Early Vinaya History

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Early Vinaya History

Postby Jos » Tue Aug 10, 2010 11:35 am

First of all I would like to say that I am a practitioner in the Theravada tradition, quite engaged since a few years. But I also have a natural kind of “free spirit” which doesn’t believe easily, or I should say doesn’t believe at all... In general I can have faith for some time, but until the mind begins to know what is happening, then investigation starts… So these days, since a few months actually, I have been looking into the historical aspect of my tradition, and here are some extracts from one of my readings. The chosen passages are about the origin and development of the monastic regulations, the Vinaya (for those interested in getting to know more about the context in India in the 6th century B.C. I recommend “Buddhist India”, by T.H. Rhys Davis).

Now the study in question and the extracts are from “Early Buddhist Monachism”, by Sukumar Dutt. An historian whose theory is that it took something like 150 years to establish the monastic code.

(In Chapter III : The Sangha and the Patimokkha)

The Parivrajaka, the “wandering man of religion”, was absolved by his vow of renunciation from all social and domestic ties. But even for a professed recluse and solitary, the deep-seated gregarious instinct of man is perhaps difficult to abjure. So among primitive Parivrajakas, sects and parties formed themselves. Groups called Sanghas and Ganas, each recognizing the leadership of a spiritual head, abounded among them. The story of Sanjaya as related in Mahavagga (1, 23), is an illustration of this point [Sanjaya was the teacher of 250 disciples, including Sariputta and Mogallana before they went under the Buddha’s guidance].
(…)

Among the Parivrajakas, as it appears from this, there were founders and leaders of sects who had organised bodies of followers recognizing their leadership. Six of them are frequently referred to in the Pali books as Sanghi Gani Ganacariyo (See Samannaphala sutta). One who had left the household state would seek to be a convert to a sect-leader, a Ganacariya (udissa pabbajito), recognizing him as his master (Sattha) and accepting his doctrines (Dhammam).
(…)

Like other great teachers of his time, the Buddha was the founder of a sect in the Parivrajaka community. Many of his followers were formally initiated into this sect, recognizing the Buddha as their Sattha and accepting his Dhamma by the rite called Upasampada [the “ehi bhikkhu” formula in the suttas]. The Pali scriptures represent him accompanied in his peregrinations with a great multitude of them, and this body of followers is styled by the leader himself as Catuddisa Bhikkhu Sangha (Bhikkhu Sangha of the Four Quarters).
In the Vinayapitaka, however, the “Sangha of Bhikkhus of the Four Quarters” is called by outsiders Sakyaputtiya Samanas. The Buddha himself was called Sakyaputta. But in what relation he stood to these Sakyaputtiya Samanas, the original body of his followers, is somewhat uncertain. We are confronted with the inevitable question whether they constituted a mere Sect (“a religious following; adherence to a particular teacher or faith” Oxford New English Dictionary), a Gana or Sangha in its original sectarian sense, or an Order (“a body or society of persons living by common consent under the same religious, moral or social regulation or discipline; a monastic society or fraternity” Oxford New English Dictionary).

In other words, the question is: was there merely a community of faith and spiritual allegiance among them, or was there any external bond of union, e.g. a distinguishing sign, or the common observance of distinctive rites, or any special body of regula, etc.? The distinction between a Sect and an Order is of the broadest, and the loose use of these two terms has often led to some confusion regarding the character of the original body of the Buddha’s followers.
The Sakyaputtiya Samanas constituted, as we have seen, one of the several Sanghas or Ganas into which the Parivrajaka community of northern India of the sixth century B.C. was divided. In the Buddhist Sangha there was no doubt the bound of a common Dhamma, a body of cardinal doctrines, categorized later in the Nikayas, summed up in the Mahaparinibbana sutta and included later in the category of the Bodhapakkiya Dhamma. But this Dhamma that bound together the Sangha, of which the Buddha was the Sattha (teacher), was not mere philosophy or creed: it had a practical ethical bearing stressed in the Samannaphala sutta and elsewhere. Rules of moral conduct are associated with the faith. But a review of them would show that these were not rules intended to serve as distinctive rules for a religious order. They relate to right conduct generally as understood by the Parivrajakas and analogous rules occur even in St. Benedict’s Instruments of Good Works. In these rules there is the lack of the distinctive Buddhist stamp that marks and individualizes the statement of the Buddhist faith. In the primitive Buddhist community, while the Dhamma was the special “dhamma” of a particular Sangha propounded by a Sattha, the Vinaya was not of this character; it was not the special Vinaya of a particular Order, but one of broad general application.
(…)

