BANNER OF THE ARAHANTS
Chapter IV
The Sangha and the Spread of Buddhism
Wandering Bhikkhus and the Rains - Residence - support of Bhikkhus - merchants
and kings - Bhikkhus never
‘missionaries’ - qualities for spreading Dhamma - the learned and the
meditative - Reciters - lost discourses - reasons for the First Council - its
work - the Baskets of Vinaya and Sutta analysed - the Abhidhamma - the minor
rules - Purana and the variant traditions - 2nd Council and lax Vinaya -
Schism created by the Great Assembly - their wrong views and corruption of
their texts - Emperor Asoka and the 3rd Council - the attitude of one
successful Bhikkhu who spread Dhamma.
In the Buddha time most
Bhikkhus wandered. For most of the year they travelled by themselves or in
larger or smaller groups around a Teacher-monk (ācariya).
They might stop in a place they found suitable for their practice for a few
months or intermittently even for years. In some cases people might invite
them to stay and guarantee their alms food and other simple needs. These
people would have huts and a meeting-hall erected, these small buildings being
the beginnings of Buddhist monasteries. There are many stories in the
Dhammapada Commentary[1],
which picture such wandering Bhikkhus and their friendly reception by
villagers who were not always Buddhists.
During the Rains, the
monsoon from July to October, the Buddha laid down a rule that Bhikkhus were
to stay in one place and this period is now called the Rains-residence. It is
observed by all Bhikkhus (samaneras as well) as a time for the intensification
of meditation practice, or for greater efforts to study. Generally Bhikkhus
gather round well-known Teachers to be instructed and exhorted by them for
these three lunar months. Lay people also have the chance to learn Dhamma at
this time, perhaps becoming Buddhists if they had not already Gone for Refuge
to the Triple Gem, while at the end of the Rains some or all of the Bhikkhus
would move on.
Wandering is one way in
which Dhamma was spread throughout India and beyond by Bhikkhus. They do not
have many possessions, unlike householders who must have a lot of things, so
they can come and go easily. The Buddha compared the Bhikkhu to a swan, a bird
that is plain and unadorned but capable of flying very far and strongly. The
layperson is compared to the peacock, beautiful but burdened by its beauty and
therefore slow and unable to fly long distances. It is for this reason that
Dhamma was spread far and wide mostly by Bhikkhus. It is very rare to read of
a layman or woman propagating the Dhamma in distant lands for usually they
would have their families to look after. Of course, there have always been
learned lay Buddhists, and those who have been able to practise meditation
deeply, but they have rarely travelled far. Their influence was usually
limited to their own towns or villages where they would be foremost among the
supporters of the local Teacher-monks and leaders of the lay Buddhist
community.
But the Bhikkhus did not
have the burden of family and possessions. They could come and go freely after
their first five years. (After the Acceptance-ceremony a Bhikkhu must stay
with a Teacher-monk for at least five years). There were Teachers to go and
learn with, holy shrines to revere, invitations of lay people to accept, new
monasteries to establish - many reasons for travel. So the Dhamma spread in
these ways. It was never a methodical effort at ‘conversion’ because it is not
the aim of Buddhism to convert everyone. Such an idea was not considered
possible by the Buddha for he recognised that people have many and various
opinions. Their views will never be one, however hard organisations, religious
or political, try to coerce them into it..
Dhamma is for those who
want to understand, who want to know why there is suffering (dukkha)
in this world and all worlds and what can be done about it. For the Buddha’s
teaching was simply and directly just this: „Dukkha
and its Cessation“. If one is really interested in its cessation, or at least
in lessening it, then the teachings of the Buddha based on the subtle
cause-effect relations in the mind, will be very appealing. Belief and dogmas
are not at all important - clear understanding is what is needed without a
clutter of views and opinions. The Dhamma then ‘spreads’ to those who are
ready to investigate themselves fearlessly. It is like one candle held against
another, the light of one causes light to come into existence on the other,
Dhamma is present in the heart of every person but is more or less obscured by
the defiling passions of greed, aversion and the views which arise upon them.
