth volume of this important work is a treatise or the art of debate in seven chapters. The first chapter defines the *subject* of debate which must be a useful one. It rules out useless subjects. The second chapter defines the *place* of debate which should be an assembly of scholars, the palace of a King, or the office of a Minister, or the Parishad. The third chapter points out the *means* of Debate. The Thesis to be proved (*sādhya*) depends on eight kinds of proof, viz. (1) *Siddhānta*, conclusion, (2) *Hetu*, reason; (3) *Udāharaṇa*, example; (4) *Sādharmya*, affirmative example; (5) *Vaidharmya*, negative example; (6) *Pratyaksha*, perception; (7) *Anumāna* inference; and (8) *Āgama*, scripture. The fourth chapter lays down the qualification of the debaters. They must be acquainted with each other's scriptures; should be able to speak continuously without a break and intelligibly; and should speak in harmony, sometimes soft, and sometimes loud, to please their audience. The fifth chapter mentions the points of defeat (*nigrahasthāna*), viz. (1) opposing a proposition and then speaking in agreement with it; (2) leaving the subject started and introducing another; (3) talking irrelevantly (*atīta-vākya*). The next chapter discusses the fitness of the debate by its subject, place, or audience. The seventh chapter recommends self-confidence in the debater.

c25.25

It will thus appear that Buddhist Education made dialectic skill and ability in argumentation a most important part of intellectual equipment essential to leadership.

c25.26

**Learned Meetings.** Another agency of education, especially moral education, furnished by monastic life, was the institution of the periodical gatherings of the monks from different monasteries in religious congregations for purposes of confessions of sins twice in the month, at full moon and at new moon. These meetings helped the monks to transcend the limitations of life in individual monasteries in a larger public life and brotherhood. It was ordained that the monks of a district must assemble to celebrate the fast day of the Vedic cultus by a confessional meeting. The meeting was to be convened by the seniors among the monks. The complete fraternity must be present at the meeting. The completeness was in relation to the diocese, which was defined as extending as far as one residence, the landmarks of which were determined by mountain, tree, rock, wood, path, anthill, a sheet of water and a river, but not up to its opposite bank, unless there was provision for regular communication by a ferry boat or a dyke. The place or the hall of the confessional gathering had also to be fixed and proclaimed beforehand. It might be one or other of the five types of building legitimate for monks, as explained above. The Saṁgha as a body by a Resolution must fix the place of the meeting, which must be duly announced, so that members might be cognizant of it. In the meeting, the Theras must assemble first. They must get the young Bhikkhus who are residents of that place to sweep it beforehand, prepare seats, light lamps, and provide for drink and food. The meeting must be attended by every member of the fraternity. If a member is sick, he must send a declaration of his innocence before the assembled Chapter through another Bhikkhu. Otherwise he must be carried on his bed or chair to the Assembly, or, if he is too ill, the Assembly must go to him and hold their meeting so as to secure his attendance. The exemption from attendance was granted only to a member who had turned mad. The confession was not common or collective, but individual. The common offence of the whole Saṁgha was to be confessed before the guiltless Bhikkhu of another diocese [*Mahāv.*, ii].

c25.27

Next to these half-monthly confessional meetings was the yearly recurring ceremony of Pavāraṇa or Invitation to be initiated with the following words: "I invite the Saṁgha to charge me with any offence they think me guilty of, which they have seen or heard of, or which they suspect during the period of Vassa" [*Mahāv.*, iv, 2, 1].

