Schopen: Buddha as Businessman?

[Bankei]

There is an interesting lecture by Gregory Schopen of UCLA available on the net.

Lecture title is "Buddha as Businessman?"

http://blog.beliefnet.com/onecity/2009/ ... ssman.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mikenz66]

Audio or video can be downloaded at http://www.uctv.tv/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16444" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is interesting, with the point that it is useful to ask how the Buddha is viewed in historical documents.

However, I don't recall any mention on the Buddha giving instructions on money-lending to monks in the Pali Canon (which is what Schopen was talking about).

There is a summary here if you don't want to listen to an hour of audio:
http://www.today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/two ... 85231.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And here is some other discussion:
http://buddhism.about.com/b/2009/03/21/ ... cation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://chaplaindanny.blogspot.com/2009/ ... es-my.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Metta
Mike

[BlackBird]

Glancing over the summary, I think someone's got their facts wrong.

[gavesako]

I think Schopen uses other early Buddhist canons in his writings too, such as the Mulasarvastivada Vinaya, which has more later additions in it (and discusses money issues in particular).

[mikenz66]

Yes, Venerable, I believe that is the Vinaya that he quoted from. All kinds of tricky legal stuff about how if someone died owing money to the Sangha it had to be collected....

Now, I don't think there is anything about that in the Pali Canon. However, it is clear to even the casual observer that quite a lot of money must have gone into building various Wats all over Thailand, not to mention various newspaper articles about the finances of certain sects... So there is still this interesting tension between "homelessness" and "monuments" and it is useful to see how other Buddhist traditions dealt with this issue...

Mike

[gavesako]

Exactly. The question of patronage has never been very far from the minds of Theravada monks residing in large communities and temples. In fact, there are many references in the Vinaya commentraries as to ways of handling monastic property (such as land, animals, crops, etc.) that monks are not allowed to handle themselves but they can get a kappiya-karaka (steward, helper) to do it for them. Whether this still conforms to the Buddha's original intention is questionable of course... (as well as handling money)

[mikenz66]

Apart from the particular issue of money, one of the points about this kind of analysis is that it is interesting to see how the Buddha and the Sangha was understood by people in a time when we have reasonably good historical records. As Shopen says, there are many different Buddhas in these various times and places.

And whether or not any of these historical views conforms with our image of the Buddha and Sangha from the point of view of a practising Buddhist is not really the issue. Or, rather, it is a completely separate issue. I think that it is easy to get confused about this point, and miss that historical analysis is quite a different thing from practise.

Mike

[Indrajala]

Exactly. The question of patronage has never been very far from the minds of Theravada monks residing in large communities and temples.

It would seem the overwhelming concern of most Vinaya literature has been keeping up an image of purity and discipline in the face of benefactors who demand their field of merit is free of weeds, rather than strictly discussing core ethics and sangha management. The material basically isn't soteriological in function, but rather driven by worldly concerns. In other words, much of the Vinaya canon is arguably less about liberation and more about keeping up appearances to keep the offerings coming in. Bear in mind Buddhists were competing with other śramaṇa groups, most notably the Jains who sold a better image of purity than any Buddhist bhikṣu could.

Most of the Vinaya literature I've read (most of it Chinese translations of Indian material) has led me to conclude that the Vinaya(s) as we have them are a product of landed monastics with very worldly concerns and aims. As we know, sometime around the 1st century BCE or a bit later, there was a large movement towards landed monasticism in India, probably for sociopolitical reasons (the mendicant tradition was increasing difficult to maintain in the face of increasing taboos towards such folk). Buddhist institutions became favored by the merchant class and started functioning as financial institutions, providing storage facilities and banking services, much to the displeasure of Brahman communities which would later lament the growth of merchants as a symptom of the kaliyuga. Enormous levels of trade with Rome and China until around the early 3rd century made Buddhist communities quite wealthy, though such fortunes reversed as Rome and the Han Dynasty collapsed, which is clear from the archaeological record. In any case, this was the formative period for Vinaya literature.

I believe if one wants to discern the original house rules of the Buddha's sangha, we can look to what the śramaṇa communities in general practiced in Magadha: celibacy, non-violence, mendicancy, etc.

In fact, there are many references in the Vinaya commentraries as to ways of handling monastic property (such as land, animals, crops, etc.) that monks are not allowed to handle themselves but they can get a kappiya-karaka (steward, helper) to do it for them. Whether this still conforms to the Buddha's original intention is questionable of course... (as well as handling money)

If someone wants to give you money, you can apparently blindfold a trustworthy layman and lead him to a secret place where he can deposit the money before leading him out.