A Bhikkhu should have no
money. This means that if he travels in the present time it will be either on
foot or with tickets bought by supporters. In the Buddha-time his travel had
to be on foot and even down to the last century and the beginning of this one,
in Thailand for instance, this was the case.
This meant that he had
to be able to rely upon his bowl as the way of obtaining alms food. He could
of course, accept invitations from householders when they wanted to make merit
but mostly he would maintain his body on the offerings which lay people were
happy to make him. This method worked well enough in India. (Even today it is
still possible for a Bhikkhu to get alms food there). But it is not a method,
which would succeed very well once Bhikkhus get out of the sphere of Indian
culture. Among people who had no traditions of supporting wandering religious,
a Bhikkhu’s alms bowl was likely to be as clean on his return from the alms
round as when he set out! And there are other factors, which will affect the
Bhikkhu. Alms round are possible in reasonably warm climates but it would
become rather difficult in England say, in midwinter! When you consider that a
Bhikkhu should go on alms round barefoot and with no covering on his head, it
becomes obvious that in some seasons or weathers Bhikkhus could not get their
support in this way. Yet they have no money, neither can they cultivate their
own food, nor cut or pick any vegetable or fruit nor cook their own food, for
the Buddha in the Vinaya has intentionally made them completely dependent upon
lay supporters. (Samaneras or novices cannot possess money but they can do all
the other things mentioned. Once a Bhikkhu may travel with a samanera who can
help with food, or with a layman who can aid him with both money and food).
So a Bhikkhu who
ventures outside the Indian sub-continent must have some other arrangements
for support. He could not take along a fund of money; and set himself up in a
new place until he had enough supporters there, as missionaries of other
religions. No, if he was going to travel into Central Asia, or to the lands of
South-east Asia he had to have an invitation.
Invitations in the early
times of Buddhism came frequently from merchants. They usually travelled in
great caravans, even of hundreds of carts or pack-animals or in fleets of
ships, some of their journeys lasting longer than a year. If a merchant had
faith in the Buddha’s teachings, before he set out on his long and often
perilous journey, he would go to his Teacher-monk and make offerings to all
the Bhikkhus in that monastery and no doubt request their blessings upon his
venture. He would be happy too if he could find a monastery or two along his
route where he could pay his respects to the Triple Gem - the Buddha, Dhamma,
Sangha, and set out again, his confidence renewed. But it is more than likely
that he would reach towns so far distant that nobody had ever heard of the
Buddha, let alone finding a Buddhist monastery there. Then before his long
homeward journey he would not be able to hear the wise words of a good Teacher
nor the sound of all the Bhikkhus chanting the Buddha’s discourses. Perhaps
while slowly making his way back he would decide, along with other like-minded
friends, to invite a Teacher monk and some Bhikkhus to accompany them on their
next journey and to establish them in a monastery which they would build and
finance. When this had been done, at first support would come only from the
fund provided by those merchants and administered by some local trading
partners, but soon some of the people of that place would become interested
and want to know what the Bhikkhus taught. So the Dhamma spread …
Sometimes too,
invitations came from kings, for Bhikkhus were bearers of the high Buddhist
culture. Small outlying states and even great empires through their kings and
nobles received the blessings of this culture founded upon the Buddha’s
teachings. Even where Bhikkhus did not go at the invitation of the king, it
was often the king and his court that became firm Buddhists before other
people, as in Sri Lanka. This is because the Dhamma, can be understood - at
least intellectually, best by those whose minds are developed through
education.
Bhikkhus were never
missionaries - nor are they now, in the sense that this word is used in
Western religion. Wherever they have gone, either they would set support
anyway as we have seen, or they have gone by invitation. An invitation means
that one is welcome, that support is guaranteed and that the Dhamma will be
listened to respectfully and probably practised well too. So a Bhikkhu does
not impose anything. He harms no one - as the Buddha says in the Dhammapada:
-
„As the bee to a flower goes
-
and having gotten its nourishment
-
harms neither colour nor scent,
-
so in a village should the muni fare“.
(Dhp. 49)
A muni is a wise man,
one who is silent, as a Bhikkhu is, when collecting alms food - no one comes
to grief through the gentle conduct of the Bhikkhu.