It is only in the Dhammika sutta in the sutta Nipata that we find the first tentative approach to the formulation of a body of rules for the order. The rules contained in this sutta are not a redaction from the Vinayapitaka: they are broad and general, but apply specifically to the conduct of a Buddhist bhikkhu.
The next step in the evolution of Vinaya must have been to give a binding character and authority to the rules by adopting them as the regula of the Buddhist Order, and I am inclined to think that this step was taken at the conference of monks, which goes under the name of the ‘First Council’. Perhaps it was at the same gathering, which is called Vinaya-sangiti in the canon, that the theory of the promulgation by the Buddha himself of each of the rules adopted by the monks was accepted. Each new rule adopted afterwards was covered by the same theory.
Until the time when the Vinayapitaka was finally drawn up – probably about a century after the passing of the Buddha – the rules of the Order were not a closed book: they were in process of growth. Among the Parivrajaka of the age certain rules of right conduct called silas were recognised. The condition of religious mendicancy itself connoted certain practices and abstinences. (…) The followers of the great Teacher obeyed these rules of Parivrajaka life, as presumably did the other Parivralakas. The beginnings of Buddhist Vinaya must have been made in this way – adopting fundamental rules of Parivrajaka life as the basic regula of the Order. For example, we find the cattari akaraniyani (Maha., 1, 78), a list of “four acts not to be done by a bhikkhu”, supposed to have been the Buddha’s injunction, but necessarily involved in the acceptance of the religious life of a Parivrajaka, enacted as the four parajika dhamma in the Patimokkha, becoming thereby part of the law of the Buddhist Order. It is highly probable that a settlement of the Buddhist Vinaya was made in this way, and not in the manner as reported in the canon as the so-called First Buddhist Council.
The character of the First Council has been much obscured by later traditions. The account of the proceedings has little historical value.
(…)

The only clue to the chronology of the Vinayapitaka is afforded by the account of the Council of Vesali given in the 12th khanadaka of the Cullavagga. If we accept the argument of Oldenberg and Rhys Davids, this ‘Council’ must be dated about the middle of the fourth century B.C., and the compilation of a complete body of Vinaya rules not much earlier than that date. But though the Vinayapitaka, in the form in which it has come down to us, shows more or less symmetrical plan and design, and points unmistakably to a final diaskeuasis which have been a little earlier than the Council of Vesali, its contents are by no means the work of an era or even an age. They consist in fact, as I expect to show presently, of much earlier and much later materials welded together by a theory. When these are rightly interpreted and arranged in their proper sequence, they will afford us evidence of a process of growth and development, of an evolution in Buddhist monarchism as reflected in the Vinayapitaka.
(…)

It is unhistorical to presume that the entire corpus of the laws of the Vinayapitaka was drawn up at one time. From the beginning we hear of persons in the Buddhist Sangha, called Vinaya-dharas, who concerned themselves with the study and exposition of the rules of Vinaya. The existence of such professors was the surest guarantee for conservation and consolidation of these laws from generation to generation among Buddhist Bhikkus. A final diaskeuasis must have been made shortly before the Council of Vesali, for the lawyer-like manner in which the moot-points were sought to be decided there presupposes the existence of a complete code, susceptible no longer to addition or alteration. But this code which the Vinayapitaka represents was the result of a gradual process of accumulation, probably over a century and a half, and of conservation and consolidation of the laws, so that in the final redaction earlier materials were mixed up with later. Laws which had grown obsolete were retained in the process, those which had become partially unsuitable were amplified and extended in their application, new ones came into existence, either through longstanding custom becoming self-conscious, or by common consent, being necessitated by new conditions of monastic life.
Instances of the retention of obsolete laws in the corpus and the development of new laws introduced into it later abound in Vinayapitaka.
(…)

Some rules of the Patimokkha (e.g. pacittiya, 69, 73) assume the existence of forms of procedure which are nowhere found in the Patimokkha itself, but in Cullavagga, I. In pacittiya, 69, for example, occurs the phrase akatanudhammena (“not dealt with according to form”). The Vibhanga says that the form contemplated here is ukkhepaniya-kamma, but the Patimokkha knows nothing of such a form. In pacittiya, 73, again, we have the expression yan ca tattha apattim apanno tan ca jathadhammo karetabbo (“the offence a rising therefrom is to be dealt with according to proper form”), which seems to contemplate a tajjaniya-kamma for stupidity (see Cullavagga, I, 4, 1). Such expressions as are cited above point to the intrusion into the Patimokkha of later elements of developed Vinaya.
(…)

................................