c25.28

**The Buddha's Daily Life as the Standard for Monks.** The Buddha's daily life, which may be taken as setting the standard to which that of all Bhikkhus must approximate, has been described in Buddhaghosa's commentary on the first of the Dialogues of Gotama. "He rose early in the morning (i.e. about 5 a.m.) and, out of consideration for his personal attendant, was wont to wash and dress himself, without calling for any assistance. Then, till it was time to go on his round for alms, he would retire to a solitary place and meditate. When that time arrived, he would dress himself completely in the three robes, take his bowl in his hand and, sometimes alone, and sometimes attended by his followers, would enter the neighbouring village or town for alms. Then the people understanding that 'to-day it is the Blessed One has come for alms' would vie with one another, saying: 'To-day, Sir, take your meal with us; we will make provision for ten, and we for twenty, and we for a hundred of your followers.' So saying, they would take his bowl, and, spreading mats for him, and his attendant followers, would await the moment when the meal was over. Then would the Blessed One, when the meal was done, discourse to them, with due regard to their capacity for spiritual things, in such a way that some would take the layman's vow, and some would enter on the paths, and some would reach the highest fruit thereof. This done, he would arise from his seat and depart to the place where he had lodged. And when he had come there, he would sit in the open verandah, awaiting the time when the rest of his followers should also have finished their meal. And when his attendant announced that they had done so, he would enter his private apartment. Thus was he occupied up to the midday meal. Then afterwards, standing at the door of his chamber, he would exhort the congregation of brethren into strenuous efforts after the higher life. Then would some of them ask him to suggest a subject for meditation suitable to the spiritual capacity of each, and when he had done so, they would retire each to the solitary place he was wont to frequent, and meditate on the subject set. Then would the Blessed One retire within the private chamber for short rest during the heat of the day. Then, when his body was rested, he would arise from the couch, and for a space consider the circumstances of the people near, that he might do them good. And, at the fall of the day, the folk from the neighbouring villages or town would gather together at the place where he was lodging, and to them, seated in the lecture hall, would he, in a manner suitable to the occasion and to their beliefs, discourse on the Truth. Then, seeing that the proper time had come, he would dismiss the folk. Thus was he occupied in the afternoon. Then, at close of the day, should he feel to need the refreshment of a bath, he would bathe, the while some brother of the Order, attendant on him, would prepare the divan in the chamber perfumed with flowers. And in the evening, he would sit awhile alone, still in all his robes, till the brethren returned from their meditations began to assemble. Then some would ask him questions on things that puzzle them, some would speak of their meditations, some would ask for an exposition of the Truth. Thus would the first watch of the night pass, as the Blessed One satisfied the desire of each and then they would take their leave. And part of the rest of the night would he spend in meditation, walking up and down outside his chamber; and part he would rest, lying down, calm, and self-possessed, within" [Adapted from translation of Rhys Davids, *Buddhism* (American Lectures), pp. 108–112].

c25.29

**Monks seeking solitude of forests for meditation.** Up to now we have been considering the system under which the monks live together in a state of mutual dependence and relationship for purposes of their self-culture. But the Quest of the Ideal which leads these monks out of home into homelessness would not make some of them accept the half-way house of a monastery, but seek the solitude of the forest for a life of meditation. "Many of the Order, unfitted for taking part, even as teachers, in the battle of life, spent all their days in seclusion, being known as forester Bhikkhus. Others sought the silence of the upland woods and caves to complete the utter mastery of detachment, requisite to usher in the cool and peace of Nibbāna, or to recruit from wearing mission work" [Mrs. Rhys Davids, *Buddhism*, p. 204]. It was, however, the elderly and maturer Bhikkhus who were eligible for the forester's life, as has been already stated. The Buddha himself would sometimes seek in solitude a respite from the worries caused by "litigious, contentious, quarrelsome, and disputatious Bhikkhus" and like the tusker would "take delight in dwelling alone in the forest" [*Mahāv.*, x, 4, 7]. We read of the Venerable Bhaddiya living "in the forest, at the foot of a tree, in solitude, but without fear or anxiety, with mind as peaceful as an antelope's" [*Chullav.*, vii, 1, 6]. Another monk, Kassapagotta, lived alone at Vāsabha-gāma in Kāsī, where he was visited by some Bhikkhus whom he entertained as guests on proceeds of his begging for several days till their travel-weariness was over [*Mahāv.*, ix, 1]. We are also told of another monk keeping Vassa alone, receiving robes and dividing them among incoming monks not exceeding four in number [ib., viii, 24]. Life in solitude was sustained by a love of it for its own sake which utters itself significantly in Buddhist literature. This point has been well brought out by Mrs. Rhys Davids [*Buddhism*, pp. 205 f.]. "It is pleasant to see how largely the joy of life in the wild (generally supposed to be a phase of modern consciousness only) gets blended with the spiritual aspirations. We see the solitary as a lover of the heights—were they not 'clean and pure', 'lonely and free from crowds', 'a hiding place and type of the lofty thoughts of great minds? [*Mil. Pan.*, ii, p. 353: 'On the Alpine qualities of a Bhikkhu']. We see him 'become in heart a wild creature', filled with the forest sense of things (*arañña-saññin*), bathing in mountain tarn, listening in his cave to the music of the rains and to the crash of the storm, joying in the beauty of crag and cloud, of verdure and blossom, of bird-life and the cries of forest-creatures." We may sample this early Wordsworthian note in some typical passages cited by Mrs. Rhys Davids from the *Psalms of the Brothers and Sisters*. "To him for whom nothing is left, exceeding good it is that he do live in woods alone . . . to lead the forest-life the Buddha praised . . . I'll seek the jungle that I love, the haunt of elephants . . . lone and unmated in the lovely woods." Again: under the lowering sky and thundering clouds "the brother sits within the hollow of the hills alone, rapt in thought's ecstasy—no higher bliss is given to men than this". Dhammapāla's commentary on these poems gives biographical details of each Brother's life. One Thera who loved the woods was, we learn, known as Woodland (Vana)-Vachchha. Of another Thera, Usabha, we read: "Finishing his novitiate he went to study in the forests of Kosala at the foot of the mountains. Noticing the loveliness of the woods and the mountains, he said: 'These trees and creepers are unconscious, yet by the season's fulfilment have they won growth. Why should not I, who have also obtained a suitable season, win growth in the things that are good?'"

