The Bhikkhus' Code of Discipline Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu Contents * Parajika -- Rules entailing expulsion

from the Sangha (Defeat) * Sanghadisesa -- Rules entailing an initial and subsequent meeting of the Sangha * Aniyata -- Indefinite rules * Nissaggiya Pacittiya -- Rules entailing forfeiture and confession o Part One: The Robe-cloth Chapter o Part Two: The Silk Chapter * Pacittiya -- Rules entailing confession o Part One: The Lie Chapter o Part Two: The Living Plant Chapter o Part Three: The Exhortation Chapter o Part Four: The Food Chapter o Part Five: The Naked Ascetic Chapter o Part Six: The Alcoholic Drink Chapter o Part Seven: The Animal Chapter o Part Eight: The In-accordance-with-the-Rule Chapter o Part Nine: The Treasure Chapter * Patidesaniya -- Rules entailing acknowledgement * Sekhiya -- Rules of training o Part One: The 26 Dealing with Proper Behavior o Part Two: The 30 Dealing with Food o Part Three: The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma o Part Four: The 3 Miscellaneous Rules * Adhikarana-Samatha -- Rules for settling disputes Parajika 1. Should any bhikkhu -- participating in the training and livelihood of the bhikkhus, without having renounced the training, without having declared his weakness -- engage in the sexual act, even with a female animal, he is defeated and no longer in communion.

2. Should any bhikkhu, in the manner of stealing, take what is not given from an inhabited area or from the wilderness -- just as when, in the taking of what is not given, kings arresting the criminal would flog, imprison, or banish him, saying, "You are a robber, you are a fool, you are benighted, you are a thief" -- a bhikkhu in the same way taking what is not given is defeated and no longer in communion.

3. Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive a human being of life, or search for an assassin for him, or praise the advantages of death, or incite him to die (thus): "My good

man, what use is this wretched, miserable life to you? Death would be better for you than life," or with such an idea in mind, such a purpose in mind, should in various ways praise the advantages of death or incite him to die, he also is defeated and no longer in communion.

4. Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, boast of a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he -being remorseful and desirous of purification -- might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see -- vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in communion.

Sanghadisesa (The next category of offences, which is called sanghaadisesafor the recovery process from the violation requires the participation of the Sangha at the beginning and at the end [i.e. formal meeting of the Sangha], begins with sex that does not involve the three paths mentioned above. It is important to note that this act is not described as methunadhamma or sexual act, and consequently the violators are not considered as defeated. The relevant rule goes as: intentionalemission of semen, unless in a dream, involves the sanghaadisesa offence Sancetanika sukka-visatthi annatra supinantaa sanghaadiseso (Vinaya III. p.112).This rule covers any sexual act not involving any of the paths, executed within oneself or between two people. The origin of the rule is a group of monks who engaged in masturbation. The case studies, however, refer to incidents between two monks but not involving paths.The two conditions, having intention and emission of semen both have to be fulfilled in order one to be considered guilty. This means that if emission happens even in a sexually provocative act or in an act motivated by sexual desire but emission is not intended or in an act meant for emission but emission does not happen, the monk concerned has been considered not guilty technically.) 1. Intentional discharge of semen, except while dreaming, entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

2. Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

3. Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, address lewd words to a

woman in the manner of young men to a young woman alluding to sexual intercourse, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

4. Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, speak in the presence of a woman in praise of ministering to his own sensuality thus: "This, sister, is the highest ministration, that of ministering to a virtuous, fine-natured follower of the celibate life such as myself with this act" -- alluding to sexual intercourse -- it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. 5. Should any bhikkhu engage in conveying a man's intentions to a woman or a woman's intentions to a man, proposing marriage or paramourage -- even if only for a momentary liaison -- it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

6. When a bhikkhu is building a hut from (gains acquired by) his own begging -- having no sponsor, destined for himself -- he is to build it to the standard measurement. Here the standard is this: twelve spans, using the sugata span, in length (measuring outside); seven in width, (measuring) inside. Bhikkhus are to be assembled to designate the site. The site the bhikkhus designate should be without disturbances and with adequate space. If the bhikkhu should build a hut from his own begging on a site with disturbances and without adequate space, or if he should not assemble the bhikkhus to designate the site, or if he should exceed the standard, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

7. When a bhikkhu is building a large dwelling -- having a sponsor and destined for himself -- he is to assemble bhikkhus to designate the site. The site the bhikkhus designate should be without disturbances and with adequate space. If the bhikkhu should build a large dwelling on a site with disturbances and without adequate space, or if he should not assemble the bhikkhus to designate the site, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

8. Should any bhikkhu, malicious, angered, displeased, charge a (fellow) bhikkhu with an unfounded case involving defeat, (thinking), "Surely with this I may bring about his fall from the celibate life," then regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, if the issue is unfounded and the bhikkhu confesses his anger, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

9. Should any bhikkhu, malicious, angered, displeased, using as a mere ploy an aspect of

an issue that pertains otherwise, charge a bhikkhu with a case involving defeat, (thinking), "Surely with this I may bring about his fall from the celibate life," then regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, if the issue pertains otherwise, an aspect used as a mere ploy, and the bhikkhu confesses his anger, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

10. Should any bhikkhu agitate for a schism in a Community in concord, or should he persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism, the bhikkhus should admonish him thus: "Do not, Ven. sir, agitate for a schism in a Community in concord or persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism. Let the venerable one be reconciled with the Community, for a Community in concord, on complimentary terms, free from dispute, having a common recitation, dwells in peace." And should that bhikkhu, admonished thus by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times he desists, that is good. If he does not desist, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

11. Should bhikkhus -- one, two, or three -- who are followers and partisans of that bhikkhu, say, "Do not, Ven. sirs, admonish that bhikkhu in any way. He is an exponent of the Dhamma, an exponent of the Vinaya. He acts with our consent and approval. He knows, he speaks for us, and that is pleasing to us," other bhikkhus are to admonish them thus: "Do not say that, Ven. sirs. That bhikkhu is not an exponent of the Dhamma and he is not an exponent of the Vinaya. Do not, Ven. sirs, approve of a schism in the Community. Let the venerable ones' (minds) be reconciled with the Community, for a Community in concord, on complimentary terms, without dispute, with a common recitation, dwells in peace." And should those bhikkhus, thus admonished, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke them up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times by the bhikkhus they desist, that is good. If they do not desist, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

12. In case a bhikkhu is by nature difficult to admonish -- who, when being legitimately admonished by the bhikkhus with reference to the training rules included in the (Patimokkha) recitation, makes himself unadmonishable (saying), "Do not, venerable ones, say anything to me, good or bad; and I will not say anything to the venerable ones, good or bad. Refrain, venerable ones, from admonishing me" -- the bhikkhus should admonish him thus: "Let the venerable one not make himself unadmonishable. Let the venerable one make himself admonishable. Let the venerable one admonish the bhikkhus

in accordance with what is right, and the bhikkhus will admonish the venerable one in accordance with what is right; for it is thus that the Blessed One's following is nurtured: through mutual admonition, through mutual rehabilitation." And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to be rebuke him up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times he desists, that is good. If he does not desist, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community. 13. In case a bhikkhu living in dependence on a certain village or town is a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct -- whose depraved conduct is both seen and heard about, and the families he has corrupted are both seen and heard about -- the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: "You, Ven. sir, are a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct. Your depraved conduct is both seen and heard about; the families you have corrupted are both seen and heard about. Leave this monastery, Ven. sir. Enough of your staying here."

And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, say about the bhikkhus, "The bhikkhus are prejudiced by favoritism, prejudiced by aversion, prejudiced by delusion, prejudiced by fear, in that for this sort of offense they banish some and do not banish others," the bhikkhus are to admonish him thus: "Do not say that, Ven. sir. The bhikkhus are not prejudiced by favoritism, are not prejudiced by aversion, are not prejudiced by delusion, are not prejudiced by fear. You, Ven. sir, are a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct. Your depraved conduct is both seen and heard about, and the families you have corrupted are both seen and heard about. Leave this monastery, Ven. sir. Enough of your staying here."

And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times he desists, that is good. If he does not desist, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

Aniyata 1. Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman in a seat secluded enough to lend itself (to the sexual act), so that a female lay follower whose word can be trusted, having seen (them), might describe it as constituting any of three cases -- involving either defeat, communal meetings, or confession -- then the bhikkhu, acknowledging having sat (there), may be dealt with for any of the three cases -- involving defeat, communal meetings, or confession -- or he may be dealt with for whichever case the female lay follower described. This case is undetermined.

2. In case a seat is not sufficiently secluded to lend itself (to the sexual act) but sufficiently so to address lewd words to a woman, should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman in such a seat, so that a female lay follower whose word can be trusted, having seen them, would describe it as constituting either of two cases -involving communal meetings or confession -- then the bhikkhu, acknowledging having sat (there), is to be dealt with for either of the two cases -- involving communal meetings or confession -- or he is to be dealt with for whichever case the female lay follower described. This case too is undetermined.

Nissaggiya Pacittiya Part One: The Robe-cloth Chapter 1. When a bhikkhu has finished his robe-making and the frame is destroyed (his kathina privileges are in abeyance), he is to keep an extra robe-cloth ten days at most. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

2. When a bhikkhu has finished his robe-making and the frame is destroyed (his kathina privileges are in abeyance): If he dwells apart from (any of) his three robes even for one night -- unless authorized by the bhikkhus -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.

3. When a bhikkhu has finished his robe-making and the kathina privileges are in abeyance: If out-of-season robe-cloth accrues to him, he may accept it if he so desires. Once he accepts it, he is to make it up immediately (into a cloth requisite). If it should not be enough, he may lay it aside for a month at most if he has an expectation for filling the lack. Should he keep it beyond that, even when there is an expectation (for further cloth), it is to be forfeited and confessed.

4. Should any bhikkhu have a used robe washed, dyed, or beaten by a bhikkhuni unrelated to him, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

5. Should any bhikkhu accept robe-cloth from a bhikkhuni unrelated to him -- unless it is in exchange -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.

6. Should any bhikkhu ask for robe-cloth from a man or woman householder unrelated to him, except at the proper occasion, it is to be forfeited and confessed. Here the proper occasion is this: The bhikkhu's robe has been stolen or destroyed. This is the proper occasion in this case.

7. If that unrelated man or woman householder presents the bhikkhu with many robes (pieces of robe-cloth), he is to accept at most (enough for) an upper and an under robe. If he accepts more than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

8. In case a man or woman householder prepares a robe fund for the sake of an unrelated bhikkhu, thinking. "Having purchased a robe with this robe fund, I will supply the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe:" If the bhikkhu, not previously invited, approaching (the householder) should make a stipulation with regard to the robe, saying, "It would be good indeed, sir, if you supplied me (with a robe), having purchased a robe of such-and-such a sort with this robe fund" -- out of a desire for something fine -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.

9. In case two householders -- men or women -- prepare separate robe funds for the sake of a bhikkhu unrelated to them, thinking, "Having purchased separate robes with these separate robe funds of ours, we will supply the bhikkhu named so-and-so with robes": If the bhikkhu, not previously invited, approaching (them) should make a stipulation with regard to the robe, saying, "It would be good indeed, sirs, if you supplied me (with a robe), having purchased a robe of such-and-such a sort with these separate robe funds, the two (funds) together for one (robe)" -- out of a desire for something fine -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.

10. In case a king, a royal official, a brahmin or a householder sends a robe fund for the sake of a bhikkhu via a messenger (saying), "Having purchased a robe with this robe fund, supply the bhikkhu named so-and-so with a robe": If the messenger, approaching the bhikkhu, should say, "This is a robe fund being delivered for the sake of the venerable one. May the venerable one accept this robe fund," then the bhikkhu is to tell the messenger: "We do not accept robe funds, my friend. We accept robes (robe-cloth) as are proper according to season."

If the messenger should say to the bhikkhu, "Does the venerable one have a steward?"

then, bhikkhus, if the bhikkhu desires a robe, he may indicate a steward -- either a monastery attendant or a lay follower -- (saying), "That, my friend, is the bhikkhus' steward."

If the messenger, having instructed the steward and going to the bhikkhu, should say, "I have instructed the steward the venerable one indicated. May the venerable one go (to him) and he will supply you with a robe in season," then the bhikkhu, desiring a robe and approaching the steward, may prompt and remind him two or three times, "I have need of a robe." Should (the steward) produce the robe after being prompted and reminded two or three times, that is good.

If he does not produce the robe, (the bhikkhu) should stand in silence four times, five times, six times at most for that purpose. Should (the steward) produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has stood in silence for the purpose four, five, six times at most, that is good.

If he should not produce the robe (at that point), should he then produce the robe after (the bhikkhu) has endeavored further than that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

If he should not produce (the robe), then the bhikkhu himself should go to the place from which the robe fund was brought, or a messenger should be sent (to say), "The robe fund that you, venerable sirs, sent for the sake of the bhikkhu has given no benefit to the bhikkhu at all. May the you be united with what is yours. May what is yours not be lost." This is the proper course here.

Part Two: The Silk Chapter 11. Should any bhikkhu have a felt (blanket/rug) made of a mixture containing silk, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

12. Should any bhikkhu have a felt (blanket/rug) made of pure black wool, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

13. When a bhikkhu is making a new felt (blanket/rug), two parts of pure black wool are to be incorporated, a third (part) of white, and a fourth of brown. If a bhikkhu should have a new felt (blanket/rug) made without incorporating two parts of pure black wool, a third of white, and a fourth of brown, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

14. When a new felt (blanket/rug) has been made by a bhikkhu, it is to be kept for (at least) six years. If after less than six years he should have another new felt (blanket/rug) made, regardless of whether or not he has disposed of the first, then -- unless he has been authorized by the bhikkhus -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.

15. When a felt sitting rug is being made by a bhikkhu, a piece of old felt a sugata span (25 cm.) on each side is to be incorporated for the sake of discoloring it. If, without incorporating a piece of old felt a sugata span on each side, he should have a new felt sitting rug made, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

16. If wool accrues to a bhikkhu as he is going on a journey, he may accept it if he so desires. Once he accepts it, he may carry it by hand -- there being no one else to carry it -three leagues (48 km.=30 miles) at most. Should he carry it farther than that, even if there is no one else to carry it, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

17.Should any bhikkhu have wool washed, dyed, or carded by a bhikkhuni unrelated to him, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

18. Should any bhikkhu take gold and silver, or have it taken, or consent to its being deposited (near him), it is to be forfeited and confessed.

19. Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of monetary exchange, it (the income) is to be forfeited and confessed.

20. Should any bhikkhu engage in various types of trade, (the article obtained) is to be forfeited and confessed.

21. An extra alms bowl may be kept ten days at most. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

22. Should a bhikkhu with an alms bowl having less than five mends ask for another new bowl, it is to be forfeited and confessed. The bowl is to be forfeited by the bhikkhu to the company of bhikkhus. That company of bhikkhus' final bowl should be presented to the bhikkhu, (saying,) "This, bhikkhu, is your bowl. It is to be kept until broken." This is the proper procedure here.

23.There are these tonics to be taken by sick bhikkhus: ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses. Having been received, they are to be used from storage seven days at most. Beyond that, they are to be forfeited and confessed.

24. When a month is left to the hot season, a bhikkhu may seek a rains-bathing cloth. When a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made, may be worn. If when more than a month is left to the hot season he should seek a rains-bathing cloth, (or) when more than a half-month is left to the hot season, (the cloth) having been made should be worn, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

25. Should any bhikkhu, having himself given a robe-cloth to (another) bhikkhu, and then being angered and displeased, snatch it back or have it snatched back, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

26. Should any bhikkhu, having requested thread, have a robe woven by weavers, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

27. In case a man or woman householder unrelated to a bhikkhu has weavers weave robecloth for his sake, and if the bhikkhu, not previously invited (by the householder), having approached the weavers, should make stipulations with regard to the cloth, saying, "This cloth, friends, is to be woven for my sake. Make it long, make it broad, make it tightly woven, well woven, well spread, well scraped, well smoothed, and perhaps I may reward you with a little something;" and should the bhikkhu, having said that, reward them with

a little something, even as much as alms food, it (the cloth) is to be forfeited and confessed.

28.Ten days prior to the third-month Kattika full moon, should robe-cloth offered in urgency accrue to a bhikkhu, he is to accept it if he regards it as offered in urgency. Once he has accepted it, he may keep it throughout the robe season. Beyond that, it is to be forfeited and confessed.

29. There are wilderness abodes that are considered dubious and risky. A bhikkhu living in such abodes after the (fourth-month) Kattika full moon has passed may keep any one of his three robes in a village if he so desires. Should he have any reason to live apart from the robe, he may do so for six nights at most. If he should live apart from it longer than that -- unless authorized by the bhikkhus -- it is to be forfeited and confessed.

30. Should any bhikkhu knowingly divert to himself gains that had been intended for a Community, they are to be forfeited and confessed.

Pacittiya Part One: The Lie Chapter 1. A deliberate lie is to be confessed.

2. An insult is to be confessed.

3. Malicious tale-bearing among bhikkhus is to be confessed.

4. Should any bhikkhu have an unordained person recite Dhamma line by line (with him), it is to be confessed.

5. Should any bhikkhu lie down in the same lodging with an unordained person for more than two or three consecutive nights, it is to be confessed.

6. Should any bhikkhu lie down in the same lodging with a woman, it is to be confessed.

7. Should any bhikkhu teach more than five or six sentences of Dhamma to a woman, unless a knowledgeable man is present, it is to be confessed.

8. Should any bhikkhu report (his own) factual superior human state to an unordained person, it is to be confessed.

9. Should any bhikkhu report (another) bhikkhu's gross offense to an unordained person -- unless authorized by the bhikkhus -- it is to be confessed.

10. Should any bhikkhu dig soil or have it dug, it is to be confessed.

Part Two: The Living Plant Chapter 11. The damaging of a living plant is to be confessed.

12. Evasive speech and uncooperativeness are to be confessed.

13. Maligning or complaining (about a Community official) is to be confessed.

14. Should any bhikkhu set a bed, bench, mattress, or stool belonging to the Community out in the open -- or have it set out -- and then on departing neither put it away nor have it put away, or should he go without taking leave, it is to be confessed.

15. Should any bhikkhu, having set out bedding in a lodging belonging to the Community -- or having had it set out -- and then on departing neither put it away nor have it put away, or should he go without taking leave, it is to be confessed.

16. Should any bhikkhu knowingly lie down in a lodging belonging to the Community so as to intrude on a bhikkhu who arrived there first, (thinking), "Whoever feels crowded will go away" -- doing it for this reason and no other -- it is to be confessed.

17. Should any bhikkhu, angry and displeased, evict a bhikkhu from a dwelling belonging to the Community -- or have him evicted -- it is to be confessed.

18. Should any bhikkhu sit or lie down on a bed or bench with detachable legs on an (unplanked) loft in a dwelling belonging to the Community, it is to be confessed.

19. When a bhikkhu is building a large dwelling, he may apply two or three layers of facing to plaster the area around the window frame and reinforce the area around the door frame the width of the door opening, while standing where there are no crops to speak of. Should he apply more than that, even if standing where there are no crops to speak of, it is to be confessed.

20. Should any bhikkhu knowingly pour water containing living beings -- or have it poured -- on grass or on clay, it is to be confessed.

Part Three: The Exhortation Chapter 21. Should any bhikkhu, unauthorized, exhort the bhikkhunis, it is to be confessed.

22. Should any bhikkhu, even if authorized, exhort the bhikkhunis after sunset, it is to be confessed.

23. Should any bhikkhu, having gone to the bhikkhunis' quarters, exhort the bhikkhunis -except at the proper occasion -- it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasion is this: A bhikkhuni is ill. This is the proper occasion here.

24. Should any bhikkhu say that the bhikkhus exhort the bhikkhunis for the sake of personal gain, it is to be confessed.

25. Should any bhikkhu give robe-cloth to a bhikkhuni unrelated to him, except in exchange, it is to be confessed.

26. Should any bhikkhu sew a robe or have it sewn for a bhikkhuni unrelated to him, it is to be confessed.

27. Should any bhikkhu, by arrangement, travel together with a bhikkhuni even for the interval between one village and the next, except at the proper occasion, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasion is this: The road is to be traveled by caravan, and is considered dubious and risky. This is the proper occasion here.

28. Should any bhikkhu, by arrangement, get in the same boat with a bhikkhuni going upstream or downstream -- except to cross over to the other bank -- it is to be confessed.

29. Should any bhikkhu knowingly eat almsfood donated through the prompting of a bhikkhuni, except for food that householders had already intended for him prior (to her prompting), it is to be confessed.

30. Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a bhikkhuni, it is to be confessed.

Part Four: The Food Chapter 31. A bhikkhu who is not ill may eat one meal at a public alms center. Should he eat

more than that, it is to be confessed.

32. A group meal, except on the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth, a time of making robes, a time of going on a journey, a time of embarking on a boat, an extraordinary occasion, a time when the meal is supplied by contemplatives. These are the proper occasions here.

33. An out-of-turn meal, except on the proper occasions, is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: a time of illness, a time of giving cloth (the robe season), a time of making robes. These are the proper occasions here.

34. In case a bhikkhu arriving at a family residence is presented with cakes or cooked grain-meal, he may accept two or three bowlfuls if he so desires. If he should accept more than that, it is to be confessed. Having accepted the two-or-three bowlfuls and having taken them from there, he is to share them among the bhikkhus. This is the proper course here.

35. Should any bhikkhu, having eaten and turned down an offer (of further food), chew or consume staple or non-staple food that is not left over, it is to be confessed.

36. Should any bhikkhu, knowingly and wishing to find fault, present staple or non-staple food to a bhikkhu who has eaten and turned down an offer (for further food), saying, "Here, bhikkhu, chew or consume this" -- when it has been eaten, it is to be confessed.

37. Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food at the wrong time, it is to be confessed.

38. Should any bhikkhu chew or consume stored-up staple or non-staple food, it is to be confessed.

39. There are these finer staple foods, i.e., ghee, fresh butter, oil, honey, sugar/molasses, fish, meat, milk, and curds. Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, having asked for finer staple foods such as these for his own sake, then eat them, it is to be confessed.

40. Should any bhikkhu take into his mouth an edible that has not been given -- except for water and tooth-cleaning sticks -- it is to be confessed.

Part Five: The Naked Ascetic Chapter 41. Should any bhikkhu give staple or non-staple food with his own hand to a naked ascetic, a male wanderer, or a female wanderer, it is to be confessed.

42. Should any bhikkhu say to a bhikkhu, "Come, my friend, let's enter the village or town for alms," and then -- whether or not he has had (food) given to him -- dismiss him, saying, "Go away, my friend. I don't like sitting or talking with you. I prefer sitting or talking alone," if doing it for that reason and no other, it is to be confessed.

43.Should a bhikkhu sit intruding on a family "with its meal," it is to be confessed.

44. Should any bhikkhu sit in private on a secluded seat with a woman, it is to be confessed.

45. Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman, it is to be confessed.

46. Should any bhikkhu, being invited for a meal and without taking leave of an available bhikkhu, go calling on families before or after the meal, except at the proper times, it is to be confessed. Here the proper times are these: the time of giving cloth, the time of making robes. These are the proper times here. 47.A bhikkhu who is not ill may accept (make use of) a four-month invitation to ask for requisites. If he should accept (make use of) it for longer than that -- unless the invitation is renewed or is permanent -- it is to be confessed.

48. Should any bhikkhu go to see an army on active duty, unless there is a suitable reason, it is to be confessed.

49.There being some reason or another for a bhikkhu to go to an army, he may stay two or three (consecutive) nights with the army. If he should stay longer than that, it is to be confessed.

50. If a bhikkhu staying two or three nights with an army should go to a battlefield, a roll call, the troops in battle formation, or to see a review of the (battle) units, it is to be confessed.

Part Six: The Alcoholic Drink Chapter 51. The drinking of alcohol or fermented liquor is to be confessed.

52. Tickling with the fingers is to be confessed.

53. The act of playing in the water is to be confessed.

54. Disrespect is to be confessed.

55. Should any bhikkhu try to frighten another bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.

56. Should any bhikkhu who is not ill, seeking to warm himself, kindle a fire or have one kindled -- unless there is a suitable reason -- it is to be confessed.

57. Should any bhikkhu bathe at intervals of less than half a month, except at the proper occasions, it is to be confessed. Here the proper occasions are these: the last month and a half of the hot season, the first month of the rains, these two and a half months being a time of heat, a time of fever; (also) a time of illness; a time of work; a time of going on a journey; a time of wind or rain. These are the proper times here.

58. When a bhikkhu receives a new robe, any one of three means of discoloring it is to be applied: green, brown, or black. If a bhikkhu should make use of a new robe without applying any of the three means of discoloring it, it is to be confessed.

59. Should any bhikkhu, himself having placed robe-cloth under shared ownership (vikappana) with a bhikkhu, a bhikkhuni, a female probationer, a male novice, or a female novice, then make use of the cloth without the shared ownership's being rescinded, it is to be confessed.

60. Should any bhikkhu hide (another) bhikkhu's bowl, robe, sitting cloth, needle case, or belt -- or have it hidden -- even as a joke, it is to be confessed.

Part Seven: The Animal Chapter 61. Should any bhikkhu knowingly deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed.

62. Should any bhikkhu knowingly make use of water with living beings in it, it is to be confessed.

63. Should any bhikkhu knowingly agitate for the reviving of an issue that has been rightfully dealt with, it is to be confessed.

64. Should any bhikkhu knowingly conceal another bhikkhu's serious offense, it is to be confessed.

65. Should any bhikkhu knowingly give full ordination to an individual less than twenty years of age, the individual is not ordained and the bhikkhus are blameworthy; and as for him (the preceptor), it is to be confessed.

66. Should any bhikkhu knowingly and by arrangement travel together with a caravan of thieves, even for the interval between one village and the next, it is to be confessed.

67. Should any bhikkhu, by arrangement, travel together with a woman, even for the interval between one village and the next, it is to be confessed.

68. Should any bhikkhu say the following: "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive for me, when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions," the bhikkhus should admonish him thus: "Do not say that, venerable sir. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say anything like that. In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has described obstructive acts, and when indulged in they are genuine obstructions."

And should the bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times he desists, that is good. If he does not desist, it is to be confessed.

69. Should any bhikkhu knowingly consort, join in communion, or lie down in the same lodging with a bhikkhu professing such a view who has not acted in compliance with the rule, who has not abandoned that view, it is to be confessed.

70. And if a novice should say the following: "As I understand the Dhamma taught by the Blessed One, those acts the Blessed One says are obstructive for me when indulged in, are not genuine obstructions," the bhikkhus should admonish him thus: "Do not say that, friend novice. Do not misrepresent the Blessed One, for it is not good to misrepresent the Blessed One. The Blessed One would not say anything like that. In many ways, friend, the Blessed One has described obstructive acts, and when indulged in they are genuine

obstructions."

And should that novice, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus should admonish him as follows: "From this day forth, friend novice, you are not to claim the Blessed One as your teacher, nor are you even to have the opportunity the other novices get -- that of sharing lodgings two or three nights with the bhikkhus. Away with you! Out of our sight! (literally, 'Get lost!')"

Should any bhikkhu knowingly support, receive services from, consort with, or lie down in the same lodging with a novice thus expelled, it is to be confessed.

Part Eight: The In-accordance-with-the-Rule Chapter 71. Should any bhikkhu, admonished by the bhikkhus in accordance with a rule, say, "Friends, I will not train myself under this training rule until I have put questions about it to another bhikkhu, experienced and learned in the discipline," it is to be confessed. Bhikkhus, (a training rule) is to be understood, is to be asked about, is to be pondered. This is the proper course here.

72. Should any bhikkhu, when the Patimokkha is being repeated, say, "Why are these lesser and minor training rules repeated when they lead only to anxiety, bother and confusion?" the criticism of the training rules is to be confessed.

73. Should any bhikkhu, when the Patimokkha is being recited every half-month, say, "Just now have I heard that this case, too, is handed down in the Patimokkha, is included in the Patimokkha, and comes up for recitation every half-month;" and if other bhikkhus should know, "That bhikkhu has already sat through two or three recitations of the Patimokkha, if not more," the bhikkhu is not exempted for being ignorant. Whatever the offense he has committed, he is to be dealt with in accordance with the rule; and in addition, his deception is to be exposed: "It is no gain for you, friend, it is ill-done, that when the Patimokkha is being recited, you do not pay proper attention and take it to heart." Here the deception is to be confessed.

74. Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, give a blow to (another) bhikkhu, it is to

be confessed.