Bhikkhus who take the
Dhamma with them to far countries are called Emissaries of Dhamma, in Pali
language Dhammadūta. The Buddha said
that a Bhikkhu is fit to be a Dhammadūta when he has eight qualities:
-
He is one who has listened (to much Dhamma-Vinaya),
-
and leads others to listen (he is able to teach them),
-
he is learned (having reflected upon what he has heard),
-
and remembers (what he has learned),
-
he is one who understands (the letter and spirit of Dhamma-Vinaya),
-
and leads others to understand,
-
he is skilled in what is beneficial and not beneficial (for the practice of Dhamma),
-
and he does not make trouble“ (between Bhikkhus or lay people).
(Numerical Collection, Book of the Eights, Discourse 16)
Among the qualities
listed above, a Dhammadūta Bhikkhu should be one who has great learning, which
in the Buddha-time did not mean from books as there were no religious books
then and the art of writing was used only for business transactions and
possibly for secular poetry. Such a Bhikkhu learnt by heart from his Teacher a
certain section of the Buddha’s discourses.
We have a picture of
such 3 young Bhikkhu in venerable Sona Kutikanna who spent a night, at the
Buddha’s invitation, in the Buddha’s
kuti (hut). When they had meditated most of the night and the dawn
gladdened the sky, the Buddha asked him to recite some Dhamma. „He recited all
the sixteen Octets[2],
intoning them. When he had finished, the Blessed One approved, saying: ‘Good,
good, Bhikkhu. You have learnt the sixteen Octets well; you know them and
remember them well. You have a fine voice, incisive and without faults, which
makes the meaning clear’.“ (Udāna, V. 6).
Even before the First
Council the discourses of the Buddha were classified for easy memorisation but
it seems that their general order was not as we have them now. The first
method of classification was probably the Teacher’s Ninefold Instruction, a
list of different types of discourses often mentioned by the Buddha: Prose
discourse, Song, Exegesis, Verse, Inspired Utterance, Saying, Birth-story,
Wonderful event, Question and Answer.
Young Bhikkhus, then,
would learn part of the Buddha-word by heart, usually specialising in one
particular section so that they became experts on Dhamma (or Vinaya). This
kind of Bhikkhu had to recite some part of his learning every day in order to
keep it fresh in his mind. And because chanting out loud during the day or
night would disturb those Bhikkhus who were developing their minds through
meditation, senior Bhikkhus, like venerable Dabba Mallaputta, who were in
charge of allotting lodgings to newly arrived Bhikkhus, were careful to
segregate the different types of Bhikkhus. „He allocated lodgings in the same
place to Bhikkhus who knew the Suttas, saying, ‘They will be able to chant
over the Suttas to one another’. He allocated lodgings in the same place to
Bhikkhus versed in the Vinaya rules, saying, ‘They will decide upon the Vinaya
with one another’. He allocated lodgings in the same place to the
Dhamma-preaching Bhikkhus, saying, ‘They will discuss the Dhamma with one
another’. He allocated lodgings in the same place to meditative Bhikkhus,
saying, ‘They will not disturb one another’. He allocated lodgings in the same
place to the Bhikkhus who lived indulging in low talk and playing about,
saying, ‘These revered ones will live according to their pleasure’.“ (A nice
touch, this last sentence!) (Basket of Discipline, Bhikkhu’s Analysis,
Sanghadisesa VIII).
It seems that even from
this time, when the Buddha was still alive, that some rivalry existed between
the scholars and the meditators. Here is a discourse given by venerable
Maha-Cunda, a famous Arahant disciple.[3]
(Words in brackets are commentarial).
Thus have I heard. Once
the venerable Maha-Cunda lived at Sahajāti among the Ceti people and there he
addressed the Bhikkhus, saying;
‘Venerable Sirs, there
are Bhikkhus who are keen on Dhamma (the preachers and those with an
intellectual approach) and they disparage those Bhikkhus who are meditators,
saying, „Look at those Bhikkhus! They think, We are meditators, we are
meditators!’ And so they meditate and meditate, meditating up and down, to and
fro! What then do they meditate and why do they meditate?“ Thereby neither
these Bhikkhus keen on Dhamma will be pleased nor the meditators. (By acting
in that way) their life will not be conducive to the welfare and happiness of
the people nor to the benefit of the multitude; it will not be for the welfare
and happiness of gods and men.