c25.30

As Oldenberg points out [*Buddha*, p. 367*n*], "the comparative estimation of solitude and of life with others could naturally be only a purely personal matter, and so it appears in the sacred texts. Sometimes we read expressions like these: 'Let him seek out remote places, therein to dwell; there let him walk that he may become free from all bands. If he does not find peace there, let him live in the Order, guarding his soul from sins with wakeful spirit' [*Saṁy. N.*, quoted in the *Mil. Pañ.*, p. 402]. And then it is said again: 'If he finds a wise associate, a noble comrade of upright walk, then let him live with him, overcoming all temptation. If he does not find one, then let him go forth alone, as a king who abandons his conquered kingdom, like the elephant into the forest'" [*Dhammapada*, 328, seq.]

c25.31

**Buddhist limitations to solitary life.** The fact of the matter is that even among Bhikkhus who live in the solitude of the woods, it is very unusual for them to live absolutely alone without having other Bhikkhus in the neighbourhood. "The provisions of the laws of the Order are wholly based on the supposition that small knots of brethren living near each other come together, who depend on each other to unite for confession, to instruct one another, to strengthen one another in doubt and temptation, to care for one another in sickness, and to keep up spiritual discipline among themselves. For,' says the old confessional formula, 'the band of the disciples of the Exalted One is so bound together that one exhorts the other and one stabilishes the other'" [ib., p. 364]. But besides the need of attending confessional meetings, the solitude of the Bhikkhus living in forests was further limited by the needs of life itself. They had to live sufficiently close to a village to be able to reach it on their daily begging rounds [*Chullav.*, viii, 6]. We have already noticed the case of a Bhikkhu living in the forest being visited by guests whom he fed by begging for alms. We have also referred to the size of the standard hut for the dwelling of the solitary Bhikkhu and the need of its site being free from the dangers of forest life, although it must be "in solitude and quiet where the wild beasts have their dwelling and the gazelles" (quoted in Oldenberg's *Buddha*, p. 360 n.).

c25.32

Thus the Buddhists, as in other matters, followed the middle path even in regard to the solitary life. The limitations upon the seclusion of the solitary Bhikkhus are clearly indicated in the very rule of conduct prescribed for them [*Chullav.*, viii, 6] A Bhikkhu "dwelling in the woods" "should rise betimes, place his *bowl* in the *bag*, hang it over his shoulder, arrange his *upper robe* (over both shoulders), get on his *sandals*, put the *utensils* of wood and earthenware in order, close the *doorway* and *lattice*, and then leave his lodging-place". This shows how he must be tied to the neighbourhood of the haunts of humanity and to other material articles (indicated by the italicized words) for the support of his life. Nay, it is not unoften that he has to expect and entertain visitors, and so it is ordained that "a Bhikkhu living in the woods should keep drinking-water, and water for washing, and fire, and drill sticks and tinder, and walking staves ready" [ib.].

