Professional Documents
Culture Documents
General View of Vinaya
General View of Vinaya
The Vinaya, or monastic rules, nowadays observed by monks in the Theravada tradition, werefirstformulated, withhelp of theelder Upali, duringthe meetingof the First CouncilthatwasheldshortlyafterthedeathoftheBuddha. TheVinaya,aswenowhaveit,wasnotsomethingthattheBuddhaimposedallat onceuponanunsuspectingSangha,butratherasetofrulesandguidelinesthatevolved onlyverygradually,andonewhichtheBuddhawasalwayshappytomodifywheneverone ormoremonkspointedoutsomedifficultytheywereexperiencingwhentryingtofollowa particularrule,orelsefounditforsomeotherreasonimpractical. AlthoughAnandainformedtheFirstCouncilthattheBuddhahadtoldhim,shortly beforehisdeath,thattheSanghacould,shoulditsowish,abandonthemoreminorand moretrivialrulesfollowinghispassing,itwasnonethelessdecidedatthatmeetingthat, sinceAnandahadfailedtoasktheBuddhawhichruleshehadhadinmind,theyshoulderr onthesideofcautionandpreservealloftherulesintact. TheBuddhaoncetoldUpali(AV70)thatthereweretenreasonsforhislayingdown theVinayarules 1. FortheexcellenceoftheSangha 2. ForthecomfortoftheSangha 3. Forrestraintofwaveringindividuals 4. Forthelivingincomfortofwellbehavedmonks 5. Forrestraintofanyasavasbelongingtotheseseenconditions 6. Forwardingoffanyasavasbelongingtothehereafter 7. Fordevotiononthepartofthosenot(yet)devout 8. Forthebettermentofthosealreadydevout 9. ForthepersistenceofthetrueDhamma 10. ForassistingtheVinaya Assuch,therulesformedthebedrockoftherestoftheBuddhasteachingsandofall practicewherehismonkswereconcerned,sincetheywouldguaranteethatamonks moralitywouldnotbecomeimpairedandtherebypavethewayforthesuccessfulattainment ofconcentrationand,finally,insightandliberation.
DespitethefactthatitwasdecidedattheFirstCounciltoobservealloftherules intact,ithasnonethelesscometopassthatmanyoftheactivitiesmonksneedtoengagein themodernwouldaresimplynotcoveredbytheVinayaformulatedinthetimeofthe Buddha.Indeed,wefindthattherulesthatwereoncesetinstoneattheFirstCouncil appear,inthemodernday,tohavebecomeossified. Moreover,wemaynotethat,despitetheostensibleuniversalityoftherules,minor differencesintheirinterpretation,andenforcement,havenonethelesscreptinatthelocal level. InThailand,theSanghaActof1962givestheSanghaCouncil,whichisledbythe Sangharaja,thepoweranddutytodulygoverntheSangha,andtothispurposeis empoweredtoenact,issueandprescribeenforceabledegrees,regulations,rulesandorders notinconflictorinconsistentwithlawsandtheVinaya.TheActstipulatesecclesiastical punishments,includingtheenforceddisrobing,withintwentyfourhours,ofanymonkfound guiltyofanyofthefourparajikaoffences,andanymonkrefusingtocomplywillbeliabletoa maximumsentenceofsixmonthsimprisonment.TheactfurtherallowstheSanghaCouncil totakelegalactionagainstanydisrobedmonkwhocontinuestodressasamonk,aswellas thecivilauthoritiestodisrobeanymonkarrestedandfoundguiltofacriminaloffence. InsomeTheravadacountries,amonkisabletoreceiveanofferingfromawomen directlyintohisownhand,but,inThailand,thetraditionalpracticeisthatawomenfirst placesherofferingonapieceofcloth,afterwhichthemonkdrawsthatclothtowardshim andthenpicksuptheoffering. YetwhilsteverymonktriestoadheretoboththeletterandthespiritoftheVinaya,it hastobeacknowledgedthatlifeattheonsetofthisnewmillenniumbearslittleresemblance withconditionsthatoncepertainedinthedayoftheBuddha.Thevariousrulesformulated attheFirstCouncilwerethosebestsuitedtolifeinnorthernIndiain,andaround,thefifth centuryBC.Thereis,forinstance,littleevidencethatmoneywasinuseatthetimesothe ruleagainstacceptanceofgoldandsilvermaynotnecessarilyembracethemoneythat everyoneusestofunctioneffectivelyinthemodernworld.Andwhatarewetosayofplastic creditcards?Theyarecertainlynotgoldorsilver,norevenmoney,atleastfromonepoint ofview,yettheyarepartandparcelofeverydaylifeand,insomesituationsinwhichamonk mayfindhimself,anecessity.Bythesametoken,Ihavealsoknownmonks,withinthe Theravadatradition,whorefusetohandlemoney.Thispracticeisobviouslytobe applauded,atleastuntilonehappenstonoticetheextraordinary,andunnecessaryburden thatthispracticeplacesonthoseotherswhohavetohandlemonetaryaffairsontheirbehalf.