75. Should any bhikkhu, angered and displeased, raise his hand against (another) bhikkhu, it is to be confessed.

76. Should any bhikkhu charge a bhikkhu with an unfounded sanghadisesa (offense), it is to be confessed.

77. Should any bhikkhu purposefully provoke anxiety in (another) bhikkhu, (thinking,) "This way, even for just a moment, he will have no peace" -- if doing it for just this reason and no other -- it is to be confessed.

78. Should any bhikkhu stand eavesdropping on bhikkhus when they are arguing, quarreling, and disputing, thinking, "I will overhear what they say" -- if doing it for just this reason and no other -- it is to be confessed.

79. Should any bhikkhu, having given consent (by proxy) to a formal act carried out in accordance with the rule, later complain (about the act), it is to be confessed.

80. Should any bhikkhu, when deliberation is being carried on in the Community, get up from his seat and leave without having given consent, it is to be confessed.

81. Should any bhikkhu, (acting as part of) a Community in concord, give robe-cloth (to an individual bhikkhu) and later complain, "The bhikkhus apportion the Community's gains according to friendship," it is to be confessed.

82. Should any bhikkhu knowingly divert to an individual gains that had been allocated for the Community, it is to be confessed.

Part Nine: The Treasure Chapter 83. Should any bhikkhu, without being previously announced, cross the threshold of a consecrated noble king's (sleeping chamber) from which the king has not left, from which the treasure (the queen) has not withdrawn, it is to be confessed.

84. Should any bhikkhu pick up or have (someone) pick up a valuable or what is considered a valuable, except within a monastery or within a dwelling, it is to be confessed. But when a bhikkhu has picked up or had (someone) pick up a valuable or what is considered a valuable (left) in a monastery or in a dwelling, he is to keep it, (thinking,) "Whoever it belongs to will (come and) fetch it." This is the proper course here.

85. Should any bhikkhu, without taking leave of an available bhikkhu, enter a village at the wrong time -- unless there is a suitable emergency -- it is to be confessed.

86. Should any bhikkhu have a needle case made of bone, ivory, or horn, it is to be broken and confessed.

87. When a bhikkhu is making a new bed or bench, it is to have legs (at most) eight fingerbreadths long -- using Sugata fingerbreadths -- not counting the lower edge of the frame. In excess of that it is to be cut down and confessed.

88. Should any bhikkhu have a bed or bench upholstered, it (the upholstery) is to be torn off and confessed.

89.When a bhikkhu is making a sitting cloth, it is to be made to the standard measurement. Here the standard is this: two spans -- using the Sugata span -- in length, 1 1/2 in width, the border a span. In excess of that, it is to be cut down and confessed.

90. When a bhikkhu is making a skin-eruption covering cloth, it is to be made to the

standard measurement. Here the standard is this: four spans -- using the Sugata span -- in length, two spans in width. In excess of that, it is to be cut down and confessed.

91. When a bhikkhu is making a rains-bathing cloth, it is to be made to the standard measurement. Here the standard is this: six spans -- using the Sugata span -- in length, 2 1/2 in width. In excess of that, it is to be cut down and confessed.

92. Should any bhikkhu have a robe made the size of the Sugata robe or larger, it is to be cut down and confessed. Here, the size of the Sugata robe is this: nine spans -- using the Sugata span -- in length, six spans in width. This is the size of the Sugata's Sugata robe.

Patidesaniya 1. Should any bhikkhu chew or consume staple or non-staple food, having received it himself from the hand of an unrelated bhikkhuni in an inhabited area, he is to acknowledge it: "Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it."

2. In case bhikkhus, being invited, are eating in family homes, and if a bhikkhuni is standing there as though giving directions, (saying,) "Give curry here, give rice here," then the bhikkhus are to dismiss her: "Go away, sister, while the bhikkhus are eating." If not one of the bhikkhus should speak to dismiss her, "Go away, sister, while the bhikkhus are eating," the bhikkhus are to acknowledge it: "Friends, we have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. We acknowledge it."

3.There are families designated as in training. Should any bhikkhu, not being ill, uninvited beforehand, chew or consume staple or non-staple food, having received it himself at the homes of families designated as in training, he is to acknowledge it: "Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge it."

4.There are wilderness abodes that are dubious and risky. Should any bhikkhu, not being ill, living in such abodes, chew or consume unannounced (gifts of) staple or non-staple food, having received them himself in the abode, he is to acknowledge it: "Friends, I have committed a blameworthy, unsuitable act that ought to be acknowledged. I acknowledge

it."

Sekhiya Part One: The 26 Dealing with Proper Behavior 1. [2] I will wear the lower robe [upper robe] wrapped around (me): a training to be observed.

3. [4] I will go [sit] well-covered in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

5. [6] I will go [sit] well-restrained in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

7. [8] I will go [sit] with eyes lowered in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

9. [10] I will not go [sit] with robes hitched up in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

11. [12] I will not go [sit] laughing loudly in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

13. [14] I will go [sit] (speaking) with a lowered voice in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

15. [16] I will not go [sit] swinging the body in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

17. [18] I will not go [sit] swinging the arms in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

19. [20] I will not go [sit] swinging the head in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

21. [22] I will not go [sit] with arms akimbo in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

23. [24] I will not go [sit] with my head covered in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

25. I will not go tiptoeing or walking just on the heels in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

26. I will not sit holding up the knees in inhabited areas: a training to be observed.

Part Two: The 30 Dealing with Food 27. I will receive alms food appreciatively: a training to be observed.

28. I will receive alms food with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed.

29. I will receive alms food with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be observed.

30. I will receive alms food level with the edge (of the bowl): a training to be observed.

31. I will eat alms food appreciatively: a training to be observed.

32. I will eat alms food with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed.

33. I will eat alms food methodically: a training to be observed.

34. I will eat alms food with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be observed.

35. I will not eat alms food taking mouthfuls from a heap: a training to be observed.

36. I will not hide bean curry and foods with rice out of a desire to get more: a training to be observed.

37. Not being ill, I will not eat rice or bean curry that I have requested for my own sake: a training to be observed.

38. I will not look at another's bowl intent on finding fault: a training to be observed.

39. I will not take an extra-large mouthful: a training to be observed.

40. I will make a rounded mouthful: a training to be observed.

41. I will not open the mouth when the mouthful has yet to be brought to it: a training to be observed.

42. I will not put the whole hand into the mouth while eating: a training to be observed.

43. I will not speak with the mouth full of food: a training to be observed.

44. I will not eat from lifted balls of food: a training to be observed.

45. I will not eat nibbling at mouthfuls of food: a training to be observed.

46. I will not eat stuffing out the cheeks: a training to be observed.

47. I will not eat shaking (food off) the hand: a training to be observed.

48. I will not eat scattering rice about: a training to be observed.

49. I will not eat sticking out the tongue: a training to be observed.

50. I will not eat smacking the lips: a training to be observed.

51. I will not eat making a slurping noise: a training to be observed.

52. I will not eat licking the hands: a training to be observed.

53. I will not eat licking the bowl: a training to be observed.

54. I will not eat licking the lips: a training to be observed.

55. I will not accept a water vessel with a hand soiled by food: a training to be observed.

56. I will not, in an inhabited area, throw away bowl-rinsing water that has grains of rice in it: a training to be observed.

Part Three: The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma 57. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with an umbrella in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

58. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a staff in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

59. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a knife in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

60. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a weapon in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

61. [62] I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing non-leather [leather] footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed.

63. I will not teach Dhamma to a person in a vehicle and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

64. I will not teach Dhamma to a person lying down who is not ill: a training to be observed.

65. I will not teach Dhamma to a person who sits holding up his knees and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

66. I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not ill: a training to be observed.

67. I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

68. Sitting on the ground, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a seat who is not ill: a training to be observed.

69. Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a high seat who is not ill: a training to be observed.

70. Standing, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting who is not ill: a training to be observed.

71. Walking behind, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking ahead who is not ill: a training to be observed.

72. Walking beside a path, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking on the path and who is not ill: a training to be observed.

Part Four: The 3 Miscellaneous Rules 73. Not being ill, I will not defecate or urinate while standing: a training to be observed.

74. Not being ill, I will not defecate, urinate, or spit on living crops: a training to be observed.

75. Not being ill, I will not defecate, urinate, or spit in water: a training to be observed. Adhikarana-Samatha 1. A verdict "in the presence of" should be given. This means that the formal act settling the issue must be carried out in the presence of the Community, in the presence of the individuals, and in the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya. 2. A verdict of mindfulness may be given. This is the verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused remembers fully that he did not commit the offense in question.

3. A verdict of past insanity may be given. This is another verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused was out of his mind when he committed the offense in question and so is absolved of any responsibility for it.

4. Acting in accordance with what is admitted. This refers to the ordinary confession of offenses, where no formal interrogation is involved. The confession is valid only if in accord with the facts, e.g., a bhikkhu actually commits a pacittiya offense and then confesses it as such, and not as a stronger or lesser offense. If he were to confess it as a dukkata or a sanghadisesa, that would be invalid.

5. Acting in accordance with the majority. This refers to cases in which bhikkhus are unable to settle a dispute unanimously, even after all the proper procedures are followed, and -- in the words of the Canon -- are "wounding one another with weapons of the tongue." In cases such as these, decisions can be made by majority vote.

6. Acting in accordance with the accused's further misconduct. This refers to cases where a bhikkhu admits to having committed the offense in question only after being formally interrogated about it. He is then to be reproved for his actions, made to remember the offense and to confess it, after which the Community carries out a formal act of "further misconduct" against him as an added punishment for being so uncooperative as to require the formal interrogation in the first place.

7. Covering over as with grass. This refers to situations in which both sides of a dispute realize that, in the course of their dispute, they have done much that is unworthy of a contemplative. If they were to deal with one another for their offenses, the only result would be greater divisiveness. Thus if both sides agree, all the bhikkhus gather in one place. (According to the Commentary, this means that all bhikkhus in the sima must attend. No one should send his consent, and even sick bhikkhus must go.) A motion is made to the entire group that this procedure will be followed. One member of each side then makes a formal motion to the members of his faction that he will make a confession for them. When both sides are ready, the representative of each side addresses the entire group and makes the blanket confession, using the form of a motion and one announcement (natti-dutiya-kamma). Are, O Venerable Dhammadinn, the three domains (morality, concentration, wisdom) included in the eightfold path, or is the noble eightfold path included in the three domains? The three domains, Viskha (the former husband of the nun Dhammadinn), are not included in the noble eightfold path, but the eightfold path is included in the three domains. What regards right speech, right bodily action and right livelihood, these things are included in the Domain of Morality (slakkhandha). What regards right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration, these things are included in the Domain of Concentration (samdhikkhandha). And what regards right understanding and right thought, these things are included in the Domain of Wisdom (pakkhandha). The domain of sla, for instance, comprises also all the regulations of the monks Code of Discipline (Vinaya), and for the layman, accepted rules of behavior, etc.; while the sla of the Eightfold Path refers to morality in the strict sense and consists of fourfold right speech, threefold right bodily action, and in a pure way of livelihood. Also the range of the other two domains is wider than the corresponding divisions of the Eightfold Path. (Nyanatiloka Mahathera, The Buddhas Path to Deliverance in its Threefold Division and Stages of Purity, quoting Majjhima-Nikya 44, 4th ed., p. 54, published 1952, 1959, 1969, 1982) _______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ Are the NKTs Ordination Vows in Keeping with the Vinaya? Geshe-las decision to condense the 253 vows of a monk and the 364 vows of a nun into 10 vows does not go against the Vinaya. In fact, all the ordination vows could be further condensed into practicing the higher training in moral discipline. An ordained person practicing the three higher trainings is thereby observing the entire Vinaya. How is this? No matter the number of precepts taken, they are merely symbolic, for in reality an ordained person promises to abstain from all non-virtuous actions. The ten ordination

vows of monks and nuns in the New Kadampa Tradition are: 1. abandon killing 2. abandon stealing 3. abandon sexual activity 4. abandon lying 5. abandon taking intoxicants 6. practice contentment 7. reduce ones desire for worldly pleasures 8. abandon engaging in meaningless activities 9. maintain the commitments of refuge 10. practise the three trainings of pure moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom With the motivation of renunciation, when we practise any moral disciplinefrom the moral discipline of abandoning killing to the moral discipline of keeping all three sets of vows, the Pratimoksha, Bodhisattva, and Tantric vowswe are practising higher moral discipline. Without the motivation of renunciation any practice of moral discipline is a cause of higher rebirth in samsara, but it is not a cause of liberation. In Friendly Letter Nagarjuna says: Always practise superior moral discipline, Superior concentration, and superior wisdom. These three perfectly include All the two hundred and fifty-three trainings. Fully ordained monks take two hundred and fifty-three vows, and all of them are contained within the practise of higher moral discipline because they are taken with the motivation of renunciation. The same applies to the Bodhisattva and Tantric vows. If we take the Pratimoksha vows before developing renunciation our vows are not actual but provisional Pratimoksha vows. If we subsequently listen to, contemplate, and meditate on the stages of the path we shall develop the realization of renunciation. When this happens our provisional Pratimoksha vows are transformed into real Pratimoksha vows. Geshe Potawa used to say Dromtonpa is my ordaining Abbot. Since Dromtonpa was a layman he could not actually be an ordaining Abbot. Geshe Potawa was implying that it was due to Dromtonpas guidance that he developed the realization of renunciation and thus transformed his provisional monks vows into real ones. Through this we can understand clearly how important it is for those who have received the Pratimoksha, Bodhisattva, and Tantric vows to practise Lamrim. If we neglect the practice of Lamrim it is almost impossible these days for us to keep our vows purely without breaking them. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Joyful Path of Good Fortune: the Complete Buddhist Path to Enlightenment, pp. 368-369, 1990, 1995) Are the NKT vows an authentic presentation of the Vinaya? In the Vinaya Sutras, Buddha says that through moral discipline we shall attain

concentration, and through concentration we shall attain wisdom. Therefore, the purpose of the Vinaya (Tib. dulwa) is to control [the mind] through higher moral discipline, as this is the foundation for developing pure concentration (i.e., tranquil abiding), and in turn profound wisdom (i.e., superior seeing). Je Phabongkhapa said, Nothing is said to be better than Lamrim for taming the mind. About the 10 ordination vows of the New Kadampa Tradition, Geshe Kelsang has said: These ten commitments that you promise to keep are a condensation of the entire Lamrim teachings. Although we can finish a verbal explanation of these vows in a few hours, their practice is all embracing. You should do thisfew words but always practice, practice extensively. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, The Ordination Handbook) While the first five Kadampa vows (Throughout my life I will abandon killing, stealing, sexual activity, lying and taking intoxicants) are common to all Vinaya lineages, the latter five (I will practise contentment, reduce my desire for worldly pleasures, abandon engaging in meaningless activities, maintain the commitments of refuge, and practise the three trainings of pure moral discipline, concentration and wisdom) are taken from the Mahayana Perfection of Wisdom Sutra and its commentariessuch as Kamalashilas Stages of Meditationwhich list the six branches or necessary conditions for attaining tranquil abiding, including these five internal conditions: little desire contentment no distracting activities pure moral discipline no distracting conceptions Look familiar? These preparatory practices are methods of training the mindmethods of moral discipline. The very purpose of becoming ordained is to practice a moral discipline that would enable one to achieve tranquil abiding. With tranquil abiding, one can attain superior seeing. These three higher trainingsmoral discipline, concentration and wisdomare the path to liberation from samsara. In his Stages of the Path, Atisha says, One who neglects the branches of tranquil abiding will never attain concentration, even if he meditates with great effort for a thousand years. Yet some legalists still reject the latter five Kadampa ordination vows simply because they do not appear worded as such in the Vinaya or Pratimoksha Sutras. For example, they would say that, even though it is more succinct, the vow to practice contentment just is not to be found in traditional ordination texts. I would say they cannot see the forest for the trees. For example, vow #31to not get a new mat before six years are up is obviously a particular instance of the more general principle to practice contentment. Buddha taught the necessity of following the meaning and not merely the words of the practice. Recognizing and appreciating the spirit of the individual precepts of the Vinaya is how all the Kadampa ordination vows are to be understood and practiced. Practically speaking, all the 253 vows explained in the Vinaya Sutra are included within the ten commitments. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Another mistake made by legalists is when they try to pigeonhole the 10 Kadampa vows

into either the 5 vows of a layperson, the 8 vows of a renunciate (Tib. Rabjung), the 10 or 36 vows of a novice monk (Tib. Gestul), or the 253 vows of a fully ordained monk (Tib. Gelong). However, the vows of Kadampa ordination are to be regarded as a practical condensation of the essential meaning of each of these sets of vows. As such, we should look to see how the 253 vows of a Gelong, for example, are subsumed under the more broadly encompassing 10 vows, rather than the other way around. The following is my own attempt to show how all the monastic vowswhether initial, novice, or full ordinationare naturally included within the comprehensive vows of Kadampa ordination. There are no doubt different ways of doing this, and many of the 253 vows will fall under more than one of the 10 Kadampa vows. I used The Sramanera/Sramanerika Precepts as the reference for the novice vows, and Buddhist Ethics as the reference for the full ordination vows. See also Are the NKTs ordination vows in keeping with the Vinaya? See also NKT Ordination: Clarifying More Misunderstandings Rabjung Vows 1. Abandon Killing 1. Not killing human beings 2. Abandon Stealing 2. Not stealing 3. Abandon Sexual Activity 4. Vow of celibacy 4. Abandon Lying 3. Not lying 5. Abandon Taking Intoxicants 5. Not becoming intoxicated (drugs, alcohol) 6. Practice Contentment 7. Wear the robes of an ordained person and shave ones head 7. Reduce Ones Desire for Worldly Pleasures 6. Leave behind lay clothes and signs 8. Abandon Engaging in Meaningless Activities 9. Maintain the Commitments of Refuge 10. Practise the Three Trainings of Pure Moral Discipline, Concentration, and Wisdom 8. Follow the Buddhas teachings Novice Vows 1. Abandon Killing 1. One should avoid taking a human life

2. One should avoid killing an animal or insect 3. One should avoid for selfish reasons, doing an action which may kill an animal or insect and not caring about it; for example, using water that contains insects without straining it; digging a hole in the earth without considering the creatures that might die as a result; cutting grass; overburdening an animal, which causes its death 4. One should avoid while doing something for others, doing an action which may kill an animal or insect and not caring about it; for example, splashing water which has insects on a dry place 2. Abandon Stealing 6. One should avoid stealing, taking what has not been given. This includes borrowing things and not returning them, not paying fees and taxes one is required to 3. Abandon Sexual Activity 5. One should avoid sexual intercourse 4. Abandon Lying 7. One should avoid lying in which one claims to have spiritual realizations or powers that one does not have 8. One should avoid accusing a pure monk or nun of transgressing one of the four root precepts (parajika) when he or she has not 9. One should avoid insinuating that a pure monk or nun has transgressed one of the four root precepts when he or she has not 10. One should avoid causing disunity among the sangha community through untrue slander or taking sides in a disagreement 13. One should avoid telling others lies 14. One should avoid criticizing the storekeeper in the monastery of giving more to those who are near to him or her instead of sharing them with all, when this is not the case 15. One should avoid criticizing directly or by insinuation that the storekeeper in the monastery of not giving oneself a share of the food or other things equal to that given to other monastics, when this is not the case 16. One should avoid claiming that a monastic gave a teaching in return for a little food, which is not the case 17. One should avoid criticizing a monk or nun by saying that he or she transgressed a precept in the second group (sanghavasesa) when this is not the case 5. Abandon Taking Intoxicants

20. One should avoid taking intoxicants 6. Practice Contentment 19. One should avoid covering the vegetables with rice; covering the rice with vegetables 28. One should avoid sitting on an expensive throne 29. One should avoid sitting on an expensive bed 30. One should avoid sitting on a high throne 31. One should avoid sitting on a high bed 32. One should avoid eating after midday (Exceptions: if one is ill, if one is traveling, or if one cannot meditate properly without food.) 33. One should avoid touching gold, silver or precious jewels (includes money) 7. Reduce Ones Desire for Worldly Pleasures 24. One should avoid wearing ornaments 25. One should avoid wearing cosmetics 26. One should avoid wearing perfumes 27. One should avoid wearing the rosary like jewelry, wearing flower garlands 34. One should avoid wearing lay peoples clothing and ornaments; letting ones hair grow long 8. Abandon Engaging in Meaningless Activities 21. One should avoid singing with self-attachment or for nonsensical reasons 22. One should avoid dancing with self-attachment or for nonsensical reasons 23. One should avoid playing music with self-attachment or for nonsensical reasons 9. Maintain the Commitments of Refuge 11. One should avoid supporting someone who is creating disunity in the sangha community, taking sides in the dispute 12. One should avoid doing actions which obliterate lay peoples faith in the sangha; for example complaining untruthfully to lay people that action brought by the sangha against oneself was unfair

36. One should avoid disrespecting or not following the guidance of ones ordination master 10. Practise the Three Trainings of Pure Moral Discipline, Concentration, and Wisdom 18. One should avoid abandoning the training, for example, rejecting the good advice of a nun or monk; criticizing the Pratimoksha Sutra 35. One should avoid not wearing the robes of a Buddhist monastic Full Ordination Vows 1. Abandon Killing 3. murder 58. destroying vegetation 66. casting water containing living beings 88. using water that contains life 108. killing an animal 2. Abandon Stealing 2. theft 46. redirecting dedicated offerings 63. evicting a monk out of anger 115. using without permission 121. overstaying ones welcome 3. Abandon Sexual Activity 1. sexual intercourse 5. ejaculation 6. touching or holding the bare skin of a woman motivated by sexual desire 7. speaking of sexual intercourse with a woman 8. extolling sexual intercourse 9. matchmaking 21. having ones robes washed by an unrelated nun

22. accepting cloth from an unrelated nun 34. having wool washed by an unrelated nun 52. teaching Dharma to a laywoman in private 53. reciting or chanting scriptures out of vanity 68. teaching the Dharma to a nun without having been appointed 69. teaching the Dharma to a nun after sunset 71. giving a Dharma robe to an unrelated nun 72. making a Dharma robe for an unrelated nun 73. walking together on a road with a nun 74. going with a nun in a boat 75. sitting in a secluded and sheltered place with an unrelated woman 76. standing in a secluded and sheltered place with an unrelated woman 77. persuading a householder to prepare food via a nun 89. sitting in the home of those engaging in intercourse 90. standing in the home of those engaging in intercourse 91. serving food to a naked ascetic 101. sleeping more than two nights with someone not fully ordained 112. sleeping in the same place as a woman 117. accompanying a woman on the road 124. leaving without informing ones fellow monks 127. going to town and staying overnight with an unrelated layperson 129. visiting the royal apartment in the night 138. requesting an unrelated nuns alms

4. Abandon Lying 4. telling lies about ones level of spiritual attainment 12. making a groundless accusation defaming a fellow monk 13. making an accusation against a fellow monk for a trivial reason 48. lying 56. accusing a steward of favortism 59. censuring through devious slander an honest caretaker of the community 70. jealously accusing a monk of teaching a nun to get a little food 109. causing regret is to sadden a fellow monk by denigrating the benefits of entering the monastic life or by saying that he has not received vows [i.e., he is not actually a monk] 116. defaming a monk without evidence 5. Abandon Taking Intoxicants 126. drinking alcohol or any kind of intoxicant leading to negligent behavior 6. Practice Contentment 10. constructing a hut exceeding the prescribed size 11. constructing a dwelling larged than for four monks 18. keeping extra cloth not intended for ones robes for more than 10 days 20. retaining extra cloth intended for ones robes for more than 30 days 23. requesting cloth from an unrelated layperson when one already has the three monastic robes 24. requesting excess cloth from an unrelated layperson when one lacks the three monastic robes 25. requesting from an unrelated layperson robe materal of a fine quality, more valuable than that which the layperson had intended to offer 26. requesting finer quality than two donors have prepared to offer 27. accepting a robe after one has insistently asked for it more than 3 times

28. making for oneself a mat out of a valuable material such as silk 29. making a mat out of only black sheeps wool 30. making a mat of white and black wool containing more than half black wool 31. making a new mat while the old one has not yet been used for 6 years 32. using a new mat that has not been sewn with a handpsan patch from the old one 33. carrying wool on the road motivated by acquisitiveness 35. handling gold or other precious substances motivated by acquisitiveness 36. lending gold or other commodities to make a profit, motivated by acquisitiveness 37. trading non-precious items such as grain in order to make a profit 38. keeping an unconsecrated begging bowl for more than 10 days 39. requesting an extra begging bowl from an unrelated layperson 40. engaging an unrelated weaver to make cloth for ones robes without payment or remuneration 41. engaging a weaver to make finer and more valuable cloth for ones robes 42. taking back gifts from a fellow monk 43. using rainy season retreat offerings before the retreat ends 45. keeping the large rain cloak for too long 47. storing foods and medicines for more than 7 days 64. harrassing a fellow monk who had taken up residence in the monastery earlier than onself 78. accepting alms of food 2 or 3 times in one day from unrelated householders 80. taking excess food 81. resuming eating a meal after thinking and saying, I have finished 82. giving food to a monk who has finished eating

83. gathering to eat with 3 or more monks in a place other than the communal dining hall out of disharmony 84. eating in the afternoon foods that are permissible only from dawn until noon 85. partaking of stored foods and medicines 86. eating what has not been offered and accepted 87. asking an unrelated householder for good foods without the hosts invitation, motivated by greed 105. wearing undyed clothing 131. accepting from an unrelated layperson a needlecase of fine materials which was made for oneself 132. making a seat for the monastic community with legs higher than a cubit 133. covering the seats of the monastic community with cotton 134. using a mat that exceeds the precribed length or width 135. exceeding the size for the flannel to relieve skin rash 136. exceeding the size for the large rain cloak 137. exceeding the size for the robes 7. Reduce Ones Desire for Worldly Pleasures 106. handling treasures or other precious articles that may cause pride 107. bathing more than once every two weeks 128. wandering into the village and not returning before the mealtime of the community 8. Abandon Engaging in Meaningless Activities 65. sitting down heavily upon a chair with pointed legs on the soft roof of the monastery 92. watching an army 93. staying in an army camp 94. inciting war preparations 99. lighting a fire

110. tickling a fellow monk with the intention of provoking a reaction 111. playing in water frivolously 113. frightening a fellow monk out of scorn 114. hiding any of the articles of a fellow monk out of scorn 120. tilling the soil without a special necessity 9. Maintain the Commitments of Refuge 14. causing a schism 15. taking sides with a monk who is trying to create a schism 16. causing a layperson to lose faith 79. eating for a second day at the home of an unrelated householder who hosts nonBuddhist renunciates 100. later withdrawing ones assent to a formal procedure of the monastic community 103. sharing spiritual instructions and material things with a monk who has been expelled from the monastery 104. sharing spiritual instructions and material things with a novice who has been expelled from the monastery 118. traveling with a thief 119. conferring full ordination on someone under the age of 20 122. rejecting advice concerning monastic discipline 125. disrespectfully refusing to perform a religious duty for which one has been appointed 139. accepting food without regard to seniority 140. transgression the rule not to beg at a particular household 141. eating without checking the safety of the forest when one has been appointed to do so 10. Practise the Three Trainings of Pure Moral Discipline, Concentration, and Wisdom

17. defiance when one has incurred a downfall 19. separation from ones robes for more than a day 44. separation from ones robes for more than 7 days when one is living in seclusion 49. criticizing the faults of a fellow monk such as his being from a bad lineage or not having all his faculties intact 50. slandering two or more fellow monks with the intention to cause discord among them 51. reviving a quarrel between monks that has already been settled 54. revealing a fellow monks lapses in discipline to a layperson and others when one has not been appointed to bring forth the allegation in the appropriate ceremony 55. declaring that one has developed superhuman powers to someone who is not a monk, without a specific necessity 57. scorning the monastic discipline 60. refusing to comply, denying the allegation of a downfall 61. leaving communal bedding or seats that one has used where sun, wind, rain, etc. can spoil them 62. leaving the temple without clearing up the grass and leaves that one has spread under the mat 67. laying more than 3 layers of unbaked bricks in one day 95. striking a fellow monk 96. threatening to strike a fellow monk 97. concealing a fellow monks lapse of discipline 98. preventing alms to a fellow monk, due to enmity 102. not giving up erroneous views 123. eavesdropping in on secret conversations of fellow monks with whom one has a dispute with the intention to increase it 130. purposefully disparaging the rules of discipline as they are being recited during confession