c25.33

**Features of difference between Buddhist and Brahmanical Education.** We have now considered the chief features of the Buddhist Saṁgha regarded as an educational organization and shall now comment upon those which distinguish it from the Brahmanical system of educational organization. We have already remarked that the Brahmanical system was predominantly what may be called the domestic system of education under which the individual teacher's home was the school of the young admitted to it as pupils. The influence of the home was installed as an indispensable educational factor, though it was the home not of the natural but the spiritual parents of the pupil. Under the Buddhist system the home was superseded by the monastery. In fact Buddhist education begins with the destruction of domestic ties as the starting-point. The necessity of a domestic environment under the Brahmanical scheme did not thus favour the expansion of the small school under an individual teacher into a larger educational federation controlled by a collective body of teachers, as was the characteristic of the Buddhist system. The Brahmanical ideal did not permit the ‘home industry’ to be supplanted by the ‘factory’, so to speak. Smaller and larger organizations have their characteristic merits and defects in industry as well as in education. It has been well said that it was his Society rather than his Doctrine, his Saṁgha rather than his Dhamma, which, while it helped in the spread of the Buddha’s religion, also helped in its decline in India. We have already seen that while private property was abolished within the Buddhist brotherhood, the brotherhood itself came to possess vast properties and became rich enough to support larger numbers of monks. Then the brotherhood was very liberal as regards admissions to it. As observed by Rhys Davids [*Buddhism*, p. 153], “when successive kings and chiefs were allowed to endow the Society, not indeed with gold or silver, but with the necessaries’ of the monkish life (including lands and houses), it gradually ceased in great measure to be the school of virtue and the most favourable sphere of intellectual progress, and became thronged with the worthless and the idle.” The Order was an admirable solution of the problem of poverty, as Max Müller has forcibly pointed out [*Chips from a German Workshop*, vol. i, p. 442], but did not solve very well the problems for which it was brought into being. Even at the time of the very rise of the Order, we have seen how one rule after another was laid down to guard it against unworthy applicants. The Vinaya texts amply indicate how the level of physical life in the monasteries was higher than the level of average life outside them. There was no struggle for existence within the Order. The Buddhist brother lived on the charity of his brotherhood, while the brotherhood lived on the charity of the laity or the Upāsakas who supported the brotherhood as a religious duty. The Buddha himself, when once complimented for his ascetic life and love of solitude, did not accept the compliment by frankly acknowledging: “While some of my disciples affect ascetic practices, I some days eat more, or wear robes made for laymen, or accept invitations to dine, or dwell indoors, or among my fellows”

c25.34

[*Majjhima-Nikāya*, ii, 5, quoted by Mrs. Rhys Davids in her *Buddhism*, p. 203]. We have already seen how the rules of the Order were not noted for any excesses of ascetic praxis: under them "the body is to be decently draped, cleansed and massaged, regularly fed, sheltered in the rainy season, rested during the noonday heat, and medically treated when ailing" by the best physician of the country [Mrs. Rhys Davids, op. cit., p. 203]. It was no wonder that the Order which ensured such healthful physical existence should attract many undesirables. The Vinaya texts are full of interesting stories on the subject, some of which have been already referred to. When a rebellion has to be suppressed in his border provinces, the emperor Bimbisāra finds that his generals have deserted to the Order. His Officers of Justice consider that the Upādhāya of the deserters should be beheaded, the monk proposing their ordination should have his tongue torn out, and the Chapter should have half of their ribs broken [*Mahāv.*, i, 40]. The king's decree that monks should not be harmed invites robbers to seek that protection [ib., i, 41–5]. Even parents find it difficult to maintain discipline among their sons lest they fly to the Order [ib., i, 48]. The parents of Upāli, one among seventeen youths of Rājāgriha, anxious for his life of ease after their death, decide upon his monkhood as the best occupation for that purpose in preference to all other usual occupations of the times such as Writing (*Lekha*) (at which "his fingers will become sore"), Accountancy or Arithmetic (*Gaṇanā*) (at which "his breast will become diseased by too much thinking"), or Drawing (*Rūpaṁ*) (at which "his eyes will suffer") [ib., i, 49].