Then, venerable sirs,
there are meditative Bhikkhus who disparage the Bhikkhus who are keen on
Dhamma, saying: „Look at those Bhikkhus! They think, ‘We are Dhamma-experts,
we are Dhamma-experts!’ And therefore they are conceited, puffed up and vain;
they are talkative and voluble. They are devoid of mindfulness and thoughtful
awareness, and they lack concentration; their thoughts wander and their senses
are uncontrolled. What then makes them Dhamma-experts, why and how are they
Dhamma-experts?“ Thereby neither these meditating Bhikkhus will be pleased nor
those keen on Dhamma. By acting in that way … it will not be for the welfare
and happiness of gods and men.
There are Dhamma-experts
who praise only Bhikkhus who are also Dhamma-experts but not those who are
meditators … And there are meditators who praise only those Bhikkhus who are
also meditators but not those who are Dhamma experts. Acting thus … it will
not be for the welfare and happiness of gods and men.
Therefore, venerable
sirs, you should train yourselves thus: ‘Though we ourselves are
Dhamma-experts we shall also praise those Bhikkhus who meditate. And why? Rare
in the world are such outstanding men who have personal experience of the
Deathless Element (Nibbāna).
And (the other Bhikkhus
too) should train themselves thus: Though we ourselves are meditators we shall
also praise those Bhikkhus who are Dhamma experts. And why? Rare in the world
are such outstanding men who can by their wisdom clearly understand a
difficult subject“. (Numerical Collection, Book of the Sixes, Discourse 46).
We shall have more to
say about these two classes of Bhikkhus in Chapter V, and their ways of life
in Chapter VI.
Bhikkhus who learnt the
Buddha’s discourses (or Vinaya) by heart were called ‘bhānakas’ or reciters.
They would usually be present when the Buddha spoke, committing his words to
memory while he was speaking. If there were no reciter-bhikkhus present then
the foremost among them, venerable Ananda who was also the Buddha’s attendant,
would request the Buddha to repeat his teaching so that it could be preserved.
The Buddha made the memorising of his discourses easier (though this may have
been a general feature of teaching in the age before books), by repetition of
key phrases and the harmonious grouping of words.
It may be partly for
this reason that the Buddha often spoke in verse. The idea of a religious
teacher speaking verse instead of prose is not familiar now in the West
(though many of the Old Testament Prophets did so). But this is not strange
because in his youth as a prince his education would have included poetics,
the ability to compose extemporaneous verse being valued highly. No doubt
there were other reasons too for speaking in verse: it could be more forceful
than prose even acting as a shock or it could inspire deep faith. Besides
this, much teaching could be compressed into a short discourse. A large number
of such verse discourses have been preserved, the most important collection of
which is the Sutta-Nipāta (The Book of Discourses) in the Minor Collection.
To return now to the
reciter-bhikkhus who later that day would meet and chant that teaching
together so that variations due to individual memories could not obscure the
Buddha’s words. That discourse would then be added to one of the nine sections
mentioned above. In this way the great collections of what are now called the
Case of Discipline and the Basket of Discourses in the Pali Canon, were built
up through the forty-five years of the Buddha’s teaching.
Some material has
certainly been lost, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it was
never recorded. We hear of discourses delivered by the Buddha, which have not
come down to us. For instance, after the first discourse when venerable
Añña-Kondaññā was already a Bhikkhu and a Stream-winner, the text of the
Vinaya relates: „Then the Blessed One taught and instructed the rest of the
Bhikkhus with talk on Dhamma“. But who do not know what that talk consisted
of, though it was probably an amplification of the headings in the First
Discourse. Again, in the case of the venerable Yasa’s mother and former wife,
we read: „He gave them progressive instruction, that is to say, talk on
giving, on virtue, on the heavens; he explained the dangers, the vanity and
the defilement in sensual pleasures, and the advantages of renunciation. When
he saw that the minds of Yasa’s mother and former wife were ready, receptive,
free of hindrance, eager and trustful, he expounded to them the teaching
peculiar to the Buddhas: Dukkha its
causal arising, its cessation, the path to its cessation“. (Vinaya Pitaka
Mahāvagga Kh. I) Although there are many discourses extant upon subjects like
giving and the rest, we do not know the precise content of this talk which
resulted in the two ladies becoming Stream-winners.