And so forth... 142. wearing the lower robe unevenly, high in one place and low in another 143. wearing the lower robe raised up so that it is too high 144. wearing the lower robe trailing so that it is too low 145. wearing the lower robe with the bottom edge hanging to one side 146. wearing the lower robe with the top folded over 147. wearing the lower robe gathered unevenly at the belt 148. wearing the lower robe with it hanging over the top of the belt 149. not wearing the upper robes even all around 150. wearing the upper robes too low 151. wearing the upper robes too high 152. not controlling body and speech with mindfulness while travelling 153. dressing with indignity while travelling 154. idle chatter while travelling 155. letting ones eyes wander while travelling 156. gazing more than yokes length ahead while travelling 157. covering the head while travelling 158. hoisting the lower robe 159. draping the upper robe over both shoulders 160. walking with the hands clasping the nape of the neck 161. walking with the hands clasped behind the bead 162. going about jumping 163. strutting

164. walking only on the heels 165. walking only on tiptoes 166. walking with the hands on ones hips, elbows extended 167. walking with the body bent 168. swinging or waving the arms while walking 169. wagging the head while walking 170. touching shoulders with others while walking 171. walking around holding anothers hand 172. sitting before the patron or host has invited one to sit 173. sitting without checking whether or not there are living beings on the seat 174. sitting down heavily 175. sitting with the legs stretched out and the feet crossed 176. sitting with the thighs crossed 177. sitting with one ankle on top of the other 178. tucking the legs under the seat while sitting 179. sitting with legs outspread 180. sitting with the private parts exposed 181. filling the begging bowl to the brim 182. taking equal amounts of rice and vegetables 183. accepting food out of order of seniority 184. not paying attention to the begging bowl when accepting food 185. holding out the begging bowl before food is offered 186. covering the vegetables with rice when wanting more vegetables 187. covering the rice with vegetables when wanting more rice

188. holding the begging bowl higher than the serving dishes 189. eating food with poor manners 190. eating very large mouthfulls 191. eating very small mouthfulls 192. not eating in moderation, according to etiquette 193. opening the mouth before bringing food to it 194. speaking with the mouth full 195. making blah blah sounds when food is not tasty 196. making yum yum sounds when food is tasty 197. making brr brr sounds when food is cold 198. making phff phff sounds when the foot is hot 199. poking out the tongue while eating 200. eating rice one grain at a time 201. criticizing the quality of the food 202. chewing the food on the right and then the left cheek 203. making a smacking sound against the palate 204. biting off part of a mouthful of food 205. licking food off ones hands after wiping the begging bowl 206. licking food from the begging bowl 207. shaking off food that is tuck to ones hand 208. shaking the begging bowl while eating 209. making the food into the shape of a stupa 210. scorning the begging bowl of another monk

211. touching the water container with food stuck to the hands 212. tossing dishwater at another monk 213. throwing dishwater into the grounds of a household without permission 214. putting leftover food into ones begging bowl 215. putting down the begging bowl on bare earth without a support beneath it 216. putting down the begging bowl at the edge of a ravine 217. putting down the begging bowl at the edge of a crevice 218. putting down the begging bowl near a slope or steps 219. washing the begging bowl at the edge of a ravine 220. washing the begging bowl at the edge of a crevice 221. washing the begging bowl near a slope or steps 222. washing the begging bowl while standing 223. scooping water by holding the begging bowl against the current of the river 224. teaching the doctrine while standing up to a person who is seated as though sick 225. teaching while sitting to someone lying down 226. teaching to a person who is seated on a high or rich seat 227. teaching someone when walking behind him 228. teaching someone walking in the center of the road when you are on the side 229. teaching those with covered heads 230. teaching those with their clothes hoisted up 231. teaching those with their upper robes draped over both shoulders 232. teaching those with arms crossed holding the neck 233. teaching those with hands clasped behind

234. teaching those wearing topknots 235. teaching those wearing hats 236. teaching those wearing crowns 237. teaching those wearing flower garlands 238. teaching those wearing silk veils 239. teaching those mounted on elephants 240. teaching those mounted on horses 241. teaching those riding a palanquin 242. teaching those riding in a vehicle 243. teaching those wearing shoes 244. teaching those holding staffs 245. teaching those wearing umbrellas 246. teaching those holding weapons 247. teaching those holding swords 248. teaching those holding bows and arrows 249. teaching those wearing armor 250. defecating or urinating while standing 251. throwing feces or urine into water or onto grass 252. spitting or cleaning the nose, or vomitting into water, unless ill 253. climbing trees taller than a man, unless in danger The early Kadampas would often say that to lead a virtuous life all we need to do is harm our delusions as much as possible and benefit others as much as possible. Understanding this, we should wage continuous warfare against our inner enemy of self-cherishing and strive to cherish and benefit others instead. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Eight Steps to Happiness: the Buddhist Way of Loving Kindness, p. 99, 2000) To harm our delusions as much as possible, we cultivate renunciation and practice

according to the Pratimoksha vows we have taken; and to benefit others as much as possible, we generate bodhichitta and practice according to our Bodhisattva vows. Monastic discipline (Skt. Vinaya) falls under the Pratimoksha vows. The emphasis in monastic life should be placed, not on its external forms (i.e., the outer Vinaya), but on the mind of renunciation which is formless (i.e., the inner Vinaya). Legalistic attachment to a certain number of vows completely misses the point, for as Milarepa said, I do not know the Vinaya, but I know how to control my mind. No matter the number of precepts taken, this number is merely symbolic, for the real intention is to abstain from all non-virtuous actions, meaning that the 10 vows taken are actually infinite in scope. Regarding this simplified presentation, Geshe-la has said that The actual words of the Kadampa ordination are brief but the practice is very extensive. Because the Kadampa ordination emphasizes quality over quantity, it certainly preserves the innate principles of the Vinaya. The ordination vows of monks and nuns in the New Kadampa Tradition are to: abandon killing abandon stealing abandon sexual activity abandon lying abandon taking intoxicants practice contentment reduce ones desire for worldly pleasures abandon engaging in meaningless activities maintain the commitments of refuge practise the three trainings of pure moral discipline, concentration, and wisdom Strictly speaking, The prerequisite for achieving liberation or full enlightenment, or even for ordination as a monk or nun, is the mind of renunciation (Meaningful to Behold: Becoming a Friend of the World, p. 158). Renunciation is the definite wish to be released from samsara. Without this spiritual realization of renunciation as its foundation, one technically cannot even train in higher moral discipline (i.e., the Vinaya), and so until such time, any ordained persons Pratimoksha vows remain provisional. That is to say, when ones motivation is artificial, then the vows taken with such a motivation are necessarily artificial too. The same can be said of ones Bodhisattva vows: Before generating actual, spontaneous bodhichitta and becoming a Bodhisattva, a Mahayana practitioner will spend a long time cultivating a strong wish to become a Buddha for the benefit of all living beings. This cultivated mind is called bodhichitta, but it is not actual bodhichitta. Actual bodhichitta is necessarily a spontaneous mind that arises without effort. In Sutra Requested by Those with Superior Intention Buddha says that the cultivated mind is like the bark of sugar cane whereas the spontaneous mind is like its core. The bark of sugar cane tastes sweet, but it is not as sweet as the core. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Ocean of Nectar: the True Nature of All Things, pp. 18-19, 1995) According to the tradition of Geshe Potowa (1031-1105 CE), once real, non-fabricated renunciation is generated, ones ability to practice higher moral discipline comes within reach, and then the renunciates initial vows (Tib. Rabjung) naturally transform into real

ordained vows, albeit novice vows (Skt. Shramanera, Tib. Getsul). Later, when spontaneous renunciation arises in ones heart day and night, one can then fully practice the path to liberation, and it is in this sense that Geshe-la uses the words fully ordained (Skt. Bhikkshu, Tib. Gelong). See also Are the NKT vows an authentic presentation of the Vinaya? See also NKT Ordination: Clarifying More Misunderstandings With the motivation of renunciation, when we practise any moral disciplinefrom the moral discipline of abandoning killing to the moral discipline of keeping all three sets of vows, the Pratimoksha, Bodhisattva, and Tantric vowswe are practising higher moral discipline. Without the motivation of renunciation any practice of moral discipline is a cause of higher rebirth in samsara, but it is not a cause of liberation. In Friendly Letter Nagarjuna says: Always practise superior moral discipline, Superior concentration, and superior wisdom. These three perfectly include All the two hundred and fifty-three trainings. Fully ordained monks take two hundred and fifty-three vows, and all of them are contained within the practise of higher moral discipline because they are taken with the motivation of renunciation. The same applies to the Bodhisattva and Tantric vows. If we take the Pratimoksha vows before developing renunciation our vows are not actual but provisional Pratimoksha vows. If we subsequently listen to, contemplate, and meditate on the stages of the path we shall develop the realization of renunciation. When this happens our provisional Pratimoksha vows are transformed into real Pratimoksha vows. Geshe Potawa used to say Dromtonpa is my ordaining Abbot. Since Dromtonpa was a layman he could not actually be an ordaining Abbot. Geshe Potawa was implying that it was due to Dromtonpas guidance that he developed the realization of renunciation and thus transformed his provisional monks vows into real ones. Through this we can understand clearly how important it is for those who have received the Pratimoksha, Bodhisattva, and Tantric vows to practise Lamrim. If we neglect the practice of Lamrim it is almost impossible these days for us to keep our vows purely without breaking them. (Geshe Kelsang Gyatso, Joyful Path of Good Fortune: the Complete Buddhist Path to Enlightenment, pp. 368-369, 1990, 1995) _______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ NKT Ordination: Clarifying More Misunderstandings May I perform the conduct of awakening, And remember my lives during all states.

In all my successive lives, from birth to death, May I always be a renunciate. Samantabhadra, The King of Aspiration Prayers This 30-page essay (also available as a PDF) is the third in a trilogy of responses to blogs written by Tenzin Peljor; it is also the third essay I have written concerning Kadampa ordination vows. (The first two are here and here.) This one attempts to directly answer various objections raised by him concerning Kadampa ordination. While it is clear he has put a lot of thought into the matter, it is questionable whether he has done much research. Tenzin Peljor would have you to believe that Geshe Kelsang is the lone dissenter against all of Tibetan Buddhism when it comes to what is called three-vow theories, as if Geshe Kelsang is the only one to teach that ordination vows can continue after death or that Pratimoksha vows can transform into Bodhisattva vows, etc. Whether or not ordination vows cease at the time of death is discussed below in sections I and II, and whether vows transform over time and/or have the same nature is discussed in sections III and IV. More specifically, sections I and II address the possibility of vows not being lost at the time of death since (I) they are not preserved in the physical body and (II) their duration is determined by ones intention. The last two sections explain (III) the transformation of Pratimoksha vows into Mahayana vows and (IV) the transformation of Pratimoksha vows from initial to novice to full ordination. Surveying the three vows in all the Tibetan traditions, the major texts referenced in this essay are: Three-Vow Theories in Tibetan Buddhism by Jan-Ulrich Sobisch A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes by Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltsen Jewel Ornament of Liberation by Gampopa Gongchig: The Single Intent, the Sacred Dharma by Jigten Sumgon Buddhist Ethics by Jamgon Kongtrul Treasury of Precious Qualities by Kangyur Rinpoche Perfect Conduct: Ascertaining the Three Vows by Dudjom Rinpoche Essence of the Ocean of Vinaya by Je Tsongkhapa Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment by Je Tsongkhapa ~~~ I ~~~ According to the Hinayana Vaibhashika school, ordination vows are subtle physical form and disappear at the time of death, but according to the Mahayana, vows are a type of mind and we do not necessarily lose our ordination when we die. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Objection: It is impossible that ordination vows can continue into the next life. The Vinaya and all commentaries on the Vinaya are clear about this The ordination vows last for one life and cease with the death According to the Vinaya the vows cease at the end of the life. Tenzin Peljors objection to Geshe Kelsangs teaching quoted here is addressed in the following Q&A.

Contrary to what Geshe Kelsang claims, do any of the Tibetan Buddhist traditions teach that ordination vows cease at the time of death? Yes, for example in the Sakya tradition. Sakya Pandita Kunga Gyaltsen (1182-1251, also known as Sapan) wrote a text called A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes. Sakya Pandita opens (vv. 4-5) with a discussion of the duration of the Pratimoksha vows: A vow, Disciples maintain is nonmental [i.e., material] and issues from body and voice; since it has form, the vow is relinquished whenever death occurs. On this point the Abhidharmakosha also teaches: The disciple of Individual liberation is terminated by renouncing the training, by dying, by having become a hermaphrodite, by severance of the roots of virtue, and by the lapse of night. And this statement is authoritative. Who is Sakya Pandita quoting? Sakya Pandita quotes Vasubandhus Treasury of Knowledge (Skt. Abhidharmakosha). He was a great Indian Buddhist scholar of the fifth century who, after writing this text, was later converted to the Mahayana by his older brother, Asanga. Both are lineage Gurus of the stages of the path to enlightenment. Why does Sakya Pandita say that Pratimoksha vows cease at the time of death? The main reason given by Sakya Pandita for Pratimoksha vows automatically ceasing at the time of death is that they are physical form. In other words, because ones Pratimoksha vows are physical form, they are destroyed at the time of ones physical demise. Jared Douglas Rhoton, who translated A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes, explains (pp. 73-74 n. 1): It is a tenet of the Vaibhashika school, based on Abhidharma theory, that a vow is endowed with a subtle material form (avijnaptirupa; Tib. rnam par byed ma yin pai gzugs) that adheres in the stream of consciousness. The vow, therefore, is coterminous with its material causes, i.e., body and speech. Body and speech and their effects derive from the four great elements (mahabhuta) of earth, water, fire, and air, and from their derivative elements (bhautika). Upon the separation of these elements at the time of death, a vow is deprived of its base and thus ceases to exist. Who are the Vaibhashikas? There are four schools of Buddhist tenets, which are four philosophical views taught by Buddha according to the inclinations and dispositions of disciples. They are the Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Chittamatra, and Madhyamika schools. The first two are Hinayana schools and the second two are Mahayana schools. They are studied in sequence, the lower tenets being the means by which the higher ones are understood.

What is avijnaptirupa? According to the Vaibhashikas, avijnaptirupa is the physical form that vows take after one makes them during the ritual ceremony. That is to say, a number of avijnaptirupa issue forth from ones avowed actions of body and speech and remain with the person as subtle physical forms. There is a separate avijnaptirupa for each vow (e.g., to abandon killing, to abandon stealing, etc.). It is what makes one a vow-holder even when someone is not consciously thinking about ones vows. For so long as they abide within the continuum of the person, these subtle physical forms effect a change in ones personality in accordance with the vows. The Encyclopedia of Buddhism says that One might understand avijnaptirupa as the moral character of a person or a force of habit. It is a potential form, preserved in the physical body (p. 221). Does Tenzin Peljor also refer to avijnaptirupa? Whether he realizes it or not, Tenzin Peljor is referring to avijnaptirupa when he uses the term non-revelatory form: The rabjung ordainee makes promises that belong to the class of non-revelatory form of virtuous and non-virtuous in-betweens. Therefore, becoming a rabjung is a virtuous promise but it is not a vow. The advantage is that such a odrination [sic] generates habits that bring one closer to getting and holding an actual vowlike that of a novice monk or nun (tib. getsul, getsul ma) or a fully ordained monk (tib. gelong). These promises of a rabjung have neither positively nor negatively the impact of a full vow. (For details see Abhidharma-kosa [Tib. chos mngon pa mdzod] by Vasubandhu.) What does the term non-revelatory form mean? Since avijnaptirupa is a physical form that is invisible and intangible to outsiders, the term is generally translated into English as non-revealing form or non-revelatory form, and also as unmanifest form or imperceptible form. That is to say, you do not know what another person has pledged until it manifests through some external behavior; before it becomes a patent physical or verbal action, the latent action persists in the continuum of a person as a non-revealing form. The Berzin Archives glossary of Buddhist terms has an entry for nonrevealing form, which says in part: A subtle form of physical phenomenon, asserted only by the Vaibhashika and Gelug Prasangika schools, that is caused by a strong constructive or destructive motivation, but which does not show (reveal) that motivation. What about the other philosophical schools? The above glossary entry implies that avijnaptirupa was not asserted by the Sautrantika or Chittamatra schools. It also implies that avijnaptirupa is not accepted by any Madhyamika-Prasangika traditions except the Gelugpas. This is confirmed in an article entitled Special Features of the Gelug Tradition by Dr. Berzin: Prasangika, like Vaibhashika, asserts that vows are also nonrevealing forms. The nonGelug traditions assert that only Vaibhashika asserts vows like that. All other tenet systems assert that they are ways of being aware of something. They are aspects of ethical self-discipline. Gelug accepts that this is the case only for Sautrantika, Chittamatra, and Svatantrika.

Did Vasubandhu adhere to the Vaibhashika view that vows are physical form? According to Geshe Lhundub Sopa (Steps on the Path to Enlightenment, vol. 2, pp. 290291): In his Treasury of Knowledge Vasubandhu presents the Vaibhashika view of the phenomenal world, but he also interjects objections to that view from his own position, which was in accord with the Sautrantika school. (In later texts he adopted the Yogacara viewpoint.) This conception of revealing and nonrevealing karma was one of the key concepts in the Vaibhashika karmic system that Vasubandhu criticizes and tries to refute. He rejected the notion that karma was in any way physical. The Sautrantika, Yogacara, and Madhyamaka schools maintain that intended karma (i.e., karma that is intended action) is the thought that accompanies the action at the time of performing the action. They insist that the mind is the thing; physical action is not in and of itself karma. What reasons did the Vaibhashikas give to support the idea that vows are physical form, and how were these refuted by Vasubandhu? In Treasury of Knowledge, eight arguments for avijnaptirupa are presented by the Vaibhashikas, each of which in turn is refuted by the Sautrantikas (= Vasubandhu). Half of these refutations show that there is no scriptural basis for avijnaptirupa in Buddhas teachings (i.e., Buddha never taught it). The last two arguments and their respective refutations specifically concern Pratimoksha vows. Zahiruddin Ahmad paraphrases these for us in An Introduction to Buddhist Philosophy in India and Tibet (pp. 39-40): [The Vaibhashikas assert:] 7. If avijnapti did not exist, the discipline of the pratimoksha vows would not exist, because it is only by virtue of avijnapti that a person who has taken the vows becomes a monk or nun. 8. A scriptural passage describes the renunciation of sins as a dyke (setu) which stops the flow of immorality. An absence cannot be such a dyke. Therefore, there has to be a real existent which prevents immorality. That real existent is avijnapti. [The Sautrantikas object:] 7. The pratimoksha discipline is not avijnapti, but volition (cetana), i.e., a determination to abstain from committing sins and thus preventing bad actions and disciplining body and voice. 8. It is the volition, referred to above, which has the character of a dyke. If immorality were prevented by avijnapti, independently of ones volition, a man without memory would not be able to commit a sin. Emphasizing that vows are mental in nature, not physical, Vasubandhu said that Discipline is volition (Treasury of Knowledge, translation by Pruden, p. 567), responding to argument #7 above in part with: This objection is worthless. In fact, the mental series is performed in such a way that,

when a thought of transgression starts to appear, the memory of the vow undertaken also appears: the volition of abstention is then found to be present. Since Sakya Pandita agreed with the Vaibhashikas, please give an example of someone who taught vows as intention. In December 2009, the 17th Karmapa (Ogyen Trinley Dorje), the current head of the Karma Kagyu tradition, gave some commentary to Brief Notes on Difficult Points of the Three Vows by the 7th Karmapa Chdrak Gyatso: His Holiness skills in debate were much in evidence as he pitted the positions of the Vaibhashika school, who identify vows as a particular type of physical form, against that of Shantideva, who describes vows as the resolve to abstain. Shantideva was a Prasangika, and his view is verified in section 160 of his Compendium of Trainings (Skt. Shikshasamuchchaya): by a resolve to abstain he succeeds in abstaining (translation by Bendall, p. 159). We can see this in Jamgon Kongtruls description as well: The vows of personal liberation are defined as the intention (as well as concomitant mental states) to forsake (p. 85). The late Dudjom Rinpoche, who was head of the Nyingma tradition, provided a brief description of the nature of the vow according to the Vaibhashika, Sautrantika, Cittamatra, and Madhyamika schools (p. 18). Concerning the latter, he said: The Madhyamaka school asserts that the nature of the vow is the abandoning mind, which means that the primary and secondary consciousnesses (subtle mind) have attained full renunciation. This is in accordance with the Nyingma master Kangyur Rinpoche (1897-1975) who said that avijnaptirupa is only asserted by the Vaibhashika school, adding that The Sautrantikas, Chittamatrins, and Madhyamikas, however, make no mention of imperceptible forms (Treasury of Precious Qualities, p. 377). Please give a summary of how vows were regarded by all four philosophical schools, not just the Madhyamikas. Jamgon Kongtrul summarizes the four tenet systems view on the essence of the vows as being either physical or mental in nature (pp. 85-86): According to the Analysts (vaibhashika), the vows have form, either perceptible or imperceptible, and are connected to the individual by the rope of acquisition. The Traditionalists (sautrantika) hold a different view, stating that [the vows amount to] a complete transformation of the continuum of mind. The Idealists (cittamatrin) consider [the vows] to be both the seed and the continuity of the intention to forsake what is unwholesome. For the Centrist (madhyamika) proponents of intrinsic emptiness (Tib. rang stong pa), [the vows] consist in the intention (and concomitant mental factors) to renounce [unwholesome deeds]. Stated concisely, the Traditionalists and the higher schools agree that the vows have the nature of consciousness and that they form with an attitude of disengagement [from cyclic existence] serving as their substantial condition, and with the essential elements [for assuming the vows], etc., serving as their cooperative conditions. Was avijnaptirupa taught by Je Tsongkhapa? Did he think that vows were form or intention?

In his Great Treatise on the Stages of the Path to Enlightenment, Je Tsongkhapa sides with Vasubandhu against the Vaibhashikas (vol. 1, p. 303): The Vaibhashikas divide physical and verbal karma into two types, the perceptible and the imperceptible, and hold that both types always have form. Vasubandhu refutes this, asserting that physical and verbal karma are intentions that work along with perceptible physical and verbal behavior; thus, both forms of karma [intention and intended] are actually intentions. However, this does not mean that Je Tsongkhapa taught that the nature of the Pratimoksha vow is intention. Here is Ngulchu Dharmabhadras amplification of Je Tsongkhapas Essence of the Ocean of Vinaya, where he discusses the nature of the vows (translation by ACI, The Ethical Life, p. 28): It, meaning the basic nature of the individual freedom vows, is physical and verbal karma. According to the Abhidharma School this karma is a kind of invisible and ineffable physical matter. The Consequence section of the Middle Way School also assert that it is physical matter, but they say that it is physical matter belonging to the gateway of phenomena. The othersmeaning the Sutrists, the Mind-Only School, and the Independent Section of the Middle-Way Schoolsay that it is the continued intention to give up [bad deeds], along with the seed of this intention. Thus this verse explains that even in our own Buddhist schools, two dissimilar positions are asserted on this point in the tenets of the higher and lower schools. The lower half of the Madhyamaka school (i.e., the Svatantrikas) says that vows are intention, just as do the Prasangikas of the Nyingma, Sakya, and Kagyu traditions. The upper half of the Madhyamaka school (i.e., the Gelug Prasangikas) is said to agree with the Vaibhashika school, in so far as vows are considered to be physical form. For Je Tsongkhapa, however, a vow is not an avijanaptirupa as in the Vaibhashika school but rather form that is a phenomena source (Skt. dharma-ayatana). Geshe-la explains in Heart of Wisdom (p. 127) that the term phenomena source refers specifically to phenomena that appear exclusively to mental consciousness, in this case the imagined abandonment of non-virtuous physical and verbal actions. Geshe Michael Roach gives examples of this in his commentary to the above quote, such as: The act of refraining from lying is a conceptual picture that you have (ACI Course 9, Class 3). He adds that Gelugpas do not say that vows are a kind of aura hanging through ones body, but the conceptualization of not lying, etc.: I avoid the word matter, which is a little tricky. [Gelugpas] dont believe its matter, but they do believe its physical They exist as an object of your mind, and that is what the vows are. They are the conceptualization of not saying anything bad and not doing anything bad. Thus, as Geshe Kelsang claims, according to the Mahayana philosophical schools whether they assert vows as intention or as phenomena sourcevows are not forms being preserved in ones physical body, and so they are not necessarily lost at the time of death. Atisha says that vows are lost at the time of death on account of not being recalled in ones new body (The Complete Works of Atisha, p. 135). ~~~ II ~~~ If we can maintain the determination to keep our vows through the death process and

into our next rebirth, we will still be ordained in our next life. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Objection: If the ordination vows could be carried into the next life then it follows very soon one would break one of the four root vows in the next life by just having sex through one of the three doors of the body, and since one has broken the root vows in ones youth one cannot receive ordination in that very life again. Sakya Pandita taught that ordination vows do not endure past death. Who was he objecting to? Sobisch says that here Sakya Pandita was responding to the teachings of the founder of the Drikung Kagyu tradition, Jigten Sumgon: One of the reasons for Sa-pans statement that the pratimoksha is lost at death was the teaching of the somewhat earlier master Bri-gung-pa sKyob-pa Jig-rten-gsum-mgon (1143-1217), who maintained, according to his main disciple sPyan-snga Shesrab-byung-gnas (1187-1241), in one of the better-known vajra utterances of his Same Intention (ch. III, no. 8), that the pratimoksha is not abandoned at death. Jigten Sumgons Same Intention (Tib. Gongchig) outlines the distinctive features of the Drikung Kagyu tradition; Khenchen Konchog Gyaltsen Rinpoche says that it is the most important text of their tradition. Peter Alan Roberts translation of the verse cited above reads: Some state that vows are lost at death, on transference [to the next life], and so on, but this [tradition] states that they are not lost through such causes of loss as those. This verse is in the section on the Vinaya Pratimoksha (Mahamudra and Related Instructions: Core Teachings of the Kagyu Schools, pp. 378-380). Markus Viehbecks translation Gongchig: The Single Intent, the Sacred Dharma includes Rigdzin Chokyi Dragpas commentary The Lamp Dispelling the Darkness. In part, the commentary to this verse says: In the [Abhidharma]kosa it is said that by passing away [the vows] are relinquished. [Vasubandhu] was only thinking of the Hinayana, but in the present context, Bri gung pa, the incomparable Jina, explained the Vinaya to be the Mahayana itself. If one therefore holds the view that after one has died the Mahayana-vows are relinquished, what is there to do about this engagement in completely false speaking? With the words in the present context, the commentary is referring to the preceding verses wherein Jigten Sumgon teaches that the Vinaya is common to all vehicles (3:1); it is not necessarily Hinayana, and even more accurately regarded as Mahayana (3:2): In some traditions, there are many who state that the Vinaya basket of the sublime Dharma is in the Hinayana, but this [tradition] states that the Vinaya is in all the vehicles. Many have stated that the Vinaya is definitely in the Hinayana alone and therefore is not Mahayana, but this [tradition] states clearly that the Vinaya, in particular, is Mahayana. Similarly, Geshe-las teaching does not apply to all Pratimoksha vows, but merely to the Pratimoksha vows when practiced by Mahayanists. Since Bodhisattva vows are taken until one attains enlightenment and not just for the remainder of this life, then it is

possible for a Bodhisattvas Pratimoksha vows to extend past the time of death. Did Sakya Pandita agree with the idea of a Mahayana Pratimoksha vow? Yes, Sakya Pandita himself taught both a Shravakas Pratimoksha vow and a Bodhisattvas Pratimoksha vow (vv. 1-3, 40): Two traditions of vows of Individual Liberation exist: one of Disciples and another of the Great Vehicle. From refuge through full monkhood a Disciples vows last as long as he lives. They are lost at death. The effects of the vows manifest in a subsequent lifetime. The vows of a bodhisattva, however, endure even beyond death. Even in the Great Vehicle Individual Liberation that part which consists of the vows such as of full monkhood will be lost a death, whereas that part which consists of the will to enlightenment together with its results will persist even after death. Wouldnt Sakya Pandita have taught that Bodhisattva vows were also physical form and likewise cease at the time of death? Sakya Pandita contrasted the mental nature of the Bodhisattva vows with physical nature of the Pratimoksha vows (v. 6): A bodhisattvas vow, however, is nonsubstantial because it originates in the mind