c25.35

Apart from the risk of the Order being swamped by the unworthy or those who seek it for motives other than religious, there were certain other features in its organization which were not very helpful educationally, and were not also conducive to the permanence of the institution. Thus, in the first place, the relationship between teacher and pupil or the control exercised by the former upon the latter under the Brahmanical system is not so deep or intimate in the Buddhist. In the monastery, among the full-fledged monks especially, all differences of rank were abolished except the respect or privilege that is naturally commanded by seniority or length of spiritual standing. The Resolutions of the Saṁgha had to be passed by the entire body in a meeting in which all members, seniors and juniors, had equal voting power. In a word, while the Brahmanical system was based on the monarchical principle, the Buddhist corresponded to the republican or democratic type. No doubt the Saṁgha was equipped with a staff of numerous office-bearers, but they did not bear any hierarchical character, and, entrusted as they were with the management of the external affairs in the life of the community, they could not claim any position of authority. The republican principle was no doubt not fully operative while the Buddha was alive and moved among his fraternities as their visible head, but even during his life-time the Saṁgha developed numerous and scattered centres controlled by the common invisible head in the Doctrine and Law declared by the Buddha. The conditions were completely changed after his death when the numerous local Saṁghas (or communities of monks sojourning in the same diocese) ceased to own the central authority of a united Saṁgha to which they would all be affiliated and subordinated. The looseness of the organization was further increased by the constant changes in the composition of the local Saṁghas themselves. The result of all this was that there was no common authority to reconcile the differences that inevitably arose among the synods, or, within the same synod, regarding doubtful points of monastic life and discipline. The Vinaya Texts are full of admonitions for the promotion of concord among the brethren and prevention of schisms, and sometimes refer actually to seditious Saṁghas, but more effective than these admonitions and references would have been some institutions which might regulate the relations between different communities and members thereof. No church can exist without Church-government and this explains, too, the future the Buddhist Church had in India [see Oldenberg's *Buddha*, pp. 337–345].

c25.36

**Women in Buddhist Education.** In concluding this account of the system of Buddhist education as organized and imparted by the monasteries or Saṁghas, we have to refer to the position accorded in it to the women. The Bhikkhus could not help coming into contact with women in their begging rounds. In Hindu households, the women had the management in their own hands and would dole out alms to beggars. We have already referred to a passage [*Chullav.*, iv, 4, 6] describing how a householder with his wife and children would receive and serve the Bhikkhus with food. Another passage [ib., viii, 5, 2] lays down the correct behaviour of the Bhikkhu towards "the woman who is giving the food". And yet the very scheme and philosophy of life proposed by Buddhism would only regard women as objects to be shunned by the religeux. It was only after the double pressure of his foster-mother, Mahāpajāpatī, and his favourite disciple, Ānanda, that the Buddha, with considerable reluctance and misgivings, consented to admit women as his disciples on their renouncing the world and householder's state [*Chullav.*, x, 1]. But the rules laid down for regulating their life betray at every step the mental and moral inferiority attributed to the other sex. They keep the nuns in a condition of complete sub-ordination to the monks. The first of the Eight Chief Rules for them ordains that "a Bhikkhunī even of a hundred years' standing" must look up to a Bhikkhu "if only just initiated" [ib.]. Under other rules, the Order of nuns could not complete any transaction unless it was confirmed by the Chapter of the monks, while, as regards the ordination of a nun, the probationary period is made as long as two years, after which the Ordination has to be sanctioned by both the Saṁghas of Nuns and Monks. Other rules enjoined strict separation between monks and nuns. A monk specially selected by the brotherhood was to impart instruction and admonition to the nuns twice every month in the presence of another monk. The discipline and duties of daily life were the same for nuns as for monks except that the solitary life was practically forbidden them.

c25.37

With all these restrictions based on the estimate of woman's worth, the Order of Nuns opened up avenues of culture and social service to the women of Buddhist India for which some of them became very distinguished. The young Church was also able to engage to a remarkable extent the sympathy and generosity of many a lay lady. The munificence of the matron Viśākhā is equalled only by that of the merchant prince Anāthapiṇḍika. Viśākhā was the head of an illustrious roll which included many other names, like Ambapālī of Vaiśalī or Suppiyā of Benares. Whatever might be his opinion on the womanhood, the Buddha was always generously responsive to the offers of hospitality and financial support proceeding from individual women of religious zeal.

