Hi Venerable,


I hope that Vinaya isn't too boring. After all, there are all those
fun stories!

Thanks for your considered reply. Pachow's is, of course, an overall
survey and does not pretend to answer every detail, so it is quite
right to go back and check the fine print. As you so rightly remark,
it is possible for the 'fine print' to destroy the meaning of a
rule.

In some cases this is evident even in the pali version. For example
Pacittiya 5 forbids a monk from speaking more than 5 or 6 sentences
alone with a woman. But the rule (all versions) says, not 'speak',
but 'dhammam deseyya', should preach the Dhamma. So the Tika
laconically remarks (from memory) that it is ok to talk as long as
one likes about Tamils and that sort of thing! Or again, the
commentary says that answering questions is ok, so if a woman asks
about the Digha Nikaya, a bhikkhu can respond by teaching the whole
Digha!

>
> It might also be a good idea to leave aside this rather
> loaded word "sectarian," or at least restrict it to the sort
> of mental attitude conveyed by the words, "My sect is right
> because it's my sect."

I'm afraid that i use the word precisely because i think many people
do have such an attitude.

> The Buddha instituted procedures for varying degrees of
> ostracism and banishment to be applied to monks who were
> holders of wrong view or indulgers in various sorts of wrong
> conduct.

Indeed: these are for things that undermine fundamentals of the
Dhamma, such as saying that there is no danger in sensuality. I have
in the past raised the question whether such procedures should be
applied in the present day to monks who deny the reality of kamma
and rebirth, but that's another story...

> I trust that you will answer no and agree that a monk's view
> is also of some relevance here. So, there is Vinaya, and
> there is right view. A third condition, I would suggest, is a
> Theravaadin upasampadaa, but this is a view based upon the
> Pali Atthakathaas, so I suppose there is little likelihood
> of our agreeing on this point.

If we follow the terminology i suggested in the previous message, we
might say that, for example, the Puggalavadins were followers of the
Paveyyakas (since that issue was about Vinaya). They might also be
considered Culasanghikas (since that was about the perfection of the
arahant) and possible even Vibhajjavadins (since they rejected the
Sarvastivadin doctrine of time). Of course, they could not be
considered Mahaviharavasins, and their special doctrine was rejected
by all other schools.


I'm dependent on

> Charles Prebish's translation of it (together with the
> Muulasarvaastivaada version) in his _Buddhist Monastic
> Discipline_. If his translation is accurate, then it seems
> to me that its differences from the Pali version are more
> substantial than you and Dr. Pachow suggest.
>
> Overall the impression I get is that the
> Muulasarvaastivaadins weren't much different to us in their
> Vinaya,

This might be true in the Patimokkha, but their very large Vinaya
includes a lot of late material indicating an unfortunate decline in
Vinaya standards in India in the period 200-500 (?). Schopen has
studied at least some of this. He tries to show that, indulgent as
the Mulasarvastivadins sometimes were, the Theravadins weren't much
better (but he doesn't succeed very well). However, he does point
out some serious issues in the Pali Vinaya, such as passages seeming
to authorize the monks having slaves. I don't have time now to chase
up the details, but can do that later if anyone's interested.

>
> > The other rules involving money are NP 19 (trading precious
> > things) and NP 20 (buying and selling), and in both of these
> > the other schools, including Mahasanghika, add no variations
> > of interest.
>
> No variations of interest!? Good gracious, in Prebish's
> translation of NP 20 the Mahaasanghikas have inserted a
> loophole as wide as the Mersey Tunnel:
>
> "Whatever monk should undertake activity in various sorts of
> sales *in gold and silver*, that is a ni.hsargika-paacattika."
>
> The Pali says nothing about gold and silver. If the
> Mahaasanghika version means using gold and silver as the
> means of exchange, then it would permit activities like
> bartering that are prohibited in the Pali. If it means only
> that a bhikkhu may not sell gold and silver, then it would
> permit almost everything that is prohibited in the Pali !
> If the latter is the case, then just by the insertion of one
> compound word the Mahaasanghikas have whittled down the
> obligation to almost nothing.