and so survives as long as the will is unimpaired. Thus, according to Sakya Pandita, the Bodhisattva vows are not physical form (avijnaptirupa), and so do not cease at the time of death. Rhoton explains Sakya Panditas reasoning (p. 74 n. 1): The vow of a bodhisattva to attain enlightenment, however, does not undergo a similar dissolution upon death because it is not held to be possessed of material form and hence does not lose its base. How does Sakya Pandita explain the difference? As shown above, Sakya Pandita accepted avijnaptirupa and used it to justify his view that it is impossible for Pratimoksha vows to endure past death. To explain this apparent discrepancy, Rhoton notes (p. 22) that while Sakya Pandita treated the Bodhisattva vow from a Mahayana perspective, he always treated those aspects particular to the Pratimoksha vow strictly from a Hinayana perspective. Besides Pratimoksha vows being physical form, does Sakya Pandita give any other reason for saying that they do not exist after death? Sakya Pandita began his A Clear Differentiation of the Three Codes by objecting to the idea that ordination vows do not necessarily cease at the time of death by quoting the Vaibhashika schools assertion that Pratimoksha vows are physical form. He then argued (v. 15) that if ones ordination vows could carry on into the next life, it would followas Tenzin Peljor also objectsthat one would inadvertently be breaking ones vows on account of not remembering having taken them in ones previous life: In that case, the vows of full monkhood and the like, which are endowed with the conception of the will to enlightenment, would not be lost through all the causes of vow-loss, such as death, renouncing the training, or severance of the roots of virtue. Verse 12 here amounts to little more than a straw man argument (i.e., arguing against something ones opponent does not actually claim). Critics seem to think that what is being said is that vows continue whether or not one keeps the intention to do so. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso explains what is actually the case: When most ordinary beings die they forget everything from their previous life. Their memory and mindfulness degenerates, and when they take their next rebirth they are unable to remember anything. If they were ordained they will again have to receive ordination from their Spiritual Guide. However, those practitioners who have gained profound realizations of moral discipline, which are powerful enough to withstand death, can carry their ordination with them into future lives. As our renunciation deepens it will transform into bodhichitta, and our ordination vows will transform into Bodhisattva vows and finally into Tantric vows. In this way we can become a higher being able to maintain our ordination into our next life. This is the most profound way of understanding our Kadampa Buddhist ordination. Thus, ones Mahayana ordination vows can continue even after death, provided one is a

realized Bodhisattva or a Tantric adept. Obviously, someone who is unable to remember having taken Pratimoksha vows in their previous life is not someone whose Pratimoksha vows would have withstood death. Simply put, ones ordination vows cease when one loses that intention; they endure for so long as one keeps that intention. Wouldnt this contradict Je Tsongkhapa when he says quite categorically that if the Pratimoksha vow continued unrelinquished upon changing lives, it would be possible to have gods and animals who were monks and the like? (Basic Path, pp. 108; 193) Losing ones ordination vows at the time of death is the norm; maintaining ones ordination vows into the next life is very rare, even for monastic Bodhisattvas. Due to uncontrolled rebirth, even a Bodhisattva may be reborn as a god or an animal. Tatz comments (introduction, p. 17) that it would be unimaginable that pratimoksha vows may be carried into another life for precisely this reason, namely that there is no monasticism outside the human realm. However, this reason given by Je Tsongkhapa is not pervasive; how does it apply to a Bodhisattva monk or nun who conscientiously takes rebirth as a human being? To understand this point, please compare the following three statements: One loses ones ordination vows at the time of death because one might be reborn as an animal, and there are no monastic animals. One loses ones ordination vows at the time of death because one might be reborn as a god, and there are no monastic gods. One loses ones ordination vows at the time of death because one might be reborn as a human being, and there are no monastic humans. Je Tsongkhapas point is merely to say that the Pratimoksha vow is not automatically carried into the next life, but the door is left open for those Bodhisattvas who can control death, intermediate state, and rebirth. Interestingly, Markus Viehbeck briefs his readers on two stories of monk-gods which are mentioned in Rigdzin Chokyi Dragpas commentary to the verse of the Gongchig cited above; these stories are taken from the Karuna Pundarika Sutra and the Vinaya, respectively (p. 60). So, Geshe Kelsang is not claiming that Pratimoksha vows always continue after death? Ordinarily, ones Pratimoksha vows do indeed cease at the time of death simply because they are taken for the duration of one lifetime (Dudjom Rinpoche, p. 55; Gorampa in Sobisch, p. 82). Similarly, the eight Mahayana precepts cease at dawn the next morning simply because they are taken for the duration of only one day (cf. Sakya Pandita, v. 17). Normally, one takes Pratimoksha vows for the rest of ones life: Throughout my life I will In contrast, one takes Bodhisattva vows until one attains enlightenment, no matter how lifetimes that may entail. If the duration of ones vows is really a matter of intentionhence why one no longer has to observe them after giving them up, contrary to Sakya Panditas non sequitur in verses 12-13then cannot they extend beyond this life for so long as the will is unimpaired? Please give an example of the duration of ones vows extending past their original intention. Dudjom Rinpoche relates how the one-day vows of the eight Mahayana precepts were

made into permanent, lifetime vows by Chandragomin (p. 24): These eight precepts were embraced for the duration of his life by the great acarya Candragomin. Thereafter, this became known as gomi lay ordination. This tradition was carried on by the Theravadan tradition according to Vasubandhu. However, gomi lay ordination does not exist in the Sarvastivada tradition. It should be noted also that the Theravadins likewise considered the essence of the precepts to lie in volition (cetana) (A History of Indian Buddhism, p. 192; see also Karma and Rebirth in Classical Indian Traditions, p. 185). Jamgon Kongtrul also mentions this lifelong purificatory fast being taught in the Mahayana scriptures (p. 100). ~~~ III ~~~ As our renunciation deepens it will transform into bodhichitta, and our ordination vows will transform into Bodhisattva vows and finally into Tantric vows. In this way we can become a higher being able to maintain our ordination into our next life. This is the most profound way of understanding our Kadampa Buddhist ordination. Geshe Kelsang Gyatso Objection: Ordination vows cannot transform into Bodhisattva vows and finally into Tantric vows, if it were so then also all the ordained persons would receive the Bodhisattva vows and the Tantric vows by a miraculous way of transformation. The Bodhisattva vows and the Tantric vows as well as the ordination vows are conferred only by the proper ceremony as described in the scriptures, a qualified abbot/Sangha or master, and with a concious [sic] intention to receive them. Bodhichitta must be developed by applying the Mahayana teachings and renunciation supports that mind but does not transform into it otherwise if [sic] follows the Bodhisattvas who have attained uncontrived Bodhichitta have no renunciation because their renunciation would have transformed into Bodhichitta. Are there any examples of Kadampa-trained Masters teaching that Pratimoksha vows do not cease at the time of death and can transform into Bodhisattva vows? Gampopas Jewel Ornament of Liberation, a Lamrim text based on Atishas Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment, responds to an objection that the pratimoksha cannot be a foundation for maintenance of the bodhisattvas vow because death causes the pratimoksha precepts to cease, but does not cause the bodhisattvas vow to cease. His response begins (p. 145): There are three aspects to the pratimoksha precepts, depending on ones mental state: a) If one accepts these seven types merely from a desire to have the happiness of the three realms, then this is morality with a vested interest. b) If one takes these precepts in order to completely free oneself from all suffering, it is the morality associated with the Hearers renunciation. c) If one accepts them with an attitude of achieving the great enlightenment, it is the morality of the bodhisattvas precept.

According to Gampopa (1074-1153), the Pratimoksha vows of a person of (a) initial scope or (b) intermediate scope will cease at the time of death. However, the Pratimoksha vows of a person of (c) great scope will not cease at the time of death. Furthermore, Gampopa states (p. 146): There is no need to have a separate ceremony to receive the bodhisattvas pratimoksha vow. This is because previously you took the Hearers training vow. If you later cultivate the special attitude, this transforms into the bodhisattvas vow. Even if you release the inferior mind [Hearer attitude], you have not given up the abandoned mind [the training]. Does ones renunciation disappear on account of having been transformed into bodhichitta? We can understand from Gampopas teaching cited above that someone with bodhichitta motivation stills remain a renunciate, but his wish to free himself from samsara has grown and expanded into the wish to free all living beings from samsara. In short, the renunciation of a Hinayanist has matured into the renunciation of a Mahayanist. The Sakya Master Gorampa (1429-1489) expressed the same understanding (Sobisch, p. 75): Go-rams-pas explanation of the transformation of for example the pratimoksha into the bodhisattva vows (General Topics, fol. 72v): after one has completely abandoned the inferior volitional impulse of the auditors, i.e. to pursue peace and happiness merely for oneself, that very resolution to abandon that discards opposing factors becomes the nature of the bodhisattva vows. In more detail (p. 91, n. 249): The point has been made earlier by Go-rams-pa (General Topics, fol. 63r) that the main element of taking up the pratimoksha vows is renunciation, i.e. the strong desire to attain peace and happiness through freedom from samsara. In the vehicle of the auditors, however, this is limited to oneself, and thus one speaks from the Mahayana point of view of the inferior intention to pursue peace and happiness merely for oneself. When the resolve of the bodhisattvas, namely the wish to obtain Buddhahood for the sake of all sentient beings, is produced, there exists within that the element of abandoning ones own peace and happiness for all beings. Through that the inferior intention of the auditors is removed, and that resolution of benefiting sentient beings, of which the abandoning of killing, stealing, etc.the rules of pratimokshais an element, becomes the nature of the bodhisattva vows, since the resolution to abandon harm for beings is not only not discarded but included within the resolve to benefit beings. It is only the narrow scope of ones own personal happiness that is replaced by the taking care of all sentient beings. Therefore there is no cause at all for a loss of the previously obtained pratimoksha vows when the bodhisattvas resolve is produced. On the contrary, through this process of abandoning the inferior intention and the continuation of the resolution to abandon the harming of others, this pratimoksha continues to exist as the bodhisattva pratimoksha. This is Go-rams-pas explanation for transformation and same nature. The auditor pratimoksha has been transformed into the bodhisattva or Mahayana pratimoksha, and the nature of the bodhisattva vows, namely to benefit sentient beings, is the same as the nature of the [bodhisattva] pratimoksha, since this pratimoksha of the bodhisattvas is

without the inferior intention of the auditors and endowed with the bodhisattvas resolve. It makes no sense to object, as Tenzin Peljor does, that consequently the Bodhisattvas who have attained uncontrived Bodhichitta have no renunciation because their renunciation would have transformed into Bodhichitta. Je Tsongkhapa gives the correct understanding in The Basic Path to Awakening (translation by Tatz, p. 109): This makes the mistake of failing to distinguish the pratimoksha vow from the lesservehicle attitude. In creating the bodhisattva vow you must relinquish the lesser-vehicle attitude, but you need not relinquish to pratimoksha vow. Kangyur Rinpoches understanding of Je Tsongkhapas view is that the three vows coexist in one mind as separate entities, yet the qualities of the lower vows are enhanced as the higher vows are received, and in this sense a transformation is seen to occur (Treasury of Precious Qualities, pp. 310, 475n195-196). Please explain when Geshe Kelsang says, As a Bodhisattva you will then have both ordained vows and Bodhisattva vows, but they will not be different, they are the same nature. Although the two sets of vows remain distinguishable in terms of their ritual aspects and commitments, one transforms into the other in the sense of the lower vows being brought up and practiced at the same level as the higher vows (Tsongkhapa, vol 2., pp. 148-149). In general, both sets of vows are resolutions to abandon suffering and its causes, but initially they are not of the same scope. After the transformation of the Hinayana Pratimoksha vow into the Mahayana Pratimoksha vow, it now has the exact same nature as the Bodhisattva vow. In short, the moral discipline of restraint within the six perfections is none other than the Pratimoksha vow practiced with bodhichitta motivation. Sobisch explains (pp. 311-312) a similar understanding by Gorampa: In other words, Go-rams-pa teaches that both the pratimoksha and bodhisattva vows have the same nature, namely the resolution to abandon (spong bai sems), which exists before the transformation as the resolution to abandon of pratimoksha, and after the transformation as the resolution to abandon of the bodhisattvas, and which itself is transformed in that its former scope, namely own benefit, becomes the much wider scope of the bodhisattvas (i.e. the benefit for others). It is apparent that this resolution to abandon, which in this regard can only refer to the abandoning of non-virtue (and in general also refers to suffering), and which appears to be what constitutes the same nature of the vows in the Sa-skya-pa doctrine according to Go-rams-pas explanation, is very similar to the Bri-gung-pas same vital point, namely the abandoning of non-virtue (and, according to them, also the achieving of virtue). If Gorampa taught the transformation of vows, did other Sakya Teachers like Sakya Pandita do so as well? Lightly paraphrased, Rhoton says that according to Sakya Pandita the three sets of vows are not completely distinct in nature but become, in fact, of a single nature through transformation during Vajrayana initiation. In his text on the root vows of the Vajrayana system (rTsa bai ltung ba bcu bzhi pai grel pa gsal byed khrul spong), Sakya Panditas uncle and TeacherDrakpa Gyaltsenis traditionally said to have posited an essential identity of the three sets of vows through transformation of the two lower codes to the level of Tantric observance, stating that the Pratimoksha vows turn (gyur) in to the

Bodhisattva vow, and that later on these are called (zhes bya ba) the vows of the Tantric adept (pp. 23, 34 n. 75). Sobisch reports (pp. 227-228) that Gorampa took Drakpa Gyaltsens words as an authoritative statement by one of the great five founders of the Sa-skya-pa tradition, teaching a transformation of vows. Grags-pa-rgyal-mtshan said: At the time the monks produce the resolve for awakening, all [their] pratimoksha [vows] turn into the vows of a bodhisattva (byang sems sdom par gyur). At the time they enter into the mandala [through Tantric initiation], all vows [become] vows of the Tantric adept (rig dzin sdom pa). Sobisch summarizes (p. 311): Thus two transformations are taught by Grags-pa-ryal-mtshan, namely the transformation of the auditor pratimoksha into the bodhisattva pratimoksha, and the transformation of all vows into the vows of the Tantric adept. Since all vows turn into the Tantric adepts vows in the end, this also appears to be an example for the teaching of the same nature of the vows after the transformation. After having received Hinayana Pratimoksha vows, does one need to receive the Mahayana Pratimoksha vows in a separate ceremony? This was first addressed by citing Gampopa above. Noting that a separate, uncommon ceremony for the Bodhisattvas Pratimoksha vows was never introduced into Tibet, Jamgon Kongtrul (pp. 150-151) answers according to two possible scenarios: (1) from the start someone receives Pratimoksha vows with a Mahayana motivation, or (2) someone first receives Pratimoksha vows with a Hinayana motivation but this later transforms into a Mahayana motivation: [T]he proclaimers personal liberation vows themselves, received with an altruistic intention, form the basis of the characteristics of the Universalists vows of personal liberation. If at the time of receiving the Individualists vows, ones objective is to attain full awakening for the benefit of others, the vows become Universalists vows. This is the case even if this was not ones objective at that time, but one develops the resolve to awaken afterwards. Sobisch clarifies that the Mahayana pratimoksha is only obtained through the common ritual, i.e. the ritual of the auditors that is then endowed with the production of resolve through which the pratimoksha vows turn into the Mahayana vows (p. 39). Contrary to Sakya Pandita quoted above (vv. 4-5, 40) and the Nyingmapas (translation in Sobisch, p. 407), according to Jamgon Kongtrul, at this point the Pratimoksha vows are no longer to be understood or explained from the point of view of the Vaibhashika school which taught that the Pratimoksha vows cease at the time of death: The vows are lost when the root of ones virtue is cut by harboring wayward views, committing a defeating offense, or giving back the ordination. The vows are not lost through any other circumstances (such as death and sex-change) because both offenses

and vows [in this system] are asserted to be of the nature of consciousness. ~~~ IV ~~~ Although he [Geshe Potowa] received his initial ordination from a Teacher who was a fully ordained monk, at that time he had no renunciation so his ordained vows were not real Pratimoksha vows. Some years later he met Dromtonpa and received Lamrim teachings, and through putting these teachings into practice he gained the realization of renunciation. Only then did his ordained vows become actual Pratimoksha vows. We can therefore say that Dromtonpa was his Ordaining Master because his actual Pratimoksha vows developed through the kindness of Dromtonpa and his Lamrim teachings. This is a very practical way of understanding how our ordination develops over time. Geshe Kelsang Gyasto Objection: Here the meaning of what Geshe Potowa said is confused. What Geshe Potowa wanted to emphasize is that due to the influence of Dromtpa [sic] he developed renunciation and this realization made him really an [sic] renunciate not the ritual or the ordination. However, this does not imply that he did not receive the ordination vows by the proper Vinaya ceremony nor does this statement by Geshe Potowa imply that his vows were established by developing renunciation. The vows are not received by developing or not developing renunciation but by the proper Vinaya ceremony otherwise it follows that newly ordained people dont receive the vows by the ceremony of ordination and if they havent received the vows they cannot break them, hence they can have sexual intercourse, they can kill human beings, lie about attainments or steal without breaking their vowsat least as long as they havent develop [sic] renunciation. Did Geshe Potowas ordination vows become real from the start through the ordination ceremony, or by later developing renunciation? Let us see how the 17th Karmapa told the story, in a teaching called How Discipline Becomes Pure: Gyalwang Karmapa spoke of three types of discipline, each based on a different motivation. One form of discipline is grounded in fear, and His Holiness noted that the vinaya contains many accounts of people in India seeking monastic ordination out of a wish to escape punishment by the king. A second type of discipline is motivated by the hope or wish to be reborn in higher realms in the future, and the third is a discipline based on renunciation of cyclic existence itself. Not only is the third form of discipline superior to the other two, His Holiness said, it is the only authentic basis for holding the vows. Illustrating this point, he related the story of the Kadam geshe, Geshe Potowa, who had already taken monastic ordination before he met the layman Dromtonpa, heart disciple of the founder of the Tibetan Kadam tradition, the great Indian pandit Jowo Atisha. Upon seeing Dromtonpa and receiving instruction from him, Geshe Potowa underwent an intense experience of renunciation, and, consequently, although he had already received his monastic ordination from another teacher, Geshe Potowa declared that Dromtonpa the lay teacher was his abbotthat is, the preceptor who had granted him his monastic vows because it was from Dromtonpa that he had received his first genuine experience of renunciation. It was this renunciation that transformed his monastic discipline into the

third type of disciplinepure discipline that is based on renunciation. In that sense, Dromtonpa merited the title of abbot even if he did not preside over the actual ceremony conferring the vows. Is Tenzin Peljor correct in objecting that The vows are not received by developing or not developing renunciation but by the proper Vinaya ceremony? According to Dudjom Rinpoche, The morality of total renunciation is the very ground upon which all pratimoksha precepts are built (p. 18). In Essence of the Ocean of Vinaya, Je Tsongkhapa says that renunciation acts as the cause of the Pratimoksha. Recall also the quote from Jamgon Kongtrul above which says that renunciation is the substantial cause of the Pratimoksha. Similarly, Sobisch (p. 43) cites Gorampa (Detailed Explanation, p. 169, fol. 101v): If one is not endowed with the resolution to renounce samsara, even though one takes the vows of ordination, it will not become pratimoksha, as in the biographies of Anandas two nephews and of gCung-mdzes-pai-dga-bo (Sundarananda). The view that pratimoksha vows are obtained through renunciation is also expressed in the Abhidharmakosha (ch. IV, v. 15). As explained by Gampopa above, the three types of Hinayana Pratimoksha discipline described here depend on ones mind. From within (a) the initial scope, an ordinary small being might take Pratimoksha vows to seek protection from the fears of this life, whereas a special small being might take Pratimoksha vows motivated by the fear of suffering in future lives. Having entered (b) the intermediate scope, a real renunciate takes Pratimoksha vows motivated by the fear of any samsaric rebirth. To demonstrate this, Kangyur Rinpoche says in Treasury of Precious Qualities (p. 302): The three vows must be received according to their own respective rituals. However, even if the vows of the lay or monastic state are taken in accordance with the pure rituals of the Pratimoksha, if the underlying intention is to practice discipline only as a protection from suffering and as a means to gain temporary benefits, the vows themselves remain of only nominal value. But as the story of Nanda shows, it is when the determination to leave samsara really takes birth within the mind that the mere vow is transformed into the authentic commitment of Pratimoksha. The story of Nanda is given in Patrul Rinpoches Words of My Perfect Teacher (pp. 9596), in which Buddha shows Anandas brother Nanda the future results of his being a monk according to each of the three mental attitudes mentioned above; at the end of the story, Nanda reflects that To be born among the gods in the future and then to end up in the hell-realms made no sense, so he developed a real determination to seek freedom from samsara. Kangyur Rinpoche adds (p. 313): More specifically, it should be said that unless a particular attitude arises, such as the determination to free oneself from samsara, the vows lack true authenticity. For authenticity does not automatically come from merely receiving the vows. Therefore, practitioners must strive skillfully to enhance their inner attitude, beginning with their determination to leave samsara. And even when their attitude has been transformed, the specific aspects of the various vows must still be observed.

This shows very clearly that the number of vows that one holds is no indication of ones realization of renunciation. Geshe Sopa says that the qualities of monks or nuns is not measured by their robes or haircut, but by their mental attitude (p. 388). Can we not then also say that the quality of a monk or nun is not measured by the number of vows he or she has taken, but by his or her level of renunciation? If one does not yet have renunciation, does this mean that ones ordination vows are not real? Without renunciation one remains a person of (a) initial scope, and by definition there are no Pratimoksha vows for a person of initial scope. With a mind of renunciation, the Pratimoksha vows of a person of initial scope transform into the Pratimoksha vows of a person of (b) intermediate scope. Nevertheless, many people take ordination vows without having realized renunciation; to distinguish the two, the former are considered provisional vows, while the latter are real ordination vows. In this sense, Geshe-la agrees with Tenzin Peljor that Rabjung ordination does not confer actual ordination vows, only novice and full ordination vows are actual ordination vows. However, this is not a fault of the vows but of the person receiving them; once he or she overcomes that fault i.e., attachment to samsarathere is no reason to consider that the promises previously made are not from then on functioning in that persons mind as real ordination vows. It should be noted that, according to the Tibetan tradition, one of the 8 vows of Rabjung ordination is to wear monastic robes. Does this understanding of Pratimoksha vows transforming on the basis of ones realization of renunciation relate to the debate on avijnaptirupa? Jamgon Kongtrul contrasts the Vaibhashika (= Analysts) and Madhyamika (= Centrists) perspectives on whether the different levels of Pratimoksha vows have the same nature and why it is that one level transforms into the next: Once a person has assumed and is maintaining the three levels of discipline [layperson, novice, and monk or nun] discussed above, in what way do these three coexist? Do these exist each with a different or with an identical essence, or does the former level change into the next? According to the Analysts who believe [the levels of discipline] to be form, each level exists simultaneously and is substantially different in the mind of a monk who has received them sequentially. They substantiate this view by stating that within the continuum of that monk, each level of discipline exists with a substantially different form because he has received the three disciplines through their respective procedures and he has not lost them through any cause. According to the Centrists and others who believe the levels of discipline to be consciousness, the levels neither exist simultaneously nor with different natures in the mind of the monk who has received them sequentially. They substantiate this view by saying that if this were the case, three substantially different attitudes of renunciation would exist simultaneously in the sphere of a single primary mind, which is illogical. Moreover, they assert that the levels of discipline are not substantially identical since in a single continuum these three are mutually exclusive. This being the case, [it follows that] in the continuum of a monk, the former levels of discipline transform into the latter ones,

becoming increasingly advanced in terms of the essence [of the ethical training], etc. When a layperson receives the vows of novice and then those of a monk, at those times, the former disciplines become the essence of the latter ones. This is comparable to the path of accumulation transforming into the path of preparation, and that path into the path of seeing. Therefore, although a full-fledged monk has received and not damaged the novice ordination, it is illogical to assert that he still has the novice vows. This is because in the continuum of a monk, the three disciplines are neither substantially different forms nor substantially different in the nature of consciousness; neither do the two disciplines [that of a novice and that of a monk] exist simultaneously and with an identical nature [in the mind of a monk]. A similar way of thinking is presented by Kangyur Rinpoche in his Treasury of Precious Qualities (p. 302). In particular, he uses this same reasoning not just for the three levels of monastic ordination, but also for how one set of vows transforms into the next: The same applies if, in addition to the pratimoksha vow, one goes on to take the vow of bodhichitta that aims at the welfare of others. While the specifically pratimoksha aspect is associated with the bodhisattva commitment, the determination to free only oneself from samsara is transmuted. It becomes indistinguishable from the attitude of bodhichitta endowed with the twofold aim. When copper ore is smelted, the extracted copper is not substantially different from the original mineral. Yet if the quality of its preceding state persisted in the copper, the end result would have to be both ore and extracted copper at the same time, which is impossible. Likewise, when the determination to free oneself from samsara is improved (by bodhichitta), the resulting attitude of mind is not substantially different (from the previous one). Yet if it did not lose its earlier inferior quality, the resulting mindset would be both selfish and unselfish at the same time, and this is impossible. In exactly the same way, when in addition to the bodhisattva vow one receives the vow of the Mantrayana, the altruistic attitude is itself raised to a higher power The altruistic attitude is thus enhanced and transmuted into the Mantrayana vow Has Geshe Kelsang replaced the 253 vows of a fully-ordained monk with merely 10? As explained before, the number of vows taken is no indication of ones mental state or intention. To emphasize this point, Geshe-las presentation of initial, novice, and full ordination is the same in terms of their number of vows. In Kadampa Buddhism, monastics of all levels of Pratimoksha ordination hold the same 10 vows, with either artificial, real, or spontaneous renunciation as the distinguishing factor. Level of Ordination Tibetan Buddhism (Hinayana Vinaya) Kadampa Buddhism (Mahayana Vinaya) Initial (Tib. Rabjung) Holds 8 vows Has artificial renunciation Novice (Tib. Getsul) Holds 36 vows Has real renunciation Full (Tib. Gelong) Holds 253 vows Has spontaneous renunciation In the Hinayana commentaries to the practice of the Vinaya, the way to control nonvirtuous actionsalbeit only actions of body and speech, since ones restraint (i.e., avijnaptirupa) is form, and form cannot discipline the mind (see discussion in Kongtrul,

p. 85)is by holding an increasing number of vows, whereas in Kadam Lamrim practice the way to control your mind is by increasing your scope of aspiration (see section on the 3 divisions of non-attachment in Understanding the Mind). Thus, from a practical point of view, in the NKT-IKBU the three levels of Pratimoksha ordination are interpreted differently from the Tibetan traditions which still follow the Hinayana commentaries on this point. As Geshe Kelsang says, Vinaya is not necessarily Hinayana, although Tibetans follow this tradition of interpretation. At a deeper level of understanding, there is no contradiction between these two systems, as can be shown by these two statements by Geshe Kelsang: Practically speaking, all the 253 vows explained in the Vinaya Sutra are included within the ten commitments. These ten commitments that you promise to keep are a condensation of the entire Lamrim teachings. The 253 vows being condensed into 10 does not mean that the former are being replaced, just presented or expressed in a very concise way. According to Je Tsongkhapa (vol. 2, p. 103), the many vows of a Bodhisattva are similarly condensed into the practice of the six perfections. In either case, why quibble over the number if the meaning is the same? According to Jigten Sumgon, the different levels of Pratimoksha vows all share the same vital point, which is said to be abandoning the ten non-virtuous actions (Sobisch, p. 342). This is echoed by Jamgon Kongtrul who said, In brief, all of the seven vows of personal liberation are fulfilled in the forsaking of the ten unvirtuous actions (Buddhist Ethics, p. 85; see also Tsongkhapa, vol. 2, pp. 149-150). Can we not say the same about the 10 vows of Kadampa ordination, that they come to the same point? Does anyone teach that vows do not transform one into another? According the 17th Karmapa, there is sharp disagreement with Drakpa Gyaltsens view mentioned above, arguing that the Kagyu tradition follows Gampopa in understanding that the three types of vow are separate in nature, and that the lower vows do not transform when the higher are taken. First of all, it would be interesting to see how this is reconciled with Gampopas words quoted before, which seems to say the exact opposite in regards to transformation, an alternative translation of which reads: We have first to undergo the training of a Shravaka and then, when we have grasped the discipline with the particular intention (which a Bodhisattva has) and when it has become lasting with us, it develops into the Bodhisattva-discipline. This means giving up a low-level, but not a renouncing, attitude (translation by Guenther, pp. 107-108). Secondly, in regards to whether vows are the same or different in nature, Sobisch notes (pp. 188, 190) that there is some ambiguity in the text to which the Karmapa is likely referring: Even in the same section that teaches the natures as very different (Work A 6), one also finds explained that it is also not acceptable that the natures of the vows are on all occasions different. It seems to be clear that sGam-po-pa rejects both possibilities, i.e. on the one hand that the vows are the same [with regard to their natures] (= conclusion of section 5) and on the other hand that (their natures) are always different (= conclusion of first paragraph