I imagine the benefactor would be pleased with how the monk is so non-attached to money and pure in his vows.

[santa100]

Bankei wrote: There is an interesting lecture by Gregory Schopen of UCLA available on the net.

Lecture title is "Buddha as Businessman?"

Ven. Sujato also wrote an interesting analysis called The Ironic Assumptions of Gregory Schopen on his blog at http://sujato.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/ ... y-schopen/

[daverupa]

historical analysis is quite a different thing from practise.

Not really; the stories we tell ourselves about the Triple Gem and their contexts are examples of the histories we repeatedly engage with in our practices. This is even what the Nikayas are - certain sorts of histories, and the stories we tell about them and, perhaps more importantly, about their meanings, are quite central to our practical concerns.

A choice to engage with historical scholarship is therefore a component of practice, as is a choice to not engage.

[Dhammanando]

If someone wants to give you money, you can apparently blindfold a trustworthy layman and lead him to a secret place where he can deposit the money before leading him out.

Where is it stated that this can be done? Are you referring to some deviant folk practice or to something authorised in the Pali Vinaya texts?

The only thing remotely like this that I've come across is not related to accepting money, but to the procedure for getting rid of money that a bhikkhu has accepted and then forfeited.

• If [the trustworthy layman] does not get rid of it, they are to choose one of the bhikkhus present as the "money-disposer," by means of the transaction statement — one motion and one announcement (ñatti-dutiya-kamma) — given in Appendix VI. The money-disposer must be free of the four forms of bias — based on desire, aversion, delusion, or fear — and must know when money is properly disposed of and when it is not. His duty is to throw the money away without taking note of where it falls. If he does take note, he incurs a dukkaṭa. The Commentary recommends that, "Closing his eyes, he should throw it into a river, over a cliff, or into a jungle thicket without paying attention to where it falls, disinterested as if it were a bodily secretion (gūthaka)."
  Ven. Thanissaro, Buddhist Monastic Code ch. 7.2

[mikenz66]

historical analysis is quite a different thing from practise.

Not really; the stories we tell ourselves about the Triple Gem and their contexts are examples of the histories we repeatedly engage with in our practices. This is even what the Nikayas are - certain sorts of histories, and the stories we tell about them and, perhaps more importantly, about their meanings, are quite central to our practical concerns.

A choice to engage with historical scholarship is therefore a component of practice, as is a choice to not engage.

Historical scholarship is just one particular method of analysis, as are science or philosophy. When carried out as an intellectual exercise by not-practising scholars, such analyses are not necessarily particularly useful for elucidating Dhamma practice. I think the discussion of Scopen on this thread illustrates that. It may, of course, be helpful in the hands of some practitioners. I find it interesting, but honestly cannot think of a case where it informed my practice. Obviously, there are different opinions about the usefulness of such analysis compared to other approaches to Dhamma, such as using mostly Theravada sources, having personal instruction, and so on... I suspect most of us use some mixture, and it's a matter of emphasis rather than exclusivity.


Mike

[Indrajala]

Where is it stated that this can be done? Are you referring to some deviant folk practice or to something authorised in the Pali Vinaya texts?

This isn't from the Pali Vinaya.

Admittedly I'm not well-read in the Pali Vinaya texts. All my readings are from other Indian schools as preserved in Classical Chinese; in particular, the Sarvāstivāda school, of which there is an enormous amount of commentaries.

Not Theravāda, but then arguably Theravāda is not really the foremost representative of classical Indian Buddhism.

[Indrajala]

When carried out as an intellectual exercise by not-practising scholars, such analyses are not necessarily particularly useful for elucidating Dhamma practice. I think the discussion of Scopen on this thread illustrates that. It may, of course, be helpful in the hands of some practitioners.

It helps me sort out cultural developments from Buddhadharma and make an educated decision with respect to what is worth pursuing and what is not.

On top of that, you can witness the afflictions at work in the historical development of Buddhism, which is rather enlightening and puts all the propaganda into perspective. Power struggles, greed, intolerance and so on are far more revealing about the realities of Buddhadharma on the ground than the prescriptive descriptions given in scripture. With that in mind, you can see how fallible most Buddhists are and realize you're largely on your own when it comes to your path.

[chownah]

Power struggles, greed, intolerance and so on are far more revealing about the realities of Buddhadharma on the ground than the prescriptive descriptions given in scripture.

Isn't this like saying that the squabbling which occurs among astronomers is more revealing of the cosmos than is the papers they produce? Doesn't ring true somehow.
chownah