This is a mistake. The Pali NP 20 is the Mahasanghika NP 19: you
have confused the two. Mahasanghika NP 19 says (prebishes trans):

'whatever monk should engage in various sorts of buying and selling,
namely that he should buy this, or buy from there, or say: 'Buy so
much', that is a NP.

Thus the Mahasanghika merely adds an extra explanatory phrase at the
end, which itself is similar to the explanation in the Pali Vibhanga
(probably the extra phrase was read back into the rule from the
Vibhanga). There is no mention of trading in gold and silver.

>
>
> > Nor is NP 10, about how to appoint a kappiya for receiving
> > funds, significantly different.
>
> I disagree. In this case too the Mahaasanghikas' phrasing
> completely undermines the rule.

> So in this [pali] version (and in that of the Muulasarvaastivaada)
> the monk, having stood silently up to six times, is
> prohibited from making *any further effort* to obtain the
> robe. But the Mahaasanghika version only prohibits him from
> *asking* further. There is nothing to stop him from exerting
> himself by other means, such as the various forms of
> hinting. The Mahaasanghika monk can carry on pestering the
> sangha steward till the end of the kalpa and he still won't
> have broken any rule.

This tiny difference hardly undermines the rule. It is merely a
variation in procedure. The main purpose of the rule is to say that
a monk may not accept funds for a robe, but a fund may be set up
with a steward in an allowable manner. This is the same in all
versions.

The rule then places restrictions on how many times the monk may
hint when the steward refuses to give the money. I have never in
practice seen a case where the restrictions in this rule needed to
be followed. The allowance in the Pali - 2 or 3 times to remind
verbally, or up to 6 times to stand silently - is already very
generous, and personally i would not feel comfortable hinting a lay
steward even this many times. But after all, it is the steward who
has misbehaved, so if they get pestered excessively by the monk i
would not feel the monk has done anything very wrong. At worst, they
would be implolite. But remember that they do not own the money, so
they may feel it is permissible to pester the dishonest steward out
of consideration for the donor.

In all versions, this clause comes after the statement that one may
stand and remind up to six times. I quote Prebish:

'Should the monk obtain that robe standing silently in this spot
four five or six times at most this is good. If he should not obtain
the robe and asks in excess of that...'

It looks to me as if the 'asks' refers back to the standing
silently. It might be interpreted as being restricted to just the
verbal reminder, but this is not explicit.

>
>
> > Finally Pacittiya 84, the ratanapaacittiya (about picking up
> > valuable items) is also substantially identical, except the
> > Mula- sarv, evidently by mistake, adds an exception for when
> > in the house of a householder (whereas the exception should
> > be when in a monastery only).
>
> The Mahaasanghika version seems to have a much more serious
> flaw: it leaves out the word "nikkhipitabba" from the final
> clause. So, it would appear that if a lady were to mislay her
> diamond tiara in a Mahaasanghika monastery, a resident
> monk might pick it up and give it to his mother as a
> Christmas present without breaking any rule. He is only
> obliged to pick up the tiara, not to look after it for the owner
> as a Theravaadin bhikkhu must.

The Pali says ...nikkhitabba.m, "yassa bhavissati, so harissati"ti,
etad'eva paccaya.m karitvaa ana~n~na.m...

Prebish's translation of Mahasanghika has :"This will be for he who
will take it", having done it for this reason and not another...

The phrase in quotes is a little obscure, but surely it
means 'whoever owns it will take it'. While this is admittedly not
apparent from Prebish's translation, this can be excused in view of
the idiomaticness of the phrase itself. In other words, it's very
likely that the Mahasanghika, as the Theravada, include a clause
saying that the owner will take it away. A closer reference to the
Skt (and Chinese trans) should make this clear.

In any case, this is the key phrase, not the presence or absence
of 'nikkhitabbam': if one expects that the owner will remove it, it
is common sense that it should be kept until that time, and the Pali
merely makes this explicit.

So it seems that my mum will just have to keep waiting for her tiara!

in Dhamma

Bhante Sujato