in section 6). One interesting distinction made in the debate on transformation is whether it is the vows themselves that are transformed or rather the person. In other words, it seems that all four Tibetan Buddhist traditions agree that there is a transformationthe Nyingma position being outlined nextbut the Kagyupas in particular explain it in terms of a transformation of the person, not the vows. Sobisch explains (pp. 217, 223, 235) that for Karma Trinlaypa (1456-1539), whose explanations of the theories of the three vows were a major influence on the subsequent developments within the Karma bKa-brgyudpas and beyond: [I]t is not the lower vows as such that are transformed or changed, but the perspective of the practitioner [H]e explains that it is also the intended sense of sGam-po-pas treatise the Thar pa rin po chi rgyan that the pratimoksha vows turn into morality of the bodhisattva vows because they have turned into the vows of the mental stream of consciousness of a bodhisattva. In other words, the person changes into a bodhisattva, and only because of that the pratimoksha vows turn into the vows of a bodhisattva. He concludes: Therefore, do not confuse [sGam-po-pas] teaching of the changing person with [the Sa-skya-pas] teaching of the changing vows. Sobisch points out, however, that Karma Trinlaypas interpretation of Gampopas words previously cited are not supported by the grammar of the Tibetan language (p. 235); for Gampopa, grammatically his subject is the vows, not the person: In this passage, the only possible interpretation grammatically is that it is the vow of pratimoksha that is the subject that undergoes transformation. If this is the passage that Karma-phrin-las-pa had in mind, then he has subjected it to further doctrinal interpretation and restatement (p. 317). Additionally, this same Teacher, in Sobischs words, said that as a consequence of the lower vows improving through the possession of the higher vows, it is taught that, when the possessor of the vow enters the Mahayana, the teaching that the pratimoksha is lost at death does not hold (pp. 222, 224-225). Following up on this in a footnote, Sobisch notes that There are some very interesting remarks on pratimoksha (not being lost) at the time of death by the eighth Karma-pa Mi-bskyod-rdo-rje, contained in his lengthy commentary on the Same Intention by Jigten Sumgon; unfortunately, this text is not yet available in English. What about vow transformation in the Nyingma tradition? There are also some views on the transformation of vows within the Nyingma tradition, who say Therefore the intention of this treatise [of] our system is that we maintain the three vows transformed [and] to be of the same nature and to have distinctive aspects The way of transformation is a way in which the earlier [vows] are transformed into the later ones (translation by Sobisch, pp. 415, 417): One must also understand how it is that the essence of the lower vows transforms into that of the higher vows and the manner in which lower qualities are elevated as the higher vows are obtained At the time that one receives a vow, one embraces the nature of that

vow. Then, as the next vow is received, the essence of what one already holds transforms into the next, without presenting any conflict. (Dudjom Rinpoche, pp. 141, 142). Similarly, Tulku Thondup says in the preface to Dudjom Rinpoches Perfect Conduct that The stream of lower vows merges into the higher vows, and the higher vows embody all the vows and merits of the lower ones (pp. x-xi). In Treasury of Precious Qualities, Kangyur Rinpoche provides a detailed exposition of the Nyingma view in his commentary to Rigdzin Jigme Lingpas (1730-1798) The Quintessence of the Three Vows: It is taught in our tradition that when the pratimoksha and bodhichitta vows are transformed into the mantra vow, the different aspects of the former remain distinct (i.e., operative) within the mantra vow itself. This is the teaching of all the great masters of India and Tibet as clearly set forth in the Ancient Translation tantras such as the sgyu phrul dra ba. Furthermore, the Garland of Light clearly states, Some believe that the three vows relate to each other in the same way as the earth, water, and boat. This is wrong. The great masters Ashvaghosha and Lilavajra have said that the three vows are differentiated only according to their aspects. This in turn is the unmistaken view of the learned and accomplished masters of Tibet. These include Rongdzom Chokyi Zangpo, the majority of the teachers of the Zur lineage and especially the second Buddha, Longchen Drime Ozer, as well as the great tetron Gyurme Dorje (Terdag Lingpa), of the Ancient Translation school, and also the great translator Rinchen Zangpo, Sakya Pandita (who was Manjushri in person) and his followers, all of whom belong to the New Translation schools. The manner in which the transformation takes place has already been explained. ~~~ Conclusion ~~~ In his book The Ri-Me Philosophy of Jamgon Kongtrul the Great, Ringu Tulku says (p. 193), In relation to the Sutrayana aspect of Tibetan Buddhism, there is a saying that its conduct follows the Sarvastivada Vinaya and its view is the Madhyamaka philosophy. Geshe Kelsang seems to ask: If the Madhyamika-Prasangika view supersedes the lower schools in all other areas, then why not with the Vinaya too? Geshe-la himself has never said that the Vaibhashika presentation is wrong; he would never disparage the Hinayana in this way. Rather, we can understand that the Hinayana interpretation is correct at one level, while for Mahayanists the Mahayana interpretation is more correct and closer to Buddhas final intention. This matter has been debatedfervently at timesover many centuries and even today there is disagreement between traditions. Jigme Lingpa listed six three-vow theories contrasting the Indian and Tibetan traditions with each otherbut considered each of them admissible according to that traditions skillful means. It is time to stop badmouthing Geshe Kelsang for also having an opinion. Why pick on him for inventing sharing a point of view about whether vows are form or intention, whether vows cease at the time of death, whether the three sets of vows are the same nature, or whether one type of vow can transform into another? If you object to Geshe Kelsang for teaching one position or another, why not object to every Tibetan Lama throughout history who has held the same view? My goal has been to show the historical precedent for each aspect of Kadampa ordination by looking at the three sets of vows as taught in the Nyingma, Sakya, Kagyu, and Gelug

traditions. In my opinion, by always following solely a Prasangika view, Geshe-la seems to have been the first to bring it all together into a coherent whole. ADDENDUM Tenzin Peljors paraphrase of this portion of Geshe-las talk is totally mixed up: There follows a discussion of how the New Kadampa ordination is Prasangika, following Khedrubjes commentary to the Perfection of Wisdom sutras The previous monastic vows follow Madhyamika-Svantantrika commentaries due to the influence of powerful Madhyamika-Svantantrika Masters materially and politically according to my root Guru, Kyabje Trijang Dorejechang [sic]. Here, Geshe-la was giving a tangent example of how it is that some Prasangikas had come to follow a lower philosophical schools point of view. This particular example only relates to commentaries to Ornament for Clear Realizations (Skt. Abhisamayalamkara) by Maitreya, not commentaries on the monastic vows. After giving this example, Geshe-la goes on to explain how something similar had happened concerning the levels of ordination vows, with Prasangikas again following a lower schools interpretation, in this case the Vaibhashika schools interpretation of the monastic vows. ----BuddhaSasana Home Page A Critical Unicode VU-Times font

Study of the Social Dimension of the Causes and Conditions that influenced the Origin of the Buddhist Vinaya

Bhikkhu Giac Hanh (Ven. Ho Quang Khanh) A Thesis Submitted in Fulfillment of the Requirements Kelaniya, Sri Lanka, for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy January 2008 of the University of

Please note: [01] -ooOooChapter I

VU-Times font (Pali Unicode) is used in this document.

Introduction This introduction is focused mainly on three aspects: a) The scope and objective of the research. b) The methodology adapted. c) The source material used for the research. a) The scope and objective In modern times a considerable amount of research has been done on Vinaya by both Western and Eastern scholars. This is not surprising as Vinaya forms the foundation or the life of Ssana or the dispensation according to the Theravda tradition[1] . In fact in the enumeration of the three "Baskets" or "Tipiaka" that comprise the Theravda Tipiaka, Vinaya Piaka is mentioned before the Sutta Piaka which contains the "Teaching" or the Dhamma. This is, in spite of the fact, that Vinaya or to be more precise formal Vinaya, arose much after the Buddha began his missionary career of expounding the Dhamma. Even the old term used by the Buddha himself to refer to his Teachings is Dhamma-Vinaya[2] , "Dhamma" being mentioned first. Most of the researches on Vinaya are concerned about the origin and evolution of the Vinaya, which undoubtedly is a very important area of study. These researches have brought to light very valuable information regarding the first beginning of the Sagha Order, how it functioned originally without a formal code of disciplinary rules, and how, due to numerous reasons, the Buddha was compelled to promulgate a formal code of discipline. These researches are, therefore, mainly focused in scope to the origin and evolution of Vinaya. There is not much attention directed to find out the social background of the time, of the members of the Order, especially those who were involved in misconducting themselves, the customs prevalent at the time in the society, the disciplinary codes adopted by the members of other religious orders etc. As there is no research especially focused on the sociological background that gave rise to the promulgation of Vinaya as well as to the religio-sociological context in which the rules were formulated it was felt necessary to engage in a research of this nature. In scope, therefore, the focus of this research will be directed to the

religio-sociological aspect and its influence on the promulgation of the rules as well as the context of the rules. However, in doing this, the historical origin and

the evolution of formal Vinaya will not be totally neglected. That aspect will also be dealt with as far as it is relevant to the main objective of the research. Hence, an attempt will be made to study the characters of the individuals involved in the formulation of rules, their social background, the relation between the rules so formulated and the goal aimed at by the members of the Sagha who were bound by these rules and such other related aspects. b) Methodology This study will be based on textual evidence. When using textual evidence due attention will be paid to the chronological structure of the texts used. Though there is no total consensus regarding the chronology of the Theravda canon, there are some generally accepted views on it. Many scholars have done research on the chronology of the canon. Some of them are: 1. Rhys Davids, Buddhist India[3] . 2. B.C. Law, A History of Pli Literature[4] . 3. G.C. Pande, Studies in the Origins of Buddhism[5]

None of these studies are conclusive. Most of the views presented are hypothetical and subjective. Yet, these studies point to the fact that the Theravda Tipiaka, as it exists at present, is not a compilation done within a short period; these researches show beyond doubt that the Tipiaka is the result of a fairly long process, running into a number of centuries, of redactions carried out collectively by monks well versed in the Dhamma-vinaya and approved at councils held for the purpose. All these researches highlight the important fact that the Tipiaka contains both very old as well as comparatively late material. So, in using the Tipiaka as the primary research source for this study due attention has been paid to this early and late composition of the texts. In this research the primary literary source is the Vinaya Piaka which also contains early and late material. The Sutta Piaka which is similar in chronological composition is used to supplement whatever evidence that is gathered from the Vinaya Piaka. With regard to the Sutta Piaka there is general agreement among scholars that the four major Nikyas namely, Dgha, Majjhima, Sayutta and Aguttara contain early material than most of the texts included in the Khuddakanikya. The best known exception to this is the Suttanipta, which contains very old material, especially in the Ahakavagga section. These textual materials have been used with much care, keeping in mind the problem of chronology. The Abhiddhamma Piaka has not been used as it was found that this Piaka has no direct bearing to the subject of study. The relevant commentaries have been used wherever and whenever it was found necessary

to provide further supportive evidence. The method applied in sifting evidence from a vast mass of source material is selective, analytical and critical. No evidence has been accepted on its face value. The evidence has been analyzed, and weighed against the views presented by various scholars who have contributed much to this area of study, the Vinaya. Whatever interpretation adopted and whatever new interpretations suggested has been supported by evidence from texts. c) Source material As this is a research involving Vinaya the primary source material is the Vinaya Piaka, this is the first Basket or Piaka of the Three Baskets or Tipiaka (Skt. Tripiaka), the term by which the canon of the Theravdin is known. This was the Basket that was first rehearsed at the First Council, held three months after the passing away of the Buddha. Venerable Mahkassapa chaired this Council or Sangti and the prominence given to Vinaya at this Council clearly suggests the dominant role played by venerable Mahkassapa at this Council and also the overall influence he appears to have exerted on the formation of what later came to be called Theravda[6] . The emphasis paced on Vinaya in the Theravda venerable Mahkassapas influence. tradition, perhaps, is due to

The Cullavagga account, in somewhat summary form, presents how, the First Council was held, how its activities were conducted and such other information. Though it is said that the Dhamma-vinaya was rehearsed at this Council and the five Nikyas were settled, this is hardly acceptable. Scholars such as Rhys Davids (Buddhist India), Winternitz (History of Indian Literature, vol. II), G.C.Pande (Studies in Origin of Buddhism) and Norman (A Philological Approach to Buddhism) have proved, with irrefutable evidence that the Tipiaka, as it is extant now, is the outcome of a process of compilation, redaction, addition, deletion etc. that ran into a couple of centuries. The Cullavagga very briefly says that venerable Mahkassapa posed certain question with regard to Vinaya. Venerable Upli answered them in the same brief manner and that through this process the Vinaya Piaka was fixed. This account is not at all acceptable, for not only external evidence but even internal evidence disprove this. The Cullavagga gives also a brief account of the proceedings of the Second Council. This was held about one-hundred years after the passing away of the Buddha. If the Vinaya Piaka was fixed in the First Council, how could the Cullavagga contain information of an event that took place one-hundred years later?

This itself proves that the Vinaya Piaka, of which the Cullavagga is a section, was not fixed in its present format at the First Council. Besides, there is strong doubt about the compilation of the section called Parivra. This seems to be a supplementary work. Scholars are unanimous in holding that this is a late work. Some among them strongly hold that this was compiled in Sri Lanka[7] . The Vinaya Piaka consists of the following sections: 1) Suttavibhaga 2) Khandhaka 3) Parivra 4) Ptimokkha Of these the, Suttavibhaga is the section about which the present study is more concerned and, hence, it would be dealt with in detail later. The Khandhaka is constituted of Mahvagga and Cullavagga. The Mahvagga, amongst other things, presents an uninterrupted account of the Buddhas life from his enlightenment up to the conversion of Upatissa and Kolita who became the two chief disciples of the Buddha under the names Sriputta and Moggallna. Besides, the Mahvagga presents also a wealth of information about the origin and growth of the Sagha Order. Other than these, it contains also details about the duties toward the preceptor (upajjhya), the gradual evolution of the Higher Ordination (upasampad), uposatha recital of Ptimokkha etc. Promulgation of certain rules, as for example, the rule prohibiting granting admission to individuals suffering from specifically mentioned diseases is also contained in the Mahvagga. The Cullavagga, as the name itself indicates, is the minor of the two divisions. Its first nine chapters deal with disciplinary proceedings, various offences, their expiation, settlement etc. The tenth chapter deals with the duties of nuns. The last two chapters are about the two Buddhist Councils, the First and the Second. This section is important with regard to procedural rules, for it explains in detail procedural methods that should be adopted in dispensing justice over ecclesiastical issues. Hence, it is of much significance for the study of the judicial system that was adopted in the Sagha. Besides, this section also contains rules laid down to regulate the day to day conduct of the members of the Order. Most of these rules are not directly concerned with the practice leading to the attainment of the final goal. The Parivra is described as a digest or a manual of instructions. Though Ven. Buddhaghosa says that Parivra was rehearsed under Vinaya in the First Council[8] , the commonly accepted view is that it is a later addition. It has nothing special other than serving as a kind of compendium to the

Vinaya. Ptimokkha contains in summary all the monastic rules, and it is closely connected with the observance of uposatha at which the Ptimokkha is recited (ptimokkhuddesa). This connection between the uposatha and ptimokkhuddesa appear to have made some to consider Ptimokkha as the origin of Vinaya, and that Ptimokkha is the earliest specimen of Buddhist Vinaya literature[9] . But it is clear that a large number of rules came into being after Ptimokkhuddesa came to be practised. Ptimokkha, therefore, was a list of a growing body of disciplinary rules and in its final form it may have been drawn from the Suttavibhaga itself. With regard to monastic rules it is the Suttavibhaga that is of great importance, and for this research, also, it is Suttavibhaga that is of special significance. B.C Law commenting on the Suttavibhaga says: The Suttavibhaga means the explanation or expositions of the Suttas. The word Sutta corresponds to the Sanskrit Stra and literally means thread. "It is applied to a kind of book, the content of which are, as it was, a thread, giving the gist or substance of more than is expressed in them in words. This sort of book was the latest development in Vedic literature, just before and after the rise of Buddhism (Rhys Davids, American lectures, Buddhism Its History and Literature, pp.53-54). Buddhism used this word to mean a discourse, or a chapter[10] ." This word Stra in Sanskrit is very commonly used to refer to tersely worded aphorisms which convey wider and deeper meanings than what the words in the Stra indicate. Its compact and precise in meaning, very technical and formal in its format. It is by taking in this sense that the commentaries equate the term Sutta with Mtik, which are used in the Ptimokkha (and also in the Abhidhamma) to refer to longer lists or accounts it represents. It is a kind of code language which when analyzed gives a fuller meaning than what it appears to give. Thus, in the term Suttavibhaga Sutta is used to refer to codes and Vibhaga to the analysis or detailed explanation of these Suttas or coded rules. Thus the Suttavibhaga is a very detailed explanation of each rule to be followed by monks and nuns. Von Hinuber observes that the "structure of the Suttavibhaga is determined by the sequence of rules in the Ptimokkhasutta upon which is comment[11] ." This suggests that Ptimokkhasutta is earlier than the Suttavibhaga. However, this view is not accepted by all[12] . The Suttavibhaga is a comprehensive analytical commentary on all Vinaya rules. Every rule is set out giving an introductory story (vatthu) narrating the cause that led to the laying down of a particular rule. This is followed

by the promulgated rule itself (paatti), with supplementary conditions (anupaatti). Then comes the word by word explanation (padabhjaniya). Exception to the promulgated rules (anpatti) is then given. Often the introductory background story is derived from the particular rule itself. These are some others taken over from the other parts of the Tipiaka. These are instances where the introductory story does not fully accord with the particular rule promulgated. The Suttavibhaga consists of two major divisions: 1) Mahvibhaga which contains rules pertaining to the conduct of bhikkhus and bhikkhun-vibhaga which, as the name denotes, contains rules pertaining to bhikkhuns. This is the structured on the model of the Mahvibhaga. The main difference between the two is the difference in the number of rules: two-hundred and twenty (220) for bhikkhus and three-hundred and four (304) for bhikkhuns[13] . B.C.Law explains that the Suttavibhaga which analyses divided into two books: a) Prjika b) Pcittiya These two books deal with all the rules, all 227 that is 220 substantive rules and 7 procedural rules. These 227 rules are grouped under eight separate heads: 1) Prjika dhamm: deeds leading to loss of are 04 for monks and 08 for nuns. 2) Saghdisesa dhamm: deeds calling for a formal adjudication. 13 for monks, 17 for nuns. 3) Aniyata dhamm: rules pertaining to deeds whose 02 for bhikkhus only. 4) Nissaggiy-pcittiy dhamm: deeds involving both. 5) Suddha-pcittiy dhamm: deeds calling to repentance. for nuns. 6) Pidesaniy dhamm: deeds calling for confession. 04 nuns. 7) Sekhiy dhamm: rules pertaining to behavioral membership in the Order. These meeting of the Order for nature in undetermined. forfeiture. 30 in numbers for 92 for monks, 166 for monks, 08 for etiquette. 75 in all. all the rules is broadly

8) Adhikaraa samatha: procedural rules which are 07 in

all.

These make up the 220 and 304 substantive rules for bhikkhus and bhikkhuns respectively, and the seven procedural rules applicable commonly when adjudicating matters related to either party. Of these Prjika offences are the gravest. These 1) Indulgence in sexual intercourse (methuna dhamma prjiko hoti). 2) Taking or stealing what has not been given (adinna diyeyya yathrpe adinndne). 3) Intentional killing of a human being (manussaviggaha 4) Intentional lying about ones spiritual attainments (yo anabhijna uttarimanussadhamma attpanyika). briefly are: paiseveyya theyyasakhta jvit voropeyya). pana bhikkhu

These are so grave among deeds that they are considered as totally against the "Noble Life" a recluse avows to follow when he enters bhikkhuship. These affect the very core of recluseship and, hence, these are irremediable. One who commits any of these four offences automatically loses his membership in the Order. All these offences are totally incompatible with the conduct of an individual who has very sincerely committed himself to the practice of the "Noble Life" (brahmacariy). Though those four have some relation with the pacasla, an analysis of the two sets will clearly show that as Prjika offences they are grave in relation to the practice of brahmacariy. Saghdisesa offences, though lesser in gravity than Prjika offences, are serious enough to call for punishments. These are thirteen in the case of monks and seventeen in the case of nuns. Some of them are related to sexual misconduct like willful emission of semen, touching a woman. There are yet other offences which are made offences because they adversely affect the unity of the Sagha community as well as its good name, for example; any act leading to a schism in the Order is a Saghdisesa offence. So in the leveling of a groundless charge is against a fellow monk. Aniyatas, which are two in number, are also serious depending on the circumstances under which they are committed or undecided because the act itself does not make it possible to categorize it under Prjika, Saghdisesa or Pcittiya. Its nature has to be determined after inquiry, and then legally dealt with. Nissagiya-pcittiya are lesser in their gravity than the above three offences

mentioned and, therefore, the usual punishment meted out is "forfeiture" (nissaggiya). Thirty such offences are listed in the case of monks and nuns and these are related to the use of robes and other items. Suddha-pcittiya offences are even lesser in gravity and are ninety-two for bhikkhus and one-hundred and sixty-six for bhikkhuns, this large number itself show that these are rather minor offences. These are all connected with day to day activities of the members of the Sagha community. They relate to minor lapses in behaviour such as that could take place when exhorting bhikkhus, taking more than a meal at one place or accompanying a monk for a meal to a neighbouring village or taking liquor or any strong drinks, sports in water etc. Repentance for the lapse and sincere pledge to prevent repetition of such lapses is the remedy or the penalty for these offences. This penalty itself shows that these offences are not very serious when compared with what were described before. There are four Paidesaniya for monks and eight for nuns. These are related to acceptance of alms, and partly to relation between monks and nuns in partaking alms. For example, a monk is guilty of a Pidesaniya offence if he accepted and ate food given by a bhikkhun who is not related to him. Similarly, if a nun gives direction with regard to serving a meal to a member of nuns and if bhikkhus fail to admonish her that too is a Pidesaniya offence. These offences are expiated by confession which means admission and acceptance of the infringement of the rule and, of course, the resolve to refrain from committing such offences in the future (yati savarya). The seventy-five Sekhiy dhamm are all regarding etiquette in day to day behaviour. For example, when laughing neither a bhikkhu nor a bhikkhun should laugh aloud; they should not stand with their hands on the hips; should not swing arms body or head when walking; should not make noise when eating, nor should talk while eating. Such are the rules that come under Sekhiy dhamm. All those rules have relevance to outward behaviour of the members of the Order. This was undoubtedly to present a separate refined and dignified identity to the members of the Sagha. In fact, it is such outward behaviour that initially contributed to arouse faith in those who had no faith and increase faith in those who already had faith. Nikya contains numerous references to expression of appreciation of such behaviour on the part of bhikkhus by kings, especially Pasenad Kosala. The Kosala Sayutta of the Sayuttanikya as well as the Bhikkhusayutta contain references to such refined and serene outward appearance of monks. The last seven of the 227 rules are not substantive rules but procedure that should be followed when conducting rules about activities of formal

ecclesiastical forums to decide on matters that are to be settled according to monastic law. These are seven in number and, hence, referred to as satta adhikaraa-samatha-dhamm. These are as follows: 1) Sammukh-vinaya: the case to be heard in the presence 2) Sati-vinaya: this is regarding finding out the of the offender.

intention of offender.

3) Amha-vinaya: this pertains to the possibility of presenting a plea of insanity at the time of the commission of the offence. 4) Paitakaraa: is about the possibility of tendering 5) Yebhuyyasik: is about the possibility of deciding a vote of the jury. 6) Tassappeyyasik: this is about handling an obstinate to escape punishment. 7) Tiavatthraka: amicable settlement of disputes. These procedural rules are not directly related to the present study, and hence, these will not be directly focused upon. In the Vinaya too, Suttavibhaga would be the prime source. Ahakath will be consulted whenever needed. Similarly secondary sources regarding the Vinaya as well on the social conditions of the time also would be consulted as and when necessary to find more information about the social conditions of the time and to see what are the societal causes and conditions that influenced the origin of the Buddhist Vinaya. Similarly, wherever information is available an attempt would be made to list the offenders and make a sort of a sociological study of their characters, and see whether their characters in any way influenced the promulgation of the Vinaya rules. * Endnotes: 1. Theravda School or Southern School or Original School. 2. D.II, 154. 3. T.W. Rhys Davids, Buddhist India, First edition London, reprint in 1997 was done by Motical Banarsidass, Delhi. 1903. A recent a confession. case by the majority offender who attempt

4. B.C. Law, A History of Pli Literature, Indica Books, This was first published in 1983. 5. G.C. Pande, Studies in the Origins of Buddhism. First Ed. revised Ed. 1995. Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi.

Varanasi, India, 2000. 1957. Fourth

6. Buddhism as it prevails at present in divided into two major divisions: Theravda and Mahyana. The origin of this division is traced to the Second Buddhist Council, at the conclusion of which the Sagha Order divided into two, making the first schism, as Theravda and Mahshaghika. 7. See B.C. Law, op. cit. p. 99. 8. DA. I, 13. 9. Vinaya Piaka Ed. Oldenberg, London, pp. xv-xvi. 10. B.C. Law, op. cit. pp. 69-70. 11. Oskar von Hinuber, A Handbook of Pli Literature, p. 13. 12. Jotiya Dhirasekera, Buddhist Monastic Discipline, pp. 43-54; 91-107.

13. The Bhikkhun-vibhaga is non-operative now in Theravda Buddhist countries. This is because in these countries the bhikkhun Order has become extinct. There are only Dasa-sla-mts or those who observe the ten precepts. -ooOooChapter II Monastic Vinaya: Its Aims and Objective Vinaya and Brahmacariy Just as there is one taste in the ocean, that is the taste of salt, there is one taste in the Dhamma, which is the taste of freedom or emancipation (vimutti-rasa)[1] . The Buddha was eager to make his listeners taste this freedom. This is why, in spite of the initial hesitation to preach the Dhamma, he subsequently made up his mind to share this bliss of freedom with as many as possible[2] . The Mahvagga[3] very clearly explains how the Buddha dispatched his sixty Arahant disciples on different directions, and he set out himself towards Uruvel.