The author goes on developing this idea, with much examples and references from the texts (but this is already quite long). So… What do you think? What to beleive?
It makes sense to me, as I actually already had such ideas while being a temporary bhikkhu, and felt that much of the Vinaya was so law-like well developed material that it was at odd with the type of life early samanas lived (at least during the Buddha’s lifetime), and how it's described in the suttas (i.e. the “Cula-hatthipadopama sutta, MN27” which, I feel, offers a complete description of what a bhikkhu should be, in the letter and the spirit, and how he should live and practice). The contrast between the Vinaya we know and the samanas’ spirit is even more obvious when one looks at historical descriptions of the general lifestyle at that time (see “Buddhist India”).
The author also explains, later in this book, how sanghas were living (after the Buddha’s passing) in separate monasteries as single and autonomous entities, on a democratic mode of functioning (there were no abbots, or monastery “director”), using the sangha-kamma (consent of all the residing monks) to make decisions. In these sanghas were included Vinaya-dharas, law specialists, which enabled the community to establish new rules as the needs would arise (that's the theory of the author but it seems quite plausible). With the Teacher gone and the spread of the community at large, these groups, or sanghas, were not so near from each other any more. This situation, of autonomous sanghas equipped with complete decision and law making processes, tells a great deal about how sectarian Buddhism could take place, and it also explains the differences found in the various Vinayas that have been preserved up to these days.
All that makes sense to me really. But of course, it shatters quite a bit the theory of “it’s all been said by the Buddha”, which is a rather comfortable one, and thus questions such as how to use the Vinaya today may arise... Actually I think that it would be good to look at it. One question for example, why the process of natural development of the regula, with the abandoning or adaptation of obsolete rules and the making of new ones according to the needs of circumstances, should have stopped? This theory of “all said by Buddha”, although important as far as the authority of the tradition and the text is concerned, is somehow freezing the inherent aliveness and intelligence of all the system proposed and started by the Master, leaving us with an old, sometimes perhaps not so adequate set of rules, which can have, seen from within, the feel of being locked up in a kind of "museum".

Well… these are some reflections of perhaps a too “rational” practitioner (but one strongly called by spirituality), reflections based on some readings of historical studies and theories... So it’s just open questioning really. Free inquiry. And that comes, as I said in the beginning, from a mind that likes to investigate...

Thank you for any feed back (and sorry for the lengh of this post - by the way is it the right place for such discussion?).

Metta

:anjali:
Jos
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:56 am

Re: Early Vinaya History

Postby gavesako » Tue Aug 10, 2010 5:28 pm

Here is something related:


Appendix 4: Compilation of Pali Vinaya
by Bhante Varado


The Compilation of the Pali Vinaya
Avanti and Venerable Mahakaccana
In the Buddha’s day, Ujjeni was the capital of Avanti, one of the great kingdoms in the west of ancient India. Ujjeni was also where Venerable Mahakaccana was born and raised, one of the great disciples of the Buddha.
Mahakaccana has been ascribed the authorship of the verses on Pali grammar called the Kaccayana Vyakarana. However, this grammar was probably compiled by a school of monks which later traced its descent to him (DPPN). It is unlikely that this school arose in his lifetime, because the Buddha said “the southern region of Avanti is short of monks”. It was, indeed, so short of monks, that gathering just ten monks for an ordination ceremony took Mahakaccana three years (Vin.1.195-7). So it is unlikely that during his lifetime there was any centre of scholarship near Ujjeni.
Vesali: centre of Buddhism
Both in the Buddha’s lifetime and afterwards, it seems more likely that the suttas and Vinaya were preserved in other centres, in particular Vesali, because Venerable Sabbakamin, the oldest and most venerated monk on earth was living there at the time of the Second Council, where seven hundred monks gathered in 388 B.C/ B.E. 101 (Vin.2.294) (for chart of dates see Appendix 6).
Evacuating Vesali
By the time of the Second Council, however, Vesali had become embroiled in corruption. Monks there were promulgating ten points of wrong Vinaya, including the use of money. Avanti, however, was the place to be, because we hear of an assembly of eighty-eight arahants from southern Avanti meeting with sixty arahants from Pava, a town also in the west, near Kusinara (Vin.2.299). These two groups defeated the corrupt monks of Vesali, but following the Second Council the best monks in Vesali (for instance the disciples of Venerable Sabbakamin) would likely have fled to Pava or Avanti, taking with them their vast scriptural knowledge.
In due course, this movement would be part of the geographical separation of the money-carrying Mahasanghikas from the Sthaviras. Mahasanghika were generally to the East (towards Pataliputra, where the Third Council would later purged the Sangha of undesireable monks) and Sthavira to the West, towards Madhura (Bhiksuni Vinaya: manual of discipline for Buddhist nuns, pix-x, Gustav Roth, 1970).
Venerable Mahinda and the Dakkhinagiri Vihara
Near Ujjeni, the capital of Avanti, was Vidisha, the village where Venerable Mahinda was born, approximately 100 years after the Second Council. It was at the Dakkhinagiri Vihara in Ujjeni that Mahinda chose to stay in the six months before his journey to Sri Lanka in 253 B.C/ B.E.236. If Dakkhinagiri Vihara was founded at the time of the Second Council by monks fleeing Vesali, it would have been 136 years old when Mahinda was there. Although in ruins today, it continued as a thriving monastery for decades after Mahinda’s visit, sending a large delegation of monks (40,000 – says the Mahavamsa) for the founding of the Maha Thupa in Anuradhapura during the reign of Sri Lanka’s King Dutthagamani (101-77 B.C./ B.E.388-412).
Conclusion
It seems plausible that Venerable Mahakaccana was the figurehead of the Dakkhinagiri Vihara, a huge centre of Pali studies that was established following the Second Council with the arrival of large numbers of monks arriving from Vesali. It was the monastery where the structure of Pali was finalised as an artificial dialect or sub-dialect whose purpose was to facilitate the preservation of Buddhist discourses. This dialect was defined by the standardisation of vowels, which involved making minor changes that would not affect the metre of verses. This would explain why Norman says Theravadan texts, although they can be shown to have been “employed in the East at the time of Asoka … the last recension before the writing down of the canon was in an area where a western-style Prakrit was in use, at least for literary purposes. This was likely to be in the West of India. We have no evidence that Pali coincided with any historical language or dialect” (Norman, K.R, A philological approach to Buddhism, PTS 2006, p95). Because of their interest in Pali, it is obvious why the Dakkhinagiri Vihara was also the source of the Kaccayana Vyakarana, the first Pali Grammar.
The monks of Dakkhinagiri, living as a large, united community, would have also gathered commentarial supplements to the sacred texts. They may also have been responsible, or partly responsible, for compiling the Pali Abhidhamma, which first appeared in B.E.114, 14 years after the Second Council, and which continued to appear until it was completed, in roughly the year that Mahinda left for Sri Lanka. Dakkhinagiri would have been the right time, the right place, and would have provided all the right conditions for a massive literary project – a new monastery full of newly arrived enthusiastic monks from Vesali, devoted to building their skills over quiet decades, giving them time to assemble the five Nikayas, far from the escalating troubles of Pataliputra that would eventually lead to the Third Council.
Because Venerable Mahinda associated himself with the inspiring Dakkhinagiri Vihara, it would be their scriptures, commentarial literature and Abhidhamma that were taken to Sri Lanka. These would become the Pali scriptures we know today.
Bhikkhu Gavesako
Kiṃkusalagavesī anuttaraṃ santivarapadaṃ pariyesamāno... (MN 26)

ajahnchah.org - Teachings of Ajahn Chah in many languages
Dhammatube - Videos on Buddhist practice
Ancient Buddhist Texts - Translations and history of Pali texts
User avatar
gavesako
 
Posts: 1401
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 5:16 pm
Location: England

