AGeneralViewofVinaya

ByProf.Dr.PhraDharmakosajarn Rector,MahachulalongkornrajavidyalayaUniversity Bangkok,Thailand

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.