However, the Buddha was convinced that household life is a great hindrance to the practice leading to taste this freedom[4] . This he realized before attainment of enlightenment himself. The Ariyapariyesana Sutta[5] very graphically describes how the Bodhisatta, bent on his noble quest, renounced household life. "Later, while still young, a black-haired young man endowed with blessing of youth, in the prime of life, though my mother and my father wished otherwise and wept with tearful faces, I shaved off my hair and beard, put on the yellow robe, and went forth from the home life into homelessness." However, it should be remembered that the Buddha did not hold the view that only bhikkhus can partake of this taste of freedom and the lay people are not qualified to do so. This definitely is not the Buddhas position. Both clergy and lay people can realize emancipation. There is reference to lay people attaining Arahantship[6] . But they are not many. This is because household life is not very conducive to the practice. The Dhammika Sutta brings this out very clearly when it says: "Gahahavatta pana vo vadmi yathkaro svako sdhu hoti, na heso labbh sapariggahena phassetu yo kevalo bhikkhudhammo[7] The Muni Sutta with a beautiful simile brings out the bhikkhu and a lay person. It says:

" (stanza, 393) difference between

"Even as the crested (peacock), the blue-necked (the bird) that soars in the sky never will reach the speed of the swan, even so the householder cannot emulate (to match) the monk, the sage (leading a life) of seclusion contemplating in the forest[8] " It is because of the numerous problems in the home life that the Buddha encouraged the converts to leave household life and enter recluseship. This life of a recluse is far more conducive to the practice of the Noble Life (brahmacariy) set out by the Buddha. Thus, when any early convert expressed his desire to renounce, the Buddha readily agreed, for he knew that it will expedite the converts experiencing of the taste of freedom. For this he used the simplest method of granting admission to resluseship (pabbajj) and conferment of higher ordination (upasampad). Thus, when the first person to get fully converted namely, Koaa requested for admission and higher ordination the Buddha granted the request by saying: "Come O! Monk, well declared is the Dhamma, follow the complete ending of suffering[9] ." Noble Life for the

This method of granting admission and higher ordination came to be known as the "Ehi bhikkhu pabbajj[10] ." From the above given formula of granting admission it is clearly seen that admission to the recluse life is an admission to a new way of living. This is called brahmacariy, the Noble Life. Buddhism holds the proper living of this Noble Life as the assured way for ending suffering (dukkha). This is clear from the Buddhas injunction to the new converts when granting admission: Cara brahmacariya samm dukkhassa antakiriyya. Leading this Noble Life in the perfect manner is not a simple undertaking. It is not easily practicable for one in the household life. Therefore, all those who were sincerely committed to its practice desire to renounce household life[11] . Then, it is seen that "renunciation" is an essential aspect of brahmacariy. One who truly renounces after confirmed conviction does not again revert to home life. What is this brahmacariy? As the texts make it clear it is the Noble Eightfold Path[12] . Noble Eightfold Path itself is constituted of a scheme of "Threefold training" (tisikkh). This scheme is referred to in the Clavedalla Sutta[13] . From this it is seen that to truly live the life of a recluse following the Noble Life it is necessary to undergo systematic training. In the Suttas one finds numerous references to the effect that this course of training is a graduated one[14] . Thus, in the Gaakamoggallna Sutta[15] it is said: "When the Tathgata obtains a person to be tamed he first disciplines him thus: "come, bhikkhu, be virtuous, restrained with restraint of Ptimokkha, be perfect in conduct and resort, and seeing fear in the lightest fault, train by undertaking the training precepts." That in this disciplining virtue forms the foundation is abundantly clear from both canonical and post-canonical references. Thus, the Sayuttanikya in the Ja Sutta[16] directly says that an intelligent man should establish himself in virtue and then culture the mind and wisdom. This is in a primary requirement of one who enters bhikkhuhood. It is seen that this training in virtue or sla is one of the threefold training of the Noble Eightfold Path (ahagikamagga). As pointed out in the Clavedalla Sutta (loc.cit.) this training consists of regulating three factors of the path: right speech (samm-vc), right action (samm-kammanta) and right livelihood (samm-jva). These three collectively represents an individuals external behaviour. It is through behaviour that is through verbal and physical behaviour the defilements in an individual come to the surface. In Pli this level of manifestation of defilements is called "vtikkama"[17]

. Sla is cultivated to check the defilements at through ones behaviour.

this initial manifestation level

Basically this appears to be the purpose of Vinaya that regulates the monks or nuns behaviour. That this is what is meant by Vinaya even according to the age old, long cherished Theravda tradition is seen from the definition given to Vinaya by venerable Buddhaghosa in the Samantapsdik[18] . Therein it is said that it is referred to as Vinaya in the sense of restraining physical and verbal actions in numerous, special ways. Thus Vinaya primarily is restraining an individuals behaviour that gets manifest through his bodily and verbal deed. Yet, this does not however, mean that the restraining of the mind is not involved. Buddhism holds the view that all deeds have mind at their bases. Mind is the most important element. In this regard Jotiya Dhirasekera[19] quite rightly observes:

"The Buddhist monastic life being what we have shown it to be, the content of discipline had to embrace every aspect of life as viewed in Buddhism. According to Buddhism life activity goes on through the three media of thought, word and deed. Progress or depravity is reckoned in terms of refinement or deterioration of these. Therefore the total content of Buddhist monastic discipline had to be in terms of thought, word and deed. Even in what appears to be a modified statement of old material Buddhaghosa clearly upholds this view" Thus, it is seen that the primary objective of monastic discipline is to check and restrain the behaviour of monks and nuns. This restraint operates at different levels. Some rules are focused on grave misdemeanors as for example to debar monks, nuns from engaging in sexual relations. Others are much simpler. For example, they are concerned with etiquette and manners. The whole of "Sekhiys" running into seventy-five rules are concerned with such simple matters as how serenely and calmly a monk or nun should walk, sit, and eat and so on. What is shown is that Vinaya naturally covers a very wide range of activities of an individual. The rules laid down clearly show how minutely the Buddha has paid attention to monks behaviour, both external and internal. This was very necessary because the Buddhist monastic Order was new and it had to formulate its own constitution to regulate the conduct of its members. Though the Buddha in setting up the bhikkhu Order, and perhaps, later in establishing the bhikkhun Order was influenced by the prevailing monastic systems, he did not totally emulate any of them. There are many similarities between the Buddhist monks, nuns and members of other Orders and there are also marked differences between them[20] . Going through the Buddhist monastic code of discipline it becomes quite clear

that the Buddha wished to have a separate identity for his Order. The dress he adopted the shaving off of head hair and beard, the use of the bowl, discarding of the trident, a symbol of Brhmaas, something like the sling-bag usually carried by many wandering ascetics and such other features suggest that Buddha wished to have a particular, new identity for the members of the Buddhist monastic Order. In fact the Buddha himself gives ten reasons for officially formulating Vinaya rules. An analysis of these also help to understand the objective of laying such rules, and through it the nature of these rules. The Vinaya Piaka[21] gives the following ten reasons as the motivating factors for the promulgation of formal rules of discipline: 1) Well being of the Sagha (saghasuhutya) 2) Convenience of the Sagha (saghaphsutya) 3) Restraint of evil-minded individuals (dummakna niggahya). 4) For the comfort of well-behaved monks (pesalna phsuvihrya) puggalna bhikkhna

5) For the restraint of influxes that is here and now (dihadhammikna savna savarya) 6) For the destruction of influxes of next life (samparyikna paightya) 7) For developing confidence in those who yet have no (appasannna pasdya) 8) For the increase of confidence of those who are already (pasannna bhiyyobhvya) savna confidence having confidence

9) For the firm establishment of the good doctrine (saddhammahitiy) 10) To enhance discipline (vinaynuggahya). These ten reasons reveal that the primary aim of promulgation was: a) The firm establishment of the true doctrine and of formal rules

enhancement of Vinaya; in this life and

b) Comfort and well-being of the members of the Order, both next;

c) Facilitation of spiritual development; d) Winning confidence of the public. All these are valid reason for the promulgation of formal rules of Vinaya to regulate the conduct of the members of a newly established Order. As already shown, the main objective of the Buddha in encouraging converts to renounce home life and enter homelessness was to make them, as soon as possible, put an end to suffering (samm dukkhassa antakiriyya). It is seen that a fair number of major rules were focused to achieve this objective. For example, the emphasis laid on the four Prjika offences show this. Strict observance of celibacy is crucial for ones spiritual development. So are abstentions from sexual intercourse, stealing, killing and lying. One of the main purposes of formulating formal rules was for the restraint against defilements (kilesas) in this life and next life. Thus, it is not hard to see that by nature a fair number of Vinaya rules are meant to help a bhikkhu attain this purpose. Naturally the Ssanas stability depends on the good behaviour of the members of the Order. So, it is understandable why, when the Buddha found that bhikkhus were rather loose in their behaviour, thought it proper to lay down formally rules regarding their behaviour. Besides, though Order started as itinerant group of recluses, soon it began to turn to a bad community life. When leading a community life it is very necessary that members of the community should be well aware of their responsibilities to themselves as well as to their fellow bhikkhus. Above this, all had to safeguard the interest of the Sagha institution as a whole. In doing this it was necessary to see that the rights of individual members were protected and at the same time these rights did not adversely affect the proper functioning of the Sagha institution. Many rules show that the Buddha had this, too, in his mind when he decided to declare disciplinary rules formally. Another major reason was the consideration paid to public opinion. The ten reasons cited above contain two reasons directly pointing to this consideration. These two reasons are: a) Developing confidence in those who yet have no confidence, b) Increasing the confidence of those who already have and confidence.

When one considers the background in which Buddhism arose one would not fail to see the significance of these two reasons. India of the Buddhas time was a beehive of activities in the sphere of religion. If one was to go by the account of religious and philosophical background given in the Brahmajla Sutta[22] , there were sixty-two widely known religious views and

beliefs[23] . Though it is generally assumed that there was total religious harmony, in actual practice this was not the true situation. There seem to have been much rivalry among different religionists, if not the religious leaders, to win converts and increase their members. On this point one writer makes the following observation: "There was open rivalry between the two mainstream traditions as well as among different sections of each tradition. While having differences among themselves, the various sections of the ramaa tradition were united against their common rival namely, the Brhmaa tradition and were making a concerted effort to revile it. The Brhmaa tradition neither lay low against these attacks nor remained indifferent. The Upanishadic teachings appear to be a vigorous fresh attempt to reorganize and direct the old Vedic tradition to withstand the scathing attacks levelled against it by some of the major ramaa schools, especially the Materialists[24] ." In such competitive religious background it is natural that adherents of religions did their best to win the confidence of patrons, as their survival depended on the popular patronage.Different religionists adopted different methods to win popular support. The most common method adopted was to claim ability to perform miracles, for this was considered the hallmark of spirituality. It was one such incident that made the Buddha lays a rule prohibiting the display of miracles. This was with regard to venerable Piola Bharadvja who went through the sky displaying his ability in performing miracles and taking the sandal-wood bowl placed on the top of high pole[25] . Naturally the Buddha was also fully aware of the public patronage for the maintenance of his Sagha community. In fact he often reminded the bhikkhus that they are dependent on the lay support for their sustenance and, hence, advised them to develop cordial relations[26] . While admitting the importance of public support to maintain the Sagha community, the Buddha did not resort to mean methods of winning public respect and honour. Instead, what he did was to win over converts by good behaviour on the part of bhikkhus. It was because of venerable Assaji, a new bhikkhu in the Order, that Upatissa (later venerable Sriputta) became attracted to Buddhism[27] . Kings such as Pasenadi Kosala, Udayana were much impressed by the good behaviour of monks[28] . It is also seen that a fair number of Vinaya rules had been laid down on the request of lay supporters such a King Bimbisra, female lay-patron Visakh, the famous physician Jvaka and so on. Thus, the observance of Uposatha, Vassvsa, and non-admission of individuals suffering from certain disease were incorporated as mandatory rules on the suggestions of such lay members[29] . This is the remarkable feature in Buddhism that is this willingness on the part of the Buddha to listen to the views, opinions and

suggestions of the laity in regulating monks behaviour. It is recorded that the Buddha even consented to adjust the date of Vassa in agreeing to a request by king Bimbisra[30] . Such evidence clearly shows that Vinaya, though defined even by venerable Buddhaghosa as restraining verbal and physical deed for some ethical purpose, is not merely limited to controlling day to day activities of monks or nuns. It has a wider application and significance. As some of the above mentioned rules show nurturing of cordial relations with the laity, building up understanding with the royalty also were considerations for formulation of disciplinary rules. Precedence of Vinaya over Dhamma But certain rules are directly concerned with the fulfillment of the obligations of monks life aimed at realization of emancipation. The four Prjika rules are such. These go to the core of the practice of the life of a recluse. Hence, they are very elaborately dealt with, paying attention to all minute details. Perhaps, it is such rules which are quite fundamental to the successful practice recluseship that really made Vinaya more important than a mere constitution applicable to the Sagha. This, perhaps, is why Vinaya, at a later stage came to be considered as the life of the Buddhas Dispensation, and led to the belief as long as Vinaya remains intact the Dispensation will last. In the Buddhas own opinion it is the Dhamma that is more important than Vinaya. A hint to this effect is found in the Smagma Sutta. In a discussion between the Buddha and venerable nanda regarding the conflicts that arose among the disciples of Nigaha Ntaputta after the latters demise, the Buddha asked venarable nanda: "What do you think nanda? These things that I have taught you after directly knowing them - that is the four foundations of mindfulness, the four right kinds of striving, the four bases of spiritual power, the five faculties, the five powers, the seven enlightenment factors, the Noble Eightfold Path - do you, nanda, even two bhikkhus who make differing assertions about these things?" "No, venerable sir, I do not see even two bhikkhus who make differing assertions about these things. But, venerable sir, there are those who live deferential towards the Blessed One who might, when he has gone, create a dispute in the Sagha about livelihood and Ptimokkha. Such a dispute would be for the harm and unhappiness of many, for the loss, harm and suffering of gods and humans." "A dispute about livelihood or about the Ptimokkha would be trifling, nanda. But should a dispute arise in the Sagha about the path or the way, such a dispute would be for the harm and unhappiness for many, for the loss,

harm and suffering of gods and humans[31]

."

This suggests that the Buddha was more concerned about the Dhamma and its understanding, than about the misunderstanding about Vinaya. This is not to say that the Buddha disregarded Vinaya. He did pay heed to Vinaya. In fact as seen from Mahparinibbna Sutta[32] the Buddha referred to his teaching as Dhamma-vinaya, giving equal importance to both the doctrine and discipline. But, at this stage Vinaya was not considered more important than the Dhamma. In fact, at this initial stage it was through the Dhamma itself that Vinaya was taught to disciples. The Theravda tradition found in the commentaries is that there was no formal promulgation of Vinaya at the beginning. In fact it is said that there was no formal declaration of Vinaya rules during the first twenty years of the Ssana[33] . What these suggest is that at the beginning there was not real need for the laying down of formal Vinaya rules. The text recorded instances where senior disciples like Sriputta suggested to the Buddha to make formal rules[34] . But the Buddha knew that there was not such necessity at that time. This was because the members of the Order at that time were fully dedicated to the practice and, hence, did not need any "goading" to lead them on the right path. Whenever the Buddha found even a minor lapse in the conduct of the monks, he warned them about it. Thus he did so not by laying down rules, but by persuading the monks, by way of advice, to behave in a way that is quite in keeping with the life of a recluse. For this the Buddha used his discourses or the Suttas. That is why it is often pointed out by scholars that the Dhamma served as the Vinaya also at the early phase of the Ssana. It is to bring out this unitary sense of doctrine and discipline, not as separate entities but as one unit with two aspects that the Buddha used the term Dhamma-vinaya to refer to his teaching[35] . That this was the position during the earlier stages of the bhikkhu-ssana is seen clearly from Suttas such as the Kakacpama. This Sutta is occasioned by the behaviour of a monk called Moliya Phaggua[36] who was in the habit of associating too closely with the bhikkhuns. The Buddha in this instance, too, did not lay down a rule with regard to such behaviour on the part of monks. Instead, he advised them to refrain from such behaviour. Moliya Phaggua, however, did not pay heed to the Buddhas advice and it is thus resistance on the part of particular bhikkhus that made the Buddha recall the good old days in which the bhikkhus were quite amenable to advice, Bhikkhus, there was an occasion when the bhikkhus satisfied my mind. Here I addressed the bhikkhus thus: "Bhikkhus, I eat at a single session. By so doing, I am free from illness and affliction, and I enjoy health, strength and comfortable abiding. Come, bhikkhus, eat at a single session. By doing so, you will be free from illness, affliction, and you will enjoy health, strength, and comfortable abiding. And I had no need to keep on instructing those bhikkhus. I had only

to arouse mindfulness in them[37]

."

But this situation changed and there was much indiscipline in the Sagha community. This decline in discipline among the monks is well brought out in the Bhaddli Sutta[38] . In this Sutta the same advice regarding eating at a single session is suggested by the Buddha to monks. Immediately a monk called Bhaddli rose in protest saying: "Venerable sir, I am not willing to eat at a single session, for if I was to do so, I might have wrong and anxiety about it." The Sutta makes it clear that Bhaddlis worry and anxiety was whether he would have the strength to carry on the practices of holy life. The Buddha suggested a relaxation to this saying: "Then Bhaddli eat one part where you are invited and bring away one part to eat. By eating that way you will maintain yourself." Bhaddli did not agree to this, also. Then the Buddha laid it down as a formal rule[39] . On this occasion Bhaddli absented himself and kept away for three months of the vassa period. Later, however, he realized his mistake and mended his way. Bhaddli out of curiosity inquires from the Buddha: "Venerable sir, what is the cause, what is the reason, why there were previously fewer training rules and more bhikkhus became established in the final knowledge. What is the cause, what is the reason, why there are now more training rules and fewer bhikkhus become established in the final knowledge?" The Buddha explained saying: "That is how it is Bhaddli, when beings are deteriorating and the true Dhamma is disappearing, though there are more training rules and fewer bhikkhus become established in final knowledge. The Teacher does not make known the training rules for disciples until certain things that are the basis for taints become manifest in the Sagha." Then the Buddha enumerates a number of taint generating causes:

1) Sagha reaching greatness 2) Sagha reaching acme of worldly gain 3) Sagha reaching acme of fame 4) Sagha reaching acme of great learning 5) Sagha reaching acme of long-standing renown[40]

These causes were the result of the numerical growth and territorial expansion of the community of monks. As the members of the Sagha community grew in number, there entered into the Order many who were not genuinely interested in striving to attain the goal of completely ending dukkha (samm dukkhassa antakiriyya). Many sought entrance into the Order to find an easy

living. Patronage by kings, nobles and even by average devotees made life in the Order more comfortable than in most homes of the poor and destitute. So, it is not surprising to find some seeking admission to have a comfortable living. Some sought asylum in the Order to escape from the army or to escape arrest. There were others who entered the Order to obtain free specialist medical treatment[41] . Besides, some who entered the Order were more interested in gain and fame in spiritual development. They were more concerned about great learning, seniority etc. and this led to unnecessary conflict. Thus, such shifts in the objectives made bhikkhus veer away from the true ideal for which individuals renounce household life and enter homelessness. The establishment of the bhikkhun Order also appears to have contributed to a great extent to shape the nature of Vinaya. Though, in sense, both bhikkhu Vinaya and bhikkhun Vinaya are same, the mere fact of gender difference itself, to an extent, affected its content. This is seen from the increase in number of rules with regard to the case of bhikkhuns. Whereas there are two-hundred and twenty rules for bhikkhus, this number got increased to three-hundred and four as regard bhikkhuns. The four Prjika rules themselves got increased to eight in the case of bhikkhuns. The 13 Saghdisesas rose to 17; 92 Pcittiyas to 166 and 4 Pidesanya to 8. This naturally changed the nature of Vinaya. As already shown all rules did not directly have a bearing on the attainment of the final goal. Though Vinaya is meant to help the practice leading to the ending of dukkha all rules are not directly concerned with that. There are many that have no relation to the goal. For example, most of the "Sekhiys" are such. Rules restricting the admission of those suffering from particular type of diseases have no direct bearing on the realization of truth. Such rules were made more to prevent individuals seeking asylum enter the Order. When, compared to Prjika and some Saghdisesa offences these rules appear even beyond the periphery of true Vinaya of recluse. Perhaps, this is one of the reasons for the Buddhas declaration that if the bhikkhus so wished they could do away with the minor rules[42] . These minor rules, though it is not fixed as to what these are, was not considered by the Buddha to be directly related to the practice. To these belong rules made at the request of individuals who were the patrons of Buddhism. This was done as the Buddha was quite well aware of the fact that devotees support is necessary for the existence of the Sagha community. Hence, he gives the two reasons: 1) Appasannna pasdya 2) Pasannna bhiyyobhvya

Codification From the way the Vinaya rules are formulated it is clearly seen that the growth of a set of codified rules is the result of a process. If Sudinnas case in considered as the beginning point in this formal promulgation, it is certain that it took sometime for the whole set of Vinaya rules as found in the extant Vinaya Piaka to evolve. As these rules began to be laid down they were put into effective form through the Uposatha-kamma observance at which the rules formulated up to a particular point in time were recited. This recital of the available rules known as Uddesa (recitation) or Ptimokkhuddesa became an important feature in monks life. That the rules are the result of a gradual process is also seen from the Aguttaranikya reference to the recital of one-hundred and fifty rules[43] . As the Vinaya Piaka stands at present it contains two-hundred and twenty rules to which are added seven procedural rules called "Adhikaraasamathas." These procedural rules lay down what problems are to be adjudicated, and how these should be legally settled. Hence, these are also the result of gradual growth, through trial and error, calling for additions, deletions, amendments etc. What all these suggest is that the codified set of rules as they appear in the extant Vinaya Piaka is the outcome of much editorial work done by the redactions of the Vinaya Piaka. This process of redaction had its beginning at the First - Buddhist - Council. This Council was chaired by venerable Mahkassapa. He, as evident from various incidents connected with his recluse life, was a strict disciplinarian[44] .The emphasis laid quite rightly of course, on Vinaya by him speak for his great concern about the monks conduct. It was, perhaps, his decision to recite Vinayas ahead of Dhamma, thus giving precedence over Dhamma. It was venerable Mahkassapa who advised the assembly of monks gathered for the "Sagti" not to change even minor and subsidiary rules, though the Buddha had suggested that they could be changed. These rules were recited at the subsequent Sagti also. The present Vinaya Piaka, specially the Suttavibhaga, in which the proper formal code of disciplinary rules is included, is the outcome of such a number of recitals. The Vinaya Piaka, extant at present, contains these following codified rules for the bhikkhus. The numbers differ in the case of bhikkhuns:

04 Prjika 13 Saghdisesa 02 Aniyata

30 Nissaggiya pcittiya 92 Suddha pcittiya 04 Pidesanya 75 Sekhiya 07 Adhikaraasamatha -----------Total: 227 rules

As pointed out before the number of rules pertaining to the conduct of bhikkhuns are 304, with increases in Prjika, Saghdisesa, Pcittiya and Pidesaniya offences. Of course, it has to be noted that as at present the code of rules for bhikkhuns has no effective operation; this is because the bhikkhun Order is non-existent in Theravda countries. * Endnotes: 1. A. I, 36; IV, 203. 2. The Buddhas understanding of the true nature of reality was so novel that he thought that people might not accept what he teaches for many were firmly holding to tradition and, hence, unable to see clearly. However, he overcame this initial hesitation and decided to preach. This is clearly described in the Ariyapariyesana Sutta (No. 26) of the Majjhimanikya. 3.Vin. I, 21: "Caratha bhikkhave crika. Bahujanahitya bahujansukhya loknukampya atthya hitya sukhya devamanussna m ekena dve agamittha," 4. D. I, 63: "Bahusambdho gharvso abbhokso pabbajj" (Full of hindrances in household life, like open air is the life of a recluse). Compare D. I, 250; S. II, 219, V, 350. 5. See Bhikkhu Bodhi, the Middle Length Discourses, p. 256. 6. See Bhikkhu Bodhis article on "The Jhnas and the lay disciple" in Essays in Honour of Prof. Lily de Silva, ed. P.D. Premasiri et.et. Dept. of Pli and Buddhist Studies, university of Peradeniya, 2001, p.36 ff. 7. See Suttanipta Text and Translation by N.A Jayawikrama, Postgraduate Institute of Pi and Buddhist Studies, University of Kelaniya 2001, p. 154:

"Now I tell you of the obligatory vows of a householder fulfilling which a disciple becomes commendable; whatever practice of a monk there is, in its entirety, is incapable of being fulfilled by one trammeled with household possessions." 8. See N.A. Jayawickrama, op.cit. pp. 83-84. 9. Vin. I, 12: "Ehi bhikkhti bhagav avoca, svkkhto bhagavat dhammo, cara brahmacariya samm dukkhassa antakiriyyti." 10. Encyclopedia of Buddhism, s.v. Ehi-bhikkhu pabbajj. However, this underwent many changes, and the method now followed is referred to as "atticatuttha-kamma". 11. M. II, 55 f: "Yath yathha bhante bhagavat dhamma desita jnmi nayida sukara agra ajjhvasat ekantaparipua ekantaparisuddha sarikhalikhita brahmacariya caritu. Icchmaha bhante kesamassu ohretv ksyni vahni acchdetv agrasm anagriya pabbajitu." 12. S. V, 26: "Katama ca bhikkhave brahmacariya. Aya eva ahagiko maggo..." ariyo

13. M. I, 301 f. This Sutta says that these three trainings are not included by the Noble Eightfold Path, but the Noble Eight fold Path is included by the threefold training. According to the account right speech, right action and right livelihood comprise virtue or "sla". Right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration comprise concentration or "samdhi"; and right view and right intention constitute wisdom or "pa". 14. M. III, 2 f. This Sutta says that the Dhamma and Vinaya gradual training, gradual practice and gradual progress. consist of a

15. Ibid. "Tathgato purisadamma labhitv pahama eve vineti: ehi tva, bhikkhu, slav hohi, ptimokkhasavarasavuto viharhi cragocasampanno, aumattesu vajjesu bhayadassv samdya sikkhassu sikkhpadesti." 16. S. I, 13: "Sle patihya naro sapao citta paaca bhvaya."

17. There are these phases: vtikkama pariyuhna and anusaya. Which sla is antidote to the first phase, samdhi and pa are antidotes to the next two phases. 18. VinA. I, "Tasm vividhanayatt visesanayatt kyavcna vinayoti akkhto." Compare DA. I, 17. Dhs A. 19. ca vinayanato

19. Jotiya Dhirasekera, Buddhist Monastic Discipline, Ministry of Higher Education Research Publication Series Sri Lanka, 1981, p. 19. 20. See Chandima Wijebandara, Early Buddhism: Its Religious and Intellectual Milieu, Posgraduate Institute of Pli and Buddhist Studies, 1993, p. 36 ff. 21. Vin. III, 21; IV, 9. For a little elaborate list see A. 22. D. I. Brahmajla Sutta (Sutta No. 01) 23. For a detailed discussion about this see Bhikkhu Bodhi, the All-Embracing Net of Views: The Brahmajla Sutta and its commentaries (BPS, 1978). 24. See Sanath Nanayakkara, "Abbhakkhna Its effect on Buddhism" in Arcana Prof. M.H.F. Jayasuriya felicitation Volume, ed. Ven. Nawagamuve Revata etc. Arcana, Felicitation Volume Committee, Colombo, p. 202 ff. 25. Vin. II, 110 f, See also DPPN. s.v. Piola Bhradvja. 26. See the Dasadhamma Sutta of the Aguttaranikya. 27. See DPPN. s.v. Assaji. 28. See DPPN. under respective names of these kings. 29. See Vin. I, 74, 101. See also Sanath Nanayakkara, "The Impact of Sicknesses, Deformities/Disabilities and Punishments on the Granting Admission (Pabbajj) and development of Emancipatory Knowledge (Pa)" in, Dhamma-Vinaya. Essays in Honour of Venerabhe Professor Dhammavihari (Jotiya Dhirasekera) Ed. Asanga Tilakaratne et. el, Sri Lanka Association for Buddhist Studies, 2005, pp. 141-152. 30. Vin. I, 138. 31. M. I, 245; See bhikkhu Bodhis trsl. p. 845. 32. D. II, 154: "Yo vo nanda may dhammo ca vinayo ca desito vo mam accayena satth." 33. VinA. I, 213. 34. Vin. III, 9; See also S. II, 224. 35. D. II, 154. paatto, so I, 98.