However, the
reciter-bhikkhus were marvellously diligent for it is due to them that we have
today the Discipline (Vinaya), and the Discourses (Sutta), which were divided,
in the First Council, into the five Collections (nikāya).
This brings us to the
time after the Buddha had passed away or as Buddhists say, after the Great
Parinibbāna. Many Bhikkhus were no doubt concerned that the Dhamma-Vinaya
should last long. Some time before this, after the Jain teacher Nigantha
Nātaputta (or Mahāvīra) had died, his disciples quarrelled over his teaching
and different parties formed. It was to prevent this that venerable Sāriputta
spoke, in the Buddha’s presence, the Recital Discourse (Sangīti Sutta) in
which important teachings are classified in groups from one to ten.
Already, just after the
Parinibbāna, the Bhikkhu Subhadda who had gone forth in his old age, said to
the other Bhikkhus: „Enough friends, do not sorrow, do not lament. We are well
rid of the Great Samana (an epithet of the Buddha). We have been frustrated by
his saying, ‘This is allowed to you; this is not allowed to you’. But now we
shall do as we like and we shall not do as we do not like“. This was cause
enough for venerable Mahā-Kassapa to say at a meeting of the Sangha: „Now
friends, let us rehearse the Dhamma-Vinaya. Already wrong teachings and wrong
discipline have been courted and right teachings and right discipline have
been flouted. And already upholders of wrong teachings and wrong discipline
are strong while upholders of right teachings and right discipline are weak“.
So it was agreed that a Sangha of five hundred Arahants should stay in
Rājagaha for that Rains-residence and systematically recite the Buddha’s
teachings.
The leader of the Sangha
in this great assembly was venerable Mahā-Kassapa, possibly the most senior of
the Buddha’s disciples still alive, while the authority for the Vinaya, was
venerable Upāli and that for Dhamma, venerable Ananda. The account as we have
it says that venerable Maha-Kassapa asked questions about the rules of the
Pātimokkha in the order we now have them and then about the Suttas, beginning
with the Collection of Long Discourses, in the order we have them now. If
nothing has been omitted from the account of this Council (which is very
brief), then it must be that the Vinaya was put in its final order during the
days of the Buddha - likewise the Suttas were ordered into the five
Collections then. This seems unlikely. As the account of the first Council
suggests that this classification was complete it may rather be a
retrospective view of what happened, perhaps added at the time of the Second
Council, one hundred years later. Of course, this is surmise.
It is more probable that
at this great assembly, the rules, allowances, prohibitions and legal
procedures were collected and the Vinaya codified. The old word-by-word
Commentary would have been added, or at least received the approval of all the
venerable Arahants and those portions of the Analysis (Vibhanga) which
systematically clarify when a Bhikkhu has committed an offence and when he has
not, would probably have been settled and ‘incorporated’ into the Vinaya.
These parts may not be even as old as this but certainly they did not come
from the mouth of the Buddha.
In the case of the
Discourses, it is likely that they were previously arranged as the Teacher’s
Ninefold Instruction This may not have proved a convenient classification and
certainly would not have been as systematic as that of the Five Collections.
The re-sorting of this great mass of material into these Collections may then
have been the main work of this Council. It will certainly have been necessary
as some of the Discourses were known only to a very few Bhikkhus and lay
people. Without any use of writing this was a stupendous achievement. The
reciter-bhikkhus would not only have to chant the Discourses known to them at
the Council, but then to re-order them in their memories in the sequence
decided upon. It is difficult for us to imagine how this could have been
accomplished. Perhaps the summaries of the different collections were written
down at this time as a check and guide to their order. Some of the small books
in the Minor Collection could well be the material memorised by particular
groups of Bhikkhus - such books as the Sutta-Nipāta, Udāna and Itivuttaka. The
Dhammapada[4],
a collection of 423 verses spoken by the Buddha, might be the personal
compilation of a great Arahant, which has been incorporated as it stands.