Thenagain,inthefifthcenturyBC,everyone,includingtheBuddha,traveledaround onfootthoughitshouldbeadmittedthathiscontemporarybrahminsdidtendtoride aroundinhorsedrawnchariots,apracticeoverwhichtheBuddhafrequentlyvoicedhis disapproval,whereasthesedaysmonkstravelaroundeitheronpublictransportin:buses, boatsandairplanes,allofwhichchargeforticketsorelseinmoreprivatemeansof transport,suchascars,whichfurtherraisesthequestionastowhethermonksshouldbe allowedtodriveacarthemselves,ratherthanplacingtheburdenonsomelayperson,and whether,indoingsodriving,theymightbeviolatingsomedistantVinayarule.Inhis commentaryontheDighanikaya,Buddhaghosagivesalengthydefinitionofthetermyana, orvehicle,listinginthecourseofhisdiscussionmostofthetypesofvehicleknowninhis day,includingthesandal,whichheconcludesistheonlytypeofvehicleappropriateforthe monk.Ifthatremainsastheinterpretation,Iwouldnotbewithyouheretoday. Mentionoftravelonairplanes,ofcourse,raisesevenfurthercausesfordeliberation, sincethemonksoftheTheravadatradition,atleast,havetoobservetheVinayaruleabout noteatingaftermiddaywhich,thoughnormallytakentomeannoon,ismoretechnicallythe momentatwhichthesunreachesitszenithintheoverheadsky.Itshouldalsobebornein mindthatitisheldthatthisrulehasbeeninfringed,evenifsuchinfringementismerely accidental,orasaresultofignorance.SomonksintheTheravadahaveyetanewhurdleto overcome:astheyarepassingthroughmultipletimezoneswhenflyingonairplanes,say fromBangkoktoNewYork,howaretheytodeterminewhenitisreallynoon,atleastas intendedbytheVinaya? Andwhatofmobilephones?ArethesetobedeemedsanctionedbytheVinaya, simplybyvirtueofthefactthattheVinayaissilentontheissueofthepossession,anduse, ofmobilephones,orarewetonotpossessthem,sincetheydonotfeatureamongstthe eightrequisitesthemonkistraditionallyallowed? Ishouldpointoutthatthesemattersrepresentonlythetipofanicebergofapparent incompatibilitiesbetweenmonasticlifeinthemoderndayworldandmonasticrules formulatedundertotallydifferentsocialconditionscenturiesago.Sowhatistobedone? Especiallywhenamonkhastoregulatehislifeinsuchawaythatheisabletomakehimself availabletoassistandteachlaypeople,yetatthesametimenotinfringe,howeverminutely, oneormoreofasetofVinayarulesmorerelevanttoadistantage? IhavealreadyremarkedthattheVinayarulesformulatedbytheBuddhawerenot formulatedovernight,andthatrathertheprocesswasaslowone,duringthecourseofwhich theBuddhaneverfailedtorevisearule,shouldtherebesomeunexpectedexternalchange
ofcircumstancenecessitatingarulesmodificationor,aswemightsaythesedays,inthis ageofcomputers,thatrulesupdate. IhavealsomentionedthattheBuddhaoncegavetheelderUpaliinaccountofhis tenreasonsforintroducingtheVinayarules,whichseemultimatelytoinvolvebringingabout comfort,bothmentalandphysical,forthemembersofhisSangha.Iamnotsurehoweach oftheindividualissuesthatconfrontusatdifferenttimesmightbestberesolved,despitethe factthatallofthesemattersareclearlyonestowhichwe,asmembersofthemodernday Sangha,shouldgiveagreatdealofthoughtand,hopefully,beabletoresolveinsuchaway thatthetraditionalrulescanbemaintainedaspossible,yetatthesametimealways consciousofthefactthat,hadtheBuddhabeenwithustoday,hewouldalmostcertainly havemodifiedtheVinayainsuchawaythatwouldsuitthechangedcircumstancesinwhich wenowfindourselves.Ithinkthatifwetryatalltimestoremainconscious,firstly,ofthe Buddhasownintentions,asexplainedtoUpali,inadvancingtheVinayarulesand,secondly, oftheoverridingneedtotrytoadheretothespirit,ratherthantheletter,ofthoserules,then wemaynotgofarwrong.Andthatspiritisclearlythatofcetana,whichis,aseveryone knows,allimportantindeterminingthemoralconsequencesofanyaction.Ifwecanabide bythesetwoprinciples,thenweshouldbeabletomodifytheVinayarules,albeitaslittleas possible,thenweshouldbeabletomodifytheVinayarules,albeitaslittleaspossible,soas tobringthemmoreintolinewithlifeinthemodernworld,yetatthesametimepreservethe mainobjectivestheBuddhahadinmindwhenfirstformulatingthem.