36. It is recorded that this particular monk did not change reverted to lay life. 37. M. I, 124. 38. M. I, 437 f. 39. See Pcittiy, 37. (Vin. IV, 35). 40. This is referred to also at Vin. III, 9-10. 41. Vin. I, 72, 76 f, 91 f. 42. See Pacasatikakhandha of Cullavagga: kakhamno nanda mamaccayena khuddnukhuddakni sikkhpadni samhaneyy 43. A. I, 230: "Sdhika idam bhante diyaha-sikkhpadasata anvaddhamsa uddesa gacchati." 44. See DPPN. s.v. Mahkassapa. -ooOooChapter III A Critical Appraisal of the Social Dimension Relation between Sagha and Laity

his way and later

sagho ti.

of Vinaya Rules

Vinaya refers to the rules of discipline laid down from time to time by the Buddha himself to guide and regulate the life of the community of bhikkhu and bhikkhun Sagha (monk and nun communities). This Sagha community represents a micro society so when compared with the general society which could be called the macro society. Though both are communities comprising of male and female human beings, these two communities are basically different on the basis of the vocation each follows. The Sagha community represents a society of "renouncers", that is those who have given up household life and adopted a life of homelessness (anagriya); and naturally, of course, along with the giving up of household life, various responsibilities and encumbrances that are part and parcel of household life are also abandoned. It is not, therefore, difficult to understand the use for a special code of rules to govern the life of the Sagha of both bhikkhus and bhikkhuns. Though this is a different society from that of the lay people, yet it exists within the frame of the same time and space. Besides, it comprises of members drawn

from lay life, members who have been following norms and customs prevalent in lay life. And further, though this renunciation of household life meant admission to a new vocation of recluseship this, however, did not bring about a total cutting-off of links between the recluse society and the lay society. There was a mutual dependence between them. The Sagha society given to the fulltime practice of the path did not engage in any from of livelihood[1] .Therefore, the Sagha had to depend on the lay for their sustenance. This fact is very emphatically stated in the Dasadhamma Sutta, wherein it is said that it should be constantly thought by a recluse that his sustenance is dependent on others, which means lay persons.[2] On the other hand lay people too depended on recluses for spiritual guidance, and hence, they were obligated to show gratitude by sustaining the Sagha community and paying them due homage. The Siglovda Sutta of the Dghanikya[3] explains these mutual obligations and duties. It was Dhamma-dna, giving of Dhamma that is spiritual advice on the part of the Sagha[4] , and provision of basic requirement (paccaya) on the part of the laity. At the beginning, numbers in the Sagha community being limited, and the members of the Sagha themselves being self restrained, there was no need for any formal rules to regulate this behaviour. But as time passed when numbers increased, the Order expanded territorially and also when the members with less commitment entered the Order, there arose problems. These developments made it necessary for the Buddha to lay down rules to regulate various aspects of these relations between the members of the Order and the laity. The laity considered charity towards the members of the Order as an effective way of acquiring merit for well being here and herefater.[5] Thus, the Seh of Rjagaha volunteered to build houses for monks with the hope of acquiring merit, and besides, provision of residences came to be considered as a sublime offering to the Sagha.[6] The Mahvagga says that the people were overjoyed when they came to know that they could offer robes to monks[7]. There are constant references in the Suttas to devotees voluntarily inviting the Buddha and his disciples for alms. The Mahparinibbna Sutta records how much the Vajjis tried to persuade the courtesan Ambapli to allocate to them the opportunity she obtained to offer alms to the Buddha[8]. The other basic requirement was medicine. The Buddha and the monks were well provided with medical attention and care. In fact the rulers were so considerate about the medical care of the Buddha and the disciples that King Bimbisra assigned his royal physician Jvaka as the physician to the Buddha and the Sagha.[9] This relationship between the Sagha community and the laity greatly contributed to the spread and establishment of Buddhism. But it also led to problems. Therefore, it became necessary to regulate this relationship between

the two parties based on the discharge of reciprocal duties and obligations. As the monks and nuns increased in number, the laity had to bear a greater responsibility in maintaining them. Provision of meals may have become a problem. Some of the rules regulating food habits may be due to attempts made to ease this burden on the laity. The rule which says that monks and nuns should have one meal a day may be, at least partly, promulgated to lessen this burden of maintaining monks that fell upon the laity. In fact many of the Vinaya rules relate to simplicity that should be observed by monks in leading their lives. This insistence on simple living is not only intended to help the monks to successfully follow their practice but also to reduce the burden the laity had to bear in providing the requisites for the monks and nuns. Though the Buddha and the Sagha were patronized by the royalty and the rich elite of the time, the ordinary average devotees, too, contributed in no small measure in providing the daily requirements of the members of the Order, especially their food requirements. The Buddha as well as the disciples went on alms round in villages, townships and cities. With the laying down of the rule that monks could have only a single meal a day the lay devotees would have found it easier as well as convenient to serve alms to them. Not only did the burden become less, but there happened to be some regularity about the alms round. This regularity would have facilitated offering of piapta, for the laity now knew when to be ready with the offering. Asylum-seekers The special patronage shown to the renouncers specially to the members of the Buddhist Order, provided room for prevailing social inequalities to come to the forefront. With the patronage of royalty, the rich noble elite as well as the devoted general public the life in the Sagha became far more comfortable than in the average household at the time. Just as now, even at the time of the Buddha social inequality was rampant. The gap between the "haves" and the "have-nots" was very wide. As clearly hinted at in Suttas such as the Aggaa, Cakkavattishanda and even the Kadanta, all occurring in the Dghanikya, there was economic inequality. Some rulers were insensitive to social problems of the people. As pointed out in the Kadanta Sutta the rulers were interested in their own prosperity. They even celebrated their prosperity, being totally indifferent to the suffering undergone by the people. Some rulers had no proper economic planning. This made unemployment spread in the country, leading to poverty and finally to social unrest and upheaval, and some even being encouraged entering the Order for easy living. In such a background the life in the Order was safe, secure and peaceful. Basic needs were provided; food, lodging, clothing and even medicine freely supplied to the recluses. So, it is natural to find a fair number individuals seeking asylum

in the Order safely for the purpose of leading a life better than what they had in the household. Vinaya Mahvagga clearly records how individuals, who were unable to obtain expert medical treatment for their serious diseases, entered the Order to get medical treatment.[10] In such a social background seeking asylum in the Order was considered a reasonable option for a good life. The devotees were charitable towards the recluses, for they considered it as meritorious and, hence, beneficial for happiness here as well as hereafter. But monks did not consider charity to the laity as their duty. So they complained to the Buddha about "asylum seekers". And consequently the Buddha had to lay down rules precluding such "asylum seekers" entering the Order. An analysis of the origin of such rules clearly shows that those rules were made necessary due to the prevailing social conditions of the time. Had there been better economic conditions for the life of laity, with job opportunities available and basic necessities accessible, they would not have resorted to such ruses as entering the Order to obtain the basic needs.[11] It is clearly seen that the members of the Buddhist Order opted out of new the general society and entered into a new society, the Sagha society. By doing so, they also abandoned certain norms, customs and practices in force in society of the time. But, this renunciation naturally had certain links with society, and as such they could not function totally ignoring certain norms and rules applicable to the members of the society in general. Though some scholars are of the view that the Sagha community being a different society could function, above and beyond the conventional laws, this in fact was not really so. Monks as missionaries From the nature of the Sagha community such total aloofness was not possible. As pointed out already, the Order of the Sagha which consisted of "renouncers", within two months of its inception took upon itself a new role. This is the role of Dhamma-dtas Dhamma missionaries. This was a social need of the time. Buddhism is not a religious movement operating in a vacuum; nor is it now, nor was it then. In fact, as the Ariyapariyesana Sutta of the Majjhimanikya makes it clear the Buddha was concerned not only about his dukkha but of the dukkha of the others.[12] The Mahparinibbna Sutta[13] also presents this concern for others as an important motive that urged to Buddha to engage in the Noble Quest (ariya pariyesana), the search for a way out of dukkha. It is out of compassion for others, and with the intention of sharing with others that the Buddha in spite of the initial hesitation decided to preach his novel discovery about the real nature of things.[14]

This compassion is clearly brought out in the Vinaya.[15] sixty liberated beings, the Arahants, the Buddha said:

Addressing the first

"O monks go on tour for the good and happiness of many, out of compassion, for the well being, benefit and happiness of the gods and men. Do not two of you go by the same route! O monk preach the Dhamma good in the beginning, middle and the end, make known, in its true meaning and spirit the noble life totally complete and fully purified". Influence of Sagha-Laity links on Vinaya Once this close link was set up between the laity and the recluse, it gradually got further spread and extended. And the result was that the recluses had to mould their own society in a way that is acceptable to the society which the recluse had already given up. This close relationship between the lay society and the Sagha society as well as their mutual dependence had much influence in moulding Vinaya rules. A fair number of Vinaya rules were formulated and promulgated on the requests and suggestions made by the laity who tried to make the bhikkhus conduct appealing to them. Just consider how the rule pertaining to the observance of Rains Retreat came to be laid down. As the Mahvagga shows this practice of observing the Rains Retreat (vassvsa) was not prevalent among the monks at the beginning. The Buddhist monks were of the habit of touring in all three seasons: autumn, summer and the rainy season. Seeing this, the people agitated and protested against this practice of indiscriminate engagement in tours. They specially protested about monks touring in the rainy season as it affected the wholly growing flora and fauna and insect life.[16] In the predominantly agricultural society such a protest is natural and understandable. Besides, the other eremitical religious groups had already set precedent by avoiding touring during the rainy season. The public wondered why the Buddhist monks could not follow the same practice. When this was brought to the notice of the Buddha he approved the observance of Rains Retreat by his disciples,[17] and one could see how a number subsidiary rules connected with this came into operation. For example, the rule, making observance of vassa mandatory on all came into operation in response to the Chabbaggiya bhikkhus refusal to observe vassa; relaxation of the original rule was a result of the protest lodged by the lay devotee called Udena.[18] Again the Buddha made a rule regarding the observance of the Uposatha on the request of king Bimbisra.[19] Non-admission of "army deserters" to the Order was also approved on such a request. The men in the army, for some reason or the other deserted, and entered Order. This created problems for king Bimbisra. The commander in chief began to complain about this. Then the king had to approach the Buddha and request him not to admit such army deserters.[20] Similarly, perhaps, it was on the initiative of king

Bimbisra that thieves who broke jail were debared from gaining admission into the Order (loc.cit). Similarly, those who escaped custody too were not to be given admission (loc.cit). Once again it was acceding to a request made by king Bimbisra that the Buddha sanctioned the commencement of the vassvsa observance from the second full moon.[21] This sort of instances showing the source of origin of certain rules is very significant. What is clearly seen from these instances is that the Buddha has been very accommodating in these matters. He has, wherever and whenever possible, tried to facilitate state administration by preventing the creation of opportunities that opened way and means to disrupt administration of the state. Unscrupulous individuals attempted to make use of the entrance into the Order as a means of escaping arrest by state officers. The king, out of his high regard to the bhikkhu Order, had declared that no one who has entered the Order should be arrested. Taking use of this some escaped custody and sought refuge in the Order. But with the recurrence of such instances the Buddha, on the request of the king, promulgated a rule prohibiting the admission of "escapees".[22] Even in the case of venerable Dhaniya who was involved in the second Prjika the Buddha complied with the current law of the country. That the Buddha did not on his own whim and fancy, promulgate rule is very clearly seen in this instance. When he was informed of Dhaniyas stealthy act he did not immediately pronounce a rule. What he first did was to consult one of his disciples who was a former Minister of Justice.[23] This was for the purpose of finding out about the punishment that king Bimbisra would mete to a thief.[24] This very well shows how keen the Buddha was to be in conformity with the law of the country, and how keen he was to help the administration of the country and maintain law and order. This the Buddha did with a clear and deep understanding of the necessity of royal patronage for the sustenance and efficient functioning of the Sagha Order. The importance of royal patronage becomes quite clear if one was to consider the plight of Buddhism if king Bimbisra was not in favor. Had the king not been favorable towards Buddhism and not volunteered to donate Veuvana for the residence of the Buddha and the disciples, Buddhism would not have taken root with such ease. Had the king, by some turn of events, been antagonistic towards Buddhism, it would have suffered death at its birth itself. Hence, under such circumstances it is not surprising to find the Buddha showing an attitude of accommodation towards the request from the king. However, in doing so, he did never compromise the interest and declared aims of the Sagha Order. In making rules on the request of king and authorities in power, therefore, the Buddha maintained a fine balance and always attempted to be within the accepted norm.

Such an attitude is quite in keeping with the Buddhas purpose in promulgating rules of discipline for the Order. Among the reasons are: 1) For the increase in confidence of those who are not 2) For the increase of confidence of those who are already convinced. convinced.

Kings like Bimbisra had initial confidence in the Buddha and this confidence had to be further cemented with regard to requests for promulgation of disciplinary rules for the members of the Order from the laity. In such instance, too, the Buddha did not forget the important fact that the Order is others dependent for material sustenance.[25] With this in view whatever reasonable requests made by the laity were acceded by the Buddha when making rules. The Buddha was much concerned about public opinion. An often repeated phrase with regard to promulgation of rules "manuss ujjhyanti khyanti vipcenti".[26] The Vinaya Piaka shows that whenever people saw monks behaving in an unbecoming manner they objected and openly showed their displeasure. On such instances the Buddha immediately took steps to remedy the issue. They very well knew that if such situations are not immediately remedied, the people would get disgusted and stop their patronage. Thus, it is seen that a considerable number of rules were made in response to such public protests. Buddhas concern about the dignity and stability of the Order Besides, there was another reason that prompted the Buddha to make laws. As seen throughout his dispensation the Buddha was very keen to have a spiritually strong, ethically blameless and practically very effective Order of the community of monks and nuns. Though there was no formally promulgated rule at the beginning, this does not mean that the Buddha did not pay heed to discipline. It is seen that in the early state of the development of the Order the Dhamma (i.e. Sutta) itself served as the Vinaya. Already reference has been made to Suttas such as Kakacpama (M.Sutta no.21) in which the Buddha in a very casual way presents advice for monks regarding the need to regulate their meals. The Mahparinibbna Sutta shows the expectations the Buddha entertained with regard to the bhikkhu bhikkhun ssana. It records how the Buddha declined Maras request to pass away until he found that the Order is firmly established with its members well-equipped in all aspects that befit recluseship. Thus in the Mahparinibbna Sutta the Buddha says: "I shall not die. O Evil One! Until the brethren and sisters of the Order, and until the lay disciples of either sex shall have become true hearers, wise and well trained, ready and learned, carrying the doctrinal books in their memory,

masters of the lesser corollaries that follow from the larger doctrine, correct in life, walking according to the precepts until they,having thus themselves learned the doctrine, shall be able to tell others, of it, preach it, make it known, establish it, open it, minutely explain it, and make it clear until they, when others start vain doctrine easy to be refuted by truth, shall be able in refuting it, to spread the wonder-working truth abroad!"[27] From this it is very clear that the Buddhas main concern was the establishment of a perfect Order of monks and nuns who could serve effectively the cause of the Dhamma and also communicate it correctly to the lay followers. This naturally made the Buddha become quite concerned about the admissionseekers to the Order. This concern is also reflected in the changes he brought about in the method of admission. At the beginning it was very simple. It was the method of proclamation by the Buddha himself by addressing the admission-seekers as "Come monk" (Ehi-bhikkhu). But soon for various reason this method had to be changed. Then came "Saragamana" method and finally the very formal method, current even now, called "atti catuttha kamma". There were also many other exceptions to this generally approved formal method.[28] A few more subsidiary rules, too, were promulgated to safeguard the purity of the Order. Thus, admission (pabbajj) and higher ordination (upasampad) were separated; a set of necessary qualification for entrance into the Order was listed; similarly a list of disqualifications was also listed. It is clearly seen that such regulation were necessary to safeguard the good name of the Order and to maintain its dignified status. This was more so because there developed a tendency among some to consider the Order as a comfortable "asylum" and adopt all type of ruses to obtain admission into it. There is clear reference in the Vinaya that certain Bars to Admission were formulated to prevent asylum-seekers making the Order a haven for an easy and comfortable life. Thus, the rules were laid down prohibiting the admission of individual suffering from particular diseases. This was carried out on the request of famed physician Jvaka who complained to the Buddha that unscrupulous individuals suffering from certain sicknesses were entering the Order purely to obtain medical treatment from him.[29] This list of "Bars to Admission" was further enlarged by including those individuals who were officially punished for various offences they had committed. Similarly, people who are handicapped and are deformed, too, had to be kept away, as many such individuals began to seek asylum in the Order. Besides, some who were following other religious teachings and traditions also began to seek admission as they found the teachings of the Buddha far more

conducive to religious well being. At the beginning such individuals were given direct admission. These individuals, being entrenched in different traditions, could not well fit into the Order immediately. This led to problems within the Order. Such situations necessitated the amendment of rules related to admission. A rule was laid down to the effect that such individuals coming from other religious traditions should be placed on "probation for four months".[30] Influence of prevailing practices and norms Sociologically it was very important for the Buddha to adopt certain long cherished practices and norms followed by other religionists. This was more so because the Buddha also, in setting up his Order, primarily modeled it on the existing Samaa systems, mainly the Paribbjaka Orders.[31] As these Orders were well established and were held in esteem by the public the Buddha also had to follow certain customs, practices and norms followed by them. When the public pointed out that such practices are not followed by the members of the Buddhist Order, the Buddha willingly adopted them and made their practice mandatory. Thus, the observance of Vassvsa, Uposatha etc. were such adoption. The Buddhist Order of monks and nuns clearly shows that even though it belonged to the Samaa group and though it accepted some practices generally agreed upon by the Samaa followers, the bhikkhu-bhikkhun Order by itself had its own identity. The Buddha was keen on having and maintaining such a separated identity. He did not wish to be just another group of Samaas. Both outwardly and inwardly he made this identity very clear. For example, the shaving off of head-hair and beard was mandatory, a bowl and an extra-robe were necessary. There was no shoulder sling-bag or any other receptacle, a trident was not used, and the robe was specially designed to bring out this separate identity very clearly.[32] However, what is noticeable here is that while adopting these norms, practices and traditions the Buddha did not merely adopt them bodily, but made necessary changes to suit the objective for which he established the Order. Thus in the case of adopting Uposatha he did not merely follow the prevailing practice. He made this observance the occasion for members to personally reflect on their conduct. As the observance of Uposatha brought together the monks of particular vsas the Buddha considered it a very good opportunity to examine themselves and open up their behaviour for other members scrutiny. This turned out to be an effective method of checking misdemeanor on the part of individual members. This the Buddha did by connecting "Ptimokkhuddesa" to Uposatha. Thus, he turned out the Uposatha observance into a very effective method of "disciplinary assessment" of each member of the Order. Similarly, he by

affixing Pavra ceremony to Vassvsa, gave a completely new significance and meaning to the observance of Rains Retreat. This ceremony of Pavra marked the end of Vassvsa observance. In this too the main purpose was to make a self-analysis of ones behaviour and confess any lapses that had taken place (seen, heard or apprehended. Elaborate rules were laid down regarding the procedure to be followed in the observance of Pavra. It is of much interest to note how the Vassvsa observance was oriented to bring about harmonious living together of the members. The Mahvagga (Vin. I, 157 ff) describe in detail how the members of the Order agreed to make use of this observance to lead an extremely co-operative way of life. This change in the procedure of the observance was effected by common consensus of the members themselves. This is a novel feature added to Vassvsa observance to make it more meaningful to the progress of the Order and the unity of the members. But in doing this they went to the extreme of following total silence, the observance of the practice Munis, the silent sages. The Buddha did not appreciate this. He cautioned the monks of following such a practice and admonished saying that this observance of the dumb practice (mgabbata) followed by some other heretical groups should not be followed. The Buddha explained that the observance of such a practice would make people lose their confidence in the Sagha. Instead, he ordained that the Sagha should observe Pavra by making self-assessment and confession of their conduct. This makes it very clear that the Buddha in formulating Vinaya rules, though conceding to public opinion, did not become blindly bound by it. He made use of every opportunity to utilize Vinaya rules for the benefit and betterment of the Sagha, to make Sagha win the admiration of the public and also make them quite conscious of the need to be in blameless conduct.[33] The primary aim of Vinaya was to make monks above blame and criticism; but at the same time the Buddha was aware of the need of adhering to longcherished practices and customs. It was his far-sightedness that enabled the Buddha to blend these aims and evolve a very effective code of discipline that helped to maintain a very high standard of discipline that made the Sagha community the cynosure of all the other religionists as well as the public. Writing on Pavra Jotiya Dhirasekera clearly brings out how cleverly the Buddha made use of an old religion practice to help Sagha community win high esteem of the public. The Pavra is the ritual which comes usually at the end of the third month of the Rains-retreat and is part of the observance of the Vassvsa. It is used like the ritual of Ptimokkha as a means of safeguarding monastic discipline. Pavra, as the name itself suggests, is the request which a

Bhikkhu makes to the Sagha with whom he has spent the rains-retreat to judge his conduct and declare according to what the Sagha has seen, heard or suspected[34] where he is guilty of any transgression. Observing further he says: "the benefit resultings from this correction are given as: form of self

a) being agreeable to and tolerant of one another (aamanulomat) b) making amends for the wrong done by safeguarding against (pattivuhnat) c) developing a regard and respect for the rule of discipline (vinayapurekkhrat)". The Kahina ceremony added yet another special dimension to the observance of Vassvsa. Though this has no direct relation to discipline, the ceremony, perhaps, was added to give more significance to Vassvsa and Pavra as well as to draw the attention of the laity to the importance of those ceremonies. Through Kahina ceremony the laity is also given an opportunity to make material contribution to the success of Vassvsa ceremony. This, perhaps, was evolved for the purpose of further cementing of the devoted followers and drawing the attention of the not so devoted to the disciplined lives the Sagha community leads. Among the number of purposes of laying down formal rules two a) well-being of the Sagha (saghasuhut) b) convenience of the Sagha (saghaphsut). Rules against miscreants It is well known that individuals renounced household lives because it is full of obstacles (bahusambdho gharvso). The life of renunciation is expected to provide a far more congenial environment for the practice of the path. In this life there should be total peace of mind. The Sagha is of very few needs, just the minimum with regard to food, lodging, clothing and medicine. Hence, they had just a few possessions. These possessions had to be safe, for the basic possessions were needed for leading simplest form of life. So these few possessions had to be safe, and monks could not make a special effort with regard to their safety. However, as no society whether big or small, is totally free of miscreants, the Sagha community also was at times troubled by mischief-makers and wrong doers. So, one could see among Vinaya rules some pertaining to misappropriation of are: their recurrence

other articles of use. Thus, the Vinaya (III, 265) refers to such misappropriation of articles knowingly by Chabbaggiy bhikkhus. This kind of unscrupulous behaviour on the part of some naturally disturbed the harmony that is so vital in a society given to spiritual culture. Such behaviour not befitting recluses who are supposed to be of few needs (appicch), had to be arrested and when the Buddha was informed of such unbecoming he formulated rules prohibiting such misappropriations. Not only misappropriation of articles belonging to the Sagha (saghika lbha) but even the use of articles which are not suitable for the use of recluses was a problem. The use of the high seats and couches etc. were also considered as not suitable for the recluses who opted for simpler way of living. Naturally rules had to be formulated regulating the use of such articles, especially because the people complained saying that monks were turning out to be, too luxurious in their way of living. Naturally the lay-devotees must have detested the hypocritical life style of the monks which became more conspicuous when compared with the difficult lives led by some other ascetic groups. Regulating bhikkhu-bhikkhun relations Another very important area which prompted the Buddha to take extraprecaution was the relations between the bhikkhus and bhikkhuns. The Buddha, as it is very clearly evident from numerous references in the canonical texts, did not wholeheartedly endure the establishment of the bhikkhun Order. This was not because of any discriminatory attitude of the Buddha towards women. In fact the Buddha in no way did make any such discrimination. On the contrary Buddha, perhaps, is the foremost (trc tin) among the religious teachers of the time who spoke on behalf of women against Bramaic discrimination against them. The Suttas are full of such references showing the Buddhas attitude to equality. By his persuasive arguments the Buddha established that intellectually women are equal to men.[35] In this context, that is in the context of bhikkhu-bhikkhun relationship the Buddha saw the problems involved and the consequences that would follow with the slightest lapse in such relationships. Even without bhikkhuns, the behaviour of bhikkhus had declined. Undoubtedly other religionists were waiting for such lapses to blow them out of proportion to discredit the whole Sagha ssana. In fact there are references to various ploys employed by heretics to discredit even the Buddha.[36] The monks behaviour left much room for criticism.[37] In such a background it is natural to find the Buddha taking many precautions to prevent any kind of misbehaviour in the relationship between bhikkhus and bhikkhuns. This, therefore, served as a spring for many rules in the Vinaya piaka. Thus Jotiya Dhirasekera points out that, "There is yet another

collection of 16 Sikkhpadas (including rules from the Nissaggiya pcittiya and Pidesanya groups) whose purpose is to safeguard the mutual relations of the Bhikkhus and the Bhikkhuns. Irregular performance of the monastic duties and excesses in personal relationships which are detrimental to the progress of the religious life also would provoke public censure and came within the purview of these regulations".[38] In fact Jotiya Dhirasekera (loc.cit) has given a classified follows: - "Nissaggiya 4 and 17: monks engaging in the service - Pcittiya 26: Monks rendering services to nuns. - Nissagiya 5 and Pcittiya 59: Monks accepting or the nuns. - Pcittiya 25: Monks giving robes to nuns. - Pcittiya 29 and Pidesanya 1 and 2: Nuns attachment to the monks. - Pcittiyas 21-24: Irregular performance of monastic the nuns. - Pcittiyas 27, 28 and 30: Irregular social nuns." expressing their personal duties by monks towards using robes belonging to list of such rules as of nuns.

relationships of monks towards

These rules were laid down by the Buddha not to undermine position of women, not to restrict their freedom but to help the Sagha ssana as a whole to maintain its authority and dignity. This was very necessary at that time when there were groups working hard to defame and degrade the members of the Order. In fact the Buddhas very progressive attitude towards women itself was considered by traditionalists as anti-social. The Brahmins did not at all appreciate the Buddhas liberal approach towards women. The Buddhas strong arguments urging the society to treat women as equal to men were detested by the orthodox Brahmins. In their view such teachings were against the prevailing customs and accepted traditions; they were merely undermining the supremacy of the male, which has been the normally accepted fact. So, such Brahmins, too, were waiting for opportunities to attack the Buddha, his Dhamma and the Sagha. The easiest way of attacking was to find lapses in discipline and then publicize them. Such conditions made the Buddha become especially concerned about the bhikkhu-bhikkhun relations. A careful analysis of the numerous rules the Buddha promulgated in relation to bhikkhun discipline makes it

quite clear that the Buddha was aiming both at safeguarding the honour and dignity of bhikkhuns and also the good name and stability of the whole Sagha community. The increase in the number of rules for bhikkhuns was for this purpose. When one examines the particular Saghdisesa rules applicable to bhikkhuns it is seen that those rules had been laid down to save the bhikkhuns falling victims to different rules adopted by unscrupulous men. Thus, the Saghdisesa No. 3 says: "No bhikkhun shall leave the village alone, cross the river, and go beyond, shall be out in the night, or be out of the company of a group. One who does so is guilty of a Saghdisesa offence." (Vin. IV, 229) Saghdisesa 5 reads as: "No bhikkhun with lustful intention shall accept and a man with similar lustful intentions." (Ibid, 223) Saghdisesa 6 is: "No bhikkhun shall tell another, whatever shall this man will do to you, whether he is lustful or not, as long as you have no such lustful thoughts. Therefore accept and partake whatever such a man offers." (Ibid. 234) Given below are same of the Pcittiya applicable to Pcittiya 11: "No bhikkhun in the night, in darkness, where there company of a man or talk with him." Pcittiya 12: "No bhikkhun shall stay in the company of a male or secluded place." Pcittiya 13: "No bhikkhun shall stay with a male or talk with him Pcittiya 14: "No bhikkhun shall stay in the company of a male in the street, in a blind alley or at cross-roads; converse with him, whisper in the ear or send away a bhikkhu her only companion." in an open place." talk with him in a is no lamp stay in the bhikkhuns. partake of any food from

Pcittiya 36: "No bhikkhun shall live in close association with a householder son." householder or a

These rules were laid down to remedy the living instances of misbehaviour that were brought to the notice of the Buddha. Hence, these should not be regarded as strictures on them or as restrictions imposed on them preventing them from acting freely. As said before, Sagha community is a micro society, and it is also the Buddhas ideal society which he tried to make conflict-free and blame-free. To produce such a society a special constitution was necessary and this constitution had to be updated, expanded, and amended as time and circumstances demanded. The rules are the net outcome of such a long process. And, it is not surprising to see considerable number of these rules pertain to relations between bhikkhus and bhikkhuns. This is because this was a very vulnerable act. * Endnotes 1. Brahmin Kasbhradvja directly accuses the Buddha that he attempts to sustain himself without making a living. Of course, the Buddha replies: "I too, o brahmaa, do plough and sow and thereof." But this ploughing and sowing is used in an allegorical sense and not in the literal sense. See Sn. II. 76 ff. 2. Para paibaddh me jivikti pabbajitena abhiha 3. D. III, 180 ff. 4. See Dhp. V. No. 354 "Sabbadna dhammadna jinti." 5. Vin. Cullavagga, p.240. 6. Ibid. loc.cit. "Vihra dna saghsassa agga buddhena 7. Vin. I, 298-299. 8. D. II, 966: "Ambapli gives up this meal for a hundred thousand pieces." "Young sirs, if you were to give me all Vesli, with its revenue, i would not give up such an important meal." 9. See Dppn. V.v. Jvaka. vaita." paccavekkhitabba.

