Ancient Indian Education (Brahmanical and Buddhist) c25.35

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].