c25.38

But besides producing some remarkable characters among the laity of the other sex, Buddhism produced numerous remark-able women within its own fold, who played a prominent part as leaders of thought in that religious reformation. The Order of Nuns was the training-ground of these women. We have unfortunately hardly any information in the sacred works, giving details of the actual training they had in the nunneries.

c25.39

That some of the nuns qualified themselves in the knowledge of the sacred texts so far as to be accepted as the teachers of other junior nuns is evident from a passage in the *Chullavagga* [x, 8], which mentions that a Bhikkhuṇī was the pupil of the Bhikkhuṇī Uppalavaṇṇā. Regarding their studies, the same passage informs us that the Bhikkhuṇī "followed the Blessed One for seven years, learning the Vinaya, but she, being forgetful, lost it as fast as she received it". It was then ordained that Bhikkhus should teach the Vinaya to Bhikkhuṇīs.

c25.40

**Some Women Leaders of Buddhism.** We shall now proceed to give a notice of some of the most distinguished nuns who took a prominent part in the work of the early Buddhist Reformation and Church. In the commentary called *Manorathapūraṇī* of Buddhaghosha in *Aṅguttara Nikāya* there is an interesting chapter concerning those ladies whom the Buddha regarded as his chief disciples. Among them are to be noticed several who entered the Order and were known as *Therīs*. Thirteen such *Therīs* are specially mentioned by the Buddha for their merit. The most distinguished of them was Dhammadinnā. Her husband, resolving to renounce the world in the interests of his spiritual life, offered her as much treasure as she desired in taking her leave. The offer was proudly rejected by her. She herself took to the religious life and in due time became fit to be a teacher of the Doctrine. The commentator then describes how the tables were turned when her husband sought spiritual wisdom from his wife who solved all difficult metaphysical questions with the ease of 'one who severs the stalk of a lotus with the sword'. Further information regarding these women leaders of the Buddhist Reformation is given in the commentary of Dharmapāla on the *Therī-Gāthā* which is believed to be the collection of verses of the women who were the first to join the Buddha's Order in his very life-time. We have already seen how it was the piety and persistence of Mahāpajāpatī, the sister of the Buddha's mother, that overcame his opposition and secured for deserving women the right of entry into the Order and religious life. She entered the Order with a following of 500 other Śākya ladies and constituted with them the Order of Nuns that was hardly inferior to that of Monks in piety and learning. This nucleus of the Order was formed of members representing different classes and ranks of society. Thus one such member was Somā, daughter of King Bimbisāra's chaplain, converted by the Buddha at the gate of Rājagṛiha. She embraced the Order not as a means of escape from the ills of life, but out of deliberate preference for its inherent ideals. Anupamā, peerless, so named for her unrivalled beauty, daughter of wealthy parents, with no want of suitors courting her, "cutting off the glory of her hair, entered on the lonely paths of life and wandered forth to lose the sense of home," is another example of self-sacrifice among the aristocratic womanhood. Low life also made its contributions to the Order. The wives of a poor straw-plaiter and basket-maker and of a crook-backed Brāhman took orders to escape from their hard lot; "from three crooked things, from pestle and mortar and my crook-backed lord," as one *Gāthā* puts it. Such members of the Order as Queen Khemā, and Sujātā, the wife of a wealthy citizen, are examples of the quest of the ideal for its own sake, renouncing happy conditions of life. A curious example is that of Chāpā who, by her conduct, drove her husband to be a monk, till she herself, chastened by the separation, followed her husband and joined the Order. The Order counted among its members some bereaved mothers, the loss of whose sons made them renounce the world and seek peace in religion. The most distinguished of such is Kisā Gotamī. The story goes how she approached the Blessed One for medicine that would restore life to the dead child she carried in her arms. The Buddha bade her fetch a little white mustard from a family of which no member had ever died. Thus she was consoled by the realization that what afflicted her afflicted all. She was subsequently known for her progress in virtue and philosophical learning which made the Buddha appoint her as the superintendent of the Convent at Jetavana. The beautiful Sundarī, a rich heiress, lost all interest in life and the world on her brother's death and joined the Order, renouncing "her great inheritance of Benares"

First 38 of 43 passages. Read on

Linked texts (14)