10. Vin. I, 72: This reference shows how individuals afflicted with certain sicknesses approached Jvaka and asked him treat them. The latter said he was too busy as he had to attend on the Buddha and the Sagha. Then they thought: "Ime kho sama sakyaputtiy sukhasl sukhasamcr subhojanni bhujitv samaesu sakyaputtiyesu pabbajeyyu." 11. See Tharpar, R, Renunciation: The Making of a Counter Culture, Ancient Indian Social History, Delhi, Orient Longman, 1978, p. 81. 12. M. I, 162. 13. D. II. 14. M. I, p. 167. 15. Vin. I, 21: "Caratha bhikkhave crika bahujanahitya bahujanasukhya loknukampya atthya hitya sukhya devamanussna, m ekena dve agamittha, desetha bhikkhave dhamma dikalya majjhekaya pariyosnakaly sttha sabyajana kevalaparipua parisuddha brahmacariya paksetha." 16. Vin. I, 137: "Manuss ujjhyanti khyanti vipcenti: katha hi nma sama sakyaputtiy hemanta pi gimha pi vassa pi crika carissanti haritni tini sammaddant ekindriya jva vihehent bah khuddake pe saghta pdent." 17. Vin. I, 137: "Anujnmi bhikkhave vassa upagantu." 18. Vin. I, 138, 139. 19. Vin. I, 101. 20. Vin. I, 74: "Santi bhante rjno assaddh appasann, te appamattakena pi bhikkh viheheyyu. Sdhu bhante ayy rjabhaa na pabbjeyyu." 21. Vin. I, 138: "Tena kho pana samayena rj Mgadho Seniyo vassa ukkahitakmo bhikkhna santike dtam phesi, game juhe vassa upagaccheyyunti. Bhagavato eta anujnmi bhikkhave rjna anuvattitun ti." 22. Vin. I, 75: "Na bhikkhave krabhedako coro pabbjetabbo." 23. The Vin. III, 45: "Pura vohrika mahmatta." Compare D. early Buddhist Jurisprudence, p. v. 24. Ibid. loc.cit: "Kittakena kho bhikkhu rj Mgadho Seniyo Bhagavat, bimbisro Bimbisro yadi pan ayy attha arocesu,

cora gahetv hanati v bandhati v pabbjeti v ti." 25. Dasadhamma Sutta: "Parapaibaddh me jvikti pabbajitena paccavekkhitabba." 26. Vin. I, 91, 102, 137 etc. "The people agitated, took disparagingly." 27. Trsl. From Dialogues of the Buddha, II, p. 112. 28. See Higher Ordination in the Encyclopedia of Buddhism. 29. Vin. I, 72-73. 30. Vin. I, 69. However an exception to this rule was made with regard to the admission of Aggika Jailas and Sakyan. They were exempted from this probationary period. The reason given for these exceptions are as follows: "Ye te bhikkhave aggik jailak, te gat upasampdetabb, na tesa parivso dtabbo, ta kissa hetu. Kammavdino ete bhikkhave kiriyavdino. Sace bhikkhave jtiy skiyo aatithiyapubbo gacchati, so gato upasampdetabbo, na tassa parivso dtabbo. Imha bhikkhave tna veiya parihra dammti." (Vin. I. 71). 31. For a detailed discussion on this see Chandima Buddhism. Its Religious and Intellectual Milieu. 32. This attempt to maintain a distinct identity becomes analyzing the Sekhiy dhamm. More about this Wijebandra, Early further clear by will follow. abhiha offence and spoke

33. Vin. I, 159: "Na bhikkhave mgabbata titthiyasamdna samdiyitabba. Yo samdiyeyya, patti dukkaassa. Anujnmi bhikkhave vassa vutthna bhikkhna thi hnehi pavretu dihena v sutena v parisakya v ti." 34. Jotiya Dhirasekera, Buddhist Monastic Discipline, p. 105. 35. See the Dhta Sutta in the Kosala Sayutta of the compare also Som theras bold answer to Mra Sayutta. 36. The heretics employed a paribbjik called Sundar to See DPPN. s.v. Sundri. 37. See L.P.N. Perera, Sexuality in Ancient India. Sayuttanikya; recorded in the Bhikkhun discredit the Buddha.

38. Jotiya Dhirasekera, op.cit. p. 88. -ooOooChapter IV Influence of Observance of Etiquette Influence of Paribbjaka system The Sekhiy dhamms that form a section of the Vinaya also throws much light on the objectives the Buddha appears to have entertained when formally promulgating rules. It is an accepted fact that the Buddha when establishing his Sagha, took the prevalent ramaa religious clergy organizations as the model. As the Vinaya Mahvagga shows it was a rather informal organization at the outset. The most distinctive feature in it was renunciation of household-life and entrance into the life of homeless. The oft-recurring phrase "agrasm anagriya pabbajitv" clearly shows this. In fact the word pabbajj from the root vraj with prefix pa = (pra) is evidence for this. Paribbjakas, the wandering religious men of the ramaa tradition were members of a well established religious institution of the time. This going forth from household-life was the most salient feature of most of the ramaa religions. This was in contrast to Brhmaas who were "priests" religious men who discharged the role of "mediators" or facilitators between gods and men. In contrast to these the household renouncers (pabbajitas) were known by such designations as Paribbjaka, Pabbajita, Ajvaka, Samaa, Nigaha, Muni etc. Some of these designations were common to many, whereas some referred to particular groups of religious men. But all of them shared one feature in common and that is, they all were renouncers of household-life (pabbajitas), and hence, had no permanent dwelling place. They were all itinerant clergy-men, going from place to place, depending on begged or offered alms. In fact it is this homeless-life which attracted the Bodhisattva who was quite convinced that the household-life is full of encumbrances and the homeless-life is like the open-air.[1] There is much in common between a number of ramaa school traditions and Buddhist monks way of life. And, certainly there is no doubt that the Buddha was influenced by this Paribbjaka institution when he established his own Sagha institution. Even subsequently, he adopted certain religious practices and observances from those followed by Paribbjaka group. The observance of Uposatha is one such practice.[2] Yet the Buddha did not adopt in totality the Paribbjaka way of life and practices. In fact he was to have a separate identity for his Sagha. This is seen from the practice he adopted with regard to the external appearance of the members of his Sagha. The shaving head and beard, the donning of a robe on the Formation of Vinaya Rules

made from discarded pieces of cloth, doing away with a sling-bag usually carried by the Paribbjakas, the discarding of any kind of walking stick, instead carrying of a bowl and robe (patta-cvaramdaya) are features distinctive of the outward appearance of a member of the Buddhist Sagha. In fact the Vinaya subsequently incorporated a number of rules regarding these. Focus on external behaviour The Buddha very rightly understood that the outward appearance or the manifest behaviour of the members of an Order had much significance in rousing faith and trust in devotees. This is what made him pay special attention to the external, manifest behaviour of his disciples. In a society in which many religious institutions were vying for popularity and acceptance by the masses this sort of external appearance was of special significance. From the numerous rules the Buddha promulgated with regard to the external appearance and manifest behaviour of his clergy, the importance attached to this aspect by him is clearly seen. Significance of Sekhiy dhamm The Sekhiys were formulated to regulate such manifest general behaviour. An examination of these rules will make it very clear they are neither directly relevant to nor have any special impact on the practices leading to the realization of emancipation. The purpose of these rules is to give the members of the Buddhist Sagha a distinctive appearance, so that they would cut a figure among the numerous members of diverse religious Orders. As it has already been pointed out that winning of confidence of those who are not yet convinced and the increase of confidence of those who are already convinced were two of the major motivative factors that made the Buddha finally formulate rules for the conduct of monks. The monks being dependent on others for their existence (parapaibaddha) had to conduct themselves in a way that is quite acceptable and attractive to the public. The Buddhas concern about public opinion, as already discussed, had been greatly instrumental in prompting him to lay down the Sekhiy dhamm. Sekhiy dhamms are seventy-five in number and are common to both bhikkhus and bikkhuns. This, itself shows that those are of equal importance to all members of the Sagha community. The Sekhiya is from Sekha meaning, belonging to training. This is from the root sik meaning to train. Thus, Sekhiy dhamms means aspects of training. All those who are want of training are referred to in Pli as Sekha (trainee). They are in need of training. Hence, those who have completed training or those who are trained in contrast called asekha, meaning not needing training. It is really the Arahants who are designated as asekhas and, therefore, all below Arahants do need to undergo certain kinds of training. Thus, the perfection of the threefold training is also thus achieved only with the complete fulfillment of

the path, which

in the case of Arahants is not eightfold but tenfold.[3]

The Sekhiy dhamms though connected with the first training of the threefold training (tisikkh sla), as Sekhiy dhamms these are more concerned with etiquette of behaviour than with ethics of conduct. Etiquette refers to accepted and often conventional rules of personal behaviour in a polite society. Ethics are more related to the moral quality of such behaviour, and hence, ethics are also related to the mind. But etiquettes have no such relation to the mind. These pertain to modes of behaviour acceptable to the society, or in keeping with a particular vocation followed by individuals. Ethics (sla) have more broader application and in the practice of the Buddhist path, it is fundamental to the success of the practice. If one does not establish himself in morality first, in practising the path, he is bound to fail. Sla is almost like the launching pad in ones spiritual flight.[4] But Sekhiy dhamms are not of such moral significance. They are more related to the charisma or in other words charm of behaviour that inspire admiration and devotion in the minds of others. This undoubtedly was and is a characteristic that enhance the position of a bhikkhu or bhikkhun in the public-eye. Possible reasons for formulating Sekhiy-dhamm The two extreme religious paths or practices namely, attakilamathnuyoga (practice of self-mortification) and kmasukhalliknuyoga (practice of selfindulgence) popularly adopted by the religious men of the time made them incline towards some kind of extreme personal behaviour. Those who followed severe ascetic practices did not pay much care to personal appearance. Religious men with long-matted hair and unshaven, shabby beards were a common sight. They were indifferent to their dress and there was no uniformity in it, either from a mere loin-cloth just sufficient to cover the privy parts of the body to sheer nakedness; this was adopted by religious men as the accepted attire. Some shunned the use of water and, consequently, never bathed or even washed their bodies. Cleanliness or hygiene did not find a place in their day to day life. There were some who understood the observance of peculiar vows to live like and to follow the behavioural pattern of goats (ajavta), cattle (govta), dogs (kukkuravta) etc. When observing such practices the life pattern had to be adjusted accordingly, and etiquette of life, as generally understood accepted in normal human society, was not valid for them. In fact observance of such etiquette would have been infringements of the vows undertaken by them. Perhaps, deliberately those practitioners disregarded the observance of normal behavioural patterns in order to safeguard their vtas. There were others, as they led itinerant lives, who had to take along with them whatever little possessions they had. For this they had to carry a kind of a shoulder-bag or a sling-bag, which became an almost a hallmark of some

ramaa recluses. As they carried this kind of a bag, in their outward appearance they gave the impression of possessors, hoarders, though they in reality were total renouncers. On the other hand, those who followed the extreme practice of self-indulgence led lives which rather appeared indisciplined to those who observed them from outside. The Vedic Brahmaas, in spite of their religious vocation and commitment, led a life not very different from the ordinary lay. They, perhaps, were inclined to make their outward appearance appealing by paying extra-attention to adorn and decorate their faces and limbs. Because of their close association with lay peoples of different status they tended to behave more like the lay. The kings often lavished their generosity on important eminent Brahmaas, thus making them wealthy landowners. As they wielded power, authority and wealth they appeared a special class of clergy by themselves. Naturally, most of them indulged in excessive enjoyment of sensual pleasures, and behaved in a worldly manner. So were the Materialists who advocated a totally materialistic philosophy, encouraging enjoyment of worldly pleasures denying ethics, rebirth, and next life etc. They, too, led the itinerant lives of wandering ascetics. But their materialistic philosophy made them adopt a very worldly attitude to life, grossly engaging in all worldly pleasures. This attitude to life made them behave more lay-like than even the ordinary lay people. In such a religious milieu the Buddha had to be very cautious about the external appearance and manifest behaviour of his clergy disciples. The Sekhiy dhamms were promulgated to invest the members of the Sagha community with a distinct identity befitting a community that has, in the true sense of the word, totally shunned the way of lay life. Examination of Sekhiy-dhamm An examination of this twenty-five Sekhiy dhamms makes it clear that a majority of the rules pertain to alms, accepting alms and how to partake alms. There are thirty rules pertaining to this. This suggests that in general the clergy of the time did not accept and partake of food in a manner befitting the status of members of a religious Order. Some of the etiquettes to be observed in partaking alms food makes one feel that the Buddha had minutely observed the unacceptable eating manners of same classes of recluses. Some of the rules are: - I will not make up too large a mouthful.

- I will not open the mouth when the mouthful is not brought - I will not talk with a mouthful in the mouth. - I will not eat tossing up balls of food. - I will not eat breaking up mouthful. - I will not eat stuffing the cheeks.

close.

For the Buddha to make rules of this sort related to etiquette of eating or in the modern parlance table manners, some recluses may have behaved in an improper manner when partaking alms. Perhaps, the laity may have disapproved and criticized their manners of eating. One can easily understand how ugly it would have appeared when a member of the clergy begins to talk while his mouth is full of food. Eating mouthful after mouthful, some seem to have been in the habit of just stuffing the cheeks with lumps of food. Some seem to have made too large mouthfuls of food and then opened out their mouths large enough to accept such large lumps of food. An ugly sight indeed! Some seem to have been in the habit of shaking their hands vigorously while eating, thus scattering all round grains of rice and curry stuff. Another common misdemeanour in partaking of food appears to have been the habit of smacking lips while eating. This certainly would have looked extremely indecent. Yet others jutted out their tongues while taking mouthful of food, and this may have reminded the on lookers the eating habits of animals. So these are sekhiy rules to say: - I will not eat putting out the tongue. - I will not eat smacking the lips. - I will not eat licking the hand. This last mentioned rule of etiquette reminds one of the habits of licking fingers while partaking of food, a habit that could be seen even now among some in India. Perhaps, as now even then, this sort of licking of hands and fingers may have been common among certain sections (khu vc) of the society. The Buddha, coming from a cultured, well-to-do ksatriya or khattiya family does not seem to have condoned such habits. In his eyes these appear to have been signs of lack of culture and etiquette (gamma). Decent table manners are even today regarded as signs of good upbringing. Buddha seems to have considered such manners as reflecting culturedness of the individuals concerned. To make undue noise while eating either chewing too loud or rolling tongue too noisily is a common bad habit that is observed even now. The Buddha pinpointed this and promulgated a rule to check this bad habit: - I will not eat making a hissing sound.

The meticulous care with which the Buddha drew up well demonstrated by the following:

these rules of etiquette is

- I will not accept drinking utensil while hands are soiled with food. - I will not throw out amidst the houses raising the bowl with of boiled rice.

grains

Though minor, these pertain to cleanliness and general hygiene. Most of the Indians of the time may not have been of the habit of meticulously observing these. But the Buddha, who was much concerned about cleanliness and personal hygiene, paid attention to all these details and made the members of his Sagha community be role-models for the large society. Then there are a number of rules regarding the way how a bhikkhu should conduct himself when he is visiting places, especially when he is on his almsround. This is the time that a bhikkhu comes often into public scrutiny. This brings to mind the meeting between Upatissa (latter venrerable Sriputta) and the recently ordained bhikkhu Assaji. The Vinaya Mahvagga very graphically records this meeting. Describing how venerable Assaji set on his alms-round it says: "Atha kho yasm Assaji pubbasamaya nivsetw pattacvara dya rjagaha piya pvisi psdikena abhikkantena paikkantena lokitena vilokitena sammijitena pasritena okkhittacakkhu iriypathasampanno." This disciplined posture appears to have been very important and this was one way of asserting a distinct identity as a member of the Buddhist Order. It may be that many other recluses of different religious traditions did not pay any special attention to this posture. Such disciplined movements, bodily postures, movement of limbs certainly create an impression on the onlooker. This really is what happened to Upatissa. By this time the two Brahmin youths Upatissa and Kolita (latter venerable Sriputta and Moggallna respectively, were living, the holy-life under a teacher called Sajaya.[5] These two friends were not quite satisfied with Sajayas guidance. Therefore, they came to an agreement among themselves that whomsoever that meets a more competent teacher should inform the other. Upatissa happened to see venerable Assaji on his alms-round, taking measured steps with his eyes cast down. He was so impressed by venerable Assajis demeanour that he thought: "Ye vata loke arahanto v arahatta-magga v sampann, bhikkhna aataro, yan nnha ima bhikkhu puccheyya."[6] aya tesa upasakamitv

This shows the strong impact such disciplined demeanour has on onlookers. Such behaviour, at it is rather unusual or out of ordinary, attract the interest and attention.

This reminds one also about an incident connected with Emperor Asokas conversion. It is said that Emperor Asoka was rather unhappy about the behaviour of bhikkhus. But one day he happened to see a smaera (novice) called Nyagrodha.[7] Emperor Asoka was greatly impressed by the way this smaera walked in measured steps, with serenity and down-cast eyes that he invited the smaera to his palace. Tradition suggests that this was the turning point in Emperor Asokas conversion to Buddhism. Thus, one can very well understand the importance attached to demeanour of bhikkhus. The Sekhiy-dhamms say: "Well controlled I will go amidst the houses." "Well controlled I will sit down amidst the houses." "With eyes cast down I will go amidst the houses." "With eyes cast down I will sit amidst the houses." If this was the common practice followed by all recluses it is hard to understand why the Buddha taught it necessary to lay down these norms of simple etiquette for bhikkhus. The real situation could be the other way about. A majority of the recluses may have not paid special attention to these details of postures. Often they may have walked about hurriedly, not paying much attention to the fact that such hurried and brisk walking is not quite compatible with the life of a recluse. Though these are rather very simple observances, undoubtedly these may have contributed to add distinction to the behaviour of Buddhist monks making them markedly different from most other recluses of different religious groups. Rules of etiquette included among the Sekhiy-dhamms as for example: such disciplined

- Properly clad will I go amidst the houses. - Not lifting up the robe will I go midst the houses. - Not lifting up the robe will I sit down amidst the houses etc. clearly suggest that some recluses seem to have completely disregarded these minor manners. Otherwise the Buddha would not have had any reason to include these rules among the Sekhiy-dhamms. The manner in which the robe should be worn was of special importance for the demeanour of the monks. It is interesting to note in this regard that that on one occasion venerable Sriputta unwittingly wore the robe in such a manner that the fold of his robe hung down far too much touching the ground. A novice who noticed this politely requested venerable Sriputta to drape the robe properly; venerable Sriputta thanked the novice, and adjusted his robe.[8] What this shows is that even the novices in the Buddhist Sagha community

were well aware of the proper way in which they should drape themselves with the robe. Dress undoubtedly is an important feature that affects ones external appearance. If one is shabbily dressed that reflects very badly on him. So it is if one is not properly dressed. Draping robe properly therefore, was considered very important. In fact there are particular rules regulating draping of the robe. Thus the first of the Sekhiy-dhamms is: - I will dress with the inner robe all round me. Draping the robe could not be done in a haphazard manner. It had to be draped properly, well covering the body. Thus, the above mentioned rule shows how the inner robe should be worn. Then there was the upper or the outer robe. That, too, had to be draped all round the body. This is in utter contrast to digambara (naked) Jains, and some parivrajakas whose torso was left uncovered. When going out of the vihra premises, proper draping of the robe was very essential. One meets with oft-recurring phrase: "Bhagav pubbahasamaya nivsetv pattacvara dya." The term nivsetv meant the proper draping of the robe. All bhikkhus when they set forth from the vihra drape themselves properly, for they had to look decently clad in the eyes of the public. Not only that, the bhikkhus had to drape the robes properly but also when going amidst people and sitting, they were expected not to lift up the robe unduly. This lifting of the dress while walking or sitting is more a lay habit and certainly not a very decent one at that. The Buddha was so particular to see that the bhikkhus appeared extremely decent in their demeanour, that he particularly instructed as to how they should manage the robe when walking or sitting. From some of the Sekhiy-dhamms it appears that certain recluses did not consider preaching a very serious affair. Perhaps, for most of them it was just a dialogue or giving some instructions at random. For the Buddha it was a very serious matter. The importance he attached to preaching is seen from the advice he gave to the first sixty Arahant disciples when he dispatched them on Dhamma-missions: "Caratha bhikkhave crika bahujanahitya bahujanasukhya atthya hitya sukhya devamanussna..."[9] loknukampya

This shows that Dhamma-preaching is a serious task, performed for a very noble purpose; therefore, it had to be done with all seriousness and commitment. There should be some decorum in the act of preaching, for its objective is to bring about happiness and well being of the listeners. And besides, the bhikkhus revered Dhamma the Buddha-vacana (words spoken by the Buddha himself) and hence, never did anything to demean its value. The Dhamma is what is well declared by the Fortunate One (svkkhto bhagavat dhammo). Therefore, this Dhamma is not to be preached at random, in a haphazard manner, in whatever place, in whatever posture. The

Dhamma being the Buddha-vacana had to be delivered with the respect and dignity it deserves. Hence, there are a number of Sekhiy-dhamms pertaining to this area. These are worthy of note to understand why these are important as well as to understand the possible practices that prevailed during the time. Some of these Sekhiy-dhamms are as follows: - I will not teach the Dhamma to someone who is not ill, yet carries a sunshade in his hand. - I will not teach the Dhamma to someone who is not ill, yet has a staff in his hand. Preaching the Dhamma and listening to it was considered by the Buddha a very serious matter. The Buddha not only observed the mental level and condition of the listeners, but was also careful to communicate in a methodical way. So, he did not preach higher teachings immediately to all alike. There are numerous references in the canon showing how he structured his method of preaching. First he observed the mental level and the prevailing state of mind and then if he found that the listener or listeners concerned were not ready mentally to grasp the profound teaching, he carefully took steps to attune the mind. This he did by what the texts refer to as delivering the graduated sermon" (nupubbkath). Thus Yasa[10] came to the Buddha almost immediately after the latter had shown the pacavaggiys the way to Arahantship. The Buddha at once realized that Yasa was in a confused state of mind not knowing as to what course of action he should take to pacify and calm himself. The Buddha realizing Yasas condition decided not to teach him anything deep and profound. Instead, he adopted a simpler approach. He assured Yasa, who was highly agitated and mentally disturbed, that he was safe and there is no reason for him to think otherwise. This assurance was very necessary to calm Yasa. Yasa as recorded in the Mahvagga of the Vinaya, told the Buddha as soon as he saw him: "Upadduta vata bho, upassaha vata bhoti" The Buddha immediately responded: "Ida kho Yasa anupadduta ida anupassaha" This assurance was strong enough to calm down Yasa. And then the Buddha asked Yasa to sit down "Ehi, Yasa nisdana." Then Yasa paid homage to the Buddha and sat on a side. These preliminaries are very necessary to build not only a good rapport between the preacher and listener, but also to rouse confidence and trust in the listeners mind regarding the preacher. This paying honour quietly sitting on a side added solemnity to the occasion turning this conversation into a more serious affair than a mere talk or a

dialogue. When Yasa was thus calmly seated the graduated talk:

Buddha came out with his

"Dnakatha slakatha saggakatha kmna dnava okra sakilesa nekkhamme nisasa..."[11] This graduated talk was delivered to attune the mind of the listeners to receive the higher teaching. This shows that Dhamma talk is not something done at random. Before delivering the Dhamma talk it was customary to make the listener sit calmly on a side. Such a posture helped to settle the mind of the listener. If he is a newcomer to the doctrine, then it is necessary to gradually incline his mind towards religiosity. This could not be done without establishing the mind on correct view at least in the mundane level. The nupubbikath (graduated sermon) helps to attain this mental level. It is subsequent to this, when the Buddha knew that the mind had become receptive to higher teaching that he delivered to the listener the completely uplifting preaching of doctrine (smukkasik dhamma-desan) which in other word means the preaching about the Four Noble Truths. This, shows that dhamma-desan is a serious task and should not be done haphazardly. Both the preacher and the listener had to be seriously committed. Thus, it is easy to understand why the Buddha formulated the above referred to Sekhiy-dhamms. There are a number of Sekhiy-dhamms related to decorum in preaching: - I will not teach the Dhamma to someone who is not in his hand. ill and who has a weapon

One should not carry a weapon when listening to the Dhamma, for it would appear utterly ironical if this happens. Even if the listener was to carry a weapon, once he begins to hear the Dhamma he has to lay the weapon down. Besides, listening to Dhamma is a very solemn act. The Buddhist and the general Indian religious practice is to removal all foot and head-wear when listening to Dhamma. In fact, removal of foot-wear and any hat or head-cover is mandatory when entering a vihra. This is mandatory also when listening to discourses delivered in vihras. Of course, it is seen that there are a number of concessions made in the case of those who are ill, if the listener happens to be ill many of these Sekhiydhamms are not strictly applied. Thus, he could remain wearing sandals, head-cover etc. Normally the preacher is given a special seat to preach. It is usual for the preacher to sit on a higher level and the listener on a lower level. Special Dhamma-sanas (pulpits) are made in vihra for this purpose. Even otherwise it is the preacher-bhikkhu who alone sits on a chair vhile the listeners sit on the ground. If the preacher-bhikkhu is on a chair below the stage, the listeners may sit on the chair below the stage. But unscrupulous religious

men seem to have at times disregarded this sort of decorum connected with preaching. Some of the Sekhiy-dhamms clearly suggest the occurrence of breach of observance of decorum. Hence, the Sekhiy-dhamms: - "Having sat down on the ground I will not teach Dhamma to someone sitting on a seat and who is not ill" - I will not teach the Dhamma having sat down on a low seat, to someone sitting on a high seat and who is not ill" - I will not teach the Dhamma standing to someone who is sitting down and who is not ill" If this sort of incidents did not occur there is no reason for the Buddha to formulate Sekhiy-dhamms of this nature. So the reasonable presumption is that at least some bhikkhus for whatever reason it may be acted without any concern for etiquette. There are a few more rules which show carelessness of some regard to preaching: - I will not teach the Dhamma going behind to someone ill. - I will not teach the Dhamma going at the side of the someone going along the path and not ill. bhikkhus with going in front and not path to

As it was shown earlier Dhamma was never preached by the Buddha while walking. The Buddha was always seated when he discoursed. The listeners also were seated. This is very clear from references in the Suttas to the Buddhas preaching to a single person and large audiences. But, as the numbers in his Order grew, bringing in undesirable elements into the Order, there seems to have taken place some erosion in accepted practices and etiquettes. Hence, these Sekhiy-dhamms were promulgated to arrest further decline in decorum. There is a rule pertaining to passing of excrement and urine. Such calls of nature had to be attended to in a decent manner in sitting posture, if one is in good health. But some bhikkhus seem to have disregarded even such simple accepted norms of behaviour. Two of the rules pertaining to passing of excrement and urine are also related to protection of environment. It is very well known that the Buddha was especially concerned with the protection of environment. The Buddha was much concerned about the environment, the flora and the fauna. There are quite a large number of other rules in the Vinaya that directly have relevance to the protection of environment. Thus, monks are prohibited to harm any kind of vegetation. As the Petavatthu points out the cutting of a branch of a tree that had provided shade is considered in Buddhism as an act of betrayal of

friendship.[12] Even the observance of Vassa was laid down to safeguard the newly grown grass and insect life. Thus it is not surprising to see two rules pertaining to passing of excrement and urine being specifically aimed at safeguarding environment; these Sekhiy-dhamms say: - I will not pass excrement, urine or spit if not ill on green vegetation. - I will not pass excrement, urine or spit in the water if not ill. One could easily understand why these rules of etiquette are relaxed in relation to those who are ill. In such circumstances the strict observance of certain Sekhiy-dhamms are rather cumbersome on the bhikkhus. Therefore, these exceptions are allowed. Besides, such relaxation in rules of etiquette was possible because the observance of these did not directly affect the main objective for which the Brahmacariya is lived. This objective is the complete ending of the dukkha.[13] But the observance of these Sekhiy-dhamms had no direct relation to the achievement of this goal. These rules were more for the purpose of making bhikkhus better behaved. Such decorous behaviour that did not violate the good state of the public naturally contributed to give a distinct identity to the member of the Buddhist Sagha community and make them become highly esteemed by the devotees. * Endnotes: 1. D. I, 63, 253: bahu sambdho gharvso abbhokso pabbajj. 2. See Chandima Wijebandara, Early Buddhism: Its Religion and Intellectual Milieu, regarding to the paribbajaka and other ramana influences on Buddhist Sagha. 3. See Mahcattrsaka Sutta. 4. See Jau Sutta (S. II.) Sle patihya naro sapao citta paa ca bhvaya. 5. Whether this is same as Sajaya Belahiputta is doubtful evidence available suggests that this is another Sajaya. 6. This incident is narrated with minor variation in the Dhammapada Ahakath. 7. The Northern tradition calls this Smaera Upagutta. 8. This is found recorded in the Theragth commentary. See also DPPN. 9. Vin. I, 21.

10. Vin. I, 15 f. Similar instances are of frequent occurrence in the Sutta. 11. This is graduated talk and this deals with talk related to charity, development of virtue, heaven, the dangers, the defilements and low nature of sense pleasure, and the advantages in renunciation. 12. Petavatthu, II, 9; cf. Jtaka, IV, 352; V, 240; VI, 310, 375.

13. It is often said that the brahmacariy should be followed for the utter ending of dukkha. Vin. I, 12: cara brahmacariya samm dukkhassa antakiriyya.