Hello Venerable, and all interested in this thread,
To sum up our little discussion on Vinaya so far.
In discussing the various attitudes of Buddhist schools to Vinaya,
the question was raised to what extent the Mahasanghikas could be
identified with the Vajjiputtakas. Since the Vajjiputtakas were
enthusiastic about collecting money, it seems likely that their
Vinaya should reflect this. However, I noted that, according to
Pachow's survey of the patimokkhas, there did not seem to be any
relevant difference between the Mahasanghikas and other schools re
money.
Ven Dhammanando challenged this in most vigorous terms, alleging
that three of the five Vinaya rules dealing with money show
significant difference, virtually making the rules useless. In my
reply to him, I pointed out that in one of these cases he had
mistaken one rule for another, and in the other two cases (NP10,
changing `tries' to `asks', and P 84, omission of nikkhitabbam) the
stated changes made negligible difference to how the rule would work
in practice. One thing I should have pointed out was that none of
the rules he referred to were directly concerned with the incident
at Vesali, which was specifically about the rule prohibiting
handling money (NP 18).
So stand affairs. But then I noticed that we had both made a rather
inexcusable blunder. We had been referring to two different
Patimokkhas of two different schools!
My original statements were based on Pachow's study, which used the
Mahasanghika Vinaya in the Chinese translation. This text was
brought from India (Pataliputra) to China by Fa-hsien about 412 and,
with Buddhabhadra, translated shortly afterwards. In fact the
Chinese has both a full Vinaya (T 1425) and the Patimokkha alone
(T1426).
Ven Dhammanando's rebuttal (and my reply to his rebuttal) was based
on Prebish's translation of the `Sanskrit Pratimoksha Sutra of the
Mahasanghikas and the Mulasarvastivadins'. The `Mahasanghika
Pratimoksha' was discovered in Tibet by Rahula Sankrityayana,
subsequently edited and published by Pachow and Mishra. This text
had been copied by a certain Bhiksu Vijayabhadra (and others), and
brought to Tibet from India in around the 11th century, where it
lay, probably undisturbed, until discovered by Sankrityayana.
Unfortunately, though it bears the title `Mahasanghika' in both text
and translation, it actually belongs to the Lokuttaravada, a later
branch or sub-school of the Mahasanghika. Prebish refers to it
throughout as simply `Mahasanghika', except in the appendix, pg 140,
where he calls it the `Mahasanghika-Lokuttaravada'. In his later
work, `A Survey of Vinaya Literature', however, Prebish categorizes
this text under Lokuttaravada, distinct from the Mahasanghika for
the Chinese version.
So there are two distinct Patimokkhas here: the Mahasanghika, in
Chinese translation, and the Lokuttaravada, in hybrid Sanskrit. None
of the sources available to me compare these in detail. As the
Lokuttaravada is a descendant of the Mahasanghika, it is likely that
they inherited the Mahasanghika Vinaya. However, all the Patimokkhas
evidence slight differences, and we may presume that these two are
no exception. Possible changes include: textual errors; sectarian
interpolations; regional variants; influence of other schools, etc.
In other words, there is no reason to presume that the minor
variations that Ven Dhammanando pointed out in the Lokuttaravada
Patimokkha have any counterpart in the Mahasanghika.
So what, in fact, does the Mahasanghika say on the points in
question?
Well, as regard NP 10, where the bhikkhu may stand in silence up to
6 times, but then if he `tries' or `asks' further, this is an
offence: both the Mahasanghika Vinaya and the separate Patimokkha
have here `qiu2'. My Dr Eye gives dozens of possible Skt originals
for this, most of which mean, `seek, desire, try for'. Yes, qiu2 can
mean `ask', but this is clearly not demanded by the context.
As for the ratanapactittiya (84), I am spared the tiring though
edifying task of scrolling through the Mahasanghika Vinaya, for
Pachow translates the relevant phrase: `except for keeping it
inside, with the intention of giving it back when the owner comes
and asks for it'. (pg 140).
So I can clearly reaffirm my earlier claim: there is no significant
difference between the Mahasanghika and the Theravada in the
Patimokkha rules regarding money. (and my mum still has to wait for
her tiara!)
I have also briefly checked the account of the Second Council in the
Mahasanghika Vinaya. They do not mention the full 10 offenses found
in other accounts, but only the use of money. The Chinese term here
is the usual rendering of `kahapana', so there is no doubt they
meant precisely `money'. This is clearly the main offense in the
Theravadin and other versions, so Pachow and others conclude that
this was the real issue and the others were added later. (In fact,
Pachow and others opine that the Mahasanghika Vinaya generally shows
signs of being the oldest of the Vinayas, although I have not seen a
really convincing argument for this.)
So the Mahasanghika Vinaya condemns the use of money by monks. But
it is alleged by Buddhaghosa that they emerged from the party that
was pro-money. It seems as if one of two options is likely: either
the Mahasanghikas have nothing to do with the Vajjiputtakas; or if
they do, they sternly resisted changing their Patimokkha to accord
with their new ideas. If the latter is correct, this is wonderful
evidence for the authenticity of the Mahasanghika Patimokkha the
pressure to change their Patimokkha must have been intense. It is
still possible that the details of their Vibhanga will affect the
rules in more subtle ways hopefully someone has the time to search
this out in more detail. But their account of the incident at Vesali
leaves no doubt that they were opposed to the collection
of `kahapanas' by monks, and this is the main point.