Re: Early Vinaya History

Postby Jos » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:15 am

Greetings and thank you Bhante,

This is interesting and helpful. Yet it seems that the theory of an evolution of the Vinaya, that would have taken place over a century after the Buddha's passing (and perhaps more) is still very plausible. In fact what this text shows is that the 'intellectual' activity during the century following the Buddha's passing, until the second council, was rather important. It's also what the historian S. Dutt holds, although others tend to extend the period up to the time when the Canon arrived in Sri-Lanka (as a whole, not for the Vinaya in particular), saying that until then the Canon was not a "closed book " (see Rhys Davids "Buddhist India" for example): "That at the time when the Suttanta were put together as we have them [which she considers to be around third council, she notes no alteration after they arrived in Sri-Lanka], the legendary material current among the community was still in a fluid, unstable condition, so that it was not only possible, it was considered quite the proper thing, to add to or to alter it."
It is a delicate matter, of course, I am aware of it, but as I said before, if the Vinaya has evolved over such an extended period, why should it have stopped ? And we can see, for example, from the growing number of difficulties faced by western sanghas, that today there might be a greater need for 'more evolution' that we tend to think, or perhaps, as the tradition tends to have us think (as it's somehow its fonction anyway, no grudge held here).

Another point mentioned in this text by Bhante Varado is the language. And that is actually one of the main criteria or tool used by historians to date the texts, as they can recognised different types of languages (vocabulary, form, etc, following the natural evolution of language), as well as different contents and anecdotes (sometimes relating events with names of people who lived after the Buddha's passing). Thus they can date, or at least recognize, which text is older, and what is a later addition. For example Fausböll considers the greater part of the Mahavagga and nearly the whole of the Atthakavagga as very old. He says : "I have arrived at this conclusion from two reasons, first, from the language and secondly, from the content."

Of course, having said that and although I brought the topic, I understand that to try to find out exactly what happened in India more than 2000 years ago, to look for the 'true original' stuff... might just be impossible and not such a good thing to do. But that's part of what brought me to the Theravada, and as I mentionned in my introduction, my wish for close investigation is growing... But I must admit that for the time being I'm not too enchanted by the 'official version' my traditions has to offer anymore, that is by the explanations mostly based on the legendary side of the (hi)story. Even if, as the 19th century french writer Victor Hugo puts it : "History has its truth; legend has its truth. Legendary truth is of a different kind from historical truth. Legendary truth is invention with reality for result."

So here are my thoughts on the matter. But I'll stop here I think, it's just too complicated! Now I'll go on retreat for some time, it might help...

:anjali:
Jos
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:56 am

Re: Early Vinaya History

Postby Zom » Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:13 pm

So here are my thoughts on the matter. But I'll stop here I think, it's just too complicated!


Yes, probably you make it overcomplicated matter for yourself.
I remember some ajahn's advice - Vinaya is a tool, that you can use. You follow the rules not just "to keep them", but you do it in a way that helps you to maintain your practice. Beginner should try to follow all the rules (or at least remember them all) to understand the benefit of this or that rule for himself from different life situations. If you are attentive and careful, time will come and you will understand why this particular rule is essential (for your present circumstances) and another one is not.

So that's the point. And thoughts about "original vinaya rules" and "not original vinaya rules" will probably lead you to a dead-end, doubts and depression. Same with the suttas.
User avatar
Zom
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg

Re: Early Vinaya History

Postby Jos » Sun Aug 15, 2010 10:14 am

Thank you for the comment and advice. But what I find most complicated though, is to talk about these matters. To think about them, to look more closely into the historical side of "religion" has helped me in the past, for example when I was exposed to Tibetan teachings and was told stuff like 'this is the higher teaching of the Buddha, the third turning, etc', but when I looked into the historical aspect of it, I realized it wasn't exactly as they said. Thus I was free from that misconception, I changed my view. Same thing happened with other spiritual traditions I encountered before the Theravada. So for me, to inquire in this way has not been depressing, but rather liberating (on a conventional level). I'd rather keep on doing it. But of course I also, and mostly need to practice. So it's not that I will check everything first then practice! And even if something seems to be "older", may be not "directly from the Buddha", if it's supportive for the practice, I'll most likely follow it. I'll take on board anything that is conducive to wisdom and liberation! Actually my idea in this thread about the Vinaya was that, since the Vinaya has evolved through an extensive period of time, it might need to do it again (it might be its "natural need", like any code of laws)... That was the idea, or suggestion. And I still feel it would be interesting to look further into that, but I'll leave it to the "Vinaya specialists" and won't talk about it anymore! I'll just keep it to myself, and focus on the practice, on "how does it work for me now? Is my heart more liberated, and kind?"

Thank you again for your comments, it's been helpful. Best wishes,

:anjali:
Jos
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 10:56 am


Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests