BUDDHIST MONKS

AND BUSINESS
MATTERS
Still More Papers on Monastic
Buddhism in India

GR GORY SCHOPEN
 C 2004 Inslirule for Ih. Sludy of BuddhiSl Tradilions

All righrs """rved

Prinred in Ihe Uniled Slales of America

04 050607 08 09 65432 1

Tho Inslilult for Ihe Sludy of BuddhiSl Tradilions is pan of lho Dtpattmenr of Asian LangU3g<s
and Cullum al lho UniversilY of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. II was founded in 1988 10

fosler restarCh and publicalion in lho Sludy of Buddhism and of Ihe cullum and lil.ralur.s Ihal

rep�nt it. In association with the Univenity of Hawai'j Pr�, [he Institute publishes the
series Srudies in lho BuddhiSl Tradilions, which is devoled 10 lho publicalion of malerials, lrans­

lalions, and monographs relevanl 10 lhe Sludy of Buddhisr lradilions, in parricular as lhoy ra­

diale from lho Soulh Asian homeland. Tho stries also publisb<S srudies and conference volumes
resulling from work carried OUI in affilialion wilh Ihe Inslilult in Ann Arbor.

Library o f Congress ealaJoging-in-Publicalion Dala

Schopen, Gregory.
Buddhisr monks and business maners : srill more papers on monaslic Buddhism in India I
Gregory Schapen.

p. cm.-(Sludies in lhe Buddhisr lradilions)

Includes bibliographical references and indtx.

ISBN 0-8248-2547-00wdcover: alk. paper}-ISBN 0-8248-2774-0 (pbk. : alk. paper)
I. Monaslicism and religious orders, Buddhisr-India. 2. Buddhism-Economic

aspects-India. 3. Monasl.ries, BuddhisI-Economic aspeers-India. 4. RighI of

propeny-India. I. TIrI.. II. Series.

BQ6160.J4537 2004
294.3 657 '0954 - dc21
' 2003013832

UniversilY of Hawai'i Press books are prinred on acid-free paper and met! lho guidelines for
permanence and durabiliry of lho Council on Library Resourc<s.

Designed by Univ.rsity of Haw.i'i Press

Production Dtpattmenr

Prinled by Tho Maple-Vail Book ManufaCturing Group

 CONTENT S

Acknowledgments IX

Abbreviations xiii

I. The Good Monk and His Money in a Buddhist Monasticism

of "the Mahayana Period" I

II. Art, Beaury, and the Business of Running a Buddhist Monastery

in Early Northwest India 19

III. Doing Business for the Lord: Lending on Interest and Written
Loan Contracts in the Mu/aJa",iiJliviida -"inaJQ 45

IV. Deaths, Funerals, and the Division of Property in a Monastic Code 91

V. Dead Monks and Bad Debts: Some Provisions of a Buddhist Monastic

Inheritance Law 122

VI. Monastic Law M�ts the Real World: A Monk's Continuing Right
(0 Inherit Family Property in Classical India 1 70

VII. The Monastic Ownership of Servants or Slaves: Local and Legal Factors
in the Redactional History of Two Vina)"aJ 1 93

VIII. The Lay Ownership of Monasteries and the Role of the Monk
in MOlasarvastiviidin Monasticism 219

VII
VIII COllltlliS

IX. Marking Time in Buddhisr Monasreries: On Calendars. Clocks.

and Some Liturgical Pracrices 260

X. Rirual Righrs and Bones of Conrenrion: More on Monasric Funerals

and Relics in rhe MiilaJarvaJliviiida-vi11l1ya 285

XI. The Suppression of Nuns and rhe Rirual Murder of Their Special Dead
in Two Buddhist Monastic Codes 329

XII. Immigranr Monks and the Protohistorical Dead: The Buddhist Occupation
of Early Burial Sites in India 360

XIII. What's in a Name: The Religious Function of the Early Donative

Inscriptions 382

XIV. If You Can't Remember. How to Make It Up: Some Monastic Rules
for Redacting Canonical Texts 395

Index of Archaeological Sites of Texts 409

Index of Texts 411
Index of Subjects 415
 ACKNO W LEDGMENTS

THE PERSON TO BLAME for this volume is Patricia Crosby. She was abetted by
Luis G6mez, but it was largely as a result of her ... uh ... persistence that vague
and evasive promises on my parr were somehow transformed into a project, then
a schedule, then a manuscript. Her motives remain inscrutable, but given her
roots, it might be assumed that she still has a soft spot for old cowboys. I am, in
any case, grateful to her, and to Professor Gomez, who, indeed, remains for me a
Professor.
I am also, again, grateful to the members of my family, all of whom-although
a little worse for wear-are still going. Their perspective on things remains im­
portant and is nicely exemplified by an encounter that my niece-also a Schopen­
had at an American university that shall remain nameless.When the professor of
an anthropology course she was taking asked her if she was related to the Schopen
who was a "buddhologist," she promptly and emphatically denied it-she did not
know what the word meant, but it did not sound like anybody she knew.
I remain grateful to old friends: John Thiel and Hal Roth-a theologian and
a Sinologist-an odd cluster, perhaps, but deep, and old, and true.Our conversa­
tions are still about books and ideas even if there are increasingly frequent refer­
ences to aches and pains, receding hair, or bulging waistlines.I continue to be grate­
ful to my oid boss and friend Patrick Olive lie, and I continue to be amazed by his
scholarship, his high spirits, and his apparently boundless en ergy. I am also grate­
ful to another-if unlikely-boss: one Carl Bielefeldt. He had to watch my mis­
guided attempt to make myself over into a member of the faculty of that bastion
of free enterprise and liberal politics that is Stanford University. It could not have
been a pretty sight, and yet he never seemed to lose his sense of humor. I am grate­
ful to him for this, and for the time spent at Stanford-at least one of the papers
in this volume was written there.I am equally grateful to Bernard Faure, at Stan­
ford still, for his friendship and conversation.Our occasional trips to Berkeley in

IX
x Adulou·/,tlgm,"rs

quest of books, and even our trip to the Palo Alto dump, are among my favorite
memories of those otherwise benighted days.
My new boss tOO had to watch, but, as befits the only monk I know who looks
really good in a three-piece suit, Robert Buswell never lost his composure. Also
at UCLA, William Bodiford (an amazing source of the most disparate kinds of in­
formation) and John Duncan (a fellow country boy)were welcoming from the Start.
Robert Brown-who, if I remember correctly, started the whole convoluted
process that led to Los Angeles-has become a very good reason for going to
campus, has put up with a lot of teasing, and generously allowed me access to
his personal library (most of which is made up of books checked out of the uni­
versity library for the next twO hundred years).More recently, a young man I have
known for many years has joined us, and his enthusiasm for scholarship has, as
always, been infectious: Jonathan Silk has never been at a loss for words about
my work or anyone e1se's, has lent me boo ks, provided me references (even when
I did not want them), and, even more important for world peace, is learning how
to be polite.It is nice to have him near at hand.To all these gentlemen I am very
grateful.
I am equally grateful ro all the students (or at least most of them}-both un­
dergraduate and graduate-whom I have had the good fortune to meet in the class­
room.They have kept me young and curious, some in particular: long ago in Bloom­
ington, Yael Bentor and Daniel Boucher-the first soft-spoken, the second
decidedly not; Jason Neelis, who had the good sense to go to study with Richard
Salomon; at UCLA, Nicholas Morrissey (who scanned all the papers in this vol­
ume) and Shayne Clarke, who has done yeoman's work on this cantankerous task.
I have learned a great deal from them all aod look forward to learning more.
I continue to be in debt to several others who are farther afield. To Richard
Salomon in Seattle and Jan Nattier in Bloomington, who, in different ways, have
kept me on my toes.To Phyllis Granoff and Koichi Shinohara in the frozen North,
to Gerard Fussman in France, Oskar von Hinuber in Germany, and K.R. Norman
in England-my debt to them all is old and continuous. In Japan, I continue to
be grateful to Shoryu Katsura, and I have a special debt to Nobuchiyo Odani, who
invited me to Otani Universiry, made my time there productive and fun, trans­
lated my lectures into Japanese, and saw to their publication in a handsome little
volume. I am also grateful to a whole string of young scholars who have sent me
offprints and their books and thereby taught me much-in Japan, Shizuka Sasaki,
Satoshi Hiraoka, Nobuyuki Yamagiwa, Masahiro Shimoda, and Seishi Karashima,
in particular; in Germany, Petra Kieffer-Pulz and Ute Husken, especially; in En­
gland, Andrew Skilton and Kate Crosby.
My debt to all of those so far mentioned is substantial and deeply felt. It is
exceeded only by the debt lowe to two young women: Morgan-young in years-
Ad
. .owl,JgmtnlS XI

who gives me hope; and Fleming-young in spirit-who gives me meaning.Nei­

ther could I do without.

Some details-all but one of the papers in this volume have been previously pub­
lished.There is in this volume, as in its predecessor, a certain amount of repeti­
tion, and some passages of the Mii/aJarviiJlit'iida-11inaya in particular are translated
more than once, In such cases I have made no attempt to make my renderings
exactly alike, and I do not offer any apologies for this. I have left these variant
translations because they so nicely show that all translations are only approximate­
the same phrase can be legitimately rendered in more than one way.In this vol­
ume too there is some variation in the spelling of place-names that has not always
been removed, and copious other minor inconsistencies in hyphenation, capitali­
zation, and other matters of national security. These remain in spite of the /act that
once again-as with the first volume-these papers have fallen into the hands of
an excellent copy editor.Working in Austin, where many of these papers were first
written, Rosemary Wetherold has in faa removed ai /MIl a very large number of
stylistic infelicities <she will most fully appreciate the italicization).Those that re­
main are my fault, as is the substance, which has been changed not at all. I am
grateful to her, and to the University ofHawai'i Press for taking yet another chance.
 A B B R EV I AT I ONS

Adhikara'!avastu (Gnoli) R.Gnoli, The Gilgit Manuscript of the

Sayaniisanavastu and the Adhikara'!'3vastu. Being
the 15th and 16th Stctiom of the Vinaya of the
Miilasan'astivadin (Serie Orientale Roma 50)
(Rome: 1978)
ArA Artihus Asiae
ARASI Annual Report of the Arch_logical Survey of India
ArO Ars Orientalis
At'adiinaiataka (Speyer) J. S.Speyer, At'adii nafataka. A Century of Edifying
Tales Belonging to the Hinayana (Bibliotheca
Buddhica 3.1-2) (St. Petersburg: 1902-1909)
Bauddhavidyasudhakara� Bauddhal·idyasudhakara�. Studies in Honour of Heinz
B«hert on the Occasion of His 65th Birthday (Indica
et Tibetica 30), ed.P.Kieffer-PUlz and ).-U.
Hartmann (Swistral-Odendorf: 1997)
BD I . B . Horner, The Book of the Discipline (Oxford
and London 1938-1966) 6 Vols.
BEFEO Bul/etin de I'lcolt franraise d'txtrime-oritnt
BEl Bul/etin d'etlldes indiennes
BHSD F. Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Samkrit Gramnlar and
Dictionary. Vol.II: Dictionary (New Haven, Conn.:
1953)
BSBM G. Schopen, Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks.
Col/tcted Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy,

XIII
XIV A hhrn;tltiolfs

and Texts of MOMstic Bllddhim in India (Honolulu:

1997)
Bod rgya uhig mJzod chen mo Bod rgya uhig mdzod chen mo. ed. Zhang Yisun er al.
(Beijing: 1985) 3 Vols.
BSOAS Bllllttin of the School of Oritntal and Africa./ Stlldiu
CAJ Central Asiatic JOllrnal
CII CorpllS Imcripti.nllm Indicarllm
Derge The Tibttan Tripitaka. Tai�i Edition. ed. A. W
BarberCTaipei: 1991)
Dil'Yiil'adiiM (Cowell E. B.Cowell and R. A. Neil, The Di,')'ihwna.
and Neil) A Colledion of Early Bllddhist Legends (Cambridge.
U,K,: 1886)
DPPN G. P. Malalaseke ...... DicrioMry of Pali Proptr Nam�s
(London: 1937) 2 Vols.
'Dill ba pha'i gleng bllm L.Chandra. The Collected WorkJ of BII-ston, Pan 23
..hen mo (l:Ia) (Sara-Pi�aka Series 63) (New Delhi: 1971)
EB Easttrn Bllddhist
EI Epigraphia Indica
EW East and Wut
FFMB G. Schopen, Figments and Fragmtnu of a Mahayana
Bllddhism in India, Mort Colledtd Papm (Honolulu:
fonhcoming)
GBMs R. Vira and L. Chandra, Gilgit Bllddhist Manll­
scripts (Facsimile Edirion) (Saca-Pi�aka Series 10.6)
(New Delhi: 1974). Pan 6
GMs N. Dun, Gi/git Manllscripts. Vol. III, Pr. 1
(Srinagar: 1947); Vol.III, Pc.2 (Srinagar: 1942);
Vol. III. Pr. 3 (Srinagar: 1943); Vol. III, Pr.4
(Calcuna: 1950)
HJAS Haroard Jollrnal of Asiatic Stlldits
HR HiJtory of Rtligiom
JA Indian Antiqllllry
JAR Indian Arrhatology: A RtI'itu,
IBK Indogakll bllkkyogakll kenkyii
IHQ Indian Historical Qllart"l),
I\bbrttiali."J xv

II} Indo-IranianJournal
jA journal aJiatiqut
JAOS journal of the American Oriental Society
jASBom Journal of the AJiatic Society of Bombay
Jaschke H. A. Jiischke,
A Tibetan-EngliJh Dictionary
(London: 1881)

JBomBRAS journal of the Bombay Branch of the Rqyal AJiatic

Society
}lABS Journal of the International AJJociation of BuddhiJt
Studies
jlH journal o/Indian History
jlP journal of Indian PhiloJophy
jPTS journal of the Pali Text Society
jRAS journal of the RO)'al AJiatic Society of Great Britain
and Ireland
KarhinallaItu (Chang) Kun Chang, A Comparatiw Study of the KArhina­
l'aItu (Indo-Iranian Monographs 1 ) (The Hague:
1957)
Konow, KharoJhrhi S. Konow, Kharoshrhi Imcriptiom with the Exctption
ImtriptionJ of Those of Alolea (Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum
Vol. II, Pt. I)(Calcurra: 1929)

Lamorre, H iJfoire ft. Lamotte, HiJtoire du bouddhiJme indien. Des

du bouddhiJme indien origines Ii I'm lalea (Bibliotheque du musean 43)
(Louvain: 1958)

Liiders, Bharhut InJcriptiom H. Liiders,

Bharhut Imcriptiom (Corpus Inscrip­
tionum Indicarum Vol. II, Pt. 2), rev. E. Wald­ •

schmidt and M. A. Mehendale (Ootacamund:

1963)
Liiders, Mathllrii ImcriplionJ H. Liiders, Mathllrii Inscriptions (Abhandlungen
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Gotringen.
Philologisch-Historische K1asse. Dritte Folge,
Nr. 47), ed. K. L. Janerr (Gorringen: 1961)
J\iahiipariniroiinaJiitra E. Waldschmidt, VaJ Mahiipariniroii"!,,Jiitra. Text
(Waldschmidt) in Sanskrit und Tibetisch, wrglichen mit dem Piili nebJt
tiner 0btrsetZlln g tier chinesiJchen EntJprechung im
Vinaya tier MiilaJaroiiJtilliidim (Abhandlungen
der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
XVI Abb,.et/;alions

Berlin. Philologisch-Historische Klasse. Jahrgang

1949, Nr. 1; Klasse fur Sprachen, Literatur und
Kunst. Jahrgang 1950, Nr. 2-3) (Berlin: 1950-
1951) Teil I-III
MASI Memoirr of lhe Arthaeologicdl StmltJ of Indid
Piili Vina)'d H. Oldenberg, The Vinayd Pi{dka'!J: One of lhe
Principal Blltidhisl Holy ScriPlllreJ in lhe Piili
Langlldge <London: 1879-1883) 5 Vols

Panglung, Die cr.iihlSloffe J. L. Panglung, Die Erziihlsloffe des

des MiildSdrviisli,.iidiZ­ MiildSdrviisliviidiZ-VinaYd. Analysierl dllf Grllnd
Vinayd der libelischen 0bersetZllng (Studia Philologica
Buddhica Monograph Series 3) (Tokyo: 1981)
PO!ddhdVdSlli (Hu-von H. Hu-von Hinliber, Vas PO!ddhavdSIIi. Vorschriften
Hinliber) fiir die bmJdhistische Beichtfeier im VindYd der
Miildsdn'iisliviidins (Srudien zur Indologie und
lranistik. Monographie 13) (Reinbeck, Germany:
1994)
Prdvrdjyiil'dSIIi (Eimer) H. Eimer, Rdb III 'byll» bo'i gii. Die tibelische
Obersel.llng des PrdvrdjyiivdSlli im Vina)'d der
Mii/asarviisliviidins (Asiatische Forschungen 82)
(Wiesbaden: 1983) 2 Teil
PrdvrdjyiivdSl1i (Niither/ V. Niither, C. Vogel, and K. Wille, "The Final
Vogel/Wille) Leaves of the Prdvrdjyiivdslll Portion of the
Vinayavastu Manuscript Found near Gilgit. Part I
�gharak�itiivadiina," in Sanskril-Texl. dliS dem
bllddhislischen Kanon: Nellenldeckllngen lind Nell­
edilionen III (Sanskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistis­
chen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden. Beiheft 6)
Bearbeitet von G. Bongard-Levin et al. (Gottin­
gen: 1996)241-296
PrdvrdjyiivdSl1i (Vogel C. Vogel and K. Wille, Some Hilherto Unidenlified
and Wille) Frdgments of lhe Prdvrajyiivastll Portion of lhe
Vinayavaslll Mdnllscript FOllnd near Gilgil. Nach­
richten der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Gottingen I. Philologisch-Hisrorische Klasse.
Jahrgang 1984, Nr. 7 (Gottingen: 1984) 299-337
RAA Ret'lie des arlS asialiqlltS

RHR Revue de I'hisloirt des rtligions

SAA SOllth Asian Arthaeology

Ahb,.",ialionI XVII

Sanghabhtdat'aJlII (Gnoli) R. Gnoli, The Gilgil Manllicripi ollhe Sanghabhtda­

f'aIIII. Being the 17th and Lasl Serlion ollhe Vinaya
ollhe MiilaJaM'iiJlit'adin (Serie Oriencal� Roma
49.1-2) (Rome: 1977-1978)
Sa)anaJafWt'aslli (Gnoii) see Adhikaranat'aslll above

Schopen. Daijo bll/tkyii koki G. Schopen. Daijo bllkkyo kiiki jidai: In"" no loin
jidai IeikalIlI, rrans N. Odani (Tokyo: 2000)

Sill Sllidim ZIIr In''''logielind IraniJlik

Tog The Tog Palace Manllicripi olthe Tiberan Kanjllr

(Leh: 1975-1980)
TP TOling PaD

TSD L. Chandra, Tibelan-Samkril Dictionary (New

Delhi: 1959-1961; repro Kyoro: 1971)
VCR Vnivmity 01 Cryloll Ret'itu'

VinayaJiilra (Bapac P. V. Bapac and V, V. Gokhaie, ViMYaliitra and

and Gokhale) Alilo-Comf1lnllary Oil the Sa1TU by GII1fdprabha
(Tibecan Sanskrir Works Series 22) (Parna: 1982)
Vina)''aJiilra (Sankriryayana) R. Sankricyayana, VinayaIiilra 01 Bhadanla GII'!a­
prabha (Singhi Jain Sasrra �ik�pirha. Singhi Jain
Series 74) (Bombay: 1981)
WZKS Wimer ZeilJchri/t IUr die Kllnfh SiitiaiitIIJ

ZDMG ZeilJchri/t tkr DelllJchen Morgmliilcldil hen

GtJtlliCha/t
 CHAPTER I

The Good Monk and His Money

in a Buddhist Monasticism of
"the Mahayana Period"

IT IS PROBABLY FAIR to say that, because of the way they have been studied, nei­
ther Indian Buddhist monasticism nor the Buddhist monastery in India has been
allowed to have anything like a real history. Whether implicitly or explicitly, con­
scious or not, most modern scholars have either unquestioningly assumed, or
worked hard to show, that extant monastic or "ina)'a sources, for example, must
be early, some even asserting-or again assuming-that they must go back to the
Buddha himself. But the necessary consequences of this assumption have rarely
been examined: if the extant ,'inaya sources are early, if they go back anywhere near
the time of the Buddha, then Buddhist monasticism could not have any real in­
stitutional history-it could only have sprung all but fully formed from the head
of the Buddha. Moreover, since these extant vinaya sources already know and are
meant to govern fully developed, well-organized, walled monasteries that had
infirmaries, refectories, bathrooms, steam rooms, locks, and keys, the Buddhist
monastery tOO could have had no teal development and, consequently, no actual
history. It would have been architecturally finished from its very start.
Such pictures-one is tempted to say fantasies-fit, of course, not at all well
with what is known about monasticisms elsewhere. More importantly, and in spe­
cific regard to the Indian Buddhist monastery for which we have some indepen­
dent, nonliterary sources as well, it does not fit at all with what is found in the
archaeological record of Buddhist monastic sites in India. The earliest Buddhist
"monasteries· that are known in India-and none of these are pre-A�okan-are
not "monasteries" at all. They are either [86]* only barely improved, unorganized,
natural caverns or caves, or poorly constructed and ill-organized shelters built of

Originally published in The Eajf.,." BuJdhijf n.s. 32.1 (2000) 85-105. Reprinted with sty­
listic changes with permission of The Eastern BuddhiSt Society.

*To allow for easy cross-reference, the page numbers of the original publications have been
insened into the- text in squatt brackets.

I
2 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

rubble or orher cheap materials. I Communities living in these environments could

not have produced our elaborate vinayas. nor would they have had any use for them.
Since such communities had no stearn rooms (jenliika). for example. how could
they possibly have generated elaborate rules governing their construction and use?
Clearly there is something curiously wrong here. and the early history of Bud­
dhist monasticism and Buddhist monasteries in India must be fundamentally
rethought and reexamined. But there are other equally interesting projects that
also must be undertaken. Once it is allowed that. yes. both Buddhist monasticism
and Buddhist monasteries had histories. that both developed and changed over
time. then "early" Buddhist monasticisms-and we should probably begin to use
the plural seriously here-and the "early" Buddhist monastery. become only one.
and certainly not the only important. object of investigation. We need no longer
be implicitly or explicitly concerned primarily with the question of what Bud­
dhist monasticisms originally were. We might be equally-and probably more
fruitfully-concerned with what at given places at given points in time they had
become. We might begin to meaningfully talk about "early" and "early medieval"
and "medieval" and "late" Buddhist monasticisms and to study each of these in
their own right and not. for example. as mere exemplifications of the decline and
degeneration of some "early·· and largely assumed single "ideal." Each of these
monasticisms will need to be understood and evaluated on its own terms, and this,
of course, will not be easy.
If. for example. we want to know what Buddhist monasticism had become in
North India in the period between the mature K�n and the fifth through sixth
centuries-the period that for lack of a better term might be called "the early me­
dieval," and the period that is generally taken to be that of "the Mahayana·'-then
the l'tfiilaJarviiJli" iida-"inaya becomes a primary source. There is an almost general
agreement that this Vinaya is "late" and was redacted and used during this period.
There is the same SOrt of agreement that during this period this .·inaJa had clear
connections with North India, [87] with Gandhara. Mathuca. and perhaps Kash­
mir.2 This is the good part. The bad part follows almost immediately: the
Miilasarviisliviida-" inaJa is enormous. Sylvain Levi has described it as "a vast com­
pilation," as "nearly epic," as an "immense pot-pourri of the Buddhist discipline:
as "monstrous" and "in itself an already complete canon." Huber, too, refers to it
as "this enormous compilation," and Lalou as "this enormous ,'inaJa"-here t()()
there is general agreement and it is not difficult to see why.3 The Tibetan version
of the l'tfiilasarviiJlit'iida-t'inaya in, for example, the Derge edition is almost four
thousand folios long and takes up thirteen volumes, and even it may not be com­
plete. It seems to lack two texts often quoted by GUJ;laprabha entitled the Miilrkii
and the Nidiina , although both may now be represented in the Tiberan rraditions
by what is there called the Ullaragranrha( S). 4 Large portions of its Vinaya,aJlIi have
TIN Good Monk and Hi, M....,. 3

also been preserved in Sanskrit in the manuscripts from Gilgit.' and significant
Vibhatiga are also available-usually in truncated or crudely con­
portions of its
densed form-in the Di'ryiivadana.6 There is as well a Chinese translation. although
it is incom(88Jplete. "full of gaps," and "much less exacr than the Tibetan one."
Lamotte. in fact. characterizes it as "mediocre."'
The bulk of theMiilasan'iisli"iida-vinaya is. however. only a part of the bad
news. Not only is this Vinaya huge. but it has also been little studied. and only
a tiny portion of it has been critically edited in any language. This means-at
the very least-that anything said about it at this stage can be only tentative and
provisional.
These are all setious problems. but an equally serious obstacle co any under­
standing of this "monster" is the fact that much of what it seems to contain does
not correspond co what we thought we knew about the charaCter and defining chat­
acteristics of monastic Buddhism. It has. for example, been commonly assumed or
asserted that becoming a Buddhist monk involved-or even required-renouncing
all personal pcoperty. But the Miilasan'iiJIj,'iida-vinaya seems co assume, or even
require. something quite different. According, for example, to the Miilasarvas­
tivadin ordination formulary that has come down co us in a Sanskrit manuscript
from Tibet. the candidate for ordination must be asked: "00 you have any debt
(tk)'a, bll Ion), either large or small, co anyone?" If he says yes, then he must be
asked: "Will you be able co repay this after you have entered the order (ialqyasi
pra,,,.ajyiiya'!l diilll'!l)?" If he says no. the text says he must be sent away and he can­
not be admitted into the order. Only if he says that he will be able co pay can the
ordination proceed.8 Here, in other words. the expectation-indeed the rule-is
that a successful candidate for Mulasarvastivlidin ordination would not renounce
private wealth but would retain it and be responsible for and able to pay any debt
that was contracted prior co ordination.
These SOrts of expectations are moreover found elsewhere in this Vinaya in a
startling variety of contexts. The Vinayavibhatiga, for example. repeat{89}edly as­
sumes that monks will be subject co colis and road taxes and gives rules that re­
quire monks co pay them (Derge Ca nb.6ff). This must mean that the redaccors
of this Vinaya also assumed two other things: that monks while traveling would
be transporting taxable goods, and that monks would have the means co pay the
taxes. That it was assumed that these were their own personal goods. and that the
payments were to be made from their own resources. is made virtually certain by
the fact that the Vibhatiga has a separate set of rules dealing with the payment of
colIs on goods that are for ritual pu rposes and are corporately owned, that is, that
belong co the Buddha or the Dharma or the Sangha-in such cases it is explicitly
stated that the tolls must be paid from corporate funds (Derge Ca 7 6b.4-78a.4).
In the K!lIdraiulvaJlII there is a rule explicitly stating that when a monk borrows
4 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

(bnty41 pal a mat from another monk , and rhat mat is damaged by him, rhe bor­
rowing monk must compensate the owner: "He must either give him the price of
its full value or what will satisfy him" (ri ba'i ri1l sbyi1l par b)'a ba am / de'i sems mgll
bar bya ;, - Derge Tha49a.1).ln the same Vaslll, monks are explicidy cold rhar when
their property is scolen, they must not take the thieves co COUrt but must buy back
from them whar rhey scole, even if they have co give rhe full price (rgyal po'i pho
bra1lg "" sbron par mi bya'i on kyang sngar (hos bshtul nas bJlong bar bya;, / gal It mi
Jler 114 rin ph)'t4 kyis bla1lg bar b)'a'o / gal Ie de lIar yang mi Jler na rin IJha1l.� bar b)'in
la blang bar bya Jte-Derge Tha 233b.2). And rhe 14l1drakat'aJlII also explicidy de­
clares thar monks must carry seals (rgya beang bar bya 'o). Such seals were meant co
mark property, and the text, again, explicidy says rhere are two sorrs of seals­
seals of the community and seals of individuals (rgya ni g1l)'iJ It / dgt alln gyi dang
gang zag gi o-Derge Tha 7 b.6-8a.7; cf. Vinayal'ibbanga, Derge Ca 79b). The dis­
tinction here is particularly interesting as one of numerous instances where this
Vinaya formally acknowledges rhe exisrence of individual private property (palldga­
lilea) and distinguishes it from corporate or communal property (sii"lghika). Yet
another example occurs in the CivaravaJIII. Here the problem is that rerminally ill
monks were dying on bedding belonging ro the community (glii1lii� aJa'!lt'idilii et'o
sii'!lghike /a)aniiJaTlt /eiila'!l kllrt'anli). As a consequence, rhe Buddha himself is made
ro order the attending monk ro watch closely for the signs of immioent dearh and,
when rhey occurred, ro move rhe dying monk on some pretext OntO his personal
bedding (faririivaJlhii'!l jnalt'ii palldgalike fayaniiJa1l. ryiijmiivaliir)'a /iiyilaf,),a ili­
GMs iii 2, 123.16). And this same distinction also comes into play elsewhere in
rhe Ch'arPl'41111 in regard co dying monks. {WI In one passage, for example, it is
clearly assumed that monks normally owned or were expecred co pay for any med­
icines they required or for any rituals that were performed on their behalf. This
seems at least ro follow from the fact thar only in the case of very poor monks (alpa­
jnala) could these be paid for out of corporate funds (Jii'!lghika), and even rhen rhose
corporate funds were to be repaid if at all possible (GMs iii 2, 124.11-125.9; cf.
128.1-131.15). The acknowledgement ofpalldgalika, of a monk's private prop­
erty, occurs even in the Miilasarvastiviidin Priilimo�a.9
The mere exisrence of the distinction between Jii'!lghika and palldga/ika, and
rhe formal acknowledgment of the laccer in Miilasarvastivadin monastic law, should
in rhemselves pur ro rest any doubts about whether Miilasarvastivadin monks were
expected ro have personal property. But ro well and truly bury rhem we probably
need only glance again ar the last part of the CivaravaJlII. There are there more
than thirty-five pages detailing what can only be called Miilasarvasriviidin monas­
tic inheritance law. There are rules detailing whar should happen ro the property
of a monk from one "residence" (iit'asa) who dies in another (GMs iii 2, 113.14-
117.4); rules dealing with the disposition of the esrate of a monk some of whose
property was held in trust (pr-alil'aJIN) by ocher monks or even laymen 043.1:>-
145.(3); rules laying down the formal procedures (karman) required when the com­
munity takes formal possession (adhiliHhall) of a deceased monk's estate in order
to distribute it 017.8-121.5 and 145.2-.9); rules establishing the proper times
for distributing a dead monk's estate and for determining who can participate in
that distribution (120.3-.20); and so on. Rules dealing with monastic estates are,
moreover, not found only in the Civara•.wIN. There are, for example, rules in the
IVNdraka''aJIN stipulating that property that a monk "designates· (bsngo ba) for an­
other monk while he is alive reverts to his estate upon his death (Derge Tha
254a. I -.6) and, conversely, that property that was "designated by one monk for
another does not belong to the latter's estate when he dies, but continues to be­
lon� to the former" (Derge Tha 2:>4a.6-b.2). There is as well a large number of
rules governing monastic estates and inheritance law in the Ullaragranlha(J).
rules-for example-governing what must happen [91} when a monk borrows
money from a layman (dge Jlong gzhan zhig giJ khyim bdag rig laJ ur Jhii pa '!4 zhig
bJkytJ pa ...) but dies without repaying the loan (Derge Pa I 32b.7-1 33a.3; see
also Derge Pa 85a.3-86a.2, 86a.2-.6. 86a.6-b.4, 86b.4-.7, 86b.7-87a.4, etc.). 10
The size, finally, of some of the monastic estates that are mentioned is also im­
pressive, and it seems clear that the redactors of this Vinaya assumed that some
monastic estates would be very large indeed. One such estate is described as worth
or consisting of "a great deal of gold. three hundred thousand of gold" (pr-aMiila,!,
IN.'a"!a"'liJra� IN.a"!alakJii�-GMs iii 2. 118.11), and this elicits no comment
in the text and appears to pass as completely acceptable. In fact, the Ci''4ravaJIN
even has a set of rules specifically framed to deal with large estates left by monks
who were "rich and famous" ( jfiiilamahiipN,!),a- GMs iii 2,123. 10-15), and here
again there is not the slightest indication that such estates were considered irreg­
ular or undesirable.
At least tWO things. it seems, are tht'n already reasonably clear from tht' ma­
terial quickly summarized to this point. A great deal of the AliilaJan·iiJliI'iida-I'inaya
rakes for granted that the monks it was meant to govern had and were expected­
even required-to have personal property and private wealth. If Buddhist monks
were ever required to renounce private property-and there are good reasons for
doubting this-they certainly were noc by the time the i'tliilaJan'iiJlilJiitia-t'inaya
was redacted.Some Miilasarvastivadin monks, those who were "well known and of
great merit: were even expected to be quite wealthy. Rather than suggest that such
wealth should be renounced or avoided, this Vinaya redacted detailed rules to trans­
mit that wealth to other monks and to shelter it from the state. The estates of men
who died <lpNlra. "sonless"-and monks at least normally did-otherwise went to
the king, and this issue of law is twice directly addressed in the Ci.'araf'aJIN (GMs
iii 2, 118.llff, 140.14ff).
6 BUDDHIST MOSKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

In fact, a preoccupation with specifically legal issues is the second seemingly

characteristic feature of Miilasarvastivadin monasticism to emerge. The redactors
of this Vinaya appear to have been JUSt as much jurists (92) as they were monks.
They appear to apply to the questions of ownership and inheritance, for example,
the same sort of care and precision that their colleagues working on the Abhi­
dharma dharmas. Indeed, how much
applied to the classification and definition of
the "style" of thinking that dominates the Abhidharma owes to these monastic ju­
rists is an open and emerging question. II It may be that many of the techniques
and styles of exposition were first employed in constructing the vinayas. The twO
bodies of material at the vety least have many methods in common, and Va­
subandhu, for example, deals not infrequently with what are issues of monastic
law. One of the best examples, perhaps, is his treatment of the rights and status of
a monk who violated one of the parajika rules but who had no intention of con­
cealing it (Shastri, ii 646}-the same topic is treated as well in the K[lIdrakavastll
(Derge Tha 102a.5-104b.2). But even putting these considerations aside, what
we have seen so far would seem to suggest that in regard to legal questions the
Miilasan'astivada-t'inaya has a degree of sophistication that is certainly notable,
and it appears that the redactors of this Vinaya were certainly concerned with legal
precision. But this same legal sophistication and concern is also found elsewhere
Miilasan'iistivada-vinaya.
in the
The redactOrs of the Miilasarvastivada-vinaya either adapted or invented a
significant number of sophisticated financial instruments and economic devices­
they knew and made rules governing the use of both oral and written wills, writ­
ten loan COntractS, permanent endowments, monetary deposits, interest-bearing
loans, negotiable securities, and even what might be called a form of health in­
surance. The Civaravastll, for example, disallows the use of nuncupative, or oral,
wills by monks to dispose of their property in favor of other monks (GMs iii 2,
124.1-10). But this rule is also amended and clarified in both the K[lIdraka,'astll
and the Uttaragrantha(s), where it is explicitly established that Buddhist monas­
tic law does not apply to laymen and that, therefore, a nuncupative will made by
a layman in favor of monks is both allowable and valid (Derge Tha 252b.3-254a.l
and Pa l30a.4-13 I a.3)Y The oral disposition of property prior to death was, of
course, a subject of discussion in dharmafauric law as well. More striking (93) still
is the sanctioned use of a written will (patrabhilekhya,patrabhilikhita) by a layman
of sorts to leave all of a considerable fortune to the Community (GMs iii 2,
140.14ff). This is most certainly the earliest reference to a written will in all of
Indian literature and-apart from a possible second reference in the Diryat'adiina's
account of the death of Moka-virtually unique.13 Not quite so unusual are the
detailed rules in both the Vibhaliga and Uttaragrantha(s) requiring monks to
the
accept permanent endowments of cash (alqayanivi) and to lend that cash out on
The Good Monk <lnd IIi. Mont)· 7

interest (Derge Ca 154b. 3-155b.2 and Pa 265a.6-b.2)--both the rate of interest

and the instructions [0 be followed in writing up the loan contract here are very
close to what is found in dharmafasl,ic sources, especially in Yiijiial'alkya.14 And
although in the Vihhaliga, but not in the Vlla,ag,amha!J), it is the monks them­
selves who are [0 lend out the money, draw up the contract, and service the loan.
the �lId,akal'a5111 contains a passage describing an arrangement, sanctioned by the
Buddha. whereby a monetary deposit for the benefit of the monks is made by a
layperson with a merchant, who in turn uses it as venrure capital, the profit f[Om
which-how much is not specified-is [0 be distributed to the monks (Derge Tha
258a.3-259a.3). There is good inscriptional evidence for just such arrangements,
especially from the Western Caves." There are also references in our Vinaya to both
monks and nuns making use of what might be called negotiable securities or prom­
issory notes <pal,altkh)'a. chagJ 'gya). Our Vinaya even distinguishes between two
sorts of such notes and gives separate rules for dealing with each. The Cil'a,a�'aJIII
rules that when promissory noces come [0 the Community as a part of an estate,
whatever is realized from those that can be quickly liquidated ( yaahigh,a'!' iak­
yale Jiidhayilll,!l) must be distributed among the monks, {94J whereas those that
cannot be so liquidated must be deposited in the strong room as property in com­
mon for the Communiry of the Four Directions (GMs iii 2, 143.7-.9). In the
BhikJllni-l'ibhaliga the nun Sthiilananda all but forces a layman to give her a prom­
issory note (chagJ 'gya). which he is holding, as a "gift" for reciting the Dharma
for him. Neither the practice nor the note is presented as problematic. The prob­
lem arises only when Sthiilananda tries [0 collect on it. She goes [0 the debror and
demands quick payment. The deb[Or. apparently a litde surprised, asks, "00 you,
Noble One, own this (i.e., the note- phagJ lila khyod /IInga' dill)?" Her answer­
from the point of view of monks. nuns. and private property-is both interesting
and unequivocal: She says. "1 am the owner (Mag dbang ngo)." And this tOO is not
problematic. The onl}' problem is that the nun then threatens [0 take the man [0
court [0 collect on the debt-this, and this alone, is an offense against monastic
rule. and even it is allowed, or at least involves no offense, if the nun is "one who
earns with some difficulty" (tJhtg5 fhllng ngllJ khllgJ pa-Derge Ta 123a.5-124a.2).
The final example of a financial instrument that we might note here is noc
formally contractual and requires a short excursus. Although the whole topic has
received litcle accention, it appears that Buddhist monasteries in India, and Bud­
dhist monastic communities of the sort envisioned in the Miila5an'iiJli"iida-vinaya,
were ideally suited [0 provide care to the old and infirm and to the sick and dy­
ing. There was, moreover, a distinct social need for such services. or at least the
redactors of our Vina)'a seem [0 have thought so. They seem to have thought that
because of taboos concerning purity and pollution. brahmanical groups at least
were noc willing [0 provide services of this SOrt. even for their own. This much it
8 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

seems can be deduced, for example, from texts like one that is found in the
5ayaniisanawsIli (Gnoli) 13.24-.33. Here it is said that a young brahmin was stay­
ing in a hostel for young brahmins (mii'!4vakafiilii),16 but he fell ill with vomiting
and diarrhea. Rather than attend to him, however, the other brahmins. "from feat
of pollution" (afllcibhayiid), threw him out and abandoned him. It is only the Bud­
dhist monks Sariputra and Maudgalyayana who. when they chanced upon him,
"cleaned him with a bamboo brush, rubbed him with [95] white earth and bathed
him." Because they also "taught" the Dharma for him-and here this almost cer­
tainly can refer only to a kind of deathbed recitation-he died in a good state of
mind and was reborn in heaven. The function of Buddhist monks here is hard to
miss -they, nOt one's fellow brahmins, care for the sick and dying.
This story, however, concerns a chance encounter. Buddhist monasteries, on
the other hand, at least those envisioned by the Miilasaroiistilliida-vinaya. were­
unlike brahmanical hostels-ideologically, organizationally. and even architec­
turally suited to provide such services. Such monasteries not only would have had
"infirmaries" but also would have had the manpower and organization to provide
nurses and care to those who would otherwise not have them. The MiilasaroiiJ­
lilliida-vinaya. moreover, put a great deal of emphasis on JUSt such services. We
have already seen a rule that was designed to provide funding for such services for
poor monks who could not themselves afford it. and this is not the only rule of
this kind. Elsewhere (GMs iii 2, 128.1-131. 15), when the Buddha himself finds
another poo r monk sick and "lying in his own urine and excrement," he does ex­
actly what Sariputra and Maudgalyayana had done for the young brahmin-with
his own hands he cleans and bathes the sick monk. He then gives orders to the
monks:

··Monks. apart from you, their fellow-monks. those who are sick have no mother.
nor father. nor other relative. As a co�uence. fellow-monks must attend to
one anoth.. (IaJmiil wbr�iiribhih paralparam II/Jallhii1l4", ,",ra'!iyam)! A pre­
coptOt (IIpaJhyiiya) must do so for his co-residential pupil (Iiirdha",,·ihiiri,,); a co­
residential pupil for his precoptor; a teacher (iiciirya) for his disciple (a"I"';;li,,);
a disciple for his teacher . . . etc., etc. One who is bereft of an assembly and little
known (alpaj;;iil4). to him the communiry must give an attendant monk after
determining the state of his illness-one or twO or many, even to the extent that
the entire community must anend to him!"

This is a remarkable passage. If, for example. the roles of preceptor (IiPii­
dhyiiya) and teacher (iiciirya) were ever conceived of primarily in terms of teach­
ing functions. they certainly are not here. Here both roles are defined exclusively
in terms of caregiving functions, and they are also so defined elsewhere in the
MiilasaroiiJlit·iida-vinaya. Entering into the relationship of "preceptor/co-
Tix Good Monk and HiI MOlU] 9

residential pupil" or "teacher/disciple" is known as "entering [96] into depen­

dence" (g1l4S Ixm pa), and this is the one essential and indispensable relationship
that every Miilasarvastivadin monk must enter inco. The I4l1draltavaJllI, for ex­
ample, says that a monk can be without a recitation teacher (It/og pa'i sloh dpon),
but not without a monk on whom he is dependent (Derge Tha 214a.6); in the
same Vaslll, monks are forbidden to travel without a monk in regard to whom
they have entered into dependence; and numerous monasteries were said to have
passed ordinances denying traveling monks who lacked such a supporting monk
the right co accommodations for even one night (Derge Tha 7Ib.7-72b.4). And
it is repeatedly said: "The Blessed One has ordered entering into dependence for
the sake of assisting one another, and for the purpose of attending co the sickness
of those who are ill" (beom ldan 'dos leyis kyang . . . gcig gis gcig bSlang zhing 114 ba'i
nad g-yog bya ba'i phyir gnas bea ' bar gnangJ ba-Derge Tha 2l3a.l}-not, be it
noted, for the purposes of instruction.
These rules make, of course, for a very attractive arrangement, which if im­
plemented would have provided for Miilasarvastivadin monks unparalleled secu­
rity for long-term care. Given that this arrangement would have been embedded
in a "permanent" enduring institution, there would have been nothing like it in
early medieval India-these monks would have been very well looked after in
their final days, and this, in rurn, may have been a powerful motivating factor in
an individual's decision to enter the order. It is at least notable that in the over­
whelming majority of cases in our Vinaya in which a motive is given for individ­
uals' becoming monks, that motive is connected with rhe fact that the individual
concerned is either old or poor or without living relatives or sonless, and usually
it is a combination of all four. Examples of this may be found throughout the
Miilasanwlir,iida-vinaya, in the Vibha,;ga (Derge Ca 90b.6, 6Ia.4), in the Prar,.a­
;yavaslll (Eimer ii 193), in the IVlldraka (Derge Tha lOOa.4, 114b.6; Da I38b.5),
and so on.
There are, of course, parallels for some of the arrangements and facilities at
least envisioned by the redactors of the Miilasan,aslivada-r'ina)"a. David Knowles,
for example, has said in regard to medieval England that "in the fully developed
monastery of the twelfth century facilities for care of the sick were probably greater
than in any other place in the kingdom. "17 But in the English case-indeed in
much of medieval European monasticism-we know that such "facilities" came
to be an important part of monastic [97] economies and important sources of
revenue, by being made available, on a limited basis, not to the poor but co the
rich lairy. By a series of arrangements-none of which were precisely defined­
·confraternity: "corrodies: entry "ad Jllcmrrmdllm: the old, the sick, and the al­
most certainly terminally ill were allowed the benefits of a monk and of rhe monas­
tic facilities while they were alive, with the expectation, and sometimes formal
10 BUDDH IST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

promise, that when they died, some, all, or a good share of their estates would go
to the monastery. IS Although the bald "exchange" or "purchase" nature of these
arrangements was often muted in the documents that recorded them. the effect
was not, and both the basic arrangement and the verbal vagueness seem to have a
parallel in the Miilasaroiisth-ada-vinaya.
The parallel occurs again in the Ch'arat'astll in a passa ge already referred to­
it is the text that makes explicit reference to the use of a written will. It concerns
a wealthy layman who. in spite of repeated attempts and repeated invocations of
various gods. remains childless. As a consequence. the text says. he repudiates all
the gods and comes to have faith in the Blessed One (san.'adet'atii� pratyiikhyiiya
bhagal'aty abhiprasannah--GMs iii 2, 139.20), though the transition here is rather
abrupt. He approaches a monk and asks for admission into the order. The initial
motivating factor is that the man is "sonless"; the implications are that he is also
old; and-as we shall Stt-he is about to become seriously ill. The monk shaves
the man's head and begins to give him the rules of training (fi�iipada), bur the
rich man becomes ill. which creates an obstacle to his admission into the order
(pravrajyiintariiyakamJa fa mahatii jvart7!iibhibhiitah). Here it is hard to miss the
hand of the monastic lawyer: whoever wrote this little narrative must have been
fully aware that there were rules against admitting the sick into the order and deftly
avoided that difficulty by having the man's illness become manifest only after the
initial and most visible aspectS of his admission-the shaving of his head-had
occurred. The result. of course. was a thoroughly ambiguous situation from the
point of view of monastic law. which involved the status of the "shaven-headed
householder"-visibly a monk-who had not been fully admitted into the order.
What obligations did the monastic community have in regard to such individu­
als? The monks. as was their usual practice in such ambiguous [98] situations. ask
the Buddha-that is to say, our text would have been Sttn as providing a defini­
tive solution. The Buddha rules that monastic care must be provided for the sick
man (llpasthiinam asya kara'!iyam); he rules in other words that, in this regard at
least, such an individual must be treated as a member of the community­
Gu�prabha, incidentally, makes this interpretation explicit. 19 Bur the Buddha
then specifically adds that such an individual must not be given the rules of train­
ing until he recovers (na tiiva. (hi�iiPadani deyiini yiit'at sl 'astha� JaI!/I'rttah-140. 5).
and the Buddha specifically rules that the monks themselves must attend to him.
The Buddha's rulings in effect create a new category: a sick layman who has un­
dergone the most visible act of admission to the order but who cannot, because of
his illness, be fully admitted. The text goes on to indicate that the monks are ob­
ligated to attend to such individuals even if they are taken back to their own homes.
This Sttms to clearly indicate that the redactor was fully conscious of the fact that
he was inventing a new category. He says: "In regard to him [the sick householder]
The Good Monk and His Monty 11

the designation 'shaven-headed householder' arose" (Ialya mll,!# grhapalir iIi

Ia,!,jiia I4f!1"rlla -1 40.13).
The obligations of the monks to "shaven-headed householders" were then made
matters of explicit monastic rules, but what of the obligations of the ·shaven-headed
householders" to the monks: what did they owe the monks? As in the case of me­
dieval European monasticism, the language used in regard to this question is care­
ful and ambiguous, avoiding any direct reference to sale or purchase.We move
from a language of rule and obligation to a situation of unexpressed-but proba­
bly nonetheless definite- expeCtation. We are simply tOld that when the ·shaven­
headed householder" knew he was on the point of death, he drew up a will leav­
ing all of his enormous estate to the monastic community, and we are explicitly
told that the state itself(i.e., the king) confirmed the monastic community's right­
ful ownership of such an estate.The arrangement here was, then, not a formally
contractual one; it was rather a matter of unstated but understood practice. A
wealthy layman without heirs could undergo the initial and most visible aspectS
of the ritual of admission into the Mulasarvastivadin order.As a result, the monks
[991 would be obliged to care for him, especially in his final days, even if he re­
mained at home.He in turn was expected, though not contractually obligated, to
leave his entire estate to the Community, and the state formally acknowledged the
legitimacy of such an arrangement.
It is also worth noting that the redactOrs of the MiilaIa",iiIlit'iida -vina)'a seem
to have anticipated that such an arrangement would or could have resulted in con­
siderable amounts of cash or precious materials going directly to individual
monks.This, again, would seem to follow from the provisions they put in place
for dealing with specific forms of property or wealth that might form a part of
such an estate.They stipulated, for example, that any ma,!i gems, lapis lazuli, or
conch shells included in the estate must be divided into two lots, one for the Dharma
and one for the Community, and that, further, the Community's share must then
be divided among the monks (GMs iii 2, 143.0. They stipulated that if the es­
tate included any books or manuscripts containing non-Buddhist !aslras (bahi�­
fiislraplIIlaka), those books must be sold (vikriya) and the profit, again, divided
among the monks (143.7).They stipulated too that any gold, money, or other pre­
cious metals, either worked or unworked (slIva'1JlZ'!1 ca hira'!ya'!l (iinya( (a l!rliikr'a'!l),
must be divided into three shares, and the share for the Community must again
be divided among the monks themselves.2o These provisions are completely in line,
moreover, with a host of rules and practices throughout the MiilasartJiiJl;"iida­
vinaya. In the passage already mentioned from the K.[lIdrakavaIIII that deals with
monetary deposits made by donors with merchants, the Buddha himself explic­
itly orders the monks to accept money (ur!apa1}aI) from the merchants (Derge Tha
258a.3-259a.3).21 I n yet another passage from the K.[lIdrakavasllI, the Buddha him-
12 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

self also orders monks not [0 divide certain kinds of expensive cloth that is given
[0 them, but he insists that the monks must first sell the cloth for money and then
divide the money among themselves (de Ita bas na dgt ,11m fa gOJ k)'i nt)'td pa de Ita
bll grtlb pa ga"g yi" pa de kar sha pa rIa dag III bsgyllr la I kar sha pa na dag bgo bar
byao-Derge Tha 263a.6). ln the Civara.'aslll, again monks are told that they must
divide the profits among themselves after they have sold ("ikriya) property chac
makes up part of the { I 00] estate of a deceased monk (GMs iii 2, 1 2 1 .2; see also
1 1 9. 14). In the K�lIdraka, the Vibhaizga, and the Ullaragra"lha(s), finally, monks
volunteer to act as "assistants for merit" (both the terms pu'!ya-sabaya and dhamta­
sabaya are used) on construction projects paid for by laymen and meant for the
monks. In this role the monk receives the money (kar�dPa,!"s}--usually a substantial
amount-from the laymen; hires, oversees, and pays the laborers; buys the neces­
sary tools; and is told, for example, [0 use the construction funds for his food, that
is [0 say, [0 buy it (",khar 1m bytd pas ",khar 1m gyi "or kho na las bsod myoms ),o"gs
Sll s/l)'ad par b)'aQ..-Derge Tha 193b.7; see also Derge Ca 1 46a.2-148a.6 and Pa
1 2 3a.7-1 24a.6; cf. GMs iii 4, 1 39.9).
There are, of course, rules in the Miilasarvastivadin Prali11lo� that have bee n
understood at least by modern scholars [0 forbid monks from engaging in almost
all of these activities-handling "money: buying and selling, and so forth. And
here we have a particularly interesting problem. It is almost certainly not safe [0
assume that the Vi"ayadharas, the monastic lawyers who compiled, shaped, and
probably wrote the ViMyavaslus and the Vinayavibhaizga, were unfamiliar with their
own Prdti",o�a, especially given that the Vibhaizga is at least structurally based on
it. But if the Vi"ayadharas knew their Prdli»lo�a, then there would seem [0 be at
least two possible explanations for what we have seen here. It is possible that the
Vinayadharas chose to ignore the Pralimo�a-and could so choose-indicating
that it was much less binding and authoritative than has been assumed. At the
very least we may have to look much, much more carefully at the differences and
divergencies between the prali",o�as and the other exposi[Ory parts of the vina)'a .
Those differences may be much broader and more significant than even Schlin­
gloffhas said. 22 Certainly the differences between the Miilasarvastiviidin Bhi�u,!i­
prdlimo�a and Bhi�u,!i-vibhaizga, for example, are so great that Bu-s[On at least
thought that the Vibhatlga was not Miilasarvastiviidin at al1.13 We may also have
much [0 learn about the force and construction of monastic rules from medieval­
ists working on Western monastic codes. Louis Lekai, for example, in discussing
early Cistercian { l Oll monastic legislation has said: "The founders of Citeaux
assumed a peculiarly ambivalent attitude toward the Rule of Saint Benedict. They
declared their utter devotion to it, but in fact they used that venerable document
with remarkable liberality. They invoked and applied it when it suited their pur­
pose, ignored or even contradicted it when they thought that they had better
TINGocJ Monk and His Monty 13

ideas . "24 Even more helpful perhaps is what he says about the form of early Cis­
tercian legislation:

A further proof of both the tffita,ive natu", of new "'gu/a,ions and ,he broad­
minded. always compromising disposition of the chap,er fathers is the wording
of virtually counrless sra'utes before as well as aher l i SO. The beginning of such
a paragraph is always a firm command or rigid prohibition. bu, the end liSlS the
excep,ions. often enfeebling the tex, to such an extem ,ha, it can hardly quali fy
for more than a fatherly advice.2'

The last sentence in particular here could do good service as a description of

the Priilimo� rules as they occur in the Vibha,;ga: they almost all begin with a
"firm command or rigid prohibition" but end with a list of "exceptions" (aniipatll)
which-in the Buddhist case as well-can render them little more than "fatherly
advice." An example of this sort of thing has already been cited above. where the
rule stated unequivocally that it is an offense if a nun goes to court to collect on a
promissory note. but the exception. which immediately follows. says there is. how­
ever, no offense if the nun is "one who earns with some difficulry." In the Buddhist
case it has been assumed or argued that these "exception" clauses represent a later
chronological stratum,26 but this need not necessarily be the case. In the case of
the Cistercian texts. it is known that such exemption clauses were a part of the
original legislation-they were there from the beginning-and their presence has
been taken at least by Lekai as evidence for "a tolerant and flexible attitude" and.
he says. should be taken not as "3 sign of decay" but as "evidence of health and vi­
taliry. "27 In fact, we do not know for sure if in the early days the {I02} Priilimo�as
were ever-apart from liturgical contexts-used without their Vibha';gaI. It is at
least hard to imagine that their rulings were ever actually applied without inter­
pretation or discussion. But even if the aniipauiJ-the exemptions. exclusions,
extenuations-turn out to be later additions, that will make them not less bur
even more important for tracking the development and gradual maturation of Bud­
dhist monastic rules.
A second possible explanation for what we have seen-although this is rarely
the explanation of our first choice-is that Miilasarvastivadin VinayadharaJ may
have known their texts far better than We do and applied to them a far more s0-

phisticated exegesis than we can. The Priilimo� rule that has been taken to for­
bid the "handling" of "money" by monks may be a case in point. We do not ac­
tually know what activiry is forbidden. The verb in the Sanskrit text of the
Miilasarvastivadin Priilimo� is IIdgrh'Jiyiid. but this has a wide range of possible
meanings, none of which are very close to "accept" or "have" (this would be rather
pari or pali ..Jgrah), and it has been translated in an equally wide range of ways.28
14 BUDDHIST MONKS A N D BUSIN ESS MATTERS

Worse still, we do noc actually know what was intended or understood by jiilarii­
parajala, the object of the action that was forbidden, which is conventionally trans­
lated as "gold and silver." What, however, is clear to even us-and we must there­
fore assume was far clearer to Miilasarviistivadin monastic lawyers-is that the
rule does noc refer to slIvarna or hira'!ya or kiir�iiPa,!as ('"gold," "silver," "money"),
and it is these things that monks own, accept, handle, and inherit in the Vibhaliga,
the Vi11JyavaJllIs, and the Ullaragranlha(s). This can hardly be an accident and
must point again to the fact that Vinaya texts, like Abhidharma texts, represent a
sophisticated system of thought that works from a particular and precise defini­
tion of terms. It, agai n, can hardly be an accident that what is called the "old
commentary" that is embedded in the Vibhaliga is-as Norman says of the Pali
VlnaYII-"really an analysis of words (pada-bhiijaniJII):29 And conversely-even
perversely-a part of [103J this sophistication may be an element of intentional
ambiguiry. Here tOO an observation by Lekai in regard ro Cistercian texts may noc
be inappropriate: "In other cases the careful reader of the records may come under
the impression that the wording of important statutes was made deliberately so
vague or complicated that it left open a number of possible interpretations:lO Un­
less I am much mistaken, this tOO will have numerous parallels in Buddhist l·inaJas.
The Miilasarvastiviidin rule that has been understood to mean that monks are for­
bidden to engage in "buying and selling" may be another case in pointY It does
not refer to unqualified " buying and selling"; nor does it refer-which it could
easily have-to "all" (Ja......) " buying and selling: It refers to niinii-prakiiram kraJa­
l'iitraJa"" which, of course, could mean "buying and selling of various sorts" or
"buying and selling of many sorts: Neither interpretation precludes "all: but nei­
ther requires i t either. Miilasarviistivadin exegesis, moreover, clearly did not take
it to have absolute application. The Vibhaliga, for example, says that there is no
fault in engaging in both unqualified bu)'ing and selling if a monk is noc seeking
to gain (dgt sl.ng gil rnyed pa ",i 'dod pas nyo bar byed cing rnyed po mi 'dod pas 'lJhong
bar byuJ na g1l)il Ie.. la IllIng ba med do; Derge Cha 1 56b. 3).
But what can be learned specifically about the t\!iilaJan'{jJlit'iida-I'ino)o from
our larger discussion? We now know that the Buddhist monks who wrote or
redacted it in early medieval North India did not share our assumptions about Bud­
dhist monks and the renunciation of private wealth or property, and we-under
the enormous influence of St. Benedict-think that this is an important element
of any monastic idealY Those same monks also apparently did not have the same
attitude that we do in regard to monks' involvement with money. They either knew
monks who did, or wanted monks to do, all sorts of things that do noc fit our as­
sumptions: Pay debts and tolls and transport taxable goods; own their own furni­
ture and have the means to pay for any damage they might do to that of other
Tht Good Mo�k and His MolU)' 15

monks; carry personal seals; pay for their own medicine and healing rituals; leave
esrates, sometimes huge; borrow money from laymen; inherit properry [ 1 04] from
both other monks and laymen; accept and service permanent endowments; make
loans and charge interest; accept and use negotiable securities; provide care for sick
and dying laymen, with the understanding that, when the layman died, his estate
would go to the monastery; and receive precious and semiprecious materials, sell
books, receive gold in various forms, accept money (kiirriipa'f'lS), sell the properry
of deceased monks, hire and oversee laborers, and buy food. And this, of course,
is only a provisional list of the sorts of things that MOlasarvastivadin monks were­
in most cases-not only expected but also reqllired to do by their own monastic
rule.If they did not, then-at least in terms of monastic discipline-they would
not be "good" monks. Exactly how many such "good" monks there were we obvi­
ously do not know, although it is at least certain that Indian monks accepted per­
manent endowments and monetary deposits made with merchants; it is also cer­
rain that some Indian monks had personal seals.13 But whether all the things
described in our Vinaya actually happened matters far less than the fact that Bud­
dhist monks who were, presumably, the acknowledged authorities on monastic dis­
cipline spent a great deal of time thinking about them in North India in the early
medieval period. These were-again presumably-monks who were in a position
to influence actual communities, literate monks who were concerned with things
other than asceticism, meditation, and doctrinal study, monks who, again in their
own terms, were the " good" monks. That they had a different perspective from
ours is confirmed by at least one further observation: Unlike modern scholars, these
"good" monks did not have much good to say about monks who did engage in
asceticism, meditation, and doctrinal learning. If they mention them at all-and
they do so infrequently-it is almost always with a tone of marked ambivalence,
if not actual ridicule. Ascetic monks, meditating monks, and learned monks ap­
pear in our Vinaya by and large only as slightly ridiculous characters in unedify­
ing, sardonic, and funny stories or as nasty customers that "good" monks do not
want to spend much time around. � [105]
The monks that the redactors of the Miilalarviisliviida-vinaya envisioned, and
the monks that modern scholarship has imagined, are then radicall y different, and
this difference is extremely important for the historian of Buddhism in India.The
monastic ideal found in the Miilalarviisliviida-vinaya, for example, is almost cer­
tainly one of the most prominent monastic ideals that the authors of the Mahayana
lii/raI encountered, and much of what these Mahayana authors said is probably fully
intelligible only as a reaction against this ideal. If we are ever to understand more
about the Mahayana, we obviously are going to have to know, then, much, much
more about what they were reacting to. This is our future task.
16 BUDDH IST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

Notes

1 . For some brief ermarks on the "early- archaeological and inscriptional evidence for
viharas. see G. Schopen. -Doing Business for the Lord: Lending on Interest and Written
Loan Contracts in the Mlilasanwliviida-vinaya,"lAOS 114 (1994) 527-554. <sp. 547-552
{ = Ch. III helow].
2. See the discussion and sourc<s cited in G. Schopen. "The Bones of a Buddha and
the Busin<ss of a Monk: Conservative Monastic Values in an Early Mahayana Polemical
Ttaet,"llP 27 (1999) 279-324. esp. 292ff{ = FFMB Ch. 1I1l. That in fact all "les Vinayas
parvenus 11 nous Ont �t� rtdiges 11 une epoque tardive" was suggested alrrady long ago by
Wassilieff (w. Wassilieff. "I.e bouddhisme dans son plein d�veloppement d·apres les
vinayas: RHR 34 { l 896} 318-325). and this suggestion carne as well to he seconded by
S. Levi ("Les elements de formation du divyavadiina." TP 8 { I 907] 116-117).
3. S. Levi. "Les saintes &titures du bouddhisme. Comment sest coostitue Ie canon
sacre: in MimtWial Sylvain Uvi (Paris: 1937) 78. 80. 84; Ed. Huher. "Etudes bouddhiques.
III-I.e roi kani�ka dans Ie vinaya des mUlasarvistiviidins," BEFEO 14 (1914) 18; M. Lalou.
"Notes sur la decoration des monasteres bouddhiques: RAA 5.3 (1930) 183. According
to a notice published by L. de la Vall� Poussin in 1929. Lalou "travaille 11 l"Analystet Bihlio­
graphi. dll Vinaya <kJ Mlifasarviistif-adim. vaste compilarion pleine de documents indis­
pensables" (Acadimi. royal. de belgiqll'. BIiI/.lin de fa classe <kJ Imrrs tJ <kJ scimas _altJ tJ
poliliqllts 5 �rie-T. 15 { l 929] 366).
4. G. Schopen. ··Marking Time in Buddhisr Monasreries. On Calendars. Clocks. and
Some Liturgical Ptaerices." in Siiryacandriiya. Essays in HOllOlir of Akira YlIJama on the D«a­
sion of His 651h Birthd.zy (Indica er Tiberica 35). ed. P. Harrison and G. Schopen (Swisttal­
Odendorf: 1998) 157-179. esp. 1 7 1-172 and nn. 51-54 { = Ch. IX below].
5. K. Wille. Di. handschriftlicbt Ohtrlitj.nlng <kJ Vi1l4ya,oaslll dtr MlifasarviislN'iidin
(Verzeichnis der orienralischen Handschriften in Deutschland, Suppl. Bd. 30) (Stuttgart:
1990).
6. See mosr recendy S. Hiraoka. " The Relation berween the Di..,iit'adii114 and rhe
Miilasarviislivadavi1l4ya." liP 26 (1998) 419-434 and the sources cired.
7. E. Frauwallner. The Earlim Vinaya andthe Begi"nings ofBlllidhist Liltratllre (Serie Ori­
enrale Roma 8) (Rome: 1 956) 194-195; Lamo[[e. Hisloire dll houddhislm indim 187.
8. B.Jinananda. Upasampadiijfl4pli� (Tibetan Sansktit Works Series VI) (Parna: 1961)
15.5; Pravrajyiit'aslll (Eimer) ii 142.13. The Tiberan version of rhis enrier twill is in part
translated and in part closely-if nor always correcdy-pataphtased in A. C. Banerjee.
Sarviislivada Liitrallirt (Calcuna: 1957) 100-1 86; see esp. 120.
9. A . C. Banerjee. Tit" Blllidhisl Vi1l4ya Texts in Samitril (Calcutra: 1 977) 32.17: ya�
Pll1l4rhhik!lI�piin'anl samanlljno hhiilVii lala� pakadtva'!' """'" {yalha] sa'!'SllIlikayiiYII!manla�
siimghikatrt liihhatrt pari'!4lam iilma114� paudgalikatrt pariTJiimayanlili payanlikii I.
10. Almosr all rhe provisions ofMUlasarviisriviidin monasric inherirance law have been
collecred rogerher and digesred by Gu,!aprabha ar Vi114yaslirra (Sanktiryayana) 85. 3-86.5
mdo. Derge. bsran ·gyur. ·dul ba Wu 68a.2-69o.5-for rhe commentaries. see
( = ""1 ha'i
Svasryakh)"ii114 Zu 126b. I -132b. 7; Fkii Yu 178a.6-185a.3; Vyiikhyiina Ru 197b.7-200b.3;
Tht Good Monk and HiJ Alont) 17

VrlIi Lu 250b.5-254a.4); also Bu-scon in his 'Dill ha pha 'i glmg 'bllm eM mo (Collecred
Works, L. Chandra ed. Parr 23) 'A 29Oa.2-295a.3, and now G. Schopen "IK.ad Monks and
Bad Debrs: Some Provisions ofa Buddhisr Monasric Inherirance Law," Ilj 44 (2001) 99-148
1= Ch. V below].
I I . Cf. O. von Hinuber, "Vinaya und Abhidhamma: 5111 1 9 (1994) 109- 1 22.
12. The /Ulldraka rexr is discussed in some derail in G. Schopen, "Monasric Law Meers
rhe Real World: A Monk's Conrinuing Righr CO Inherir Family Properry in Classical In­
dia," HR 35 ( 1 995) 101-123 I e Ch. VI belowJ-when this was wrirren, I was nor aware
of rhe rexr in rhe Ullaragranrha(I).
1 3. The CiI'ara''IIJlli rexr is rranslared-wirhour nores-in G. Schopen, "Dearhs, Fu­
nerals. and rhe Division of Pcoperry in a Monasric Code: in BliddhiJm in Praaict. ed.
D. S. Lopez Jr. (Princeton. N.).: 1 995) 498-500 [a Ch. IV below]. For the possible refer­
ence co a wrirren will i n rhe Oi.,a.-ad;;"", see Schopen, "If You Can'r Remember. How ro
Make It Up: Some Monasric Rules for Redacting Canonical Texts," in Ballddh''''idya­
Jlldh;; urah. 580 n. 27 I- Ch. XIV below].
1 4 . On rhe Vibhaitga rexr, see Schopen. "Doing Business for rhe Lord: 527/f-here
again, when rhis was wrirren. I did nor know of rhe Ullaragranlha(J) rexr.
1 5 . See . for example. E. Scnan. "The Inscriprions in rhe Caves ar Nasik," EI 8
0905-19(6) nos. 12 and 1 5 . bur see also no. 17, where an endowmenr of 100 karJapa""l
is given la'f'ghasa halht.
16. Gnoli prinrs miina''IIkah iiilii'!'. bur the facsimile clearly has mii""vau!a/a,!, (GBMs
vi 948.2). and rhe Tiberan (Derge Ga 195a.3) /,ram u'i kh}e'li zhig gi lehyim d1l.
17. D. Knowles, Tht MO""JlieOrrkr in England. II HiJlory o/IIJ DnTlopmm l/rom Iht Timet
0/ 51. Ollnslan I. Iht F01Irth Laleran COll1Kil 943-1 216 (Cambridge. England: 1949) 477.
18. Knowles, Tht MonaJ lic Ortkr in England. 475ff; ) . H. Lynch, Simoni,,,al Enlry inlO
R.ligiollJ Liftfrom 1000 ,. 1260. 1\ Social. E...n.",ie and Legal SI1Idy (Columbus. Ohio: 1 976)
26-36.
1 9. For rhe passage in queStion, we have a Sanskrir rexr for borh rhe Silra and
it". ",r" prar"bdhq-la/lirilaQ I . . . ya� pra..a­
GUl)aprabhas auco-commenrary. J1rtl""l.i'al
bartham m1lnt!allaJjlla ,,<!amiil mtP yojil� nadyapi pra''''iijila� Ja pra• .,.ajilaval dra!!"''Ja� I
VinayaJlilra (Bapar and Gokhale) 46.19. A few lines larer GUl)aprabha acrually uses rhe
rerm mll"Jagrhapali. and Bu-Ston ('0111 ha pha'j glmg 'bllm eM mo 'A 5 5b. 5) gives our O''IIra
rexr as Gunaprabhas source.
20. In all rhree cases rhe wording is similar and explicit: ya� Ja'f'ghaJya sa bhi�IIbhir
.·jk-riya bhiijayilar,� in rhe firsr and rhird cases; hhi�1Ihhir I�ltriya bhiijayilll1"a� in rhe second.
2 1 . In rhis case ir is also made explicir rhar rhe money rhen belongs absolurely co rhe
monks: kar lhii pa "" Jag blangJ 114J ci (/oJpar yongl J1I JPJ'ad po... bya JIt I.
22. D. Schlingloff, "Zur Interprerarion des Priilimo�aJlilra: ZOMG 1 1 3 ( 1 964)
536-5 5 \ .
23. C. Vogel. "Bu-scon on rhe Schism of rhe Buddhisr Church and on rhe Doctrinal
Tendencies of BuddhiSt Scriprures," in Z1Ir Seh1llZ1lgthlirigktil wn Wtrkm tkr Hinayiina­
Lileralllr, Ersrer Teil. Hrsg. H. Bteherr (GQrringen: 1985) 1 10; and BII-Jl.", 'Dill ha dg.
Jiang ma'j glmg 'bll11l ( Mai) 'A 58b.5.
18 BUDDHIST MONKS A N D BUSINESS MATTERS

24. L.J. kkai, "Ideals and Reality in Eatly Cist�rcian Life and kgislarion," in Cilltr­
cian Ideal! and Realily (Cistercian Studies Series 60), ed. J. R. Sommerfeldt (Kalamazoo,
Mich.: 1978) 4-29, esp. 5.
25. Ibid., 17.
26. Schlingloff, "Zur Interpretation des Priilim�aliilra," 538 n. 22: "Die� 'Kasuis­
tik' ist wohl der jiingste Teil des Vibhailga"; O. von Hiniiber, A Handbook a[Piili LiltralllfT
(Indian Philology and South Asian Srudies 2) (Berlin: 1996) 14.
27. kkai, "Ideals and Reality," 24.
28. The same vetb occurs in a cl=ly related rule, PiiyaTllikii 59: ya!? p"nar bhi�1I ralna,!,
vii [ralna} Ja,!,malam .ii JvahaJlam IIdgrh,!iyiid udgriihaytd vii (L. Chandra, "Unpublis� Gilgit
Fragment of the P..atimo4;>-siitra: WZKS 4 [l960) 8.6), and here can, it =ms, mean
only-and is almost always taken to mean-something like "pick up." See also the dis­
cussion in the Bhaifah'avaJllI dealing with jiila-riipa-rajala where prali..Jgrah and lid ..Jgrah
ate explicitly and c1eatly distinguished: laJ1f1ii1 friima'!traknJodgrahilavyam I no III praligraha�

IvikartaV)'a!? I (GMs iii I , 248.6-.16).

29. K. R. Norman, Piili Liitralllrt (A History of Indian Literature Vol. VII, fasc. 2)
(Wiesbaden: 1983) 19.
30. kkai, "Ideals and Reality," 22.
3 \. For the Gilgit text of the rule. = Banerjee. Tu;. BllddhiJl Vina)'a TexlJ in Sanskril.
29.20.
32. On Benedict's enormous influence on the study of monasticism and the concep­
tion of. monk. = S. Elm. "Virgins o[God.· The Making o[ AJmiciJm in Lalt ATlliqllily (Ox­
ford: 1994) vii-viii, I ff,
33. See , for example-and this =ms to be the eatliest example so far-R. Salomon,
"Five Khat�! hr Inscriptions: BlIllelin o[ the Alia Imlillllt (Studies in Honor of Vladimir
A. Livshits) n.s 10 (\ 996) 233-246, esp. 244-245. Salomon says: "These archaic features
.•

suggest an eatly date for this seal, possibly as eatly as the =ond century B.C."
34. As a sampling of such texts, = GMs iii 1 , 79.3-84.2; Derge Ja 154b.2-1 56b.7;
Tha 222b.2-224b. I ; GMs iii 4, 7 1 .6ff; GMs iii I , 56. 2ff; Derge Da 35b.2-36a.2; Tha
39a.6-39b.5; GMs iii I , 56.20-57. 18; Derge Ja 79b.7-80b.3; Tha 180b. I-I8 IaA.
7 I b,7-72bA; GMs iii 2, 173.5-178.1; GMs iii 1, 55.8-56. 19; and so on.
 C HAPTER I I

Art, Beauty, and the Business

of Running a Buddhist Monastery
in Early Northwest India

IT IS VERY DIFFICULT still to get an overview of Early North India-dates,

dynasties, denominations, and deities there are still the subjects ofsometimes uned­
ifying debate. We work, of course, with what we have, and what we have are bro­
ken walls and tangled trenches , stray inscriptions and reused pots, coins, images
out of context, and conclusions hanging by a thread. So much energy and erudi­
tion goes into sorting all these things out that important questions go unasked.
We are usually so preoccupied with what is there that we often do not ask-do
not even wonder-why it is. When, for t-xample, so much of the raw data for North
Indian numismatics comes from Buddhist monastic sites and ritual deposits, are
we not obliged to ask why this is so-how is it that groups of ascetic, celibate
men who were supposed to have renounced all wealth and social ties, left such
largesse in the archaeological record; how is it that they, and sometimes they alone,
lived in North India in permanent, architecturally sophisticated quarters, that they,
and they alone, li ved in intimate association with what we call art? Something is
clearly wrong with this picture, and there is a good chance that we have not yet
understood the people in North India who handled the coins we study or the pots
we classify. As an example-and it is only that-of an important group of such
people, it is perhaps worthwhile to try again to understand what exacdy a Bud­
dhist monk was in Early North India. We can do this now a little berrer because
we now know a little berrer an important Buddhist monastic code that appears to
have been redaCted there. That the Buddhist monk in Early North India, and in
this monastic code, did not look like the caricature found in modern scholarly
sources will come as no surprise to those who know well what he left behind in
his living quarters. The monk that we will see in this code is a construction fore-

Originally presemed at the symposium ·On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kushan
World,- held at the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, KansasCiry, Missouri, November S-I I ,
2000, and published here for the first time.

19
20 Bl'DDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

man, an art promorer, a banker, an enerepreneur, sometimes a shysrer, and some­

rimes a saine-he should ar least prove to be of some ineeresr.
The monastic code in quesrion-rhe Mii/aJan'iiJliviill4 - vinaya-has been
known in one form or anorher for a long rime now,l and although ir was recog­
nized early on rhar this code was compiled or redacted in Northwesr India, rhe
discussion of irs date has been badly misdirected by a very red herring and rhe
inarreneion of rhose who were supposed to be following the trail.In 1958 the great
Belgian scholar E tienne Lamotte declared that this Vinaya, or Code, was late, that
"one cannot attribute to this work a date earlier than the 4th-5th Ceneuries of
the Christian Era."2 This pronouncemene-even at its inception based on very
shaky grounds-sriII proved almost fatal, for Lamotte himself was forced by his
own further work co change his position-and he did so several times-but few
scholars seem co have noticed. By 1966, Lamotte was in face referring to the
MiilaraN'iiJliviill4 -I'inaya as a source of information for the first or second century
of our eC'�.3 Ironically, other scholars then, and for a long time after, coneinued co
quote only the Lamotte of 1958.4
The changes in Lamotte's views-which he never explicidy acknowledged­
brought them eveneually into conformiry with the views of others who had specif­
ically addressed the issue and been ignored, and today, it seems, the views of the
Italian Raniero Gnoli hold the field.He said in 1977: "However, one poine seems
certain to me: the date of the compilation of the Vinaya of the MSV is to be taken
back to the times of Kani�ka."' And, bur for a few quibbles, this would seem fine.
Gnoli, as others before him, relies in pan for his dating on the fact that one sec­
tion of this Code-in a passage preserved in the Sanskrit manuscript from Gilgit­
refers both co Kani�ka by name and co the JtiiPa of Kani�ka at a place it calls
Kharjurika. 6 This passage in tum forms a part of what Sylvain Levi long ago called
·un veritable l1liihiilmya du Nord-Ouest de l'Inde."7 Both the presence of Kani�ka's
name, and the miihiitmya as a whole, have been taken as ineerpolations "which tend
to show that the Vinaya of the Miilasarviistivadins had undergone a rehandling
around the beginning of the Christian Era."8 But if the miihiilmya containing the
reference co Kani�ka is an ineerpolation made at somewhere near his rime, or if
this Vinaya underwene a rehandling or redaction-·un rernaniemene"-around the
beginning of the Christian era, it seems fairly obvious that it must have existed in
some form or in some part even before that time. And there are other indications
of this as well.
It is of course neither possible nor desirable to eneer here ineo all rhe specifics,
and it must suffice co simply note that the more we learn about the coneencs of
this Code, the clearer it becomes that it explicidy deals, often in great detail, with
specific religious and monastic practices, ideas, and motives that we know from
epigraphical and archaeological sources were also currene in North India both be-
 21

fore and after the rise of the K�ns, that it uses the same titles for learned monks
and certain kinds of laymen, and describes-often again i n great detail-some of
the same elemems of material culture that we find there. A Khar��hi i nscription
from Bahawalpur and dated in the early years of Kani�ka, for example, illustrates
in a single instance several of these shared elemems. It records that a monk named
Nagadatta, who is called a dha[r1lla }kafhi, " a Narraror of the Dharma"-a title or
office repeated ly referred to in the MiilaJarvaJfi"iida-" ina),a9-"raised the Staff"
()'arhi,!, aropa),afa), that is, inaugurated a Jfiipa, for "the Owner of the Monastery"
(viharaJt'a1llim) Balanandi. Not only is the title "iharaJl,aflJifl repeatedly found in
the MiiloJarr-dJfi,'ada-" ina),a, where i t designates the key lay figure in Miilasarvas­
tivadin monasticism,lO but this Code also comains an explicit reference-using
virtually the same expression-to a monk's obligation to be in attendance at "the
raising of the staff" ( Ja!r)'aropa'f<l) 11 There is, moreover, a whole series of pre-Ku�n
.

Kharo��hi inscriptions-all securely dated to the very beginning of the Common

Era-which record that individuals deposited relics at "a previously unestablished
place" (apratifhavita-pruba1lli pat/ha"i-pradefa1lli), and in one case this action is specif­
ically said to result in "the merit of Brahma" (bra1llmapuii[o) praJa,'ati).12 This idea
of establishing relics at previously "unconsecrated" places, an idea that appears to
have motivated the actual behavior of a number of highly placed individuals in
pre-Ku�n North India, is again explicitly stated in our Vina)'o in exactly the same
language (apratiJrhitapiirr't prthit,;pradeft) and is expl icitly stated there to result in
"the merit of Brahma" (brahma1ll pu'!ya1ll praJa"ati), raising the possibiliry at least
that our Vinaya is actually being quoted in this record} ' There are as well early
Ku�n records that refer to learned monks as trepitjakaJ, "those who know the Three
Baskets,"14 and this title tOO repeatedly occurs in the MiilaJarr.asti,-iida -vinaya}5
There is a series of records that describe religious acts undertaken by monks and
"co-residemial pupils" (Jardha,!,"ihiirin) for the purpose of each other's health (aro­
gadakJhinat).16 and this is a characteristically Miilasarvastivadin idea prominently
enshrined, for example, in its ordination formulary, where i t is said that a newly
ordained monk must be tOld: "You must, from this day forward and for as long as
he lives, nurse your PreceptOr. Your PreceptOr too must anend to your illnesses
umil you are dead or cured."17 In fact , the Preceptor/disciple relationship is de­
fined almost exclusively in rhis Code in terms of mutual caregiving.18 There are,
finally, the Tor Qherai inscribed pot fragments that refer not only to another t�­
hiiraJl-dmin but also to a propa, a "hall for providing water" in a monastery, 19 and
our Vina)'" again has ,'try detailed rules governing both the construction and the
use of what appears to have been just such a "hall."20
Material of this sort-and as we will cominue to see , there is a great deal of
it in this enormous Vinaya-would appear to place this Code on the cusp of an
era: many of the sorts of things it refers to are anested in the archaeological and
22 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

epigraphical records of North India both before the Ku�ns and in the early Ku�n
period itself. It seems to span what may in any case be something of an artificial
divide. But at least one more shared linkage between our monastic Code and the
Northwest is worth citing because, if for no other reason, i t concerns one of our
most important sources of knowledge for pre-K�n and Ku�n North India.
Nobody really knows where the idea of using what we call "donative inscrip­
tions" came from in South Asia or why the Buddhists started to use them-and
they were certainly the first to use them on any scale. But Emile Senart, one of the
early and great masters of Indian epigraphy, recognized a long time ago that at
least one of their characteristic features originated in the Northwest. He said in
1890: "It is in the Northwest that developed votive formulae first appear,"21 and
little has appeared since that would affect this observation. Given that such de­
velopments occurred i n the Northwest, and that the Northwest is so comparatively
rich i n early inscriptions, it is again probably not coincidental that our monastic
Code has a good deal to say about what we would call inscription�, and it is-to
my knowledge-the only such Code that does .22
Some of what our Code says about inscriptions is a little startling-even
outrageous-and a glance at it not only will therefore serve the purpose of telling
us something about monastic conceptions of i nscriptions but also might introduce
the uninitiated to the style, verve, and sometimes droll humor of this Code, as well
as to the monastic world out of which it comes. The first text we might look at
involves putting restrictions on the monastic use of inscriptions and tells the Stoty
of how the bowl of the famous monk Anituddha ended up in a whorehouse.
Aniruddha, according to the text,n had a YO'lng disciple who looked after his
bowl. But because the young disciple washed both his own and Aniruddha's bowl
together, they often got confused, so the disciple wrote on Aniruddha's bowl: "The
bowl of the Preceptor Aniruddha" <des IJhe dang ldan pa ma gagJ pa'i Ihung bud la
Jlob dpon ma gag.l pa'i Ihung bud (t.I yi ge bri.l .10). Once, however. both went to a fine
meal at the house of a layman. After the meal, Aniruddha left, but the disciple
stayed behind to wash their bowls. While he was doing so, the layman asked to
borrow a bowl so he could send some of the fine fooJ to his favorite prostitute. and
the disciple gave him Aniruddha's bowl. The layman filled it with food and sent
it to his favorite whore. When she poured out the food, she saw the writing on the
bottom of the bowl (/hung bud kyi zhab.l la yi ge (Jug pa mthong na.l). When she read
it-the text points out that for a woman she was clever-she thought to herself,
"It is not right for me to desecrate in this way the bowl of that Noble One who is
worshiped by gods and men," and she rubbed it with perfume, filled it with sweet­
smelling flowers, and placed it on a painted stand (khri'u IJhon gyi.l bri.l pal. It was,
of course, bad enough that a famous monk's bowl ended up in a private shrine in
a whorehouse, but more was yet to come.
Art, Beallty, ar.d Iht BlililrlJ' of RlIRni"K a Buddhisl /II111t4J1try 23

When another of her custOmers arrived "bringing five hundred 1eii�'JIZI,

perfume and garlands" and wanted to get right down to it, she put him off: "Wait
a minute-do worship to the bowl!" He replied, "Where did this bowl come from?
Whose is it, anyhow?" She rold him as much as she knew, and he misunderstood
even that, accusing her, in effect, ofservicing renouncers (pravrajifa). She, of course,
denied what he implied, but the damage was done.
This little tale, written by a monk for other monks and bordering on bur­
lesque, is used to justify the rule that "monks must not write what is not meant
ro be wrirren!" (de Ila hal na dgt Iiong dag mi 1m ba rna 1m shig), which includes
"what pertains to separate individuals" (gang zag so so; palldgalika}--that is to say,
a monk should not inscribe his private property. This rule, of course, makes writ­
ing some of the sorrs of inscriptions that we actually find-notably on the shards
from the Buddhist levels at Mohenjo-daro-an offense, bur it was clearly a mi­
nor offense, and such inscriptions are in any case surprisingly rare.24
A second text from our Vina)'a that deals with inscribing objects also deals
with a potentially embarrassing situation for the monastic order. 25 In this text it
is said that a householder had or owned tWO l,iharaJ (or monasteries), a forest vihara
and a village t'ihara (khyim bdag gag la gUlig lag khang dgon po dang I grong mfha' pa
gn)'iJ yod naI).26 The village t'ihara was well and abundantly furnished, bur the for­
est vihara was nOt. On the occasion of a festival (dlis IIon), the forest monks wanted
ro borrow furnishings, bedding, and seats from the village monastery, but the vil­
lage monks refused. The Buddha intervened and ordered that they must be lent.
But the text does nor end here, although a clear ruling had been established, because,
it seems, the real issue had nor yet been engaged.
The text goes on ro say that at the end ofthe festival the forest monks thought
to themselves: "This (forest) I'ihara too belongs ro that (same) householder" (de dag
glIlig lag khang 'di yang khyim bdag de 'i yin no), and they therefore did not return the
goods, The Buddha again intervened and declared, however surprisingly, "They
must be brought back by force!" (",lhIlI dgllg par bya'o, halad , . . graha'JIZm). There
is absolutely no doubt that this is what the text says; the same exact expression is
also used elsewhere in this Code in regard to the recovery of goods.27
But the text even here is nor yet finished, although a second clear and force­
ful ruling had also been established, The real issue comes-as it usually does in
these texts-at the end, when the monks could not telI which goods belonged ro
what monastery:

The Blessed One said: "Wri.. on them 'these furnishings belong to the forest
monastery of the householder so-and-so,' 'this belongs to the village monastery,'
and as these furnishings are clearly identified, so they are to be used!" (Ixmn Ida"
'Ja, kyiJ bka' JlJal po I gnaJ "",I iii "i khyim bdag {h< gt ",. zhig gi dgon po'i glllIg iag
24 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

leha1lg gi Ji1l no 1 'di 1Ii gro1lg mlha'i gUlig Ltg kha1lg gi yin 110 zhtJ yi gt bri zhi1lg K"'"
mal ji /llIr 1Ig., par by", pa bzhi1l dll /.1Igs S/I)'adpar bya'o).

Although the two texrs so far cired occur in cwo completely different sec­
tions of our Code-one in the ullaragranlha and the other in the Vihhaliga-the
second text is dearly a pendant co the first: the latter indicates that by monastic
rule a monk's private property should not be inscribed; the former that property
belonging co a monastety should be. A third and here final text, however, goes be­
yond both.18 It rules that the name of the donor must be inscribed on the object
given and, in fact, putS in the mouth of the Buddha himself a donative formula
that is virtually identical to some of what we find in actual North Indian dona­
tive inscriptions.
The text says that after King AjataSatru, who had been misled by the evil
monk Devadatta, had killed his father, he wept whenever he saw his father's fur­
nishings (111111 gas). His advisers suggested that he should therefore give them co
the Community of Monks, which he did. The monks, however, arranged them in
the entrance hall (sgo khang, dt.jjrako!!haka) of the monastety and thus defeated the
purpose, for whenever the king visited the monastery, he saw them and once again
wept. The Buddha then said that the furnishings must not be arranged in the en­
trance hall, so the monks first PUt them in an upper room (yang lhog, 1I!!jjla), but
that did not work either, and so they PUt them in a residential cell (gnas khang,
la)'ana), and this turned OUt co be even worse. When "unbelievers" no longer saw
the furnishings, they began co criticize the Community, saying "since these monks
have surely sold or made away with the king's furnishings, merit from giving to
them disappears!" (1l1li dad pa dag gis rgyal po'i 111111 gos ni dge slong dag gis ngtJ par
blsongs Ie zos pas na I de sle phul btI'i bsod nalll1 mi snang ngo zhes dpyas pa 1).29 This of
course would not do, and the Buddha then ordered that the furnishings be peri­
odically displayed, but this served only to confuse the Community'S critics because
sometimes they saw the goods and sometimes they didn't. This whole comedy of
errors-and counrless texts in this VinaYII are structured as such-finally results
in the definitive ruling. The Buddha, in the end, said simply co the monks: "You
must write on the ends: 'This thing is a religious gift of King Bimbisara' and dis­
play ir!" (yon du phul btI'i dngos po iii ni rgyalpo gzugs (an snying po'i yin no zoo mlha'
11111 la yi ger bris Ie zhog shig I).

Fortunately we have a Sanskrit text tOO for what the Buddha ordered should
be written. In his Vinayasiilra-a digest of our Code---Gu�prabha gives it as
de)'adharmo 'yam amukasya,?>O and if we bracket the ever expanding ·pious wishes,"
this is almost exacrly what we find, for example, on some of the inscribed potS re­
cenrly published by Richard Salomon in his remarkable book on the British Li­
brary Scrolls: [a)ya'!l piinaya gha4e de)'a�rme "a[sa)"adalae suso1lllbl haryae . . .
 25

('"This waterpot is the pious gift of Vasavadata, wife ofSusoma . . . ") or aya pa[mlya
gha4tu haJtadatae t�'atJarmahharylU deyadharma . . ("This waterpot is the pious gift
.

ofHastadata . . . wife of Teyavarman . . . ").31 This is also very much like what we
find-as Gerard Fussman has shown-on the Shah-ji-ki Dheri casket inscription:
aYa111 gaf!Ulha-karaf!U/e dtyadhamu . . . mahaJt1I1JJa Ja'!lgharak!idaJa . . . or on the Tor
I;>herai shards, which share as well, as we have seen, a number of other features
with our Vinaya: Jhahi-yola-miraJya viharaJvamiJya dtyadharmo ya'!l prapa. . Y .

We have here, it seems, a remarkable congruence between text and epigraph,

and yet anocher indication that what was stated as a rule in the l'tfiilaJarviiJtivada­
vinaya was actually being practiced before, on, and after the cusp ofour era in North­
west India. And a few further things might be noted here. First, it is immediately
obvious that the "donative formula" found in the text is, by comparison with what
occurs already in the earliest inscriptions, rather undeveloped, and this might sug­
gest that the text is therefore even earlier. Second, it is clear, but probably not so
obvious, that the text, though undeveloped, already carries the seed of what will
grow into full-blown formulae for the "transfer of merit." In the text it is explic­
itly indicated that the gift is actually given by AjiitliSatru, but the Buddha him­
self says that it should be inscribed as the gift ofBimbisara, his dead father. Indeed,
given the ambiguiry and overlap between the genitive and dative cases not only
in Sanskrit and Prakrit but in Tibetan as well, the text could JUSt as well be trans­
lated as "You must write on the ends: 'This thing is a religious gift/or King Bim­
bisiira . · Finally, it is perhaps significant that the text I have treated here is not
..

the only such text in our Code. Another similar one immediately follows it. The
idea, it seems, was worth repeating.H
What we have seen so far of the MiilaJarviiJril'iida-vinaya would seem, then,
to provide good grounds for asserting both a broad contemporaneity and a close
if not intimate connection between much of what it contains and the religious world
of pre-K�iin and K�n North India that is reflected in the epigraphical and ar­
chaeological records. This, of course, might noc have been entirely unexpected.
We know from even old inscriptions that the Sarviistiviidins were widely spread
across Northwest India in these periods,14 and our Code, or Vinaya, is by its title
either "the Original Vinaya 0/the Sarr'iiJth'iidim" or "the Vinaya 0/the Original SarviiJ­
til'iidim," depending on how the compound is read. In fact, the apparent contem­
poraneity between it and early Northwest practice may actually give substance to
the claim embedded in its title.3) But our Code in any case also provides us with
a glimpse into the Buddhist monastic world out of which it comes, and it already
indicates how far removed this world is from that presented in popular works and
textbooks and even in otherwise good scholarly work. The Buddhist monk we see
even in the few passages so far cited from this Code has little in common with the
Buddhist monk who lives in the Western imagination-the ascetic monk who
26 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

wanders alone " Iike a rhinoceros" in rhe foresr, sirs ar rhe roor of a rree in deep
mediration, and has cur all ries wirh rhe world. If rhis monk ever exisred, by rhe
rime of our Code he would cerrainly have been an exceprion, and by no means a
popular one.
Forry years ago Andre Bamiu said nor jusr abour our Code bur abour all Bud­
dhisr monasric Codes: "Ir is true rhar the Vinayapirakas . . . do nor brearhe a word
abour rhe numerous spiritual pracrices, medirarions, contemplarions, erc., which
consritured rhe very essence of rhe Buddhisr 'religion.'"36 And ahhough rhis is
somerhing of an exaggerarion, srill ir should have given all pause for thought. Our
Code, for example, does refer [0 ascetic, medirating monks, but when it does so in
any detail, such monks almost always appear as the butr of jokes, objects of ridicule,
and-nor uncommonly-sexual deviants.37 They are presented as irresponsible and
of the type that give the order a bad name.38 There are texts in our Code where,
for example, ascetic, cemetery monks manage only 10 terrify children;l9 where as­
cetic monks who wear robes made from cemetery cloth are not even allowed into
the monastery, let alone allowed 10 sit on a mat that belongs 10 the Community;40
tales whose only point seem s 10 be 10 indicate that medirarion makes you stupid;41
rexrs abour monks who medirare in rhe foresr and cannor control their male mem­
ber and so end up smashing it between rwo rocks, whereupon rhe Buddha rells
rhem, while rhey are howling in pain , rhat they, unforrunately, have smashed the
wrong thing-they should have smashed desire;42 and a tale about anorher monk
who medirared in rhe foresr and, co avoid being seduced by a goddess, had 10 rie
his legs shur. The goddess being pur off by rhis rhen flung him rhrough rhe air,
and he landed-legs still tied-on rop of the king, who was sleeping on rhe roof
of his palace. The king, of course, was nor amused and made it known 10 rhe Bud­
dha rhar ir would nor do co have his monks being f1un/o! around the countryside
in rhe middle of rhe nighr. The Buddha rhen acrually made a rule forbidding monks
ro medirare in rhe foresr!43 Texrs and rales of rhis sort are numerous in our Code.
The monks wirh whom our Code is concerned are of a very different sorr, as
even our brief survey indicares. In rhe passages so far cired, we find monks who
have servanrs and who do nor even have co wash rheir own dishes; monks who ear
fine meals in rhe homes of prominent laymen; monks who are concerned nor abour
medirarion bur wirh property, wirh marking and maintaining control or posses­
sion of property, and who have and acknowledge personal property. Moreover, the
monks with whom our Code is concerned live-wherher in the foresr or in rhe
village-in monasreries that are owned by laymen, and ir is becoming ever clearer
on rhe basis of rhis Code rhar rhar meant [har rhe monks were in ar leasr some im­
portant ways in the employ of rheir donors. There are rules in rhis Code [har re­
quire, for example, thar monks-regardless of rheir own wishes-musr spend a
part of each day in any viha,a rhar has been "donared," ro ensure rhar none srands
Art. BUNly. and ,''' BMJilltu of RN1I1Ii1lg a BlldJhiJl tlfQ/IaJ/tr)' 27

empty, that all are used, and thus to continue to earn merit for their owner, even
if a single monk has to move from one to another in the course of the same day.44
There are rules that require the monks to recite verses every day for the merit of not
only the owner of the monastery but also each and every donor or benefactor, and
each of their individual names must every day be announced-this in a monastery
of any size could easily have taken up a significant pan of the day.4) There was,
however, an even more serious problem in this "employment: a systemic problem
of far-reaching consequences that involved our monks-and early on it seems­
in money transactions, sophisticated financial enterprises, the promotion of "an,"
and extensive fund-raising projects. It created situations that, for example, the
administrators of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of An, or any institution, might
find uncomfortably familiar.
The problem most simply pur was this: whereas, as we have seen, the obli­
gations of the monks who lived in their monasteries were reasonably clear and
enforceable, the obligations of the owner or donors were much less so. Aspects of
the problem are repeatedly addressed in our Code, particularly the problems of the
maintenance and upkeep of the "physical plant " and the subsistence of its resi­
dents. The problem of monasteries Falling into disrepair is explicitly raised-for
example, in the 5ayaniiJanaVaJIII, "the Section on Bedding and Seats" in our Code,
bur the solution proposed there must have been something less than satisfying.
There the Buddha says:

The donor should be encouraged to make repairs (diiM",,'ir II/Jiiha,.i/41.,a�). If

just that succeeds, it is good. If it does not succeed then they are to be repaired
with Comm un ity assets (Jiimghiu). If that is not possible, insofar as it is possi­
ble, to that extem restoration is to be done. The rest mus t be tolerated (arty.
" II{1t"""at.,ii�).46

Passages of this sort suggest that the redactors ofour Code understood that "donors"
were nor, strictly speaking, obligl-d to maintain their monasteries and could only
be encouraged to do so. Bur these passages also suggest that there was an aware­
ness , if not an expectation, that the donors might nor. Other passages in this same
VaJllI, however, suggest as well that in regard to the related problem of subsistence
the monks might vote, as it were, with their feet.
In one such passage,47 for example, a householder goes to a monastery and
hears the Elder of the C.ommuniry reciting verses and "assigning the reward or
merit" (Ja�i,!iim iidiia/) to its deceased (abhyalilaleiilagala) donors.48 He says to the
monk: "Noble One, if I have a t·ihiira built, would you assign the merit to my
name also?" (iirya yady aham l ihiira,!1 karayiimi mamdpi niimnii Ja�i,!iim IIddifasi).
'

The monk says yes, and the householder has a vihiira built, ··but he gave nothing
28 BUDDHIST MOSKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

ro it and it remained unoccupied" (tal.iilltna na kimcid Jallam Sa Iii")'a tI'iiI'aslhila�).

The householder sees this and goes ro complain ro the monk: "Noble One," he
says, "myI'ihii.a (lIIadiyo I!ihii.a�) remains empty. No monk resides there." The
monk says, " Sir, it should be made productive (1IISIJtdya)." The householder ini­
tially misunderstands this euphemism and replies, "But, Noble One, it was built
on sterile saline soiL How is it ro be made productive'" To which the monk sa)'S:
"Householder, I did not mean that, but rather that there was no donation (/iibha)
there: The householder says: " Noble One, who now resides in my " ihii.a (madiye
tlihiirt), ro him I will present cloth:
Monks could, them, in effect try ro force the owner of a ,·ihii.a ro provide for
their maintenance by withdrawing or refus ing ro provide their services, but this
of course could be a two-edged sword, and if they tried it, they might find them­
selves not only out of business but also without a home. Moreover, yet another
structural we-..kness arose from the fact that donors-like the rest of us-died.
and the redacrors of our Code were clearly aware of what this could mean. More
than one text in our Code begins with just such a situation. In a passage in the
Vill4yatlibha1iga that we will return ro, we find, for example:49

A devout and good householder with meritorious inclinations lived in a rur.1

hamlet. He had a ,'ihii.a for the Community built in the rol'tSt tiu.t had lofty
gateways and was ornamented with open galleries on the roof . I,!ticed windows.
and railings. It captivated both the heart and the eye, was like a stairway to the
heavens, and lu.d exquisite couches, benches, and furnishings. so The householdet
provided robes alms, and all the needs of the sixty monks who lived the",.
,

But latet tiu.t householdet died. Because he iu.d a son. the monks Went to
him and said: "S«ing, Sir. tiu.t your father lu.d provided robes. alms, dOd all the
needs of sixty monks. are you able as well to provide us, the sixty monks, with
robes alms. and all OUt needs ' -
,

The son said: "Noble Ones, although the", ate some who might look after
a hund�, a ehousand, or ('Yen a hund� thousand. because the", are Others. my­
self included, who iu.ve difficulty making ends meet, I am nor able to do it."
The monks then left that "ihii'a,

In the event of the death of a donor, then. the lack of clarity in regard ro his
obligations while alive that has already been noticed became even more pronounced
in regard to the donor's heirs. The text here suggestS that the redacrors of our ('..ode
considered that the initial response of the monks ro such an event should be ro ap­
proach the heir or heirs to get a confirmation that any arrangement that the donor
had entered into would continue. But it also suggests that there was a clear aware­
ness that the heirs might-and had the right to-simply terminate any such
1\", B","ly, and Iht BIIsin", 0/ Rllnning II Bllddhisl Monasltry 29

arrangement. In fact. the death of an owner or donor created an awkward situa­

tion, The obligations of the monks to a dead donor had been put unequivocally
into the Buddha's mouth: "The Blessed One said: 'Merit must be transferred to
donors who have passed away and are dead!'" (lIkldRI bhagat'alii abhy'alilakiilagaliinii'rl
diinapaliniim Riimnii da�inii iide!lat,ii ill). ' I The Buddha had been made to declare
just as explicitly that a11 1'ihiiraJ must be used, But without some provision hav­
ing been made for the maintenance of both the physical monastery and any resi­
dent monks. neither would have been possible after the donors' death. even though
donors might have acted on the expectation that it would. The redactors of our
Code. moreover. would have us believe that this concern was explicitly articulated
by donors themselves. and that it was in response to their voiced concern that the
monks had begun to accept considerable sums as "permanent endowments" and
to lend those sums out on interest. At least this is how these practices were justi­
fied in one of the two texts in our Vinaya that deal with them.
The Vibhanga text in question. which has been treated in some detail else­
where. opens by saying:'2

At that time the Licchavis ofVaisiili built houses with six or seven upper cham­
bers. As [he Licchavis built their houses. so too did they build " iMIIS . . . . As a
consequence. because of their great height . . . they feU apart. When that occurred.
the donors thought: "If even the "ihiirIlJ of those who are stiU living . . . fall thus
into ruin. how will it be for the vihiirllJ of those who are dead? We should give a
perpetuity to the monastic Community for building purposes."

The donors did give such a perpetuity and then encouraged the suitably reluctant
monks to lend the sums they were given as endowments out on interest, The monks
asked the Buddha and the Buddha said: "For the sake of the Community a perpe­
tuity for building purposes must be lent on interest." A little later in the text this
directive is extended to perpetuities for the benefit of the Buddha. the Dharma. and
the Communiry. The text then concludes with one of the more remarkable pieces
of blltidhat'tlcana that we have. a saying of the Buddha giving detailed instructions
on how to make a loan and how to write a written loan contracr:

The B lessed One said: "Taking a pledge of twice [he value (of [he loan), and writ­
ing out a contract [hat has a seal and is witnessed. the perpetuity is to be placed.
In the COntract the year, the month. the day, the name of [he Elder of the Com­
munity. the Provost of the monastery. the borrower. the properry. and the interest
should be recorded. When the perpe[uiry is to be placed. that pledge of twice the
value is also ro be placed with a trustworthy lay-brother who has undertaken the
five rules of training.
30 BU DDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

Such a financial instrument or legal device is, of course, at least one viable solu­
tion to the problem of institutional maintenance over time, and this SOrt of thing­
like the legal concept ofa "juristic personality"-was very likely pioneered by Bud­
dhiSt monastic communities. There is in fact inscriptional evidence for the use of
such instruments by Buddhist monastic communities from as early as, perhaps,
the first century of the Common Era, but unfortunately not from the Northwest. H
This fact, however, must be tempered by the further fact that records of endow­
ments or land grants, for example, are extremely rare-if they occur at all-in the
pre-Ku�n and K�n epigraphical record from the Northwest. If such trAnsactions
occurred there, and it is hard to imagine that they did not, it appears that they
were simply not recorded in inscriptions.
But in addition to permanent endowments and to lending money on inter­
est, our Code also suggests that the monastic communities it knew or envisioned
could also borrow money. We know this from a remarkable provision of what
can only be called Miilasarvastivadin monastic inheritance law. Because the text
involved is a short one and until recently virtually unknown, it is quoted here in
full:s4

The serring was in Sravasti.

A monk who was the Service Manager (zhal t4 byuIpa. ,'ai)"aJ!rtyaUra) bor­
rowed money (nor) from a householder for the sake of the Community and then
died. When the householder heard that that monk had died. he wem to the ,oiI"ira
and asked: -Where is the monk so-and-so?"
The monks said: ooHes dead:
The householder said: " But, Noble Ones. he borrowed some money from me."
··Well. go and collect it from him then!" the monks said.
" But since it was not for the sake of his patems or himself, but for the sake
of the Community that he took it. you should repay it!"
The monks reported to the Blessed One what had occurred, and the Blessed
One said: "If it is known that he took it for the sake of the Community. then the
Community must repay the loan! I. monks. will here give the rules of custom­
ary behavior for a monk like the Monk in Charge of Construction (las gI4r dll bJtd
pa, """,ka,.",ika): When the Monk in Charge of Construction has asked the
various Seniors ('lair pal, then he must take OUt loans! If Monks in Charge of Con­
struction do not act in accordance with the rules ofcustomary behavior. they come
to be guilty of an offense."

Here we have put into the mouth of the Buddha-the same Buddha who is
said to have declared that "all things are impermanent"-specific instructions
detailing how a monastic officer must, after consultation with the senior monks,
take out a loan from a layman for the use of the monastic community. Obviously,
Art. &aMI]. aNi Iht BIIJi1WJ of Rltn"ing a B""""iJl AI.""" try 31

ifwe chose-as most scholars have-to take the one type of declaration seriously,
but the other not, then we are going to be in no position to fully understand the
buildings that followers of that same Buddha built, nor the potS they used nor ,

the money that they handled. Indeed, there may be for us a further cautionary
tale in that the 1I4vakarmika, the monk who was not only in charge of construc­
tion but who was also to take out loans, is probably the earliest monastic officer
for which we have epigraphical evidence,�� and in the fact that JUSt such an offi­
cer is mentioned in four separate pre-K�n and early Ku�n Kharoghi inscrip­
tions from the Northwest. �6
To this point, then, it seems that we can at least conclude that the redaCtors
of our Code, who probably lived in Early Northwest India, were looking for ways,
and devising means, to secure access to funds and reliable sources of income that
would ensure the continuation of the institution to which they belonged, and
the maintenance of the physical plants that housed it. In the process they, like
so many successful fund-raisers who came after them, seem to have discovered
what St. Bernard in eleventh-century France still found disconcerting. Bernard
did not like elaborate monastic architecture, nor art in monasteries. He partic­
ularly did not like what he thought other monks used them for. He argued, in
fact, that art and fine architecture were being used to attract donations to the
monasteries, and he thought that because, very probably, they were. But in his
exasperation he said: "In this way wealth is derived from wealth, in this way
money attracts money, because by I know not what law, wherever the more riches
are seen, there the more willingly are offerings made.")7 This same principle, or
quirk of human psychology, seems-as I have already said-to already have been
discovered by the redactors of our Code. They at least included in their compi­
lation a significant number of texts that suggest that. Here we can look only at
a few.
Our Code refers to beautiful monasteries in beautiful settings, to paintings
on monastery walls and on cloth, and to a specific image rype, one example ofwhich,
from Sahri-Bahlol, must surely be one of the most beautiful images in all ofGan­
dharan art. �8 But in virtually every case these references refer as well-in one way
or another-to the gifts and donations that such things generate. Even in a case
that might at first sight seem to be an exception to this, it turns OUt to be true.
In a text that we have already seen, for example, an elaborate monastery with "Iofry
gateways" and "ornamented with open galleries on the roof," a monastery that ex­
plicitly "captivated both the heart and the eye," is abandoned after the death of its
donor. But not-the text goes on to say-for long. When "merchants from the
North Country" see this beautiful monastery and discover that its monks have left,
they promptly re-endow it on an even more lavish scale. They say to two old monks
that they find there: �9
32 Bl:DDHIST MONKS A N D BUSINESS MATTERS

Noble Ones. here is alms for three months for sixty monks. Here is alms for the
festival of the eighth day. and for the fourteenth day, and the fifteenth day. Here
are the requisites for medicines for the sick. a general donation. the price for
robes . . . . When the rainy season is over, we will return and provide for the needs
of a hundred monks.

Narratively, the merchants can be responding only to the beaUty and elaborate char­
acter of the monastery, not to what the monks are or do-there are in fact no per­
manent resident monks rhere, and this interpretation is, as we will see, explicitly
confirmed elsewhere. The message here in a tale told by monks to other monks
must have been clear: If you want to have a monasrery that can survive the death
of its donor, then ir too must be capable of captivating rhe heart and the eye­
nor, be ir noticed, the head. 60 Such monasteries, ir seems, were thoughr not only
to survive but also to have been inordinately prosperous. That ar leasr is the sub­
stance of another text that describes in some detail the kinds of wealth that are
found in a beautiful viha,a. There even the cells of new novices have cloth racks
"hung and heaped with cloth"; the Community has a great deal of "bedding and
seats," and even new novices get the seven SOrtS; and the monks' cells are full of
copper vesse1S.61 Beauty, it seems, in part at least means overabundance, and the
association between the two is made not by us but by the redactors of our Code. A
third text that refers to such a monastery typifies a whole series of such texts and
confirms our initial observation. It is of additional interest because it contains the
authorization for monks to maintain stores of rice and to get into the rice-selling
business.
The text in question is so straightforward as to be startling. In it "some mer­
chants from the Northern Road" were traveling:61

. . . they saw " ihara' that had high arched gateways, were ornamented with win­
dows, latticed windows, and milings, "ihii,al that captivated the eye and the heart
and were like stairways to heaven, and they were deeply affected (dadpa, 'gY'Ir I.,
prala",w). They Went to a .,ihii,a and said to the monks: "Noble Ones, we would
make an offering feast (""hod Jlon) for the Community!"

The point here is probably hard to miss. The merchants are explicitly presented
as responding to the appearance of the monastery, and to that alone. They are
moved by its beauty-their heart and eye stolen. The Sanskrit was certainly ei­
ther pralanna or abhipralanna, and it repeatedly occurs in our passages to express
an emorional srare or aesrhetic reaction. It is a term like la'r1vtga, which occurs in
some of the same contexrs, in spite of how it has somerimes been translated, and
in our texrs this aesthetic reaction almost invariably results-as we will see-in
 H

donations.63 But our text also goes on to indicate that attracting dono� can also
involve complications.
When the merchants have declared their intentions to the monks, the monks
tell them to bring what is needed for the meal, but the merchants say they have
only just arrived and would prefer to give the price to the monks and then the
monks can provide the rice. The monks demur, but the Buddha then gives a fim
directive: " When someone makes an offering feast for the sake of the Communi ty,
you must sell them rice!" (rin gyu 'bras sbyin par bya'o). The monks do so, but when
-large numbe�" made such feasts and the monks sold to all of them, "the com­
mon stores were exhausted." The Buddha then gives a second set ofdirectives, which
constitute, in effect, guidelines for running an efficient granary-that is, when
rice is sold for a feast in the same "ihara, a little something extra might be given
for the price; old rice must be sold at "a good time" and the storerooms filled with
new rice; and so on. Clearly, the monks who redacted our Code realized that be­
ing in one business, the business of attracting dono�, required engaging in other
businesses as well, like buying and selling grain.
But if these and other texts like them in our Vinaya link beautiful and im­
posing monastic architecture with the attraction of donations, still othe� articu­
late in addition a linkage between donations and the natural beauty of a monastery's
setting. One example will suffice. In the Chapter on Robes, we find:64

Thore was a householder in a rural hamle,. He had a vihiira made, bu, only one
monk rntrrt'd into [he rainy- season reueat there. That monk, however, was t'n­
erge,ic. Every day he smeared ,ha, I'ihii,a wi,h cow dung and swep' i, well. Well
mainrained was ,ha, "ihii,a, and si,ed in a lovely isola,ed spo' adorned wi,h all
sortS of ,rees, fill ed wi,h ,he soft sounds of geese and curlews, peacocks and par­

rots, mainas and cuckoos, adorned wi,h various flowers and fruirs.
Once a weal'hy ,rader spent the nigh, in ,ha, "ihii,a. When he saw 'he beau­
"ihiira (cihiiralobba,!,) and ,he beau,ies of irs woods (1Ipa!'all4lobba",),
,ies of ,ha,
he was deeply moved <aMi"'dJ4,,1f4), and ai, hough he had no' seen 'he monks,
he disparched in ,he name of 'he Comm uniry a very considerable dona,ion
(",aMilo I4bba,?).

This little tex, too probably req uires li,rle commentary, in parr because in
bo,h its structure and irs basic vocabulary it repeats 'he orhe� we have seen, and
in part because it is so clear. There are of course "new" elements of interest, but
the basic account is what might already be called "the same old Story." A wealthy
merchant comes to a "ihara, and when he sees its beauties, he is struck, moved,
or affected-once again the term is abhiprasanna-and he makes a large dona­
tion. What is different here is that although, again, the "ihara itself is attractive.
the emphasis is not so much on it as on what might be called the aesthetics of or-
34 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUS I NESS MATTERS

der and cleanliness and the beamy of its sening. If the early Norchwest was any­
thing like modern India. it is noc difficu1c [0 see how a clean and well-maintained
monastery might make a distinCt impression. But the natural beaUty of the site
itself is most fully described. and it is this. perhaps. that our redac[Ors want most
[0 emphasize. The site of the monastery is here described very much in the same
terms that our Code repeatedly uses [0 describe the narural beauties of a park or
garden (lldyana) in spring. and thereby it assimilates the two.M Though oddly
litde srudied. Indian literature-both religious and secular-is saturated with
thick and sensuous descriptions of such "parks." and they clearly had strong aes­
thetic appeal. Western archaeologists from Cunningham [0 Stein have also re­
peatedly remarked on the sometimes srunning natural beauty of the sites of Bud­
dhist monasteries. and our text would seem [0 indicate that their selection was
almost cercainly not accidental.66 Apart from these considerations. we perhaps
need only note here that our text makes explicit what in the previous texts was
only strongly implied: This merchant was responding solely and simply [0 the
beauties of the lIihara and its setting-the text explicidy says that he never even
saw the monks.
Having seen what we have in the discussion of our textS so far. when we get
[0 what we call "arc: there are no surprises. As ZUrcher and others have noced.
our monastic Code is comparatively rich in references [0 "arc: although the "art"
it refers [0 is predominandy painting.67 Here I must limit myself to some brief
remarks on two such texts whose basic point will sound perfecdy familiar.
One of the texts on monastic arc in our Code has been known for some time
now. It deals with the famous lay-brother Anathapi�<jada. who was seeking and
gaining permission from the Buddha [0 have paintings in the equally famous
monastery that he "donated" [0 the Order.68 The language that he is made to use.
and the reasons he is made [0 give for wanting paintings in the monastery. are par­
ticularly interesting but can. of course. be securely attributed only [0 the monk or
monks who composed or redaCted the texc. They. or Anathapi�<jada. did not. ac­
cording to the text. want arc in the monastery to instruct either the laity or the
monks. nor to serve as objects of devotion or as aids to meditation. They or he wanted
this arc for a very different reason. and the text he�e tOO seems [0 be remarkably
straightforward. It begins:

When the householder Anathapil)<)ada had given the Jetavana Monastery to the
Comm uniry from the Four Directions. it occurred to him then: "Since there arc
no paintings. this monastery is ugly (di ri mo 1114 bris pas mi stiNg st.). If. therefore.
the Blessed One were to authorize it. it should have paintings." So thinking. he
went to the Blessed One and sar down at one side. So seated. the householder
Anathapil)<)ada said this to the Blessed One: "Reverend. the Jetavana is ugly be-
Art, iJt4l1ty, aU Ibt Bllsiness 'f R"."i.g a BIIJtihiSl Mo""Sltry 35

cause I did not have paintings made. The...,fo...,. if the Blessed One we..., to au­
thorize it. I will have paintings made (he...,. -
The Blessed One said: -Householder. with my authorization. paintings the...,­
fore muse be made!-69

As if to make sure that no one missed the point. the redactors repeat it twice: There
should be paintings in the monastery because without them it is ugly or not beau­
tiful. And no other reason is here given.7o
The text continues with the Buddha's giving specific instructions on the place­
ment of specific paintings-the Great Miracle and the Wheel of Rebireh are to
be painted on the porch; the garland ofJiitakas on the gallery; a Ja/efa holding a
club at the door of the Buddha's shrine; the various Elders in the meeting hall;
and so on.71 This much of the tradition has been known-if not fully appreciated­
for some time. but an equally imporeant text related to the paintings in the Jeta­
vana that occurs in the same section of our Code has gone completely unnoticed.
Its purpore will be almost immediately familiar:72

Afrer (he householder Anathapi�<!ada had given the Je(avana Monastery co (he
Community of Monks from (he Four Directions. and had had it finished both
inside and out with various sorts of colors. and had had paintings done. then
crowds ofpeople who lived in Sravasti heard how (he householder Anathapi�<!ada
had finished (he Jetavana both inside and out with various sores of colors and
paintings and had made it remarkably fine. and many hundreds of thousands of
people came (hen to see the Jetavana.

The text to this point is not subtle. and it is hard to imagine that any monk who
was in charge of a monastery could miss the point: People would hear about a
monastery that had paintings. and they would come-in large numbers, But the
rest of the text is no more subtle. It concerns a brahmin from Sr-avasti to whom. the
text says. "the king and his ministers and the local people were much devoted"­
paintings will apparently attract not just people but the better sore as well. The
text says that this brahmin had received from the royal coure "an extremely costly
woolen blanket" (chm po la \u pa'j la bal, and then-by now almost predictably:'3

Once when he was wearing that blanket. he went co the Jetavana co see irs won­
ders (/soJ mo, kiitahala). Just as soon as he saw it. he was greatly moved (dmi p"
cbtn po skJtl ""s), and he gave that woolen blanket to the Communiry of Monks
from the Four Di=tions.

The first thing to note here is that we again have a text that makes explicit what
is only strongly implied in most others: The presence of things beautiful-in this
36 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSIN ESS MATTERS

case paintings chac are explicicly said co be "a wonder" or "a marvel"-accrace
people. Ie is explicicly said chac che brahmin went [0 che monascery [O see "ics won­
ders: noc, be ic noced, [0 see che Buddha or che monks or co hear che Dharma.
Aparc from chis, we see only whac we have already seen before: An individual sees
whac is beauciful, is deeply moved, and makes a large donacion. Ie is chis lase chac
che cexc is mosc interesced in, and ics value is explicicly scaced : The blankec noc
only was a royal gift bur also is explicicly described as "excremely coscly." Ies value
is furcher emphasized by che face chac as che cexc continues che brahmin cries [0
gee ic back! And ic is even more scrongly emphasized by che furcher face chac ics
donacion requires and effeccs a significant change in escablished monascic rules.
Prior co chis occasion, rhe rule escablished by che Buddha was chac all cloch do­
naced [0 che Communicy musr be cur up and divided equally among che monks.74
Buc che donacion of chis coscly cloch led rhe Buddha himselfco modify chac rule­
[0, ic is easy [0 see, che macerial benefic of che monks. He is made [0 rule: " Hence­
forch, monks, whacever donacion of cloch of chis sore falls [0 che Communicy muse
be sold for cash (kiir!apa,!a) and che cash divided among che monks (de /Ia hal na
dge 'JIm fa go.! lryi rnyeJ pa de /Ia bll grllb pa gang yin pa de kar lba pa 'fa Jag III bIgYllr
/a kar lha pa 'fa Jag bgo bar bya'o). This ruling, which rtqlliru che monks [0 engage
in commercial c ransaceions and [0 ace as cloch merchants is, in facc, rhe main point
of rhe entire account. Buc becween che selling of cloch and che buying and selling
of rice and a whole hosc of ocher such accivicies, ic is hardly surprising, chen, chac
large numbers of coins have been found aC Buddhisc monascic sices.
These cexcs dealing wich che paineings in che jecavana are probably rhe mosc
imporcane cexcs in our Code dealing wich monastic arc. There are of course och­
ers, buc rhere is liccle poine i n creacing chem in decail-che), all in one way or an­
ocher cell che same s[Ory. The well-known cexc dealing wich che Wheel of Rebirch
paineed on che porch of che jecavana is, in che end, abour che donacion of a monas­
cic feasr rhar cosc five hundred kii'"!iipanaI, alchough che painting was originally
intended for didaccic purposes or co frighcen che monks;') che account of che painted
image of che Buddha on cloch chac was sent [0 a Sri Lankan princess is, in che end,
abouc a magnificent donacion of pearls char provided one of che occasions on which
che Buddha himself defined che chreefold economic and corporace scructure of che
monascic Communiry-ic culmi naces in a ruling chac mandaces how rhe chree equal
parcs of such a donacion musc be used.'6 Even che imporcane series of cexcs in our
Code chac deal wich che specifically named "Image in che Shade of che jambu Tree"
follows che same paccern. This specifically named image noc only provides anocher
remarkable linkage between our Vinaya and che arc of che Norchwesc-several
clearly ideneifiable examples of chis named image have already been recognized in
che Gandharan corpus, and chere is an inscribed Ku¥in example made i n Machuca
buc found ac Saiki-buc che cexcs chac deal wich ic also provide a unique and de-
 37

tailed set of rules governing monastic image processions, image processions that
are explicidy said to generate large donations and are dearly meant to do so. This
series of texts in fact, as now must seem perfecdy fitting, ends with another set of
rules governing monastic auctions, which rum those abundant offerings into cash."
What we see and have seen here is, then, the monastic view of the funnion of
beauty and what we call "art" in the monastery. There may have been other views­
there almost certainly were-but they are not expressed in the MilaSIJrviiJfiviiila­
"�inaJa, an important monastic Code that almost certainly was wriHen or redacted
in Early Northwest India. In the Early Northwest those other views appear to have
been expressed by dissident monks who would come [Q form what we call "the
Mahayana: but they-like St. Bernard and for many of the same reasons-appear
at least originally to have disapproved of art and [Q have had litde or no interest
in promoting elaborate monasteries.78 All of this, at the very least, must be sober­
ing. Clearly we have much more to learn about the Buddhist monks who handled
the coins we collect and used the potS that we classify. They were not, it seems,
what we have been told they were.

Notes

I . Examples of early work published on rhis Vinaya i nc lude, fint of all, A. Csoma de
Kortis, "Analysis of rhe Dulva. A Ponion of rhe Tibetan Work Entitled the Kah-gyur," lui­
alii. Rtstarrht1 20 (1 836) 41-93 (later translated into French in L. Feer, ArwlYll ali Ita""­
jDIIr. Rtaltil tk< Inns satriI all lihd (Annales du muse., guimer U] (Paris: 1881) 146-198).
In rhe 1 870., A. von Schiefner published a long series of papen under the riele "Indische
ErUhlungen" in 8"lltli" '" /'aeaJlmi, i",plrial, tk< s(itt/as '" SI.-Ptlmbo!wg (listed in detail
in Panglung, Di, EniihlSlof/t tk< lIIilaJan'iistif.'iida- Vinaya, 254-255), which were in rum
translated into English in W R. Ralston, Tihdan Tal.. Dtri,wifrom l""i"" SfIIImS (london:
1882), making available a significant sampling of the narrarive literature found in this
Vt"")a-indeed the work might have been more accurarely enritled "Tales or Stories from
rhe lIIilaJan'iisln'iida -,'ilUl)a: though . very few of the "tales" came from ebewhere. W W
Rockhill also did earl)' important work on this Vi"")a (Rockhill, Le traire d'emancipa­
"

rion ou Prarimoksa Surra: RHR 9 (1884) 3-26, 167-201 ; Rockhill, "Tiberan Buddhisr
Binh-Stories: Extracts and Translations from rhe Kandjur:JAOS 1 8 ( 1 897) 1-14; Rock­
hill, Tht Lif' of Iht 811ddha a"" Iht Ea,ly HiJIIJl'y of His 0""" D"itwifr- Tihd"" w..!J i"
Iht 8kah-HgYII' ""a 8sta"-Hgy,,, (london: 1907) .
2, lamotre, Hisloi... all hoMddhismt i"aitt/, 727,
3. For references and funher, somerimes overlapping discussion, see G. Schopen, " The
Bones of a Buddha and the Business of . Monk: Conservative Monastic Values in an Early
Mahayana Polemical Tract: jlP 27 ( 1 999) 292-293 (FFlII 8 Ch. III); and Schopen , Vaijo
blik/,yj i.�i jidai, 39ft".
38 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

4. For bu, one prominent example, see J. W de Jong, R�iew of Falk, Sehrifi '''' allrll
I"Jim, II} 39 ( 1996) 69.
5. Sa';ghab"'J.nUJfIl (Gnoli) i, -General Introduction: xix.
6. Bhal!"jy"'''SIII, GMs iii I . 1 .20-2.5-for ,he reading of 'his passage in ,he Gilgi'
manuscrip' i,self (GBMs vi 952.2) and some discuss ion, see Schopen, Daijo bliltltyiJ k.ki ,idai,
42-45.
7. In ,he short -Introduction" he wro'e to J. Przyluski, "k nord-oues, de !'inde dans
Ie vinaya des mulasarvis'ivadin e' les ,extes apparentk: JA (1914) 49}-568-Przyluski
,ransla,es here ,he Chinese ,ransla,ion of 'his -mihi,mya- done by I-ching.
8. Ed. Huber, -hudes bouddhiques. III-k roi kani�ka dans Ie vinaya des mulasarvis­
,ividins: BEFEO 1 4 ( 1914) 18: -qui ,enden, a mon'rer que Ie Vinaya des Mula-Sarvis,,­
vadins a subi un remaniemen, aux environs de I'ere chre,ienne." This paper of Huber's,
moreover. was also ,ransla,ed into English shortly af'er irs original publication in G. K. Na­
riman, U""ary HistlW] o{S4IJJkril BliddhislII (Bombay: 1919) 274-275 .
9. See as a small sample: Say"rtiisaJlalwllI (GnoIi) 3.19; Bha'!4jy"' 'aSIII, GMs iii 1 , 55.12;
p,.",.,ajya.wllI, GMs iii 4. 56.12; Vibhaliga, Derge Ca 2470.7,)a 690.2 Dil-yiil'tlulla (Cow­
•

ell and Neil) 493. 1 5 ; etc.

10. See G. Schopen, The lay Ownership of Monasteries and the Role of the Monk
-

in Mulasarvistivadin Monasticism: jlABS 19.1 ( 1 9<)6) 81-1 26 [. Ch. VIll below);

Schopen, -Marking lime i n Buddhist Monasteries. On ('.alend... , Clocks, and Some Litur­
gical Practices: in S;'ryaca"Jriiy". Essays ill H."OIIr of Akira Y..yama ." I'" Oeeasi." of His
65th Birthday (Indica et Tibetica 35). ed. P. Harrison and G. Schopen (Swisttal-Odendorf:
1998) 1 58-179 [ . Ch. IX below). At this stage of our ignorance, it appears that although
,he title Vibaran';;",,,, migh, not be exclusive to MUiasarvistivadin sources, it may well be
predominantly a Mulasarvistivadin term. Th. Damsteeg,. Epigraphf(al HyhriJSa"skril (ki­
den: 1978) 165, says that the title "is apparen tly not found in Pali: and it certainly does
not occur in the PiiJi Villaya, �en though the term sassii",ika occurs in conjunCtion with
,iba,." ,here (Pili Vinaya iii 1 56). The lack of linkages be,ween Pali sources and the epi­
graphical and archaeological records of the Northwest is consistent and points to the lim­
ited utility of the former for understanding the latter.
I I . The passage in ques,ion-Val14vaslll, GMs iii 4. 1 39. 1 1 -. 17-has been discussed
in some derail in G. Schopen. "The Rirual Obliga,ions and Donor Roles of Monk.. in 'he
Pili VI",,],,:jPTS 16 (1992) 87-107 [. BSBM. Ch. IV).
1 2. See, for exarnple. R. Salomon, - The Bhagamoya Relic Bowl lnscnption: II} 27
(1 984) lOS O.2);G. Fussman. "Nouvelles inscriptions Saka (ll): BEFEO 73 (1984) 33 (1 .2),
35 ( 1 . 2). 39 ( 1 1 .7-.9); Fussman. -Nouvelles inscrip,ions Saka (III): BEFEO 74 (1985) 37
( 1 .3); Fussman , "Documenrs epigraphiques kouchans (IV). Aji,asena. pere de senavarma:
BEFEO 75 ( 1986) 2 ( 1 .5); Salomon, - The Reliquary Inscription of Utara: A New Source
for the History of the Kings of Apraca: II} 31 (1988) 169. For ,he inscrip'ion that refers
explicitly to "the merit of Brahma: see R. Salomon and G. Schopen. "The Indravarman
(Avoca) Casket Inscription Reconsidered: Further Evidence for Canonical Passages in Bud­
dhist Inscriptions:jlABS 7. 1 (1984) 1 08 ( 1 .4).
1 3. Th� passage in ques,ion-SanghabhtUvaslli (Gnoli) ii 206. 16-has been noticed
Art. BtaNIy. and lIN BNJintJI of Running II ButidhiJl /oI01IIIJI")' 39

in Salomon and Schopen. "The Indravarman (Avaca) Casket Inscription Reconsidered:

1 2 1-122. but the reservations exp� there in regard to whe,her or not the passage was
original to ,his Vinaya need to he revisited and may well have been overs,ated. The same
or a similar passage also occurs in the EkollaragatlW. for example. but given the nature of
tha, compilation. ,he chances ,ha, it was ,he original source are certainly not better.
14. For convenience. see the references in G. Schopen. " On Monks. Nuns. and 'Vul­
gar' Practices: The Introduction of the Image Cult into Indian Buddhism." ArA 49
( 1 98811 989) 1 58-159 [= BSBM. 243),
1 5. See as a small sample: Bhai!aiJa.IIJlN. GMs iii 1. 55. 12; PravraiJiiswlu. GMs iii
4. 56.12; Pra•.,.ana.'aJIU (Eimer) ii 259. 1 5; VibhaTigll. Derge Ca 247a.7. )a 64b.5 ( Di­ .

.'yiivadana [Cowell and Neil} 488.3. though 'he Sanskri, has been abbrevia,ed). )a 80a.2
(= DiI'Yiivadiina [Cowell and Neil) 505.2).)a 2270. 1 ; etc.
16. Konow. KharoJhlhi i1lJ(Tipliom. LVIII ( 1 24), LXXXVIII (1 72); Liiders. Malh",a
im<'ripliom §§ 44, 46.
1 7. Pra•.,."j)a.'aJlu (Eimer) ii 163 . 1 2. For a Sanskri, 'ex, of ,he formulary, see B.)ina­
nanda. UpaJampadajiiaPli� (Pa,na: 1961), esp. 26.3 for the passage ci,ed. The UpaJalnpa­
diijiiaPlih appears to be an ex[[act from 'he PravraiJiivaJIN. bu, its ,ex<ual his,ory is not
ac<ually known. A [[ansla,ion of ,he emire formulary will appear in ,he new Penguin
BNddhiJI ScripltIro. being edi,ed by D. Lupez.
18. Fo, some 'exts illustrative of this s,rong emphasis on the obligations of precep­
tors and pupils in regard to mu,ual caregiving, especially in times of illness, see t4l11ira­
ka''IIJ1N. Derge Tha 2 1 2b.3-2 1 3b.3, 2 1 3b.3-214a.7. On similiar obligations. again i n times
of illness. of monks for ocher monks with whom they need nOt have a formally acknowl­
edged relationship, see Ciwra"aJlu, GMs iii 2, 124. 1 1- 1 25.9, 128. 1 -1 3 1 . 1 5 (most of these
are briefly discussed at G. Schopen, "The Good Monk and His Money in a Buddhist Monas­
ticism of ,he Mahayana Period: EB n.s. 32.1 [2000} 95-96 [ = Ch. I above, 8-9) . Choara­
'IIJlU, GMs iii 2, 1 24. 1 1 ff, comains a rule requiring monks to undertake acts of worship
(pija) for the benefi, of (Nddilya) a dying fellow monk-a situation that might well lie
behind several of our inscriptions-and is tentatively translated in G. Schopen. "Deaths,
Funerals. and the Division of Property in a Monastic Code: in BNddhiJfn in Practice. ed.
D. S. Lupez Jr. (Princeton. N.J.: 1995> 495-496 [= Ch. IV below. 1 1 4-1 1 5}.
19. S. Konow, "No« on 'he Tor-J:)hrrai Inscriptions," in A. Stein. An Arrha.ological
TON' in WaziriJlan and Nor/h BalikhiJliin (MASI 37) (Calcutta: 1929) 93--97; Konow,
Kharruhlhi InJ(TiplionJ. XCII ( 1 73-- 1 77); cf. the series of pot inscriptions published and dis­
cussed i n R. Salomon. A",'i"'l BuddhiJI S(T'OIIJ from Gandhiirll. TIN BriliJh Library K�/hi
FragmmlJ (Seattle: 1999) 183-247.
20. See t4uJraka'·aJlu. Derge Tha l OSa.6- 1 1 0a.4; see also SayllniiJanllVaJlN (Gnoli)
50.18-51.9 on monastic wells and the monks' obliga,ion to dis<ribu,e wa'er ,here.
2 1 . E. Senarr. "Notes d'epigraphie indienne:)11 ( 1 890) 122. There is now probably
no need to pursue the question raised by Senatt of foreign influence ("l'imitation des for­
mules epigraphiques de l'Occident") on the development of these formulae-they are far
more explicable "par Ie jeu naturd des idees natives" than he could ever have seen, and a
considerable amount of evidence for ,his is found in our Code.
40 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSIN ESS MATTERS

22. Obviously, much more needs to be known about all the Vi",,),as preserved now
only in Chinese before such statements can have any dependable force. For the moment it
can only be said that no such material has been noted so far in these Vinay"s and that no
material of this kind occurs in the canonical Pilli Vi""ya.
23. The text is found atUttaragrantha, Derge Pa 99a.7-100a.6.
24. For the shards from Mohenjo-daro, see E. ]. H. Mackay. Fllrl"" Exta.'ations at
Mohnrjo-Da", (Delhi: 1938) Vol. I, 187; see also Salomon, Anciml Bllddhist Scrolllirom G"n­
dh;ira, 193 (pot A inscription) and 245 (the Kara Tepe example cited). There are some other
possible examples, bur an explicit identification of the "owner" as a monk is generdlly lack­
ing; e.g., S. R. Rao, "Excavations at Kanheri (1969): in Stlldi" in Indian HiJlory .md CIII­
"m, ed. S, Riui and B. R. Gopal (Dharwar: 1 97 1 ) 45; H. Falk. -Protective Inscriptions on
Buddhist Monastic Implements: in Vividharatnaeara'!daea. Fmgabt liir Adelbtid Mm.
(Indica er Tibetica 37), ed. C. Chojnacki et aI. (Swimal-Odendorf: 2000) 254, and the Iit­
erd.tu� cited.
25. Vibhatlga, Derge]a 1 5a.}-1 5b. l-discussed in G. Schopen, " The Lay Ownership
of Monasteries and the Role of the Monk in Miilasarv3stivadin Monasticism," 10 I-I 02 [ .
Ch. VIII below, 230-2 3 1 ].
26. For another example of this stare of affairs, see Sayaniila""''aftll (Gnoli) 40. 1 3:
anJarammD grhaparinii d''tI1I viharall kiirirall tka iira,!)'akiillii� dvifiyo griimiinlikiiniim.
27. See Schopen. -The Lay Ownership of Monasteries: 1 02 n. 44 [ . Ch. VIII be­
low, 252 n. 44] (in the original publication "cited above 14" should be corrected to "cited
above 94").
28. UUaragralltha, Derge Pa I 54b.6-1 5 5a.6 • Tog Na 223a.5-b.7.
29. There is a significant difference between Derge and Tog in regard to the reading
for the second half of this statement. Tog has de Jlt phlll ba'i bsod nams mi mang ngo zhts dpyas
pa, and I have adopred this here. Derge. however, reads de Ingon '''''ng na da mi lnang no zhts
dpyal pa, "since that which was formerly visible now is not." It is possible that the reading
in Derge was influenced by the reading in the corresponding passage in [he very similar
text that immediately follows (see n. 33 below), since there both Derge and Tog have In!',"
na ni Inang "" da [Tog da nil mi Inang no zhts 'ph)'a ba [Tog dpyal pa], but any satisfying de­
termination will have to wait for a proper edition of the text.
30. Vi""yalutra (Sankriryayana) 1 1 9.2 Derge, bstan 'gyur, 'dul ba Wu 98b.3.
=

3 J. Salomon, An(imf BllddhiJl Scrolls from Gandhara , 198, 2 1 8.

32. G. Fussman. "Numismatic and Epigraphic Evidence for the Chronology of Early
Gandharan Art," in Irn"'ligaling Indian Arl, ed. M . Yaldiz and W. Lobo (Berlin: 1987) 79;
Konow, "Note on the Tor-I;>herai Inscriptions: 97.
33. Uttaragrantha, Derge Pa 1 5 5a.6-1 57a.2. This second text-in essentials similar
to the first, although it conrains as well a sermon on the inevitability ofdeath-deals with
the furnishings ("",I gos) of King Prasenajit's grandmother (phyi ",0) that he gave "to the
Noble Communiry ofthe ]etavana" (the same narrative frame is used at Pali Vi",,)'a ii 169.29
to a different end). In this instance, however, the "insctiption" that is to be wri[[en is )111
Ito sha la'i rgyal po gIaI rgyal gyis phlll ba'i [mal] gos, "furnishings [ha[ were given by Prase­
najit, King of KoSaIa." It, then, does not use a pronoun ('Ji, aJam), nor an expression like
Art, B",,,ty, aod IIx 8",i1ltJs ofRNnning a B"ddhiSl M.lraSltry 41

yon dll ph,,1 ba'i dngos po or sbyin par bya ba'j ,hos (tkyadharma-so Vinayasiilra), and SO is even
less developed . Ir also names as the donor the actual giver of the property (Prasenajit), and
not its previous and now deceased owner (Presenajic's grandmother).
34. Already noted in A. Bareau, Les SOCltJ bollddhiqNtJ dN ",Iii "'hieNIdParis: 1955) 36,
1 3 1-1 32, and the sources cited; Lamotte, Histoi.. dll bollddhi",,, indim, 578; and repeated
recently in C. Willemen et aI., San'iiSli.'iida 8Nddhisl S,holaslicism (uiden: 1998) 103-104,
1 1 5-1 16. Inscriptions frum the Nonhwest that refer to the Sarviistivadins, moreover, con­
tinue to be published-Stt Salomon, Anciml Bllddhist Scrolls fro", Gandhiira, 200 (pot B),
205 (pot C>.
35. For some examples of the attempts to son out the relationship(s) between the
Sarviistivadins and the Mulasarviistivadins, see ]. W de long, "l.ts siilrapilaka des san-asti­
vadin et des miilasarviistivadin: in ,\!IIangtJ aindianis"" a la ",,",oirt tit LoNis Rm.,. (Paris:
1968) 395-402; B. Mukherjee, "On the Relationship between the Sarviistivada Vinaya and
the Mulasarviistivada Vinaya: Journal 0/ Asian SINditl (Madras) 2.1 ( 1984) 1 39-165;
Mukherjee, "Shih-sung-Iu and the Reconstruction of the Original Sarviistivada Vinaya,"
BllddhiSl SINditJ 1 5 (991) 46-52; Willemen et aI., San·iisti.'iida BNddhist S,holaslicirm
36-137; F. EnomotO, "'Miilasarviistivadin' and 'Sarviistivadin,'" in Vividharalnakarandaka,
239-250. Referring to work by Przyluski, Holing", and Bareau, Willemen et a!. (p. 87)
say: "Comparative studies of the Vina)apilaka of the Sarviistivadins and of the Mul asarviisti­
vadins reveal that what was later called the Miilasan'iistiviidavinaya is older than the S"nwli­
viida.,inaya, and even older than most other Vin<Zy"pi!akas."
36. A. Bareau, "u construction et Ie culte des stupa d'apres les vinayapi!aka," BEFEO
50 (960) 244.
37. K!Ndraka"aJIII, Derge Tha 102a.5-I04b.2.
38. PO!atiha''IIstN (Hu-von Hinuber) §§ 6. 1-.8.
39. Vihhallga, Derg. ]a 1 54b.2- 1 56b.7,
40. l0"draka"astll, Derge Tha 222b,2-224b. 1 .
4 1 . Vihhallga, Derge]a 79b.7-80b.3 Dh,iit-adiina (Cowell and Neil) 504.25-505.29,
•

42. K!Ndraka''IIstN, Derge Tha 39a.6-b.5.

43. I0Ndraka''IIJIN, Derge Da 35b.2-36a.2; the POftUlha'WIN passage cited in n. 38 above
also explicitly forbids practicing meditation i n the forest: hhag...:iiR iiha I niira,!)', yogo hhiit'a­
Ylla'Jah (§ 6.5).
44. Sayaniisana''IIJIII (Gnoli) 35.1-.1 0. The passage is translated and discussed in
Schopen, "The Lay Ownership of Monasteries," 1 1 3ff [= Ch. VIII below, 238ff]; nore i n
particular n. 65 in which the corresponding passage in the Vifl4)asiitra is also translated.
45. Ultaragranlha, Derge Pa 7 I b.4-74a.2-translated and discussed in Schopen,
" Marking Time in Buddhist Monasteries: 173ff[= Ch. IX below, 270-271].
46 �aJaniiJana''IIJlu (Gnoli) 35.7; Schopen, "The Lay Ownership ofMonast.ries," 1 1 3
. •

[ = Ch. VIII below, 238].

47. SaJ4niiJanar'aJlu (Gnoli) 37.6-. 19; translated in full in Schopen, "The Lay Own­
ership of Monasteries: 92-93 [ = Ch. VIII below, 325-326].
48, Both Vinitadeva's VillaJavihhaligapada.-yiikbyiina (Derge, btsan 'gyur, 'dul ba Tshu
64b.5) and Snapalita's Agama�/"'rak<Z" 'iikh)'iina (Derg., btsan 'gyur, 'dul ba Dzu 73a.5)
42 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSIN ESS MATTERS

make it clear that the Mul asarviistiviidin commentarial tradition understood d.tk!ilJ4", ii.JaiJ
or mNaifto mean the "assigning" or "transfer" of merit. The first, commenting on Vibhaliga,
Derge Ca 1 54a.5, says J<Nf bJhaJ pa zhes bya ba fli Ibyifl pa'i 'braI bll yOflgI JII bmgo ba'o, "'As­
signing the reward' means: transferring the fruit of the gift"; and the second, commenting
on Ki"arakavaIt", Derge Tha 237a.5, says )'0fI bmgo ba fli rhoI Iqi Ibyifl pa fa IOgI pa laI yaflg
d.tg par byllflK ba'i bIrxi flall1I kyi 'braI bll kllfl tiM [read: III) bgo bIha' byaJ [read: by"') pao, "'as­
signing the reward' means: apporrioning the fruit of the merit rhar arises from a religious
gift, "re."
49. Vibha1iga, Derg" Cha 184a. 1 .
50. On this description of, and emphasis on, a beautiful vihiira, see pages 3 1 -32 and
n. 60 below.
5 1 . SayafliiIaIl4WIIII (Gnoli) 37.6.
52. Vibhaliga, Derge Cha 1 54b.3. For a more detailed treatment of rhe passage, see
Schopen, "Doing Business for the Lord: Lending on Interesr and Written Loan Contracts
in the MiifaIarviiJlirofid.t-vill4ya:JAOS 1 1 4 ( 994) 527-554 [ m Ch. III below).
53. See , for references, Schopen, "Doing Business for rhe Lord: 532 nn. 22-25 [= Ch
III below, nn. 22-25), to which might be added B. S. L. Hanumantha Rao et aI., BIIJdhiIl
IfJICTipliom of AfldhraJaa (Secunderabad: 1 998) 192 ("Patagandigudem [Kallacheruvu) Cop­
per Plates ofSiri Ehiivala Chanramula"-this record was apparently discovered only in 1 997
and is potentially very imporrant. It is the only copper-plate inscription of the 14vakus so
far known and is the only record so far of a grant of land by an 14vaku king ro a Buddhist
monastic community. It is therefotl!' particularly unfortunate that it is available only in a
rather primitive transcription that is not accompanied with usable plates or photographs).
[See now H. Falk, " The Patagal)c,liguc,lem Copper-Plate Grant of the Ik�vaku King Ehavala
Ont,mula," Silk Roaa Art aftd Archeology 6 (1 999/2000) 275-283.)
54. Ullaragrafllha, Derge Pa 1 960.7. For a discussion of the text, see now G. Schopen,
" Dead Monks and Bad Debts: Some Provisions of a Buddhis[ Monastic Inheritance Law:'
Ilj 44 (200 1 ) 1 1 5- 1 1 8 [= Ch. V below, 1 37-(38).
55. Its only possible competitor would be the office of bhallidtsaka, which is referred
to in a single inscription from Bharhut (H. Luders, Bharhlll lmrripliom {CII Vol. II. Pr. 2),
ed. E. Waldschmidt and M. A. Mehendaie [Ootacamund: 1 963) 20, A 17).
56. Konow, KharoIh!hi Imrripliom, XIII, LXXII, LXXVI. LXXXII; see also BSBM 1 59,
1 90-191, and notes.
57. C. Rudolph, The " ThiflKI OjGrealer Mamml. · B"""ra ofClairt'allx'J Apologia ana lhe
Mtdi",,1 Allillltk lou'll'" Art (Philadelphia: 1 990) 280-281 (for borh rhe Larin rexr and
the translation cited here). For another translation, see M. Casey and ]. Leclercq, CiJltrriam
ana ClII"iaa. 51. Bernard'J Apologia 10 Abbol William (Kalamazoo. Mich.: 1970) 65; see also
P. Fergusson, Archil«fll,. of Solillltk. CiJlerrian AblxyJ i" Tu�lfth-Cmll1ry EflglanJ (Prince­
ton, N.].: 1 984) I I ff.
58. See n. 77 below.
59. Vibhaliga, Derge Cha 1 84a. 1 .
60. This description of a beautiful vihiira is so common in our ViNaJa that ir consti­
tutes a cliche; for some other examples, some of which will be cired immediately below.
Art. BMu/) . and Iht BUSIn'" of Running a Butidhisi ltlonasitry 43

see Vihhaliga. Derge Ca I Bb.3; Cha 148b.2, I 56b.4; Nya 14 1a.6, 146b.4, 147b.3; Pra...a­
nat'aslu (Eimer) ii 271 .8, 273. 1 2; etc. The last two of these are particularly interesting
examples that combine the description of a beautiful vihiira with another formula, dis­
cussed below, that describes the natural beaUty of a park in spring; and both also contain
a further characterization of the vihiira as lha'i gnas lIar dpal gyiJ 'bar ha. Happily we also
have a Sanskrit version of this simile: Pra• .,.ajya.'aJlU (NatherIVoge1/Wille) 255.33-
dn'ahhat'anam iva friya fl'IJlantam, "like the dwelling of a god, shining with splendor: This
is a remarkable figure of speech to apply to a Buddhist monastery.
6 1 . Vihhaliga , Derge Ca 1 5 3b. I If.
62. Vihhaliga, Derge Cha 1 56b.4.
63. For the richness of the terms p..asanna and ahhip..asanna, see, for now, Schopen,
"The Lay Ownership of Monasteries" 98-99 and n. 39 [ = Ch. VIII below, 228-229J; and
note, for now, [hat there is almost certainly a connection between the Buddhist use of these
terms in the context of donations and the dharmafauric notion of "tokens of affection"
(p..asatia) as a distinct category of property that is excluded from partition (for some ex­
amples of the latter, see L. and R . Rocher, "Ownership by Birth: The Mitik?'ii Stand,"jlP
29 (2001) 247-248).
64. Cil'tzra"aslu, GMs iii 2, 107. 1 1 .
65. Salighahhttia"aJlu (Gnoli) ii 109.10, 1 2 1. 5; Sayaniisanavastu (Gnoli) 32.3; erc.
66. A. Cunningham, Tht Bhiha Topes or ButidhiJl AfonummtJ of Cmtra/lndia (London:
1854) 320-32 1 ; A. Stein, On Alexander'J Track 10 Iht InduJ <London: 1929) 17-18, 35.
67. See E. Zurcher, "Buddhist Art in Medieval China: The Ecclesiastical View," in
. 21-24
Fun<lion and ltItaning in Buddhist Art. Proem/ings ofa Seminar He/dal Leidm U ni,....iry
OClohtr 1991, ed. K. R. van Kooij and H. Van der Veere (Groningen: 1995) 1-20, esp. 6;
and before him, A.C. Soper, "Early Buddhist A[[irudes towards [he Art of Painting: Art
Bulletin 32 ( 1 950) 147-1 5 1, and P. Demieville, "Bursuw," HOhogirin, troisicme fascicule
(Paris: 1974) 2 1 Off.
68. For the account of the founding of this famous monasrery in the AfiilaJaniiJlivatia­
vinay", and on [he disrinct possibili[y [hat the purchase of its sire by Aniithapi..,9ada was
highly illegal, see G. Schopen. "Heirarchy and Housing in a Buddhis[ Monastic Code. A
Transla[ion of [he Sanskri[ Tex[ of [he Sa>aniiJanavaJlu of [he AfiilasarvaJlivada-vinaya. Parr
One," BuddhiJl Lileralure 2 (2001 ) 98-99 n. VIII.7.
69. K!udraka"mu, Derge Tha 225a. 3ff. Though much of this a£count found in the
Ksudrakat'aslli was summarized or partly translated already by both W W Rockhill (Tht Uft
oflht Buddha, 48 n. 2) and M. Lalou ("Notes sur la d<':otation des monasteres bouddhiques:
RAA 5.3 [ 1 930} 183-185), this important opening paragraph was entirely ignored.
70. Virtually [his same reason-and it alone-is repeatedly given elsewhere in the
MiilastmJiiJlifJada-IJinaya [0 justif}· several llUpaS and images,
significant elements of both
and several elements of the ricual accivicy directed coward chern as well. In che Utlaragranlha,
for example, when Aniithapi..,dada has a sliipa builc for the hair and nails of the Blessed
One, and "when, because it was not plastered, it was ugly (mi "",us pa)," he then seeks and
receives permission co have it plastered, repeating in full the reason: ·so long as it remains
unplastered, it is ugly (mi "",ztJ pa)." In the same way it is said that a Sliipa is not beauti-
44 BUDDH IST MONKS AND BVSINESS MATTERS

ful when there are no lamps. when the tailing sutrounding it has no gateway (ria bah1 =

lora'!4). when flowers given to it wither. etc and in each CllS<' this aesthetic consideration­
.•

and it alone-results in tho Blessed Ones ordering that this aesthotic deficiency h< remedied.
that 11iipa1 be provided with lamps. their tailings be provided with lora'!41. etc. (UUa'a­
",a1l1h... Dorg< Pa 1 14a.3ff. 1 20b. I ). A fuller summary of those passages-not always <n­
tirely d<p<ndabl<-can be found in P. Dor;ee. Sllipa a1ld 111 T«h1lology. A Tibtlo-Bt«Idhill
Ptr1fJ«1n. (New Delhi: 1996) 4-7. Dor;ee paraphrases 1IIi mdw pa' gyll' na/1I4J as " would
app<ar unattractive: "did not look nice: "looked unattractiv<"). The same "argument:
using the same language. is also used to justify providing "the image of the Bodhisattva"
(b)'a1lg chllh 1t1f1j Jpa'i gzug1; i.< of Siddhanha) with ornaments. with carrying the image
.•

on a wagon. with providing that wagon with flags. bann<:rs. and so on-and in each CllS<'.
it is said that the reason for doing so was so that the image or processional wagon would
not be ugly (mi ",aw pa)--Ulla,ag,a1lIha. Derge Pa 137bAff.
7 1 . A digest of this part of the text is preserved in Sanskrit-see ViM)'a1ii"a (Sankrit-
yayana) 114.16-.3 l .
72. 14uJrakawslll. Dorg< Tha 262bA.
73. IVlldrai1a.'allll. Dorge Tha 262b.7.
74. lVuJ,aleavallll. Derg< Tha 205b.7-207b.3.
75. Vibht.1iga. Derge Ja l 1 3b.3-1 22a.7. A Sanskrit version of this text has come down
to us as an extract now found at Dirya.>tdana (Cowdl and Ndl) 298.24-3 1 1 . 10. For a trans­
lation of the first part of the text from its Chinese translation. Stt J. Przyluski. "La roue de
la vie � aja(l11,"jA (1920) 31 3-3 19; and for Sanskrit fragmems of a seemingly similar tex'.
see B. Pauly. "Fragmems sanskrits de haute asi< (mission p<lliot): jA (1959) 228-240.
76. Adhileara'!4W1111 (Gnoli) 63.1 6-69.2-a1' yo h"Jdha1ya hh4gdJ lnuJ gd1ldhakMryam
p.-altpa� dadala; JO tihar1ll<l1Yd 14 dh..""",h..ran411/ plldgalanii�; y,,-,! 14�gh..1ya la", 141llag'al}
141llgho bh..jdJdlli; cf. Schop<n. "Deaths. Funerals. and the Division ofProp<rty in a Monas­
ric Code: 500 [ . Ch. IV h<low. 1 1 9].
77. The fullest treatmem of these texts so far may be found in Ch. IV of FFMB. en ­
tided "On Sending Monks Back to Th<ir Books: Cult and Conservatism in Early Mahayana
Buddhism."
78. See G. Schop<n. "The Bones of a Buddha and tho Business of a Monk: Conserva­
tive Monastic Values in an Early Mahayana Polemical Tract:jlP 27 (1 999) 279-324; and
Ch. IV of FFMB.
 CHAPTER I I I

Doing Business for the Lord

Lending on Interest and Written Loan
Contracts in the Mulasarvastivada,vinaya

IT IS PROBABLY fair co say that there has been litde discussion in Western schol­
arship about how Indian Buddhist monasceries paid cheir bills. Ie is possible, of
course, thac chis is in parc because money and monks have had, co be sure, an un­
happy hiscory in the West-at least as that hiscory has ofcen been writcen-and
the copic may therefore be considered somehow unedifying. I Ie may also be crue,
as Peter Levi's "Scudy of Monks and Monasteries" suggestS, that we like our monas­
teries in "ruins," as "landscape decoracions and garden ornamencs." "That," Levi
says, "is because the ruins of monasteries speak more clearly chan che real inhab­
ited places."2
However chis be evencually setded, ic appears chac chis reticence or ro manti­
cism has worked less forcefully in regard co the study of China. Why chis was so
is agai n uncerrain, but one effect of it is not: much that a srodenc ofIndian monas­
cic Buddhism might find surprising in che MiilaJaroiislil'iida-vinaya, for example,
will be old hat co economic and legal hiscorians of China. A parricularly good in­
scance of chis sorr ofching occurs in the Ci''llravaJlu of the Miilasaroiisliviida-vinaya,
where we find the following passage: lalra bhagaviin bhikJ.iin iimanlrayale sma. bhiija­
yala yiiya!!1 bhikJ.ava upanandasya bhikJ.or mrtapaN!kiiranl iIi. bhikJ.ubhi� sa'!1ghama­
dhytat'atiirya vikriya bhiijitam. On one level the meaning of chis passage is strught­
forward : "In this case the Blessed One said co the monks: 'You, monks, must [528]
divide che estate of the dead monk Vpananda!' The monks, having brought ic and
having sold it in the midsc of che communiry, divided (the proceeds)."� It looks
like there was a kind of "public" sale or aucrion of the belongings of a dead monk
that was held by the monks. and thac whac was realized from this sale was then
distributed co the monks in actendance.

Originally published in JounIPl of the Amtrican Orimlal Society 1 14.4 (1994) 527-553.
Reprin[ed wi[h srylis[ic changes wi[h permission of American Orienral Sociery.

45
46 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

Although there is a second reference to "selling" the goods of a deceased monk

in this same passage, this procedure, seen through the eyes of an Indianist, will al­
most certainly appear unusual. But readers of ). Gernet's remarkable Us aspects
iconomiqlltJ dll bollddhis11le dam la socilll chinois, dll v all x' si«I, will already be fa­
miliar with it. In discussing the "division of the cloth� of the deceased among the
monastic communiry," Gernet said-almost forty years ago-that "the documents
from Tun-Huang show how the clergy of the same parish (chim, Skr. sima) gath­
ered for the auction of clothing and pieces of cloth. The proceeds were subsequently
divided among the monks, nuns, and novices of both sexes. "4
Professor Gernet, who for good reason paid less attention to the Vinaya of the
Miilasarv astivadins, seems to have thought that "there is no mention in the Vinaya,
however, of the sale of the clothing of deceased monks" and that "the Vinaya of
the Mah�ghika alone makes a very discrete allusion to this method of divi­
sion," although he himself then quot� short passages from both the Vinaya of the
Sarvastivadins and "la Mat�ka [des Miilasarvastivadinl"" that refer to the sale of
monastic robes,' and Lien-sheng Yang had already some years before noted that
"a [Miilasarvastivadin) vinaya text translated in the early Tang period, however,
indicat� that in India sale by auction was used to dispose of such personal be­
longings" of deceased monks.6 Yang's assertion seems now, in part at least, to be
confirmed by the passage from the Civaravaslll cited above: that passa ge does not
actually contain a word for "auction," but clearly refers to the sale "in the midst
of the communiry" of a dead monk's possessions, and-although it cannot estab­
lish that this was actually practiced in India-it does confirm that Miilasarvasti­
vadin l·inaJa masters thought it should or hoped it would.
Such confirmation from an extant Sanskrit text is, of course, welcome, but
perhaps a more important point is that without the work of sinologists the sig­
nificance of the Civaravaslli passage might easily be missed. Scholars working on
China have in fact often been the first to introduce and make available important
Indian material bearing on the institutional and economic history of Buddhism,
but this material rarely, or never, mak� it into Indian studi�. References to Ger­
net's Us aspects
iconomiqlltJ dll bouddhis11le, for example, are extremely rare in works
on Indian cultural and economic hisrory. D. D. Kosambi long ago referred ro Ger­
net when he raised the "fundamental question" of the extent to which Buddhist
monks and monasteries in India participated directly in trade. "The documentary
evidence" for such participation, Kosam bi said, "exists at the other end of the Bud­
dhist world, in Chinese records and translations," of the sort presented by Ger­
net.' But few have followed this up. Andre Bareau, tOO, relied heavily on Gernet
in a short piece he published on certain forms of monastic endowments in India
and China.8 Apart from these papers, I know of little else.9
There are of course problems in using Chinese sources in studying India. No
Doing BNsiness f.,. rht Lmd 47

one, I think, would accept without serious qualifications, for example, Kosambi's
assertion that "not only the art but the organization and economic management
of Chinese Buddhist monasteries, especially the cave-monasteries . . . were ini­
tially copied from Indian models, so that their records can be utilized for our pur­
pose ," chac is to say, to study directly Indian monasteries.1O The use of Chinese
translations of Indian texts is sometimes less problematic, but there are still seri­
ous difficulties. The process of translation often conceals, for example, the Indian
vocabulary, and this is [529] especially the case with realia or financial matters.
The sinologists, tOO, who present such Indian texts are justifiably, often unable
,

to recognize their broader Indian significance. Here I would like to deal with JUSt
one example that might illustrate at least some of these points.
In his survey of what the Chinese translations of the various vinayaJ have to
say in regard to monks participating in "commerce" or crade or business, Profes­
sor Gernet partly paraphrases and partly translates a text from the Vinayavibhariga
of the Miilasan'iiJliviida-t·inaya that-unless I am much mistaken-is of unique
importance. 11 It is important first for what it can tell us about the kinds of legal
and economic ideas that were developed by at least some Indian vinaya writers; it
is important for what it can contribute to our understanding of the laws of con­
tract and debt in early and classical India, and because it provides another good
example of Buddhist I·inaya interacting with Indian law; it is also important for
what it can contribute to the discussion concerning the uses of writing and writ­
ten documents and legal instruments in India.
A Sanskrit text for this passage has not yet-as far as I know-come to light.
But in addition to the Chinese version presented by Gernet, the text is also avail­
able in a Tibetan translation. This Tibetan translation has at least one advantage
over the Chinese text: it is often, though not always, easier to see the Sanskrit that
underlies a Tibetan translation and therefore to get at the original Indian vocab­
ulary. Because the text has not yet been fully translated, I first give a complete
translation. This will be followed by an attempt to establish the technical Indian
vocabulary that the Tibetan appears to be translating, and then further discussion
directed toward situating this piece of vinaya in the larger context of similar dis­
cussions in Indian dharma/astra, with some reference to actual legal records pre­
sented in Indian inscriptions. In the end, tOO, there will have to be some attempt
made to get at the religious and institutional needs that might lie behind our text
and the legal instruments it is concerned with.

V inaya"ibha,iga
(De,!!•• 'dul ba eha IHb.HSSb.2)
The Buddha, the Blessed One, was staying in VaisaJi, in the hall of the lofty pavil­
ion on the bank of the monkey's pool. A[ [hat time the Licchavis of Vaisali built
48 BUDDHIST MaSKS AND BUSIN ESS MATTERS

houses wirh six or seven up�r chamf>.,rs <pllra).12 As the Licchavis ofVaiSiII builr
their houses, so roo did rhey build viharaJ wirh six or seven upper chamf>.,rs. As
a consequence, because of rheir grear heighr, having been builr and builr, rhey
fell apart.13 When rhat occurred, rhe donors thoughr: "If even the viharaJ of those
who are srill living, abiding, continuing, and alive fall thus inro ruin, how will
it f>., for rhe viharaJ of rhose who are dead? We should give a ��tuiry (akfaya)
CO the monasric Community for building purposes."
Having thoughr rhus, and taking a pe�ruiry, they wem ro rhe monks. Hav­
ing arrived, rhey said rhis to them: " Noble Ones, please accept rhese pe�tu­
ities for building purposes!"
The monks said: "Gentlemen, since the Blessed One has promulgared a rule
of training in this regard, we do not accept rhem."
The monks reported this matter CO rhe Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: " For the sake of the Communiry a pe�Iuiry for build­
ing purposes is 10 f>., accepled. Moreover, (1 55a) a t'ihara for a communiry of
monks should f>., made with three upper chamf>.,rs. A reI real house (t",!aka) for
a community of nuns should f>., made with two upper chamf>.,rs."
The monks, having heard the Blessed One, having accepted the ��tuiry,
put il into the communiry's depository (ko!rhika), and left ir Ihere.
The donors came along and said: " Noble Ones, why is Ihere no building f>.,-
ing done on the vihara?"
"Th.re is no money (ita,?iipa,!,,).·
"But did we not give you pe�tuilies?"
The monks said: "Did you Ihink we would consume the pe�tuities? They
remain in the Community's depository."
"But of course, Noble Ones. they would nOl f>., ��tuities if rhey could
f>., exhausred. but why do you think we did not keep them in our own houses?14
Why do you not have them lent out on interest (prayojayari)?" [530}
The monks said: "Since the Blessed One has promulgated a rule of training
in this regard, we do not have them lent on interest."
The monks reported the marrer co the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "For the sake of rhe Communiry a pe�tuiry for build­
ing purposes musr f>., lent on inreresr.·
Devout brahmins and householders having in rhe same way given pe�tu­
iries for rhe sake of the Buddha and the Dharma and rhe Communiry. the Blessed
One said: "Pe�tuiries for rhe sake of the Buddha and rhe Dharma and rhe Com­
muniry are ro f>., lem on interesr. What is generared from rhat. with that accrued
revenue (sitidha), worship is ro f>., performed to the Buddha and rhe Dharma and
rhe Communiry."
The monks placed rhe pe�tuiries among rhose same donors. Bur when rhey
came due, thar caused disputes among them. "Noble Ones: they said, "how is
it rhar dispures have arisen from our own wealth?"
The monks reported rhe matter to the Blessed One.
Doi1/g BIIJinal for II>. Lord 49

The Blessed One said: "Pe�<uities should not be placed among them."
The monks placed them among wealthy persons. But when they came due,
relying on [hose possessed of powe[, [hose wealthy persons did not repay them.
When. by virtue of their high sta<us, they did not repay them." [he Blessed One
said: -They should no[ be placed among [hem."
The monks ( 1 55b) placed them among poor people. But they were unable
to pay them back as well.
The Blessed One said: -Taking a pledge (iidhilbandhaka) of twice the value
(d,·igll,!,, ). and wri[ing out a contract (/ikhila) that has a seal and is witnessed
(Jii�ima/), the pe�<uiry is to be placed. In the contract [he year, the month, the
day, the name of the Elder of the Community (JII'!'ghaJlhavira), the Provost of the
monastery (llpadhit-iirika), the borrower, rhe property, and the interest (.¥Jdhl)
should be recorded. When the perpetuity is to be placed. that pledge of twice
[he value is also to be placed with a devout lay-brother who has undertaken the
five rules of [raining.

The vocabulary of this passage is not always transparent and requires some
discussion. We might start with tWO architectural terms. The Tibetan text says
the Licchavis built both houses and t'iharaJ of six or seven rlug. Rtug almost cer­
tainly translates Sanskrit pllrll here, as it does in the 5ayanaJana.'aJIIi several
times. 16 But the exact nature of a pllra is not clear: Edgerton defines it as an "up­
per chamber" (BHSD, 347). In Gernet, however, where the beginning of the text
seems to be omitted, the rule corresponding to "a l'ihara for a community of
monks should be made with three upper chambers, {etc.]" is rendered as "the
bhik�u's residence (vihara) shall be rebuilt in three stories [ctages]," which would
seem to suggeSt that I-ching understood the term to refer to additional "stories"
or "floors" of a building. Unfortunately, yet another reference to a pllra suggestS
that it was something that monks fell off of. The Po!aJhaVaJIII, in referring to
the construction of "halls for religious exertion" (praha,!afala). says: It tatra na
yapayanti. bhagava1l aha. IIpariHhaJ Jt'itiya� piira� {but ms.: pllraf!1J kartavya�. 1Ia
arohati. bhagal'an aha. sopana11l kartat,·am. prapatitaf!1 bhavati. bhaga,'an aha.
I�Jikd pari/qtpta,'ya: "The monks had no room there (in the hall). The Blessed
One said: 'A second upper chamber (or story) is to be built above.' They could
not get up to it. The B lessed One said: 'A staircase is to be made.' They fell off
it. The Blessed One said: 'It should be enclosed with a railing."· 17 Here. of course,
neither "upper chamber" nor "Story" does very well. Finally. it is worth noting
that the rule given in our text concerning the number ofpllra for vihiiras of monks
and nuns does noc correspond to that given elsewhere in the same Vinaya. In a
passage in the SayanaJana,'astli already referred to that recounts the origin of the
t'ihara. the Buddha is made to say: bhi/qii,!a11l pa;;capllra vihara� kartavya� . . .
bhik!ii,!inii11l 111 tripllra "ihara� kartat'ya�: "for monks t'iharaJ are to be made with
50 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

five upper chambers . . . but for nuns viharas are to be made with three upper
chambers. "18
Our Tibetan text says that when monks first started accepting perpetuities,
they simply pur them in the community's mdzod, and this is the second architec­
tural term requiring comment. Chandra's Tibetan-Sansk,it Dictiona,y ( 1 97 1) gives
kola as the most commonly arrested equivalent for mdzod, bur a reference in a con­
text much closer to ours than any Chandra cites suggestS something more specific.
The passage in question is another piece of the Miilasaroastivada-vinaya that is of
interest for the hisrory of Indian law because it refers ro a wrirren will. In stipu­
lating what should be done with the various sorts of things that make up an [531]
estate inherited by the monastic communiry, the text says that "books containing
the word of the Buddha"-unlike "books containing the treatises of outsiders"
(hahi�-Jast,a-pustaka), which are to be sold-are, in Dutt's edition, catu,diJaya
bhi�u,a,!,ghiiya dhii,af!Oko!rhikayam pra�ePtafJ)'a�. 1 9 This, as it stands, might be
translated as "are to be deposited in the place for sroring (sacred books) for the
Communiry of Monks from the Four Directions." But Dun almosr certainly has
only reproduced a mistake in the manuscript and thereby created a "ghost word"­
dha,af!O -kO!,hikaya'!'-which quickly found its way into Edgerton's dictionary (s.v.
ko!rhika), whose definition, "a place for sroring and keeping (sacred books)," I have
used in the preced ing translation. What is, however, almost certainly the intended
form is first of all clear from the Tibetan translation of this passage: plryogs bzhi'i
dge ,long gi dge 'dun gyi cbed du spyi, l7uizod du gzhug pa, bya'o. 20 The important word
here is spyi, a well-arrested equivalent for which is ,iidha,a,!a, "in common," and
the Tibetan is easily rendered as: "ro be placed in the depository as common prop­
erty for the Community from the Four Directions." Oddly enough, further confir­
mation that dha,a'!a- is a scribal error for sadhii,a'!a- is found almost immediately
in the same t'inaya passage.
After stipulating what should be done with the two SOrts of books, the pas­
sage moves on to discuss twO sorts of what the Sanskrit text calls pat,a-Iekhya, which
were also included in the estate. The Sanskrit term would mean something like
"written document," but both the Tibetan translation and the context indicate that
the term refers to some kind of written lien or contract of debt. The Tibetan ren­
ders it by chag, rgya, a term not found in the standard dictionaries but cited in the
Bod ,gya I1hig l7uizod chen mo (p. 779) as "archaic" (rnying) and defined there as bu
Ion bda' ha'i dpang 'gya, "a witnessed marker that calls in a debt," and in Roerich's
Tibet,ko . . . Slova,' (3.70) as a "promissory note." The context too points in this di­
rection when it indicates that there are two kinds ofp<ttra-Ieklrya, one that can be
realized or liquidated quickly (p<tt,a-Iekhyaf!l yacchighra,!, fakyat. ,iidhayitu'!') and
one that cannot. The former are to be called in immediately and what is realized
is ro be divided among the monks. In regard ro one that cannot be realized quickly,
Doing B",ines, for I'" lArd 51

the text says-again in Duct's edition-lac c4lurrJifaya bhi�usa'!lghiiya dhiira'!'l l

kO!!hiuya'!l pra�tpla,,'a'!l' Here Dutt emends against both the manuscript and the
Tibetan only co produce a text whose sense is not immediately clear, The manu­
script has, of course, lac calurdifaya bhi�usaf!1ghiiya sadhara'!'l'!l IeoHhiuyii'!l pra�.­
plary'ai?, "that is co be placed in the deposicory as common property for the Com­
munity from the Four Directions,"21 The Tibetan corresponds exactly co the
manuscript reading and is virtually the same here as in the passage dealing with
books: de ni phyogs bzhi'i dg. slong gi dg. 'tiun gyi (bed du spyir mdzod du gzhag par bya'o,
It would appear, then, that the term dhiiraTJa-koHhiu is not yet attested­
certainly not in the Vinaya passage that Edgerton cites for i t-and is, rather, a
ghost word based on an unnoticed scribal error, For our more immediate pur­
poses, however, it can now be said that the term mdzod, which occurs in our text
from the Vinayal 'ibhanga as the word for the place or thing in which the perpe­
tuities were initially deposited, is, elsewhere in the same Vinaya, used to trans­
late the Sanskrit ko!!hikii, and that a ko!!hiu in a Buddhist monastery was a place,
probably a room, in which not only books but also legal documents and money
were kept. Incidentally this may give us some indirect indication of both the value
and the rarity of books at the time these texts were written-they certainly did
not circulate!
When we move from architectural terms co the legal vocabulary of our text,
we move as well ro a somewhat different set of problems and, significantly, to a
different class of literature. For the architectural terms in our Tibetan text, we had
at least established Sanskrit equivalents or other ,'inaya texts in Sanskrit that would
allow us to establ ish such equivalents. For the legal vocabulary there is often nei­
ther. Several of the technical terms that occur in our text are not listed in Chan­
dra's Tibtlan-Samkril DiCli(mary, for example; and most of those that are-and for
which there are, therefore, at least attested Sanskrit equivalents-are cited from
passages in which those terms are not used with the technical meanings that they
appear co have in our text. Moreover, I know of only a single Buddhist text that
deals with some of the same matter as our Vinaya passage, and it is itself not free
of problems. If, then, the vocabulary of our passage was peculiar co known Bud­
dhist literature, the situation would be decidedly grim. But-unless I am much
mistaken-this vocabulary is by no means Buddhist but is widely attested and
fully discussed in Sanskrit legal literature. This [532] dharmafaslra literature will,
I think, allow us co reconstruCt much-though not all-of the Sanskrit vocabu­
lary that underlies our Tibetan text, and the partial Buddhist parallel will allow
us co confirm-at least in part-these reconstructions. The linkage of our text
with Hindu legal literature, moreover, may also tell us something important about
both the nature and the history of the Miilasarviislit,iida-vinaya, if not about Bud­
dhist l,inaJa as a whole.
52 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

Given what has been said so fac, it must be immediately noted that the firsc
term we might deal with is not, as such, anested in dharmaiiislra. The term is that
which I have translated as "perpetuity." Gernet translates the Chinese correspon­
ding co this as "des biens inepuisables" bue is nor able co cite a Sanskrit equiva­
lent. For our Tibetan text, however, the Sanskrit original is vircually cercain. The
Tibetan term is mi zodpa. This is a well-known and widely anested translation of
Sanskrita�aya, "exempt from decay" or "undecaying," hence "permanent." The
problem, of course, is that a�aya is in both form and funccion an adjeerive and
yet was almost cercainly being used in the Sanskrit underlying our Tibetan as a
substantive-it referred co a "thing." What that "thing" was, moreover, is unusually
clear from our text itself. It was, first of all, a kind of donation that the donors ex­
peered co continue co work long after they themselves were dead; it was the gift
of, apparenc1y, a cercain sum of money, but that sum was not itself-as the donor's
remarks in our text make clear-ever ro be spent. Ie was co be lent oue on inter­
est, and the interest alone was co be used for specific purposes. Ie was, in short, a
conditioned endowment the principal of which must remain intact and was, there­
fore, "permanent." Sanskrit lexicography, moreover, knows a word for exacc1y the
kind of donation our text presents, and it is a term that is too close co a�a)'a to
be unrelated. That term isa�ya-nit'i, and there ace a number of interesting things
aboue it.
A number of our Sanskrit dictionaries, Monier-Williams and Apte, for ex­
ample, are able co cite only a single source for the term, which they define as "a
permanent endowment"-namely, Buddhist inscriptions. And although it is true
that inscriptional evidence for ahaya-nh'i or variants of it is-as Derrett says­
"rich," far richer than he himself indicated, it is by no means exclusively Buddhist.
One ofthe earliest occurrences of the term does indeed come from a Buddhist record
from Alluru in Andhra that has been dated [0 the end of the first century C.E. or
co the second century;22 and there ace, for example, as many as nine inscriptions
from the Satavahana period from the Buddhist site at Kanheri that refer co a�a)'a ­
"illis.23 But yet another of the earliest inscriptional references to this sort of en­
dowment comes from K�n Mathura, and there the endowment wa.� intended [0

feed a hundred briihmalJas and the destitute.24 In fact, references co a�aJa-nit'is

continue co occur through the Gupta period and beyond in both Hindu and Jain
inscriptions, as well as Buddhist.2�
That the type ofdonation called an a�aya-nit'i in inscriptions is the same type
of donation that our Vi"a)'a text calls an a�aya will, I think, be clear from even
a single well-preserved example of such an inscription. This example is a fifth­
century Buddhist record from sanci wrinen in good Sanskrit that details several
separate endowments:26
Doing BlI,ina, fur tht Lord

Success. The wife of rhe lay-brorher (lIpiiJaka) Sanasiddha, rhe lay-sisrer (llpiisik4)
Harisvamini, has, after designating her mother and farher heneficiaries (miil.i­
pifar"m lI""iJ)'''), given twelve Jinara, as a permanent endowment (a�aya-nl�1)
to rhe Noble Communiry of Monks from rhe Four Direcrions in rhe Illustrious
Mahavihira of Kakanlidabora [Le., Sliilci]. Wirh rhe interest (vrddhl) thar is pro­
duced from these Jilliiras, one [533] monk who has enrered inro rhe communiry
is to be fed every day. Moreover, three Jinar"s were given to rhe House of rhe
Precious One (rafna-grha). With the interest (""",h,) from those three Jiniiras,
rhree lamps are ro be lighred every day for rhe Blessed One, rhe Buddha, who is
in rhe House of rhe Precious One.27 Moreover, one Jilliira was given ro rhe Sear
of rhe Four Buddhas. With the interesr from thar, a lamp is ro be lighred every
day for the Blessed One, the Buddha, who is on the Seat of the Four Buddhas.28
Thus was rhis permanent endowmenr (a�ya-lIit;") creared wirh a documenr in
srone to last as long as rhe moon and sun (<<anJriirltka-Jilii-I,!thya) by rhe lady,
rhe wife of Sanasiddha, rhe lay-sister Harisvamini.
The year 1 31-the month Afr'aJllj-day 5.

What we see here in this fifth-century record of an actual transaction is

srraightforward, is typical of both earlier and later inscriptional records ofa�ya­
nilllJ, and documents what is obviously the same sort of donation that our Vinaya
text describes. Sums of money are given to the monastic communiry, but the sums
themselves are nor ro be spent. They are to remain intact and ro be used as per­
manent sources for generating spendable income in the form of interest. Though
this particular record does not explicitly say so, such sums could generate interest
only if they were lent out or invested.
We gather, then, from inscriptional evidence that endowments of the kind de­
scribed in our text were in actual practice called a�aya-nilll, a�ya-nil'i-dham1e1J4,
and so on; that-beginning at least in the first- second centuries C.E .-such en­
dowments or donations were, in actual practice, frequently made; and that Bud­
dhist, Hindu, and Jain communities or establishments all, in actual practice, ben­
efited from such endowments. Such endowments were, it seems, important legal
instruments used in widely separated geographical areas-from Andhra to Mathwa
ro Kanheri-over a long period of time. In light of its widespread use in actual
practice, it is curious-Derrett says it is "odd," "puzzling," and "enlightening"­
that there are no references to this legal device "in the fundamental materials of
the dharmafiistra."29 Derrett draws from this situation a "lesson" that applies as
well to Buddhist vina)'a, where it has so often been assumed that "the Vinaya
Piraka . . . enters at so great length into all details of the daily life of the recluses"
and that if something was not mentioned in the vinaya, it was of no importance
or did not occur. He says:
54 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

I[ s[ruck me as odd [har a word which plays so imponam a role in [he legal pr«­
fin of ancien< and mediaeval India (i.e., "jvj] should DO( appeat. in irs legal sense,
in [he fundamemal ma[erials of [he dhannaJastra. 11Iere is a lesson ro he leamr
from [his . . . m. [ha[ [he Iml,a, [hough "rong on [he jurisprudence of [he an­
cienr pre-Islamic legal sys[em, did nor aim rohe comprehensive when ir came
to its incid�nts. This instance is wonh pondering over. � mote" we discover
abou[ [he u[iliry of [he Imf,a in prac[ice in ancien[ rimes [he more puzzling i[
remains [hac [echnical [erms which had grea[ currency should he missing from
[he li[era[ure.

He ends by adding:

The absence of [he [erm from [he abundan[ and versa[ile dharma/astra li[era[ure
in [hose [echnical senses is mos[ enligh[ening on [he na[ure of [ha[ Imtra.lO

The -a�nce" in rhe dharma/iiJlra rhar Derrerr refers [Q may now, however,
have ro be seen in yer anorher lighr, because even if we bracker, for rhe momenr,
rhe seemingly obvious idenriry between rhe inscriprional a�ya-1Iit'iand rhe ahaya
of our Vi1la)'a rexr, rhere is ar leasr one orher cerrain reference ro an ak!aya-1I",i in
rhe MiilaJan"iiJlh,ada -vinaya, and rhis same Vinaya also gives orher evidence of
monasric properry or wealrh inrended for loan. The reference occurs in rhe San­
skrir rexr of rhe CivaravaJl1i recovered from Gilgir and forms a parr of a passage
dealing [534] wirh rhe monks' obligarion ro arrend ro, and ro perform acrs of wor­
ship for rhe benefir of, a sick and dying fellow monk. The rexr lisrs a series of pos­
sible ways [Q fund rhese acriviries-donors mighr be solicired, bur if rhar does nor
work. rhen whar belongs [Q rhe Communiry (Ja'!lghika) mighr be used. If rhar also
does nor work, rhe rexr says, "Thar which belongs [Q rhe permanenr endowmenr
for rhe Buddha is [Q be given" (bliddhak!aya-1Iivi-Ja1llaka'!l dryam).�1
Though wdcome, rhere are two unforrunare rhings abour rhis explicir refer­
ence [Q an a�ya-1Iivi. One is rhar rhis passage does nor appear in rhe Tiberan r rans­
larion of rhe Ci"aral'aIlli and rherefore does nor give us an esrablished Tiberan
equivalenr for rhe rerm. The orher is rhar ir gives us no informarion ahour rhis
ak!aya-1Iivi. aparr from rhe facr rhar such endowmenrs were known. Bur rhis, in
irself, may allow one furrher observarion. This passage nor only suggesrs rhar
ak!aya-1IiviJ were known ro rhe compilers of rhe MiilaJarvaJlivada-vinaya, bur rhar
rhey were so well known rhar no descriprion or explanarion of rhem was felr nec­
essary. Moreover, rhe Cit'aral'aIlli passage also seems ro indicare rhar rhe compil­
ers of rhis "inaJa knew of"permanenr endowmenrs" rhar were ser up for more rhan
one purpose-orherwise rhe qualificarion "for rhe Buddha" would appear ro have
been unnecessary.
Doing BlIIinm for IIx Lord 55

All of what we have seen so far would seem to show that the compilers of the
l'tliilaJaroiiJliviida-vinaya recognized a category of donations meant for loan; that
they were familiar with endowments, the principal of which was to be lent out
at interest, which they called a�yaJ; and that they-unlike the authors of the
dharmaiiiJlra-both knew and, at least on one occasion, used the term a�ya­
nivi. Bur this last especially leaves us with the question of why, when they re­
ferred to a financial instrument that clearly corresponds to what epigraphical
sources called an a/qaya-nit'i, they did not use this term, even though it must
have been known in their circle. In other words, the question is, what is the re­
lationship between ak!a)'a used as a substantive and the compound a/qaya-nivi?
The answer-or an answer-may turn on how common such endowments were
and may lead us to conclude that a/qaya by itself is, paradoxically, a panicular
kind of Sanskrit compound.
Some years ago J. Gonda, to whom we owe so many close studies bearing on
issues of Sanskrit syntax, published a paper on what he called "abbreviated nom­
inal compounds." In his usual sryle, he gave copious examples ofsuch compounds:
kalpa for kalpiillla, "the end of a kalpa"; chada for dalll4Cchada, "lip"; fiik)'a for fiikya­
bhi/qll, "a Buddhist monk"; a/qa for a/qa-miilii, "a rosary"; Madra for bhadriiJana,
"a panicular posture of mediration"; and Imyii for kri),iipiida, "rhe rhird division
of a suit at law"; and so forth. In all but one of these cases the first element of a
two-pan compound has come to be used by itself with the same meaning that was
originally expressed by the whole compound . Gonda suggested that this is the more
common pattern of such abbreviated compounds "that the omission of the former
member probably is less common than that of the larrer." He also noted that in
such compounds "an adjective is, as a consequence of abbreviation, sometimes used
as a substantive: f,'t!la- for sl't!lacchalra- 'a white sun-shade.'" Finally, he suggested
that such abbreviation "is also in Sanskrit less rare than those scholars who do not
mention it at all seem to assume.'· �2
Given what litde that can be ascertained, it does not seem unreasonable to
suggest that a/qaya in our
Vina)'a text is yet another example of such an abbrevi­
ated nominal compound: a/qa)'a is the first part of an arrested two-part compound;
the first element of that compound is used by itself with the same meaning that
the compound itself has-both are used to refer to exactly the same sort of finan­
cial instrument; a/qa)'a is-like ft·�/a-clearly an adjective, but, like ft>ela as an
abbreviated compound, is JUSt as clearly used as a substantive in our text. This ex­
planation may be as good as we can get without further data. But even if only ten­
tatively accepted, this explanation has at least some further implications.
Any attempt to explain the sorts of linguistic changes that produce things
like abbreviation must, of course, skate very near speculation. Gonda, however,
suggests the following:
56 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

Whenever the speakers of a language need an expression which contains more

information and applies to fewer objects than any simple words in ,heir language.
,hey are compelled to use several words or.-if ,he s'runure of ,heir language
allows i,-,o form a compound. lfhow4!ver ,he longer expression becomes in g4!n­
eral. or wi'hin a defini te group of speakers. more [535) frequenrly used ,han is
necessary or convenient they are often abbrevia,ed.

Gonda then cites from English the use of the word " bulb" for what was originally
called the "electric light bulb. "33
If W4! were to grant that something like this process worked on the compound
a�ya-nil'i, then this in tum would imply that among Buddhist groups the "longer
expression" became "more frequently used than is necessary or convenient" and
therefore could be-though it was nOt always-abbreviated. This would account
for the continued usage of both ak[aya-n;,.j and ak[aya but suggests as well that
this particular form ofendowment-as inscriptions prove-was particularly well
known among Buddhists and, though not exclusive to them, may have been con­
sidered as largely theirs. If, moreover, the ak!a)'a-"it>i retained a Buddhist smell,
this may account for the reluctance of "orthodox" dharma!iislra authors to deal
with it. 34
Though much here remains uncertain, two reiated things do not. It is, l hope,
alr...dy clear that the study of dhamla!iislra might profi tabl y be expanded to in­
clude Buddhist "ina)'a, and that the study of Buddhist �'inaya must most assuredly
include the study of dharma!iis/ra. One might even begin to suspect that much
that is found in Buddhist vinaya-sleeping on low beds, not evading tOlls, and so
on-is there because similar concerns are addressed in dhamla!iiJlra. But apart from
this question, which cannOt be pursued here, it will hopefully become clear from
what follows that .,i"lJ)·a and dharmafiiJlra often speak the same language.
Fortunately, most of the legal vocabulary of our Vinaya text is far less com­
plicated, and for some of it we have at least one Buddhist work extant in both San­
skrit and Tibetan that will provide attested equivalents and, as already noted, con­
firm what can be reconstructed from Hindu dhamla!iislra. Our text, for example,
has the Buddha himself declare: "For the sake of the Community a perpetuity for
building pu rposes must be lent on interest" (dge 'dll" gyi phyir mkhar 1m gyi rgyll
mi zad pa rab III sbyor bar b),a'o). The Tibetan I have translated as "lent on interest"
is rab III sbyor ba. The Tibetan, of course, does not normally have this meaning, but
here the underlying Sanskrit cannot easily be doubted. Several equivalents are at­
tested, and they are all forms from prtrJYllj: praY-lIkla, praYllkli, prayoga . 35 Monier­
Williams gives, as the technical meaning for pra..JYllj in dharmafiislra literature, "to
lend (for use or interest)"; for praYllk,a, "lent (on interest)." The glossary in Dharma­
kofa 1.3 has the following: praY-lIkla, "invested (sum)," pray-oga, "lending money at
Doing BlIliwl f... the Lord

interest," prayoiJ·a. "money lent at interest; investment," and so forth. Kangle's glos­
sary to the A rrhaiiiJlra also gives prayoga as "giving a loan" and pra)'ojaka as "a lender
of money. " Our Vinaya text is. therefore. using not Buddhist vocabulary here but
a vocabulary well established and current in dharmafiislra and other Sanskrit texts
dealing with legal and financial matters. Both the equivalence rab /11 sbyfW' ba =

pra..JY lli and the sense "lend on interest" are. moreover. confirmed by the one Bud­
dhist partial parallel that has already been referred to: Guryaprabha uses a form of
pra..JYllj several times in the sense of "to lend" in his Vinayasiilra. and this is most
often rendered into Tibetan by rob III JbyfW' ba.)6 But here tOO the parallel between
dharmafiiJlra and Buddhist I'inaya goes beyond items of vocabulary.
The compiler of our Vinaya text represents his monks as being aware of "rules
of training" that would make lending on interest inadmissible. The declaration he
attributes to the Buddha also does not negate the general principle involved but
rather allows for specific purposes to which the inadmissibility does not apply. First,
such activity is not only allowed but also to be pursued-the Tibetan is translat­
ing a future passive participle-for building purposes for the benefit of the Com­
munity. Then admissibility is extended to any purpose that is for the benefit of
the Buddha. the Dharma. and the Community. Here our Tibetan text allows us to
correct an observation made by Gernet in regard to the Chi nese text. The latter
has a passage corresponding to the Tibetan that I translate above as: "The Blessed
One said: 'Perpetuities for the sake of the Buddha and the Dharma and the Com­
munity are to be lent on interest. What is generated from that. with that accrued
revenue (Jiddha). worship is to be performed to the Buddha and the Dharma and
the Community. . .' But Gernet excludes i t from his text and puts it i n a footnote
that says. "here are two phrases that presumably constitute a note. ";7 [536} Our
Tibetan text. however. indicates that it is an integral and important part of the
text: It explicitly and categorically extends the admissibiliry of lending on inter­
est to purposes beyond building activities that will benefit the Community and
allows it for what we might call. categorically. "religious purposes: Significantly,
we find in Manll. for example, the same kind of dispensation and extension ex­
pressed in simpler. if rather curious. terms.
Manll X. 1 l 7 is a good example of the "one must not, bill . : pattern of prom­
.

ulgation typical of both dhannaiiiJtra and Buddhist ,·inaya. It starts by declaring

absolutely that "a briihnJaIJa and even a k{alriya should not. indeed. lend on inter­
est" (Irddhif1/ nail'a prayojaJ el) . Our Vina)a text. as noted above. presented Bud­
dhist monks as knowing that their "rules of training" placed the same restrictions
on them. But like the Vina)'a text. Manu too-though in somewhat different
terms-then lifts the restriction in regard to loans made for a certain and essen­
tially similar purpose: "But. however. he may on his own accord place sums at low
interest with a vile man /fW' ,..Iigiolls purposeJ" (kiil1Jaf1/ III khalll dharmiirlha,!1 dadyiil
58 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

papi)'ase lpikiim). 38 Here we appear to have not only another instance of shared vo­
cabulary (pra),oja),et), but also an instance of parallel provisions for parallel pur­
poses ("'religious purposes" ). And there are further examples of both.
As in the case of Tibetan rab til sbyor ba, where the technical meaning " lend
on interest" is not easily available in Tibetan itself, so too in the case of what I have
translated as "accrued revenue." The Tibetan is grub pa, and the standard diction­
aries give little or no indication that this term can carry such a meaning. But a
well-attested Sanskrit equivalent for grub pa in other contexts is siddba, and siddha
occurs several times in, for example, the ArthaJastra with exactly this meaning.39
Although, as we will see, the route to the technical meanings of the Tibetan
terms in our passage, or even to their Sanskrit equivalents, is not always the same
or so straightforward, it invariably seems to involve going to dharmafastra. When,
for example, our Vina)'a text gets to its final instructions in regard to making a
loan, it says first that one should take a "pledge of rwice the value" of the loan.
The Tibetan is gta ' Tl)'i ri, and at least the first element of this expression, gta: is
cited in the standard dictionaries in the meaning "pawn" or "pledge: and it occurs
a couple of times in this sense in the Tibetan documents "concerning Chinese
Turkestan" treated long ago by Thomas. In one of the latter, we find exactly the
same expression that occurs in ous Vina)'a text, gta' nyi ri, but Thomas in his glos­
sary queries his own translation, "of twice the value ."40 It is, in fact, almost certainly
correct. Gernet translates the corresponding Chinese as "pledges worth twice the
value of the loan," and the Bod rgya tshig mdzod chm mo (p. 1 0 1 ) defines gta ' Tl)'is ri
ba as bli ion g)'i dmigs rtm rin thang ldab ri ba. Here, then, there is little doubt about
the meaning of the Tibetan. But without a Sanskrit equivalent and some reference
to dharmafastra, much might be missed.
Once again, neither gta ' nor nyi ri occur in Chandra's Dictionary, nor are San­
skrit equivalents easily available in known Buddhist Sanskrit sources. We do know
now, however, that our Vinaya text shares several lexical items, not with Buddhist
texts but with Indian dharmafastra sources, so that we might expect that the same
might hold in this case as well. And our expectations appear to be justified. If we
consider our text to be an Indian text dealing with legal matters and laws of con­
tract, then our sought-for equivalents can hardly be in doubt: Tibetan gla', which
means "pawn" or "pledge: is likely to be a translation of one or another of two
Sanskrit terms. In his study of the "law of debt" in ancient India, H. Chatterjee
says, "to convey the sense of pledge, two terms are used in the dharmafastra-one
is adhi and the other is bandhaka." He goes on to note that "it may be supposed
that the use of the word bandhaka is of late origin" and that "it appears that the
exact difference between the twO words might have been lost long before the period
of the digest writers."41 Such considerations would suggest that the Sanskrit orig­
inal of our Vinaya text ptobably read either adhi or bandhaka, although we cannot
Doing BwiIWs 1M' th< Lord

be absolutely certain which of these two actually occu=<!. In Gu�prabha's text,

gla' is twice used to render bandhakA. GUl)aprabha, however, is also relatively "late,·
so [537] we cannot be certain that this was also the term that occurred in our
Vibha,;ga passage. But as in the case ofpraVYllj, here too it is not just a single vo­
cabulary item that is shared or simi lar between our text and dbarmafiislra, but
an entire procedure. Brhaspali X.5, for example, stipulates-like the Buddha of
our Vinaya text-that one should make a loan after having taken a pledge or de­
posit of full value (paripiirnaf!1 grhilviidhif!1 handhakAf!1 vii). He also says-and, as
we will see, he is not alone-to get it in writing. But before we move to that
point, we still have to account for our Tibetan nyi rio Its significance too is clari­
fied by dharmafastra.
Chatterjee, for example, indicates that the general understanding of a pledge
of "full value" was that it was "sufficient to meet the capital with interest. ·42 Our
text, however, stipulates that the pledge be "of twice the value." In spite of ap­
pearance to the COntrary, these two positions are almost certainly the same, their
identity turning on a "general rule" of dharmafiislra in regard to the allowable
amount of interest that can be charged on a loan. This rule not only may explain
how these two positions are essentially the same bue also almost certainly provides
us with the Sanskrit term that was translated by nyi rio In dhamJafiistra this rule
is known as the rule of dvaigll,!ya, or "doubling." Arthafiislra 3 . 1 1 .6, for example,
clearly recognizes this principle when it says that even in cases where a debt is long
outstanding, the debtor still pays only double the principal (mii/ya-dvigllf!af!1
dadyiit). Manll VIII. I ; 1 is even more explicit when it says that interest from loans
of money should, when taken at one time, not exceed double the amount of the
loan (kllsida-,...ddhir d,'aigll'!yaf!1 niilJeti sakrdiilJrtii). This principle-that "at one
investment the interest and capital taken together should not be more than twice
the capical"-is widely attested, even if, in time, a number of ways ofgetting around
it were developed.43 For our purposes, however, we need only note twO things. First,
although our Vinaya text does not explicicly refer to the rule of d''aigll,!ya, the in­
structions put in the mouth of the Buddha implicicly acknowledge it. To take a
pledge of twice the value of the loan is to take a pledge of [he value of [he loan
plus [he value of [he maximum interest allowed by dharmafiistra rule: no more, no
less. Second, if one were to translate Tibetan nyi ri into Sanskrit, one could easily
go with miiIJa-dvigtlf!a (Arthafiislra) or simply dvaigtl,!)'a (Manti). In GUl)aprabha,
again, nyi ri translates dvigtl,!a-almost exactly as we would expect.
After "taking a pledge: our text refers to "writing out a contract that has a
seal and is witnessed ." The Tibetan here is dpang po dang Ixas pa'i dam rgya'i gkgs
bll bris Ie and is not entirely clear to me. I-ching may also have had some trouble
with his text at this point as well. In Gernet, at least, what appears to be the cor­
responding clause is rendered simply as "Let there be . . . contracts drawn up. In
60 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

addition, a guarantee (paD-cheng) shall be deposited." We might begin with what

is clear.
Glegs bu, the term I translate by "COntract," is once again not listed in Chan­
dra's dictionary, but a passage in the Civaravaslu that we have already referred to
provides us with an attested Sanskrit equivalent. Our term occurs four times in
this one passage: glegs bu la bris Ie palriibhilekhya'!l kr,vii; glegs bu la bris naS
= =

palriibhilikhila'!l krlvii; glegs bu la ma bris ba apalriibhilikhila'!l; and glegs bu la

=

bris pa palriibhilikhira'!I.44 Given that 'bri ba, bris ba is the usual Tibetan word
=

for "to write," or likhali, then glegs bu, strictly speaking, is here translating palra
(pallra), "document," and palriibhilikhila, as a noun, would mean "written docu­
ment." Context alone would determine that in these Cit'aravaslu passages it means
"will," whereas in our passage what was likely the same form almost certainly
means " contract. "
This time when we look to dharmafiislra for clarification, it proves to be-at
least on one level-less useful. This in large pare may only be because the use of
writing and the place of written documents in the dharmafiislra has yet to be as
systematically studied as many other topics, and the vocabulary of both is, as a
consequence, not yet fully fixed.4� What can be surmised at the moment is this:
the terms abhilikhila and abhilekhya-both in the sense of "a document"-occur
in dharmafiislra, but very rarely; palra in the senses of "written document," "let­
ter," "paper," "a leaf for writing on," and so on occurs more commonly, but dhamla­
fiislra appears to overwhelmingly prefer likhila or lekhya when referring ro docu­
ments. It should be noted, however, that though it might prefer a slightly different
expression, dharmafiislra-like Buddhist "inaya-uses the same terms to refer to
a wide range of what we would consider [538] different kinds ofdocuments: likhila
and lekhya are used indiscriminately to designate mortgages, deeds, contracts, and
bills of sale. Here too, the partial parallel in Gut:laprabha is much less useful: the
Sanskrit text-which appears to be faulty at this point-has iiropya pal..., "having
recorded in a document," and this is translated into Tibetan by dpang rgyar bris nas
so, "having written in a sealed bond ." It would appear that Gut:laprabha's text was
not using the same vocabulary as our Vibhanga passage. But lest it be lost sight of,
the mOSt general point that needs to be noted here-though we will come back
to it-is this: Although the reference to written COntractS in our Vinaya text may­
as a piece of vinaya-appear unusual, even odd, it looks quite normal when seen
in light of dhamlaiiiJlra of a certain period. Normal, too, it seems, is at least one
of the two further qualifications of the "contract" found in our text.
The Tibetan expression I have rendered into English as "is witnessed" is dpang
po dang Ixaspa, and-although absent from Chandra-there can be little doubt about
the Sanskrit underlying it: dpang or dpangpo is a common translation for siik!in, "wit­
ness," and dang Ixas pa-like can-is a good translation for the Sanskrit suffix -mal,
Doing BIIJint$J for Iht LorJ 61

"having," "possess i ng." Although Gut:\aprabha is here of linle use, having-as we

will see-constructed his text differendy, still siilqimat, "having a witness: "wit­
nessed : or "attested," is itself widely attested in tiharmafiislra in connection with
documents. YiiPklll'a kya says that for any contract entered into by mutual consent
there should be "a witnessed document" (/ek.hya'!1 . . . siilqimat).46 Niirada 1. 1 1 � says
of documents (/tkhya) that they can be both "witnessed and unwitnessed" (asiilqimat
siilqil1l4< Ut). But if we are on firm ground here, we are less so in regard to the sec­
ond expression applied to "COntractS" in our Vinaya text, and that is unfortunate.
What I have translated as "has a seal" is dam rgya in Tibetan. jllschke says that
dam rgya ; dam lea, which he defines as "a seal, stamp." The Bod rgya IJhig mdzod
chen mo (p. 1 244) defines dam rgya first as thel rise, a variant of thel se, which also
means "a seal, stamp." Ir then says it is "old" for dpang rgya (which Thomas takes
to mean "witness signamre"), "attestation seal," khrinlS rgya, "legal seal ," and dam
IJhig gi pb)·ag rg),a, "a seal of promise." Thomas, finally, takes it as "a signed bond, "47
and in Gut:\aprabha dpang rgya can only be translatingpat,a if-and this is far from
certain-it is translating a text similar to the Sanskrit that we have. Obviously
the precise meaning of the Tibetan expression in our Vibhallga passage has yet to
be determined, though its general sense of "seal" is relatively certain. The prob­
lem for us, however, is that whereas all meanings adduced for dam rgya would make
it a noun, in our Vinaya text it appears to be by position and function an adjec­
tive; the construction remains, for me at least, obscure. It may be, of course, that
the Tibetan dpang po dang heas pa 'i dam rgya 'i glegs bll is translating some sort of
possessive compound.
The significance of all this is that there is almost certainly lurking behind the
Tibetan some form of mlld,ii or mlld,ita and that we rnay have in our passage, there­
fore, a rare reference to the use of a kind of "object" that frequendy is found at Bud­
dhist monastic sites in India. Monastic seals-more commonly sealings-have been
recovered from a wide variety of monastic sites-VaisaIi, Kasia, KauSarnbi, Nalanda,
and so on-sometimes in considerable numbers.48 Because they almost always bear
the name of a monastety, they could be, and have been, used to identify the site
from which they come. But there is a problem here recognized long ago by Vogel.
Cunningham early on had identified Kasia with Kusinara, the site of the Bud­
dha's death. When Vogel aemally excavated Kasia, he recovered a number of seal­
ings, t)'pieal of which is one bearing the legend Alahapa,inirvii'!t ciitllrdiio bhilqll­
sallgha�, "The Community of Monks from the Four Directions at (the site) of the
Alahiiparinin'ii'!4'" Vogel assessed this new evidence in the following way:

As long as the use of these documencs [i.e., .he sealings] has not been ascertained
it is impossible to decide whether their evidence tends to prove or to disprove
Cunningham's theory. If they belong co the spot where they (539) were found-
62 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

and the variety of their dates and uniformity of their legends seem to point to
that conclusion-they would vindicate Cunningham's identification. If, on the
other hand, they were attached to letters and parcels-and this seems to be the
most likely use they were put to-they would place beyond doubt that the Con­
vent of the Great Decease is to be sought elsewhere.�9

When the problem is fotmulated in this way, ic is not difficult to see how our Vinaya
passage may bear on the issue. If.-as seems likely-our passage is referring to the
use of such sealings on written contracts for loans made from permanent endow­
ments held by a monastic community, and if, therefore, such sealings were used
for this purpose and not for "letters and parcels: then-since we know that such
documents were placed in the monastery's "depository"-our passage would sup­
porr the view chac such sealings "belong to che spot where chey were found. " More­
over, if our passage is referring co che use of sealings of this sott-and again this
seems likely-then those sealings in curn could have considerable evidential value
for the use of the legal instruments described i n our text: If they were used to "seal"
loan COntracts, then cheir presence ac Buddhist sices will allow us to date the use
of such contracts in actual practice ac cerrain sites, and they will provide some
indication of the frequency of their use at cerrain times. They could, in shorr, be
extremely valuable.)O
I n regard to what was to be included in such written contracts of loan, Bud­
dhist vinaya and Hindu dharmafaIlra, beginning with Yajiiava/kya, are again in
close basic agreement, although Yajiiavalkya is already fuller than our Vinaya pas­
sage. Yajiiavalkya ( I I : 5.86-89) says:

For whatever business (arrha) is freely and mutually agreed upon, a witnessed
document should be made (/tkhy� ,Iii salqill'klt �). The creditor (tihaniu)
should be put first. (540)
With the year. • he mon.h, the fortnight, the day, place of residence, coste,
and gotrll,
With the name of a fellow student, his own, and his father's it is marked
(rih"ita).
When the business (IIrtha) is concluded, .he debtor (r'!in) should enter his
name wi.h his own hand
(Adding) ·what is wrinen above concetning this matter is approved by me,
the son of so-and-so.·
And the witnesses. in their own hand and with their father's name first,
Should wri.e: "In this matter I, named so-and-so, am a witness,-

Then a number of other details and conditions of validity follow, but what is cited
above is surely enough to establish the fundamental similarity between the con-
Doing BlilintJl for IIx Ltwd 63

tract described in our Vinaya passage and the contract described by Yiipia llalJrya.
The differences, insofar as they exist, reflect, in part, the concern of YiipiavalJrya
with greater detail and technicality and, in part, the fact that our Vinaya passage is
describing a contract of loan not becween individuals but becween an individual
and an institution. As a consequence, it is not the creditors name, for example, that
should be registered but the names of cwo representatives of the institution-the
Elder of the Community and the Provost of the monastery-thac is making the
loan.�1
But one final textual problem remains. The final sentence of our passage in
its Chinese version reads, as Gernet has translated it: "Even if you are dealing with
a bel ieving llpiisaka, one who has received the five instructions, he shall likewise
be obliged ro furnish pledges." Gernet sees here "a very clear sense" on the part of
the redactor that business is business nes affuires SOnt les affaires"), and the re­
quirement that even a devout lay-brother must give a pledge when borrowing from
the community.�2 The Tibetan texc reads gang la sbyin par b)'a ba dgt bsnym dad pa
(an bslab pa'i gzhi Inga bumg ba la yang gta' nyi ri k/xJ RaS sbyin par bya'o, and­
although it is not impossible ro interpret it in a similar way-chere are several
things that appear to make such an interpretation difficult.
First, the verb used in the Tibetan ro express the action undertaken in regard
to the lay-brother-sb)'in ba-cannot mean Oro receive from." It is the same verb
our passage uses more than a half a dozen times to express the "giving" or "plac­
ing" of the loan, for example, txom ldan 'das kyis bka' mal pa I de dag la sbyin par mi
b)'a 'o: " The Blessed One said: (Perpetuities) should not be placed among them .'"
That it could mean anything else in this one instance, after being consistently used
in all the previous instances, seems unlikely.
The careful characterization in our passage of the kind oflay-brother involved
must also be considered. That lay-brother is not just any lay-brother but is explic­
itly said to be "a devout lay-brother who has undertaken the five rules of training"
(dgt bsn)'m dad pa (an bslab pa'i gzhi Inga bZllng ba), and dsewhere in our Vinaya this
kind of characterization marks a particularly trustworthy individual. In a passage
in the Vina)'at'ibhaitga that comes only a few folios before our text, for exam ple, it is
said that when lihiiras were built in "border regions" (mlha' "khob), monks frequently
abandon"d th"m in times of [roubl". As a conseq uence th"y w"re also frequ"ntly
looted . In response to this situation the Buddha is made ro say: "The treasure and
gold belon!(ing to the Community or the slipa (dgt 'thin byt [read: gyl1 am flUhod
rltn gyi dbyig dang gS") should be hidden. Only then should you leav"." But the
monks did not know who should do the hiding. Then, the text says:

The Blessed One said: " It should be hidden by an attendant of the f'ihiira (kiln
dga' ra ba pal or a lay-broth<:r."
64 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

Bur rhen those who hide it stole it themselves. Then Ihe Blessed One said:
"It should be hidden by a devout lay-brother (Jgt bJ1r}t1l dad pa (Oll): Sl

From this and similar passages, it would appear thac "devouc"-as opposed co
ordinary-lay-brochers were considered worthy of crusc, especially in regard co mac­
cers involving valuable property. The chances seem good chac our cexc should be
caken as supplying anocher inscance of che same sort of ching.
Finally, "pledges"-ac leasc according co dharmafiiIlra-were, or came co be,
fairly complex affairs. Two basic kinds were referred co: gopya, or "pledges for cus­
cody," and bhog)"a, or "usufruccuary pledges." The first was {54 !) to be kept; the
second was co be used, chac is co say, to generate profit. Pledges could be anything
from a copper pan or cloth to female slaves, or fields, gardens, cows, or camels.
There were ocher refinements and complexities as well.54 How much of this was
known to the redaccor of our Villa)a is, of course, impossible co say. Our passage
says noching that would indicace his awareness. It is, however, safe to assume that,
even before the scage of complexiry had been reached thac we see in some dharma­
!iiIlra, che caking of pledges would have creaced some awkward problems for monas­
cic communicies. And it is, again, reasonable to assume that such monastic commu­
nicies would have solved such problems by one of cheir favorite devices-recourse
to lay middlemen. This, I think, is what our text is saying.
Now that we have come chis far, all thac remains is che hard part. We must
at leasc cry co determine several interrelaced things. We musc make some attempt
to determine how important the perpetuities or permanent endowmentS mentioned
in our text were, and what-if any-further hiscory our cext or similar I'illaya rul­
ings on written contraccs had. We musc make some attempt to determine what
the religious and institucional sicuations were that stimulated Miilasarvastivadin
villa)a masters co creace or borrow chese legal inscruments. And we must make
some actempt co place our Vina)a cexc in che scill uncertain hiscory of dharmafiiI­
Ira. In none of chese endeavors can we expecc complece success.
Ic of course goes withouc saying thac we have ac our disposal almosc no means
of decermining whac was and whac was noc particularly imporcant in che enor­
mous MiilaJart'iiJliI'iida-I'ina)a. Buc chere is ac leasc one rough indicacor of whac
in chis Vina)"a was choughc important in che early medieval period: We are able
co decermine whac Gur:taprabha, who has been daced to a period becween che fifth
and seventh cencuries and who may have been from Machuca, chose to include in
his Vina)"aJiilra. Gur:taprabha's Vina),aJiilra appears co have been the mosc auchor­
icacive epicome or summary of che MiilaJart'iiJli"iitia-vina)a, and Bu-scon, ac leasc,
cices ic as a model of the type of creatise thac condenses "excessively large (portions
of) scripcure."55 Given chac Gur:taprabha has reduced or condensed whac cakes up
more chan four chousand folios in che Derge edicion co no more chan a hundred,
 65

it is obvious that he had to make some austere choices. He would have been able,
presumably, ro include only what would have been considered-or what he
considered-essenrial to an understanding of the whole. His choices, therefore, can
be reveal ing and at times-at least to some-may appear surprising. Professor
Schmithausen, for example, in his fascinating paper on the ·sentience of plants,"
has several times referred ro a text in the Vinayallibha,;ga of the Miilasarvastivadins
that describes a monastic ritual that must be performed before cutting down a
tree.56 The ritual conrains several significant e1emenrs that also form a part of the
funeral ritual for dead monks. but the text looks like a minor appendix of no great
importance. Gu�aprabha, however. includes an almost complete description of the
ritual in his epitome.57 It is much the same for our rules.
Although our text, where it is now found, may also look like an append ix,
and although it appears to have no known parallels in other vinayaJ, the conrin­
uing importance of at least the subject that it treats for the Miil asarvastivadin
order would appear to be indicated b)' (542} what we find in Gu�aprabha's Silra.
But there is also something of a surprise here. As our discussion of the vocabu­
lary of our Vibha,;ga passage undoubtedly indicated, GUl}aprabha does, indeed.
include lending on inrerest and written conrracts in his Silra. And they are
presenred-as one would expect-in very much the same terms as in our canon­
ical text: Gu�aprabha, like all good epitomizers, appears to be neither creative
nor original. The surprise, however. is that although Gu�aprabha presenrs in his
Silra what can, in parr, easily be taken as a condensation of our text, he himself
in his auro-com menrary-the S !'aI'),iikh),iif1iibhidIMna-I'inaya-Ji,ra I'r',i-act uall y
-

cites another source when he commenrs on that material, and he gives there a
frame srory that would seem ro indicate that our material was indeed found, as
we II, in a second source.
There is much ro be learned both about and from Gu�prabha's Silra and Vrt'i,
but ro date, it has received litrIe attenrion. In the Vrlli, for example, GUl}aprabha
frequenrIy cites or quotes his authorities and therefore gives us some indication of
where he gOt his material. Most commonly, however, his references are given un­
der a general rubric like lalIM fa granlha�, "and thus is the text:58 or il) alra
graf1lha�, "it is said in this case in the text" (Si. 177. 1 8 1 , 183. etc.), or granlho
'Ira, "the text here is" (Si. 193). In these general references "the text" appears ro
refer to the canonical Vina)'a. Sometimes he even uses the phrase vina)'e IIkl"m, "it
is said in the VinaJ"" (Si. 82). Such references can sometimes be particularly frus­
trating because. though commenring on his summary of one section of the Vina),a,
he sometimes quotes from a completely differenr section. At one place in the Vrt'i
dealing with the Pra''raj)'ii,aJIII, for example, he quotes a passage under the rubric
il) alra grantha�. which does indeed come from the canonical Vinay" but not from
the Pra''r'aj)'Jr'aJlII; it comes instead from the CivaravaJllI.59 Sometimes. happily.
66 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

he is more specific. Occasionally, he says something like vibhangiid elad layanilJana­

likJapadiil, "this is from the Vibhanga, from the rules of training in regard to beds
and seats" (Sii. 389), or granlho 'Ira bhikJII'Jivibhange " here is the text in the BhikJuni­
,·ibhaliga" (Sii. 591), orpo!adhavaJIIi alra granrha�, "the text here is the Po!adhal'aJlu
(Sii. 646). Citations of this sort-because they can considerably reduce the range­
are, of course, more suited to our needs. But even some of these more specific ref­
erences can � problematic. Several times, for example, Gu�aprabha cites matl."­
rial under a rubric referring to an or the "Introduction": iIi nidiinom, "the Nidiino
says· (Sii. 327), or olro granlha� nidiinal, " here is the text from the Nidiino" (Su.
384), or nidiine yod IIkl0'!1. "what was said in the Nidiino" (Sii. 422). In cases such
as these it is not always clear whether the reference is to a part of a work or a work
entitled Nidii1lll . The material Gu�prabha cites in commenting on lending on in­
terest and written contracts is also cited under such a rubric.
In his auto-commentary Gu�aprabha introduces the passage of most direct
interest to us with the following phrase: 'dir gzhung ni rna f1/l) faJ 'di Ila JIt. The trans­
lation of this seems straightforward: " here the text is from the Malrkii, namely. . . ."
There is, as well, at least one similar reference in the first chapter of the Vrlli, the
only part of the Sanskrit text of the commentary that has been published so far:
miilrkiiyiim al'o g,anlha�, "the text here is found in the Malrkii" (Sii. 165). Although
the Tibetan translation of this second reference differs slightly from that of the first­
'di, rna f1/l)'i gzhllng laI-there can be little doubt that both are referring to the same
work. The problem, of course, is that we do not-at least I do not-actually know
what work this is. The Tibetan tradition does not appear to preserve a canonical
vinayo text with this title; the Chinese canon has one text-TaiJho 144 1-whose
reconstruCted title is San:aslivadat'inayo-miil,kii, but this reconstruction is marked
as doubtful by the HOhogi,in catalog; equally doubtful apparently are the titles of
two other texts-Toisho 1452 and 1 463-which are given as "[Alii/oJan'aJ­
livada]nidiinamiilrkii ? " and "Vinayamiilrkii?"60 Fortunately, this does not have to be
SOrted Out here. For our purposes we need only note that Gu�prabha cites tech­
nical material �ing on lending on interest and written contracts that is, in the
main, quite close to that found in our text in the Vinayat·ibhango, but he cites at
least a part of it from a different, second source. Any doubt that he got this mate­
rial from-or at least knew as well-a source different from our Vinoyovibhaliga
passage is quickly dissipated by looking at what he actually said.
The Siil,o itself gives the first indication that Gu�prabha is not necessarily
dependffit on our [543] Vibhaligo passage for his material. In speaking about a cer­
tain kind of chattel (lipaka,a'!O), Gu�prabha says:

It should be len, on in,eres, for ,he sake of 'he ('hree) ]ewel(s).

When ,he.. is a monas,ery .rrendant or lay-brother. he should be used.
Doing Bltsi"", for Iht LorJ 67

(I( should be loaned) after caking a pledge of (Wice the value (of the loan
and) after recording in a document the witness, the year, the month, the day, the
Elder of (he Community, (he ProVOSt of (he monastery, the borrower, the capi­
tal, and (he cha((e!.

prayuiijila ralniirlbam I
iirii"'iltopiiS4kayo/J salll" .iyogtla I
banJhJ.am Jvigu,!"", iiJiiya sii�i-S4",.'alsara-miiS4 -Ji""S4-S4,!,gbaSlhaviro(?)
.'lirika (read : opaJhi,'lirika)-grhitr-Jhana-liibhiin aro/IJa pam I

kltn Jga' ra "" pa 'am JgCt) bsnym Jug yoJ na bsko bas Jim, ""hog gi do" Ju bsltytdpar
by". I
gl'" nyi rir blang par bya'o I Jpang po Jung 1 10 Jung I zla ba Jung I tryi ma Jung
I Jgt 'riltn gyi gnas brtan Jung I Jgt sitos Jung 1 1m pa po Jung I rdzas Jang bsltytJ rna",s
Jpang rgyar bris nos so I·J

It is, of course, immediately obvious that what GUr:'aprabha says about taking a

" pledge and the contents of the contract are close-though nor fully identical­
"

to what our Vibhanga passage says. Bur what precedes this is not. The references
to the monastery arrendant and the lay-brother must, at least, come from whar
GUr:'aprabha calls in his auto-commentary the Mii1rka. The auto-commentary says,
in fact:

Here (he (ext is from (he Miilrkii, namely: "When, after having had both a sliipa
of (he Bl.ssed One and a domed chamber (glSang Ithang by", 6.)62 mad., the mer­
chants of VaiSliIi consigned chattels ()'o byad) to (he monks for (be maintenance
(zhig ral IN mi h'" ba) of Sliipas and domed chambers, the monks, being scrupu­
lous, did nO( accep( (hem.
The monks ",ported the ma((er to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "I au(horize thac chattels for (he maintenance of
a stiipa should be accepted by a monastery's attendant (ltlln Jga' ra ba = iiriimika)
or a lay-bro(her (Npiisaka). Having accepted (hem, (bey should be used to gener­
ace inte",S( (bsltytd par bya sIt). As much profit as is produced in that case should
be used for wotlihip of (he sliipa."
In regard to the words "a pledge of (Wice the value should be taken" (gta'
nyis rir blang bar bya'o), SO (hat the", should be no loss, this-by its force-should
be considered as "a means (hac avoids a default" ('rii spang ba ",i sltytJpa'i ,an lag
<'ts b)'a ba ShNgS Ityis rlogs par bya).
Ie migh( be asked how, afeer having accep(ed it, (he chattel is to be lent
on interes( (sbyar bar bya). For that reason it is said: After having written with
a wimessed seal (he wi mess, [he year, [he month, the day, (he Elder ofthe Com­
muni(y, the ProvoS( of [he monas(ery, the borrower, (he properry, and the in-
68 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

«rest (dpang po dang 10 dang zla ba da"g If]i ma da"g dg' 'JII" gyi gila, brta" da"g
dg' ,koJ da"g 1m pa po da"g rdza, da,,?, ,k)·.d rna"" dpa,,?, rg)'ar bri, "a, '0), et

cetera.6l

The Tibetan text of Gu�aprabha's commentary is here-as it frequendy is

elsewhere-difficult, and I am not sure that I ha\'e always correedy understood
it. Ie is, moreover, not entirely clear where the boundaries of his quocation or para­
phrase of the Afii1rkii are. Given this, the following appear CO be firm. Gu�aprabha
knew where in the Vibhanga the copics o£lending on interest and wriccen contraecs
occurred, because in his Siilra he treats these copies under the nineteenth "il!Jargika­
piilayantikii offense, and this is precisely where they are treated in our Vibhanga.
Bue he also knew another passage-this one in the Afiilrkii-which dealt at least
with lending on interest. The Afii1rkii passage dealt with chattels, not perpecuities;
it also had the Buddha authorize lending activities undertaken by a monastery 's
attendant or a lay-brother-it did noc authorize monks to do so. For lending on
interest, Gu�aprabha chose co follow the Afii1rkii text, and this is explicidy con­
firmed in his auco-commentary. I n regard to written contracts, it would appear
either that he reverted co our Vibhanga text or that the Afii1rkii text had itself almost
the same material as our text in the Vibhanga. There are, for example, some dif­
ferences in what our Vibhanga text indicates should be included in the contraec,
and what is indicated in Gu�aprabha. It is, however, difficult co know what-or
how much-co [544] make of this. There are also in all the sources a number of
textual problems that have co be worked oue.
But even if our discussion leaves a number of points and problems hanging,
it does allow some obseC\'ations on the importance of lending on interest and writ­
ten contracts of debt i n Miilasarvastivadin ,'ina),a literacure. The canonical Vina)'a
of the Miilasarvastivaclins had at least two texts or sets of rules concerning lend­
ing on interest, and both were associated with the need co maintain durable ar­
chiteccural forms and finance ritual. There were as well-probably-two setS of
rules regarding written contracts of debt. Boch lending on interest and contracts
of debt continued, moreover, to be of interest co Miilasarviiscivaclin I'inaya mas­
ters, at least up until the seventh century-though Gu�aprabha was working with
severe space limitations, he chose to include a fairly detailed discussion of both in
his Vinayasiilra. Ie will have been noticed that Gu�aprabha does not specifically
mention aiqa)'aJ or aiqa)'a-niviJ. We might surmise that lending on interest was
at first particularly associated with such endowments but by his time had come
to be associated with all sorts of chattels or property. This, in cum, might explain
his preference for the Afii1rkii , We simply do not know. It is also notable that both
Gu�prabha's presentation and apparent preference for the Afii1rkii appear co shift
the financial activities involved away from monks and-i f possible-into the hands
Doing BII,in." /.,. 1'" lArd 69

of lay monastic functionaries. The reasons for such a shift. or any historical situa­
tion it may reflect. temain. however. undetermined.
Although questions of this sort must for now remain open. Gu�prabha's
Vil1l1yallilra may still allow us in a general way to extend the history of interest
in-or at least knowledge of-Miilasarviistivadin monastic rules governing lend­
ing on interest and written contracts of debt. These rules. as indeed the Sanskrit
text of the VinayaJiilra that has come down to us. were. to judge by the colophon
of the text. known at the VikramaSila Monastery in Eastern India. Although the
colophon as it is printed is difficult to make sense of. one important statement seems
cleat. That colophon says in part:

Siilty"bhi1t!II-Dhm-wltirttina salh"iirtht filthil",!,

S,iM4il-viltr""",{i/ii'!' [sic} iiI,il)"" phiilglllJ4mii"f>.i

Copi«i by the Sakyabhik�u Dharmakirti . for the benefit of living beings. when
residing at VikramaSila. in the month of Phalgul)a.

What information we have suggests that VikramaSila was founded in either the
eighth or the ninth century and was probably destroyed in the twelfth.6' so our
copy of the Vinayasiilra can be assigned to sometime during this period.
We can. in sum. track our Miilasarviistivadin rules statting from the Vinaya­
t'ibhanga in-as we shall see-about the first century C.E. They also occurred. with
at least a different frame-story. in a text called the Miit,kii. They were known and
repeated by GUr:'aprabha. who lived perhaps at Mathurii sometime between the
fifth and seventh centuries. And GUr:'aprabha's summary was itself known and
copied sometime after the ninth century at the VikramaSila Monastery. Though
such a trail is not much. it is far more than we usually have. and it testifies to the
continuing currency of our rules through both time and space.
The redactor of our Vina)'avibhanga text appears to have thought. or to have
wanted others to think. that the Buddhist monastic communiry began to accept
endowments. to lend on interest. and to use written contracts. not on its own ini­
tiative but in response to the concerns of lay donors about what would happen.
after they were dead. to the establishments they had founded and were themselves
able to maintain while they were alive. Confronted with the visible deterioration
of their vihii,aJ in their lifetime. lay donors are made to say-in effect-Hif this
happens while we are still alive. it obviously will occur even more so when we are
dead." It is this concern that-according to our text-gives immediate rise to the
resolve on the part of lay donors to provide the monastic communiry with perma­
nent or perpetual endowments. and to ensure. in effect. that their vihiiras remain
inhabitable. For the redactor of our text all else-lending on interest. written con-
70 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

craces of debc-follows direcdy from chis concern and forms an integral and nec­
essary pare of che monascic communicies' response co ic. Our cexc, however, is noc
che only cexc in che Miilasaro4slivada-vinaya where such concerns are voiced . Nor
are chey only abouc maintenance-chey are, as well, inexcricably abouc meric, A
glance ac cwo relaced cexcs from che Sayaniisanavaslll musc here suffice: chey are in
facc sufficient co escablish someching of che range of ideas connecced wich our
Vibhatlga cexc,
The firsc passage we mighc look ac forms a pare of a larger discussion abour
various righcs and obligacions in regard co vihiiras. Ic scares racher abrupdy wich
whac appears co be a reference co whac che Buddha had (545] already said on some
ocher occasion; and che passage is more narracive chan formally promulgacory:

It had been said by [he Blessed One: "The reward should be assigned in [he
name of [he dead donors" (abbyalilakalagatiiniif!/ danapallniim niimnii dakfilJii
iidtfravyii iIi).
The Elder of [he Community recited the verse for the sake ofdeceased donors.
And a cereain householder had come [0 a vihiira. He heard the assigning of
che reward. He approached the Elder and said: "Noble One, if I have a vihiira
builr, will you assign a reward in my name also?"
The Elder said: "Have one built! I will duly make the assignment.-
When that householder had had a vihiira built, he had noc given anything
to it. It remained thus empty. When chat householder saw that, he went to the
firsc vihara and said to rhe Elder: "Noble One, my vihiira remains empty. Not a
single monk lives there.-
The Elder of the Community said: "Sir, ic should be made productive
(IIlsm/ya, mum pas so)."
The householder said: "But, Noble One, it has been built on sterile saline
soil (ii.[art ja,!,gait kiirila�). How is it to be made productive?"
"Householder, I did not mean it in that sense (niibam .Ial saf!'dhaya lealba­
yami), but rather chat there is no acquisition (!abba) there."
The householder said: "Noble One, whoever now lives in my £'ihiira, to him
I present cloth (parmiiahiidayiimi).-66

This is an interesting fragment for a number of reasons-ic uses, for exam­

ple, a cerm co describe che "dead " donors, abhyalilakiiJagala, which also occurs in
inscripcions.67 Buc for our immediace purposes ic is imporcanc above all for whac
ic can contribuce co our underscanding of how monks underscood, or expressed,
che concerns of lay donors.
The cexc is-as is che Sanskric Miilasaro4slivada-vinaya as a whole-clipped
and ellipcical. Ie is, as already noced, a narracive cexc, noc a promulgacory one. Whac
ic assumes is as revealing as whac ic says. Ie Stares by explicitly scacing chac che Bud-
 71

dha had ruled that "the reward should be assigned in the name of the dead donors"
of a vihiira. This clearly is obligatory for the monastic communiry. The narrative then
seems [0 suggest that the redactor of the text assumed that this obligatory actjyiry
was a "public" rirual that took place on a recurring basis-it is otherwise hard to
account for the narrative facts that it was "heard" by a householder on a random visit.
The redactor also indicates that this recurring public rirual was perfurmed by the
Elder of the Communiry (Ja",giJaJlhavira) and involved the recitation of verses.
We have a fairly good idea of what-narratively-"assigning the reward" was:
it was a ritualized recitation of a verse or verses that formally designated the ben­
eficiaries of the merit produced from a specific donation or gift. Such designation
could be made to both the dead-as in our passage from the 5ayalliiJa1l4tJaJllI - or
the living. In the Bhai!"jyavaJlli. for example. at the end of a meal given by brah­
mins and householders. the Buddha himself"assigns the reward" to their deceased
kin who had become "hungry ghosts' (prela).

Then the Blessed One. with a voice having five qualities. commenced to assign
the reward to the name of those hungry ghosts (/<!ii� nijlllnij da�i'!iilll �II""
"'"'"I4h):
-The merit from this gift. may that go to the hungry ghosts! (il. JiiniiJ
dhi yal p",!)a,!, lal prtlii" llpaga«halll)
May they quickly rise from the dreadful world of hungry ghostsr'"

In the SanghabhtdavaJIIi. on the other hand. we find at the end of the account
of the gift of the Nyagrodha Park:

Suddhodana took up a golden warerpot and presenred the Nyagrodha Park to the
Blessed One. and the Blessed One. wirh a voice having five qualities. assigned
the reward (bhag",,,,fij . . . dahiJ!ii iiJiJlii):

"The merit from this gift (il' JiiniiJ dhi )al plI,!ya�). may that go to 'he
Sakyas! May they always attain the starion �) desired or wished!-69
[546}

Whereas. in the first case, the ass ignment is explicitly [0 deceased kin, in the sec­
ond it is to all members of the lineage, and this could have included both living
and dead. In any case. it is virtually certain that a reader of the MiilaJarviiJliviid4-
"inaya would have seen in the 5ayalliiJanat'tlJIIi a reference [0 a performance very
much of this sort.
It was a ritual performance for the sake of dead donors that the 5ayaniisana
passage narratively isolates as the motive behind its householder's construction of
a vihiira-this is what he hopes [0 gain: a, presumably. recurring or ongoing as-
72 BCDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

signment of merit in his name after his death. But the point of the text is. of course.
that the construction of a vihJra is not i n itself sufficient to achieve this. To achieve
the intended goal requires in addition that the vihJra be in use and inhabited. and
continue [0 be so. It requites. in shorr. the ptesence of an Elder who will continue
to perfotm the assignment. This. in turn, requires funher donation. The require­
ments, however, do not fall only on the donor. Whereas he must furrher endow
the monastery, the monks are obligated [0 perform the assignment. The monks,
as well, have a furrher obligation, which is only implied here but explicitly stated
in another passage in the same l'aSIIi.
The second passage makes it clear that if donors have obligations, so too do
the monks:

The devout had had many vihiiras built, but few monks enteted into the tetreat
in �ravasti. Those " jhiiraJ stood empty. Fat the donors (here was no merit resulting
from use (Jiinapalinii,!, paribhogiim'4)'a'!' p"'!ya'!' 114 bh'S<'Illi, . . . longJ Jpyod las ""lIng
""'j bJlxi nams """ ri"g). And ne'er-do-wells began to inhabit them.
Blessed One said: "All .ihiiraJ must be assigned twO, three, at four to
The
each one individually, depending on how many there are. All must be u.s«l (Ja",.
paribholtlal,ii�):70

Here (he rule is presented as firm: no presumably inhabitable vihJra is to be al­

lowed [0 stand empty. All must be used. In fact, the text here, in regard viharas. [0

refers to a specific category of merit: "merit resulting from use .· Given that a vihJra
must be IISed [0 generate such merit, it would seem to follow that continuous use
would generate continuous merit.
There are, in both these passages from the 5ayaniiIa"al'aIllI, in the web of mu­
tual obligations they seem to envision between monastery and donor, some strik­
ing parallels with what is known about the relationships between donor and
monastery i n medieval Europe. But these cannot here be pursued.7 1 What we can
do here is to note that the concern ofthe lay donors in our Vinayavibhanga passage­
the concern that gives rise [0 the use of endowments, lending on interest, and
written COntractS of debt-is, when seen in the light of the 5ayaniisana passages,
almost cerrainly not about maintenance only. It is as much about merit. Our en­
dowments, and the legal instruments required [0 make them work, begin, in fact,
to appeas as devices intended [0 ensure not just the perpetual inhabitability of the
l'ihJra but also an equally perpetual, a permanent, source of ongoing merit for its
donor that would continue long after he or she were dead. Maintenance and merit
are in fact closely and causally linked: without maintenance, there will not be con­
tinuing use; without continuing use , there will not be for the donor the "merit re­
sulting from use." Without provisions for the maintenance of the vihJra and its
V.lIIg B""lf<Js 1M" lIN t....J
. 73

residenrs, there will be no officiating Elder, without an officiating Elder, the as­
signmenr of merit to the donor will not conrinue after his death. Both our Vibhatiga
text and the first passage from the 5aya"JJa"a explicidy idenrify the inrerests or
anxieties of lay donors concerning what will occur after they are dead as the reli­
gious problem that endowmenrs and "acquisitions" are meanr to solve. Endow­
menrs were obviously seen by the monks-perhaps also by lay donors-as a per­
flllmmf solution to the problem. They are, after [547} all, called "perpetuities" or
"permanenr endowmenrs." They were inrended to ensure not long-term but per­
petual benefits to lay donors by ensuring a permanenr source of merit.
There is, of course, at least some appreciable irony in a monastic community
whose official doctrine declared that "all things are imptrma"mf" devising or adopt­
ing legal and economic instrumenrs explicidy inrended to ensure /Jtmla"mf bene­
fits to lay donors. Bur endowmenrs and lending on inrerest were not-at least as
far as they are presenred in the ";1/a)a-inrended only to meet the religious needs
of the more prominenr supporrers of the monastic community. They were inrended
as well to meet certain institutional needs, institutional needs that, indeed, might
be approximately dated.
It is, I think, fairly obvious that for our Vibhaliga text, and for the 5aya"iisana
passages, getting t'ihii,as built or funding their initial construction was not the
problem. The existence of permanent, durable " ihii,as is taken very much for
granred. Our texts tOO take it for granted that these durable vihii,as were already
both architecturally and institutionally well organized. They assume that such vi­
hiiras were already considerably beyond mere shelters and were already, for exam­
ple, multistoried, were already prov ided with separate "depositories" (koUhikii).
They take for granred that Buddhist monasteries were, significandy, already suf­
ficienrly well orsanized to administer the kinds of endowmenrs they are recom­
mending. The)' already know a Community with a recognized administrative and
ritual division of labor. They know both the office of Elder and of Provost. They
presuppose an established ritual of "assigning the reward" to dead donors, per­
formed by the Elder. They presuppose that both Elder and Provost were already
legally recognized represenratives who could enrer into binding conrracts on be­
half of the Community. I n shorr. our texts-like all of the l'i"aJas as we know
them-presuppose a stage of development of the "ihii,a as both an architectural
form and an institution that should be at least partially visible in the archaeolog­
ical record . Bur here we burt directly up against an increasingly awkward prob­
lem: the stage of architectural and institutional developmenr of the Buddhist
monastery reflected in the " inaJas as we have them can be detecred in the archaeo­
logical record only at a period that is far later than that to which the composition
of the " inayas is assigned by most scholars. This is a large problem and-as al­
ready nored-an awkward one: it seems to presenr us with enormous collections
74 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

of rules that were composed to govern conditions that did not exist. Here of course
we can only offer a sketch of the conflicting data.
Etienne Lamotte-without necessarily wanting to follow out the implications
of what he said-noted some years ago:

If remarkable similarities can be discerned in the outlines of the latter [i.e., the
various "inayaJj-and we are thinking particularly of the Pali, Mahi§li[sa)ka and
Dharmagupta VinayaJ-this fact can be explained by a parallel developmem. The
Buddhist communities did not live in complete isolation but were imerested in
the work cartied out by their neighbors. It is therefore not surprising that they
worked with the same methods and followed practically the same plan. If noth­
ing is more like one Buddhist IIihiira than another Buddhist vihiira, it is normal
that the various known vinayllJ should reveal the dose link which connected
them.72

Lamones last sentence would seem to suggest that the various IIiTlllyas are alike
because they all reflect the existence of a uniform, standardized, and well-organ­
ized I'ihiira. In fact, all our viTlllyas, as we have them, appear to presuppose such a
uniform and developed monastery: they speak, for example, about doors and keysH
and elaborate divisions of labor/4 about bathrooms7� and slaves or permanent la­
bor forces,76 about the acquisition [548} ofland, ownership rights, sharecropping,"
social obligations7S and the problems of inheritance.79 These are the concerns of a
landed institution with durable goods and well-organized durable domiciles-the
kind of institution for which maintenance could have been an important concern,
and which could have administered permanent monetary endowments. But there
is virtually no evidence in the archaeological record for this kind of monastic in­
stitution until late, and it is beginning to appear that both the degree and the rate
of growth oflndian Buddhist monasticism have been grossly exaggerated. The his­
tory of the physical monastery, at least, points very much in this direction.
We know, for example, in at least some important areas, when the standard
lIihiira started to emerge-and it is not much before the beginning of the Common
Era. Sir John Marshall, among others, has noted that "even on such important sites
as 5arnath, Bodhgaya, Rajagrha, and Kasia, which were some of the earliest to be
occupied by the BuddhistS, no remains of any of these structures [i.e., those men­
tioned in the lIiTlllya] have been found which can be referred to pre-Mauryan
times."so He was, however, so sure that such structures simply mllst have existed
that he then went to some trouble to account for their absence, and his account
will have a familiar ring to those who while away their time reading Indian art
history: it is the old perishable-materials argument. This argument says that no
trace of such structures survive because they were made of perishable materials,
and although essentially the same argument has been used in regard to Buddhist
76 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

SNch I'ihiiras by dtfinition cONld not haw been dNrable or in any significanl sense perma­
nent. They would suggest a poor and probably litde organized-both socially and
economically-community, a community that had litde access ro, or ability ro
exploit, any economic surplus. This seems especially so in light of the traces of
substantial works in such perishable materials, which have some chance of being
Mautyan-the cyclopean city-wall of Riijag�ha and the curious elliptical Struc­
tures there; the "stupendous timber palisade" at Pa�al iputra and the massive teak
wood platforms there; or the hypostyle hall found at Kumhrar-but none of these
are Buddhist, and all appear to have been produced by ruling powers.8� I n other
words, enduring monumental architecture in perishable materials was available,
but apparendy out of reach of Buddhist monastic communities. R6
Though. again, the evidence is far from full. there are other data pointing to
the lack of early permanent Buddhist dwellings. The evidence. for example. in the
main body of ASoka's inscriptions for vihiiraJ is thin. In the controversial eighth
Rock Edict. Asoka uses the term I'ihiira only in a decidedly curious way-if the
term had then any Buddhist sense. He there contrasts his "rours for dharma,"
dham1Pl4-yiilla. with the activity of earlier kings, which he calls "rours for plea­
sure: I'ihiira-yiilla, where t'ihiira is used in the sense of "diversion. enjoyment."
and the like.S? In his so-called Schism Edict, he does not again refer ro I'ihiiras
when he talks about the expulsion of troublesome monks but does refer ro aniil'asa
and by implication to iil,asa. Although much discussed, the facts remain that ii,'asa
literally means only an "inhabited" or "inhabitable" place. that Asoka himself does
not use the term I'ihiira, and that ii.'iisa does not cercainly refer ro an architectural
form .ss Equally curious and still difficult ro understand are ASoka's directions as
to what should be done with this edict. ASoka says. in Hultzsch's translation:

Thus this edict must be submitted [" i'r'na/'tt),ila" i)r-Bloch. probably more cor­
rectly: "II faut faire (550J connaitre . . . a"J both to the Sa'1"sha of monks and to
the SatJ1gha of nuns.
Thus speaks Devanirilpriya:
let one copy of the (edict) remain with you {i.e .• the administrative
officials-mahamata-?J deposited in (your) office {sa"Llalan"J; and deposit ye an­
other copy of the very (edict) with the lay worshippers.89

Here agai n. where one might expect a reference to monasteries, there is none.
There is no indication that a "copy" of this edict was deposited in the "office" of
the group it most concerned-no indication that there was such an "office" where
they were located . Likewise, i n the even more difficult Rummindei Pillar In­
scription. ASoka seems to imply-especially as Hultzsch understands the text­
that he was the first ro mark the spot of Buddha's birch: "(He) . . . caused a stone
Doing BIIJin", for I'" /..orJ 77

pillar [0 be set up, (in order to show) that the Blessed One was born hel'l!." But
contrary to what we might ha\e expected, if there had been a permanent com­
munity at the site, he then extends his largesse not to a monastery there bue ro the
village of LU'!1mini itself: "(He) made the village of LU'!1mini free of taxes, and
paying (only) an eighth share (of the produce):90
The only possible reference in the Mokan material [0 a vihiira is problem­
atic. Ie may occur in the "cover letter" attached to the recently discovered version
of Minor Rock Edict I found at Pa�guriirii in Madhya Pradesh. Sircar translates
the lines i n question: "The king named Priyadarsin [speaks] to Kumiira Sa'!1va
from [his) march [of pilgrima,!;e} to the U(O?)puni rha-vihara in Mi�ema-desa
(. . . mii�-de![e] [1I]Plll1itha-l·ihara -[ya}tiiy[e])."91 As the bristle ofbrackecs shows,
rhe readings are uncertain; the published facsimiles are extremely difficult to read;
this statement has no paral lels in the fifteen or so orher versions of this edict-it
is, i n short, ptofoundly problematic. Bur whether or nor the term vihiira occurs in
the inscription, or whether rhe possible ('ihiira mentioned can be identified with
the site at which the record was recovered , that site itself is of interest. It repre­
sents. at least a part of it, the remains of another Mauryan monastic site, and al­
though it has so far been only partially published, it appears [0 have been a poor
and unimpressive complex; many of the small stiipas, revetments, enclosing walls,
and small monastic cells appear to have been crudely made of "rubble .• These con­
trast with the main stiipa and its (hatra, which, however, are clearly later-the nun
donors of the latter may be linked with Siiici. What has been taken [0 be the main
monastic complex-on the walls of which the Asokan record occurs-as well as
most of the residential cells, are litde more than natural caves or rock shelters with
slight improvements. To judge by the primitive rock art i n some of them. these
were probably old, abandoned cave-dwellings.92 This-rather than a romantic vi­
sion of Niilanda-appears to be what a Buddhist "monastery" looked like "as late
as" the time of AS-oka.
Even considerably after ASoka, however, there are no refel'l!nces to vihiiras. In
none of the hundreds of donative records from Bhiirhue. Sind, and Pauni does the
term occur. The scores of monk and nun donors at these sites identify themselves
never as from or residents of any I'ihiira bue rather-txaetly like lay dol1or:r-by their
natal or residential villages.9� E\-en more curious, the only expression even vaguely
like "ihiira that occurs at early Sand is not even a Buddhist word but rather a com­
mon IIpalli!adic term.
On several of the gateways of the rail surrounding the main stiipa at Sind,
variant versions of the following imprecation occur:

He shall have [he fate of the perpetrators of five sins <pawtc-ii"a",la'Ya), who
dismantles. or causes to be [ 5 5 1 ] dismantled. ,he stone work from this
78 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

Kikar:aiva (i.f" . • rhf" olel nam,. for sanei). or rall� if to tv- rransf,.r� toanorh,.r
church.94

The phrase here translated by Majumdar "[0 another church" is ana'!l . . . acariya­
kula/lt. The use of "another clearly implies that KikaJ:!ava or saiici-the whole
complex-was thought of as �Ionging to the same category. It was not called a
monastery or v;hara, rhen, but a "church" or, more accurately, "a house of the
teacher." But although it occurs at least five hundred years later in a sectional
colo?hon [0 rhe Mahavaf!1Sa, the term aciirya-kula has a much closer and more sig­
nificant COntext. It is in fact an established usage in the Upani�s. ChaR/hgya
2.23.1 says. for exam ple:

There are three branches of duty. Sacrifice, srudy of the Vedas, alms-giving­
that is the first. Austerity, indeed, is the second. A student of sacred knowledge
dwelling in the house of a teacher, settling himself permanently in the house of
• teacher. is the third (brahmaciiryiiciirya-IeuIa-v4si trtil0 'ryalll41ll iilmiinam iiciirla­
leu" 'variiclayall).<n

All of this would seem [0 suggest the need for a considerable review of our
nori()ns of rhe degree of development of pre-K� Buddhist monasticism. But
that. I submit. is exactly what we might have expected [0 emerge when Buddhist
institutional his[Ory was treated widl the same methods and criteria of evidence
that pertain to every other kind of hiscory, and when all rypes of sources were taken
into account, without privileging the literary or canonical. Happily. however. such
a re\'iew is not here our responsibility. Here we had only to make a case-however
sketchy-for the unlikelihood that monastic communities like those at early Tax­
ila or Bhaja or Junnar or PiiI)gucaria could have compiled the monastic codes that
we have, or could have even conceived of permanent endowments for purposes of
maintenance, let alone written contracts of debt. It seems to me unlikely that
monastic communities housed in poorly made and disorganized, impermanent
structures or in open. crudely cut caves or abandoned rock-shelters could have had
either the need or the means to redact elaborate codes containing rules against. for
example, monks "building a fire to smoke out those who take too long in the la­
trine,"96 or stipulating. for another example, that "when seeds belonging to an in­
dividual are sown on ground belonging to an Order, having given back a portion.
(the rest) may � made use of" by the monks.97
But if, then, the early Buddhist monastic communities that are visible in the
archaeological record appear to have been utterly incapable of compiling our v;nayas,
and completely unsuited to administering elaborate endowments. the question still
remains as to when they did achieve a level of material and institutional develop-
Domg BMSlntsS for lIN lArd 79

ment that would have allowed both-when, in fact, did it become true that "noth­
ing is more like one Buddhist "ihara than anO(her Buddhist lIihara"? A reasonably
clear and closely approximate answer to this question has, oddly enough, been avail­
able for some time.
Marshall, again, noted some time ago that the I'ihara that Lamotte seems to
have had in mind, the orde red "quadrangular, high-walled monastery or lIi­
hiira . . . seems to have made its first appearance in the Jallghiiriimal of the north­
west during the first century A.D., and thence to have found its way southward
and eastward to the rest of I ndia." Marshall also said: " Before the close of the first
century the old type of Jallghiiriima, with its haphazard methods of planning and
its lack of security and privacy for its inmates had disappeared . . . . [T)he living
quarters of the monks . . . are now securely enclosed in a walled-in quadrangle.­
The standardized, ordered t'ilJtira, then, began to appear almost everywhere in the
archaeological record just before and just after the beginning of the Common Era.
It was then, too, that Buddhist monastic communities appear to have had access
to the economic resources that would have allowed them for the first time to build
on a wide scale in durable materials like stone and baked brick.
Marshall explained the observable change in type and construction of the
" Ihiira by saying, in part, that (552) the wide acceptance of the standard form " was
probably due in large measure to the changing character of the [Buddhist) church,
which was everywhere tending to substitute regular, setrled monasticism for the
wandering life, and to relax its rules pertaining to strict asceticism and the pos­
session of property. "99 The precise wording here might need some readjustment,
but not, probably, the basic point. What, however, Marshall did not say needs to
be stated: the development of the standard vihiira, the emergence of this form, is
clearly visible in the archaeological record beginning around the Common Era, bill
that form-and all that it implies-is the type of I'ihara that our l'inaJaJ, as we
have them, are intended to govern. Unless one wants to assume that rules are writ­
ten to govern behavior that does not occur, or that elaborate procedures are de­
veloped to meet needs that do not exist, then one is forced to conclude that our
t!inayaJ could not have been compiled in the form that we know them until after
the beginning of the Common Era. It is, for example. hardly likely that a monas­
tic code like the Pali Vinaya, which contains rules in regard to planting seeds in
land owned by the Communit}·, could have been compiled before the Community
owned land, and the first actual evidence for this too comes from the first century
C . E . 1OO I t is, again, hardly likely that the rules in the Pali Vina)'a that have the
Buddha say, "Monks, I allow them [i.e., vihiiraJ) to be enclosed in three kinds of
walls (piikiira): walls of burnt brick (irrhaka-piikiira), walls of stone (Jila-), walls of
wood (dahN_), "IO I could have bee n redacted before such walls were known, and they
were not, until the beginning of the Common Era.
80 B U DDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

C:onc;ic1f"rarinn� of rhic; conn. ancl dt"fermining rht" (If"riod JU w hi ch durahle or­

dered vihiiraJ were fi rst built, allow us more specifically to determine the period
before which ir is unlikely that our Vibhanga text on perpetuities could have been
written. Though ironic, it is almost certainly true that only the emergence of
durable architecture could have created the idea and need of perpetual maintenance.
Buildings in flimsy or perishable materials would have had a life expectancy con­
siderably short of perpetual and could hardly have given rise to the notion or felt
need for perpetual endowments to maintain them. Such endowments presuppose
a justifiable expectation that what they were intended to support would endure.
Moreover, as has already been noted, such endowments also presuppose an equally
permane nt and ordered institutional structure that could administer them. Our
text, then, was almost certainly not written until both things were in place, and
the archaeological record would seem to suggest that this could not have been the
case much before the beginning of the Common Era. But if it is unl ikely that our
Vibhanga text could have been written much before the Common Era, It is also un­
likely that it was written much after the second century, when we know that such
perpetual endowments were already in use. Their effective use would seem to re­
quire rules governing both them and written or legal contracts of the sort found
so far in the Vinaya only in our text.
A date in the first or second century of the Common Era for our Vibhanga text
would s....m to fit well with. and l"'rhaps confi rm-or be confi rmed by-what has
been said about written contracts i n Hindu dharmafiiJtra. Manll, for example, is
generally assigned a date "between 200 B.C. and ... . 0. 1 00," 1 01 and although it
knows of written contracts and deeds (VIII. 168, 255), they receive little atten­
tion. Yiijiia�'alkya, on the other hand, which is ass igned to the first or second cen­
tury. "gives preference to documentary evidence" and-as we have seen-"gives
very detailed rules about the drawing up of legal documents. "103 Though it would
be easy here to overextend what little evidence there is, it does seem that
Yiijna,alkya has a more developed-certainly a more detailed-treatment of writ­
ten contracts,IOI and it is at least possible to suggest that our Vibhanga text falls
samfwhere ht-rw.... n Manu a nd YajMvalkya. hut how close to the laffer is not clea r .

Yiijna"alkya may also be the first dhar11lafiiJtra to refer explicitly to Buddhist

monks.105 [553]
One sometimes has the impression in reading works on dhamlaJiiJlra that it
is assumed that developments occurred within a closed system of ideaJ, or between
t(xu, without reference to what occurred or was occurring in the U'()f'/d. The change
from Manll to Yiijiia"alk)a in regard to written COntractS, for example, is often pre­
sented as if it were only a further refinement or sophistication in legal technique
or theory that had no connection with changes in the social or economic world
82 BUDDHIST MO"'KS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

Notes

I would like ro ,hank my colleagues Richard Lariviere, Janice Leoshko, and Jona,han Silk
for having read a drafr of this paper and for allowing me ro �nefi, from ,heir cri,icism and
good sense.
1 . For ,wo importan, posi,ions on monks and monas,icism in Western scholarship,
see L. W Barnard , "Two Eighteenth untury Views of Monasticism: Joseph Bingham and
Edward Gibbon: in AlOIWSli{ SIMJi<s: TIxCt»Ilillllil,. ofTr.ulilit»l, ed. J . Loades (Bangor, Wales:
1990) 28}-29 1 . Gibbon's overwhelmingly Des-,ive view has been, of cou=, by far ,he
mosr influential. However, as a lim-rare example of wha, more recent scholarshl(, has been
able to do on the ques,ion of monks and money, see L. K. Little, ReligilJll' POI,",>' and IIx
Profil ECDII""'), ill Aledi..'al Ellropt (hhaca, N.Y.: 1978). There has been, as well, a (,romis­
ing srart made roward de,ermining indigenous Sou,h Asian arrirudes ,oward monas,ic
wealth (see S. Kemper, "WeaI,h and Reforma,ion in Sinhalese BuddhlSf Monasticism," in
Elhirs, W",llh, alld Sal..,liM: A SIIIIi)' i" BttddhiJl StKi41 Elhi{J, ed, R. F. Sizemore and
D. K. Swearer [Columbia, S.c.: 1990} 1 5 2-169) and roward acknowledging ,he Signifi­
cance of economic concerns ID religious developments in South Asia: see H. von Stie,en­
cron, "Orthodox Attitudes towards Temple Service and Image Worship in Anciem India:
CAl 2 1 ( 1 97 1 ) 126-1 38, and G. W Spencer, "Temple Money-lending and Lives,oek Re­
distriburion in Early Tanjore: Tix Indiall Et:."•.,ir and StKilll HiJlory Ret·i... , 5 . ; ( 1 968)
277-293, for ,wo imeres,ing examples.
2. P. l..ev i, Tix Frollli", .f Parlldi�: A SIr«i}' .f AI.llks alld IIf.""'I"ia (I..ondon: 1 987)
29/1'. For a more scholarly study of the theme, see M. As,on, "English Ruins and English
Hisrory: The Dissolution and ,he Sense of ,he Pas,,"l-I .f IIx \f�rbllrg and ClJllrlalllJ
11I,lillll" 36 ( 1 97 3 ) 2 3 1 -255.
3. Ch"""''otJlII, GMs, iii 2, 1 1 9. 1 3 .
4 . J . Gernet, Les aspars «.".",iql«S dll boMJJhi'1Irt JailS la stKilll rhill.i� till ". au Jt sikle
<Paris: 1956) 82. [The English uansla,ion here is taken from J. Gernet, BliddhiJ", '" Chi­
IIat StKi.I)'. An ECDIIOlllir Hisl.,.)' fr.", IIx Fifth I. IIx T.lllh Cmlllria, 'rans. F. Verellen ( New
York: 1995) 85. 1 have, however, no, always followed the larrer. )
5. Gernet, Les ..spars ko".",iql«S tIN boMJdhisme, 83, 84 [Verellen, 87].
6. L.-S. Yang, "Buddhist Monasteries and Four Money-Raising Inslilutlons ID Chi­
nese History: HlAS 1 3 ( 1950) 1 74-1 9 1 , esp. 182. The 'ex, in question is TaishO 1452,
the reconstrucred tirle of which is given in P. Demievi lle, H. DUff, and A. Seidel, Riper­
loin tIN r..... ix»uIJhiqlll si".-japonais, 2d ed. (Paris and Tokyo: 1 978) as "[.\f.iiw",nlisli-
1-iiJa}lIiJ.i/ltl.w/�?"; see �Iow, p. 66 and n. 60. Yang's paper is reprimed in L.-S. Yang,
Sludi.. ill Chi..... IIIJlilllliOlltlI HiJlory (Cambridge, Mas•. : 196 1 ) 198-2 1 5.
7. D. D. Kosarnbi, "Dhenukakar.:lASB.", 30.2 ( 1 955) 50-7 1 , esp. 52-53.
8. A. Bareau, "Indian and Ancient Chinese Buddhism: Insritur ions Analogous to 'he
Jisa: C.",p..rarildludits i. StKitty alld Hislory 3 ( 96 1 ) 44}-45 \ .
9. For some idea of sinological work on the economic and ins,itutional aspects of Bud­
dhlSm, see the equally rich book ofS,anley Weinsrein, BIIJJhlJm 11,111.., IIx T:"'g (Cambridge,
U.K.: 1 987), and ,he sources ci,ed ,here.
[)qinK 811,inm for lIN Lord 83

10. Kosam bi, "Dhenukaka�a: 53.

I I . �met, l...tJ a,pta' kon'1IIiqlleJ dtJ houddhiJ1N, 1 56 [Verellen, 1 60- 1 6 1 ].
1 2. Most of the Sanskrit equivalents inserted into the translation will be discussed
below.
1 3. yallg' pa (all gyi Ii IJI,ha hi ""'1111 Ityi It:hallg pa ji Ila ha tk hzhill dll glJllg lag It:hallg dag
lty,mK drug mig dang Mlln meg III ",wi paJ tk dag ,,1Ib. chu j>aJ brt,igs shi"li brtsig' shillg niih
nas . . . . I am not quite SUN: how to take the reduplicative construction brt,ig' ,hillg brtsigJ
,hili!. . I cite the Tibetan here and in nn. 1 4 and 1 5, where I am not suse of my translation.
14. 'phag, pa dag tk Ila '14 ",i ::Ad par ",i g)'lIr gyi 'tIi lIar wd par 'gy/lr Ie ei hdag (ag gi
stit,,,, pa na gnas "'" ",(hiJ mya'" '<1m.
1 5 . tk dag giJ phyllg po dag la Iryin 'I4J I tk dag la ilaJ pa na mlhll dallg ldall pa la rim eiRg
mi Sf.,. ba dang I hla'i gn'a'i ",Ihu, 1IIi JI.,. nas . . . .
16. Say"MJ.tRd''astll (Gnoli) 1 1 .2-.5 Tog. 'dul ba Ga 260..3.
•

17. Po!"dha"aSfIl, GMs iii 4. 77. 1 .

1 8. Sa),aniiSdna''IlSfIl (Gnoli) 1 1 .2.
19, Ci.'aW'aJIII, GMs iii 2, 1 43.6.
20, Tog, 'dul ba Ga 1490,5.
2 1 . GBMs vi, fol. 86 l .5 .
22. S . Sankaranarayanan, "A Brahmi Inscription from Alluru: Sri V",.ealeJu'ara Vlli­
,-.nil)' Ori."lal}Dllrn41 20. 1-2 ( 1 977) 75-89; cf, D, C. Sircar, SU,TeJJur1 .f lIN Sala.'ahanaJ ill
Lou," Den'all (Calcutta: 1 939) 228-230.
23. J. Burgess, Reporl 011 lIN Eilira Ca.� Tempi" and lIN 8rah"",";'al alld}aina c,n'eJ ill
WeJlern IlIdld (London: 1883) 74-89, nos. 5. 1 5 , 16, 1 7, 18. 2 1 , 22. 26, 28.
24. $, Konow, "Mathur. Brdhmi Inscription ofthe Year 28: EI 2 1 0931-1932) 55-6 1 .
25. There an: considerably mon: inscriptional references ro altsay"-IIiviJ than an: cited
or Signaled in J. D. M. Derrett, "The Development of the Concept of Property in India c.

A,D. 800-1800: ZeilSdwift fiir ''tr/Ilei,lNntk R«hlJu'issmJchaft 64 ( 1 %2) 46 n. 1 17, 68-72

[ a Derrett, EnaYJ ill Cla"ical alld 111M.,." HilldN Lau'(Leiden: 1977) ii, 39 n. 1 17, 6 1 -65],
or Derrett, "Nivi: ViJht..,h''arandnd Ind.logifal}'NrnaI 1 2. 1-2 ( 1 974) 89-95. In tbe first
of thest: papers especially, Derrett might I"""e the impression that inscriptional references
to ak!"ya-lIi,'js an: largel)' Gupta and later, but this, of course. is definitely not the case. To
the secondary SOUtces he gives. at least the following should be added: R. G. Basak, "The
Wo.ds nM .nd t·inila Used in Indian Epigraphs: IA 48 ( 1 9 19) 1 3- 1 5 : M. Njammasch,
"Akhaya-nivi-Schenkungen an Kliister und Tempel i m Dekhan untet den satavahanas: ACid
Ori.",,,lia (Hllngarifae) 24,2 ( 1 97 1 ) 203-2 1 5 .
26. The translation that follows is made from the edition oftbe inscription in). F. Fleer,
1"'<riPlio", of lIN Earl)' GNpla King' and TlNir SlItl"<JJI1rJ (Cll. III) (Calcutta: 1888) 260-262,
no. 62.
27. The term ratnagrha-the referent of which is not entirely clear-also occurs in
anothet fifth-century inscription from saiiei (Fleer. llIJCriplionJ 'flIN Early Gllpla KingJ, 29-
34, no. 5) and in what may be a considerably earlier inscription from Mathuri (H. Liiders,
Bharhlll l",cripli.", [Cll. II, 11], rev, E. Waldschmidt and M. A. Mehendale [Ooracamund:
1%3) 1 2-14).
84 BUDDH IST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

28. Ir is likely rhar rhe reference here is <0 a spot or seat that local tradition said had
been used by a series of former Buddhas and by Sakyamuni as well. References <0 such spots
are frequenr in rhe Chi nese pilgrims a((ounrs of early medieval India, bur rare i n inscrip­
tions. Presumably there was on a spot of this SOrt ar Siiilci what we call an "image: bur
what the inscriprion itself calls "the Buddha." On rhe concept lying behind such language.
see G . Schopen. -The Buddha as an Owner of Property and Permanent Resident in Me­
dieval lndian Monasreries," jlP 1 8 ( 990) 1 8 1 -2 1 7 [. BSB.�I 258-2891.
29. Derrett. "Nivi," 89-90.
30. Ibid 89-90. 95.
.•

3 1 . Ci,'ara""Jtll. GMs iii 2, 1 25.3.

32. J. Gonda. "Abbreviated and Inverted Nominal Compounds in Sanskrit," in
Pratidiinol1J: Indran. lranian and Indo-Europwl/ SlliditJ PrtJt1uw 10 Frall(iIcNJ BmrarriuJjacobuJ
KNipe.- OR HiJ Sixtieth Birthd.ty. ed. J. C. Heesterman er al. (The Hague: 1%8) 2 2 1 -246.
33. Gonda. -Abbreviated and Inverted Nominal Compounds in Sanskrir," 223-224.
34. Alrhough it seems ro have no conne<:rion wirh endowments. ir is wonh noting
rhat rhe rerm a�aYJ" does occur in dhann4faJlra in connection with interest, as at Nara""
1 .94. bur as Lariviere nores, even this is not common (R. W Lariviere, The NiiradaJmrri
[Philadelphia: 1 9891 ii 60).
35. Chandra. TSD. 1752.
36. GUl)3.prabha and his VinaY4Jiltra will be rmlted below in some derail.
37. Gemet, Us aJ/J'tCtJ iron.",iql«J dll bouJJhiJllu. 1 56 n. 2 [Verellen, 357 n. 261.
38. See, however. R. S. Sharma, " Usury i n Early Mediaeval India (A.D. 400-1 200),"
C()1f1parali.� SllI(/itJ in Sod.tJ dnd HiJlorJ 8 0965-1966) 56ff, esp. 58. who understands
the passage differently: "the brah"",,!a or the �"triy" should not take interest even in times
of disrress. bur should pay interest <0 people of mean avocarions (papiYiIJ.) out of legal
necessity.
•

39. ArthafaJlra 2.6. 1 3, 1 5 .

40. F. W Thomas, Tiktan Liltra,.,' Tt!>.�J and DoctnmntJ ronttrning ChintJ. Turlmlan,
Pr. 3 (London: 1955) 1 36, 1 34, and rhe references cired rhere.
4 1 . H. Charrerjee, The Law of D.b, i" Ancimt India (Calcurta: 1 97 1 ) 2 1 1 ff.; see also
L. Sternbach,jllridical SluditJ in A"ciml lndian fAu' (Drlhi: 1965) i 109ff.
42. Charrerjee, The La... of Debt, 226.
43. Ibid., 48ff.
44. Ci''ara''iIJtH, GMs iii 2, 140.16, 1 40.20, 1 4 1 . 1 [. Tog, 'dul ba Ga 147b.6. 71,
148a.I-.2.
45. Much of rhe marerial for such a study has. however, already been gathered and is
conveniently available in Joshi, Dhamklko!.t, i I , 348-380. The following observarions are
based on ir.
46. For a fuller citarion of rhe passage. see below, p. 62.
47. Thomas. Tikta" Littrary TextJ and DOCIIINt1IU, iii 143.
48. For a sampling of such seals and sealings. see B. Ch. Chhabra. "Int'l\'a Clay Seal­
ing." £1 28 0949-1950) 174-175; v. A. Smith. "VaiSili: Seals of rhe Gupra Period, "jRAS
(905) 1 52; J. Ph. Vogel, "Seals of rhe Buddhisr Monasreries in Anciem India,"jOllr1l'al of
 85

IIx C,>I.,. B"",.h of IIx RU)JI AIWli. Stxitty, n.s .• I ( 1 950) 27-32; G. R . Sharma, - Excava­
tions at Kausombi. 1 949-1955: A""11d1 Bibli"!.,4pby of IRliia" A rrhtuology 16 (Leyden:
1 9511) xl iv-xiv; D. Schllngloff, "Stamp Seal of a Buddhist Monastery: Tix J_I of IIx
NMmiJ11ldli,' Stxi./) of Intiia 3 1 ( 1 969) 69-70;H. $astri, NalanJa and lIS Epig,aphical Malt­
,i,,1 (o.,lhi: 1 942) 36ff.; and D. C. Sirear, "Inscribed Clay Seal from Raktamrittika: EI 37
( 1 967) 25-211.
49. ) . Ph. Vogel , "Some Seal s from Kasia:JRAS ( 1 907) 366.
50. In the case of Kasia there is, of course, other material that confirms the identity
of the site-see F. E. Parglter, -n,e Kasla Copper-plare: ARASI /91O-11 (Calcutta: 1 9 1 4)
7 }-o77, �p. 77 n. 10. One fun her point in rtgard (0 a( lelm some of (hese Sf'dlings can, [
think, also be quickly clarified, and such a clarification will establish an even more specific
li nkage between what has been found at some Buddhist sites and the MilaJan"iiII;,"ii4.t­
"'114)'" Vogd found at Kasia a number of seaJmgs that he described as showing a -skele­
ton ",.ted in meditation" or a "skdeton standing. On borh sides a bird perehed on a skull.­
$astri, in later work at the Site, also found such seaJings. (See J. Ph. Vogd, "Excavations at
Kasia: ARASI /905-06 [Calcutta: 1909) 85; Vogel , -Excavations at Kasla," ARASI
1906-07 [Calcutta: 1909) 66; H. $asrri, -Excavations at Kasia," ARAS/ 1910-11 [Cal­
CUtta: 1914) 72. I n the ""ood of the reports cited, Vogel surmised that "such figures pos­
sibly are meant ro represent the corporeal relics of some Buddhist saint," p. 59. n. I.) There
is, however. a passage m the KIIIJ'''U''011111 of the MiiLtwn'iiJli,'iiJa-";M)" that makes this
unlikdy. Vogel knew thIS passage bu •• presumably, only from the truncated summary in
Csoma or Feer. In the latter it appe.rs as "Un membre de I'orore religieux doit avoir sur
son sceau ou cachet un cercle avec deux daims se faisant vis-a-vis et au-dessous Ie nom du
fonddteur du Vihlra" (L. Feer, A""lp, till 1;.l1Id/OIl' [lyon: 1 1111 1 ) 1 9 1 ). The Tibetan text it·
self says, however: beo". I""n 'dal It);l bu' I1I,,1 pa , 'f,)'a IIi g1l)'i1 1t ' dgl 'dNn gyi Jang I gang
:wg gPo ' '" I" tiKi 'dun gyi m dblll III 'Mar I. bril nd ' 1.1. gnyiI III ,.; JagI ' Og III 1.11111. Ltg khallg
g, hdJg poi filing bri h.t, bya. ' g""1. ::ag 1.; "' 1"111 po'i keng r/II "'''' ' mgo
'j IhoJ P<' bri ba, b)'a .
(Tog. 'dul ba Ta I I bA): "The Blessed One said: 'There are two ki nds of seals: (seals) of a
Community, and (",als) of indIvidual monks. In regard to ,hem. that of a Communiry is
ro have a wheel engr�ved in the mIddle with a deer on both sides; below ir the name of the
Viharasvamln. Thor of an ind,,'idual monk is to have a skeleton or a skull engraved on it,'"
Vogel Identified a considerable number of rhe seals he found at Kasia wirh the first type
menrioned in this passage. but because he had access only to an incomplere summary of
the passage. he was unable to recognize seals of the second type lOr wha, they were: those
seals or seal ings bearing skeletons or skulls almosr certainly had nothing to do with "the
corporeal relics of some Buddhist saim" but were rather simply seals of individual monks.
It is worth noting too tb.. the assoc iation between rhi ngs connected with the i ndividual
and .kelerons and skulls is also found elsewhere in this Villa),'" [n a wdl-known pa.o;sage
that describes what paintings are allowed in a ";hii,a, the text says, in Lalou's translation.
"dans les [individual) cellules, un squdette. des os et un crane" are to be paimed (M. Lalou.
"Norcs sur Ie decor.rion des monasteres bouddhiques," RAA 5.3 ( 1930) 183-185). Cer­
tain Individual cells at some BuddhISt monasric sires have been identified as "meditation
caves" because they have skel<tons and skulls paimed on their walls (d. L. Feugere. "A Med·
86 BUDDH IST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

ilation Cave in Kyzil: in SAA 1985. ed. K. Frifeh and P. Serensen (London: 1 989) 380-
386). Obviously. these Vi...Yd passages render such idemiticarions doubtful.
� I . Karunarilaka has noted whar he calls an "obvious gap in rhe mformarion found in
rhe law-books": "The law-books of rhe early medieval rimes and the preceding perioo con­
rain various laws pertaining ro money-lending and interest paymems berween individuals
bur rhey pay little or no attenrion ar all to similar tr.nsacrions betwttn individ ....ls and in­
sriturions" (P. V. B. KarunariWca. "Hindu Temples in Bihar and Orissa: Some Aspens of
the Managemenr of Thei r Monerary Endowmenrs in Early Medieval Times: TIN Sri Lan,,",
jOlmlal of HlIC4l1l1ia 1 3. 1-2 ( 1 987) I �4).
�2. Ge�r. lA dJptaJ k...",iqtm JII "-IJhlJtrU. I �6 n. 3 [Verellen. 1 6 1 and n. 27).
H. Vibharig". o"rge. 'dul ba Cha 149b.1 ff.
�4. Srernbach.jllriJu,,1 Sluiu. i I I I ff.
� � . For rhe sources on rhe life and date ofGul)aptabha. and for work on his VinayaJiilra
and irs auro-commentary. see G. Schopen. "Rirual Rights and Bones of Comention: Mote
on Monastic Funerals and Relics in the /lfi/aJ""'4lli,oJ""-"inay": jlP 22 ( 1 994) 63-64
and nn. 63-64 ( Ch. X below}. When I wrote this essay. I was unaware rhat an edirion
.

of the whole of the Sanskrit text of the SRlra had been published . P. V. Bap.1t and V. V.
Gokhale had said in thelt introduction to their edirion of tbe tirst chaprer of borh rhe
Vi...Y"JRtr" and its auro-commentary rhat they had seen and used an edirion of the SUlr"
by R . Sinkriryiyana. But rhey also said rha, ir was only "proviSionally primed . . . not for­
mally published." I therefore assumed. wrongly. rhar i t was never made available. Mr.
Jonathan Silk-already known for his keen bibliographic nose-was kmd enough no, only
to point OUt to me thar it had indeed been published (as no. 74 of rhe Singh I Jam Sastra
S,ksipi!ha. Singh. Jain Series!) but also to send me a copy. I would like to rhank him very
much. Unfortunately. Bapar and Gokhale may have understa,ed the case when they referred
to this edition as "very unsa,isfiactory: It does. however. make ir possible ro Improve on
some pomts in my rrearmenr of rhe Tiberan rranslarion of rhe Silra in ,he presen, essay.
bur rhar will have to wait.
�6. L. Schmirhausen. TIN Probl.", of lIN St1I/itnlt of PJ.zSIJ ill E"r/im BIIJdhiJIIt (Tokyo:
1 99 1 ) 74. The rext occurs ar o"rge. 'dul ba Cha 279b. 3-280b.7.
�7. VilwyaJRI,,, (Sankrityayana) 38. l I ff; 'dill ""'I ""'" , o"rge. bsran ·gyur. 'dul ba Wu
30a.4ff. Nore in particular: Iri"",,""""'''' MaJ..'!4-""!JiIWJti<IIW", 1m,";. ,tansla,ed-oddly
C'IIOU8h-by rgY1I1I (h..gJ gJ"'" JIll gtk. JIll """g Jbyi" JIll bJh..J JIll by"J 1I4J.
�8. All rhe examples thar follow are cired from rbe edirion of the Sanskm rexr of rhe
tirs, chaprer of rhe Sitra and i rs commenrary found in P. V. Bapar and V. V. Gokhale. eds .•

Vi"")'''-Jiitr" asJ AItI.-ro___l"r)' os tIN SlIme (Parna: 1 982); references are to rhe Sut,,, num-
bers inserted imo rhe rexr.
�9. Si. �06 is ciring the rexr of rhe Ci" ",m'Jr.. now found ar GMs iii 2. 1 3 1 . 1 3-. 1 5 .
60. o"mikille. Durt. and Seidel. Rlpmoi,., dJr (ano" bo.vJdhiqltt Jino-jaPO""IJ. 1 2 3. 1 24.
1 2�. See nore * on p. 90.
61 . Vi",,),aJiitra (Sankriryayana) ". 1 2-.14; 'dill ""'i ",ao. o"rge. bsran 'gyur. 'dul ba
Wu 26M.
62. I am nor ar all sure whar gl"'''1: leh..ng byllr bit means. gIJa1lg 1eh..1Ig m J" gt..,1Ig
 87

Ith.zng =ms to translate kllli; and by", 1m is usually said to mean "heaped. a heaped mea·
sure of com or meal: of "full. brim. full."
63. Derg... bstan ·gyur. 'dul bot Zhu I M b. I -A .
M. Vi....ydJil'" (Sankrit)'ayana) 1 24.3.
65. Stt S. L. HuntIngton. Tix "Pii/a ·St""· ScIm/J DfSc,,/plJm(Leiden: 1 984) 1 25-126.
nn. 1 20-125. and the sources cited there.
66. 5"'·""iiJ".....'lIJlII (Gnoli) 37.6-. 19 Tog. 'dul bot Ga 286a.6-b.5.
•

67. Liiders. MJlhllt'ii Imcripliom. no. 44. and 8 1 n. I .

68. BhaiJdj),.mmli. GMs iii 1 . 220.20.
69. Salighablxtl.t,·aJlH (Gnoli) i 199.25. For additional references to tl.t1t!illii1ll iidi!- in
the ,\li/"J"n·iiJli,iiti.l.'·'....)" and elsewhere. see G. Schopen. 'On Avoiding Ghosts and
Social unsure: Monastic Fune .....!s rn the Jli/aJJniiJli,·iid.t.,·iIl4)'4." jIP 20 ( 1 992) 1 2. 30
n. 43 ( . BSB.\I 229 n. 43); Schopen. -The Ritual Obligations and Donor Rol... of Monks
in the Piilr VinaJ,,:jPTS 1 6 ( 992) 1 0 1 - 1 02 ( BSBM 79-80J [= also now Ch. I I above.
=

n. 48).
70. S4)'411.4J41ta'IJJIII (Gnoli) 35. 1 • Tog. 'd ul ba en 28�b.4.
7 1 . Here i t will be sufficient to cite-as one of many possible examples-Lawrence's
remarks gIven under the heading. -The Religious Motive'S for Endowment": "The merit
that accrued to an individual (monk) through prayer and good works could be applied ro

other people. and not only to irving people. but also to the dead. This concept played a
crucial role in Medieval religious practice . To found and endow a community of monks was
to ensure for the donor an unceasing fund of intercession and sacrifice which would avail
. th·
him and his relatives both in lift and after d... (e. H. Lawrence. ,\fttfjtl'''/ ,\fon"JliciJ1ll:
Lift ,n If'riltnl E"rop< in IIx ,\I"Jd/r AgtJ. 2d ed. (London and New York:
FDr1IIJ of RritgiOMJ
1 989) 69; see also the very rich study of M. Mclaughlin. COIIJortillg ujlh S"illli: p,.",.,. for
IIx D",d in urly Mtditl'a/ F,,,ncr [ Ithaca. N.¥.: 1994}. For what appears to be a much later
(SIxteenth. century?) Indian legal instrument intended rn pan to assure the postmortem
well.being of an individual. see J D. M. Derrett. "Kuttii: A Class ofLand-Tenures in South
India: BSOAS 2 1 ( 1958) 61-8 I ( EJJJYJ ln CI.mica/ ""d Modenr Hind" L"u' (Leiden: 1 976)
.

1 280-302).
72. Et. Lamotte. Hmor)' of Ind,,,n BuJdhmll: Frotn IIx O,igim 10 IIx Salta E'4. trans.
S. Webb.Born (Louvarn.la.neuve: 1 988) 179.
73. It will perhaps be suffic.ent. <'Ven repr....ntatlv
. •• to cite here examples from the

PaJ ,ViIl4Y". whICh is still commonly held to be the "oldest" of the '�II4Y4J. and from the
Mfi"'JJn'duniitl.t.,·ill4)'''' which IS still commonly held to be the most recent (cf. O. v.
H iniiber. "The Arising of an Offence. "palliJ41lllrl rhiillo: A Note on the Structure and His­
tory of the Th..raviida· Vinaya:jPTS 16 ( 1 992) 68 n. 1 3): Pali ViMY" ii 148.71f (on doors
and the three kinds of keys); GMs iii 4. 80. 1 5 (reference to hiding the key to the "hall for
reltgious exertion ").
74. Stt . for convenience. the Pilli material discussed in M. Njammasch. "Hierarchi­
sche Strukturen rn den buddhlStlschen KIDstern Indiens in der ersten Halfte des ersten
Jahrtausends u nser« Zeitrechnung: Untersuchungen zur Gent'Sis des indischen Feudalis·
mus." clhllogrdphiJclx-ordJiiologiulx ZtilJ..hrijt I I ( 1 970) 5 1 5-' 39. esp. 529/f.
88 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

75. Pali Vi"")'d ii 1 1 9. 1 9Ef; GMs iii 4, 79.3.

76. Perhaps rhe mosr srriking example here is rhe srory of rhe monk Pilindavaccha,
which occurs in rwo separare places in rhe Pili Vi1la)'d (i 206.34ff and iii 248. 1 1 ff). Bim­
bisam gave five hundred monasrery artendanrs (iirii..iL) ro rhe monk Pilindavaccha, and
the text says: "A distincr village established itself. They called it The Village of the
Monastery Artendants' a"d they also called it 'Pilinda Village' · (piiri)"aJ.o giimo nn'iJi.
iirii11liA:u-giimuko 'ti pi IW'!J iilw,!lJlI pilindugiinwko ,; pi 1W'!6 iiikl'!lJlt-dlC' rransLuion is from
'

I. B. Horner, Tix Book of /Ix DisdplilN, Vol. IV (Lor.<lon: 195 1 ] 282). Note tbat Jaworski
calls this story a "Iegende locale" and says it "n 'a pas d'equivalent en chinois" <J. Jaworski,
'"I.e secrion des remedes dans Ie vinaya des mahiSisaka et dans Ie vinaya pali: R",-z"iJ.
Orittll4lisl)"r.ny 5 ( 1927] l OO n. 14). For the Mulasarvastividin version of t;" Story, see
G. Schopen, " The Monasric Ownership of Servants or Slaves: Local and Legal Facrors in
rhe Redacriona! History of Two ViM)""': jlABS 17 ( 1 994) (= Ch. VII below).
77. Pali Vi"")d i 250. 14: -Now at that time seeds belonging to an Order were sown
on ground belonging to an individual, and seeds belonging to an individual were sown on
ground belonging ro an Order. They tOld this matter to the Lord. He said: 'When, monks.
seeds belonging to an Orcer are sown on ground belonging ro an individual. having given
back a porrion. (the rest) may be made use of. When seeds belonging to an individual are
sown on ground belonging to an Order. having given back a portion. (the r<St) may be
made use of"-so Horner. Tix Book of IIx DiJdpli"t. iv. 347.
78. See Schopen. " The Ritual Obligations and Donor Roles of Monks: 87-107
[. BS8M Ch. IV).
79. The inheritance of lay estates: Pil i ViM)"d ii 1 69.24; GMs iii 2. 1 39.6-143. 1 4;
rhe inheritance ofa dead monk's property: Pali Vi"")'� i 304ff; GMs iii 2. 1 1 3fftcf. Schopen.
" On Avoiding Ghosrs and Social Censure: 3ff[. BSBM 206ff]).
80. J. Marshall et aI . . Tix MO,,1111/(7/" ofSii,;(hi{Delhi: 1940) i 63; cf. J. Marshall. TdX­
ifa: An If/llurdrui A«OIl"1 of Arch«o/ogi(a/ Exea,,,,ri.,,J (Cambridge. England: 195 1 ) i 274.
where he says. for exam ple, "At the Dha.rmarajiki at Taxila . . . there is not a vestige of any
residential quarters which can be assigned to a date much earlier than the beginning of the
Christian Era."
8 1 . Cf. G. Schopen. " On Monks. Nuns. and 'Vulga, Practices: The Introduction of
the Image Cult intO Indian Buddhism," ArA 49.1-2 ( 1 988-1989) 165-166 ( BSBAI .

250-25 1 ].
82. Marshall. Taxi/a. i 320.
83. See S. Nagamju. Buddhist Archit«tltrt of WtJI'"' I"dia (( 250 B.C.-(. A.D. 300)
.

(Delhi: 198 1 ) 1 1 3-1 30. and the ground plans given in figs. 23-25.
84. Ibid 1 33-40. and plans in fig. 27. Nagamiu says. "Here are the earliest Buddhist
.•

excavations among the inland group of caves in Western Deccan."

85. For the sake of convenience. see B. Kumar. The Arch«olog)" of Paralip.lrd arid Na­
Janda (Delhi: 1987) 1 641T. and the sources cited there.
86. Though it would lead roo far afield to pUrlue it here. i[ is-I think-safe to say
that a careful study of exrant. as opposed to conjectured . ......Iy stupas would arrive at the
same point. Those Jlupas that have some chance of being really early, and in reg.,d to which
Doi1lg Bu,illtn I'" Iht Lord 89

we have some actwl knowledge. are all small. unimprrssive affairs. This is the case with
the JlNjktJ at Bairat (R. B. D. R. SahOl. Arrhato/Qgi(a/ RnnainJ and Ex....''''iMJ al Bairal [Jaipur:
1937) 28ff; S. Piggott. "The Earliest Buddhist Shrines," A1Iliqllifl 1 7 ( 1 943) 1-1 0), at
Lauriya-Nandanjo1arh (J. E . van Lohuizen-De Leeuw. "South-east Asian Architecture and
the Stlipa ofNandangarh," ArA 1 9 ( 1956) 282ff and fig. 2). at Junnar-Tuljalena (Nagaraju,
BIIJJhiJl Arrhiltl�1I1T QI 1'C'(JltrJI l"d,,J. 1 33-1 34), etc.
87. E. HultZMh. I",erip'iOllJ 01 AJoLt (CII. I) (Oxford: 1925) 14. 36, 60, etc.; J. Bloch.
La i".scrip'IO"J J'JsoJ:", (Paris: 1950) 1 1 1 .
88. For a recent discussion. "'" K. R. Norman. "ASoka's 'Schism' Edict," Bllltk,-ag"h,
,.....i... 46 ( \ 987) 1-33, esp. 9-10. 2�26. and nn. 4. 19.
89. Hu1tZMh. I"Jmp"01lJ of /'Jolta. 163; Bloch, Us inJcrip,iollJ J'",oLt. 1 52-153; cf.
Norman, "ASok.s 'Schism' Edict: 1 0 1 - 1 02.
90. HultZMh. IlIJeripfio"J 01 A,oLt. 164; Bloch. Us I1IJ(riplioIlJ ,/'aJolta. 1 57.
9 1 . D. C. Sireu. Molt.1II SllIdi,;(Calcuna: 1 979) 94-103. esp. 10 1-\02; Sirear. "Pan­
guaria Inscription oi Asoka: EI 39 ( \ 97 1 . but 1 98 1 ) 1-8.
92. For the site. Stt II. K. Thapar. ed . • IlIdia" A rchatoIog)' 197:>-76: A Rn'itu, ( New
Delhi: 1 979) 28-30. and pis. xxxix-xli; H. Sarkar. "A Post-Asokan Inscription from Pan­
gOf••na in the Vindhyan Range." in Sri Di1les.z.."ndriLt: SI""ies ill Ind% g)', Shri D. C. Simtr
FtslJ<hri/t. ed. B. N. Mukherjee et al. (Delhi: 1 983) 403-405. and pis. 7 3-75. (This con­
tains a note on the site by K. D. B3.1eq.. and an edition of the later "chatra inscription"­
the latter is also t""'ted i n S. S. ly ... "Panjo1uraria Beahmi Inscription," EI 40 ( \ 973, but
1 986) 1 1 9-120 and pl.).
93. See, for example. all the IOscnptions listed under "Donations by Inhabitants of
urtain Places" in Lilders, Bhtlrhlll l",..riplionJ, A5-54. Note what might be traces of the
5an1e sort of situation. of "monks" living on vil lages, in what are considered the oldest parts
of the Pali Canon; e.g SUlla"ip;ild 97 1 : . . . ytlftlcli"; giitlu. which K. R. Norman translates
.•

" . . . living in a restrained way in a village" (K. R. Norman. Tht Rh,,,octrot Horn ""d Ofhtr
Early BIIJJhIJl p.."" [London and lIoston: 1985) 1 57).
94. Marshall er aI., Tht ;\Io1l'lI'InrlJ olSiiiichi, i. no. 4(}4; cf. 298.
95. S. Radhakrishnan. Tht PrinCIpal Ujktlli!"JJ (London: 1953) 374; R . E . Hume. Tht
Thin«1f Prill..,1,, Upa1liJhads, 2d rt'\'. ed. (Oxford: 1 93 1 ) 200-20 1 .
96. See C. Hallisey. "Apropos rhe Pat. Vi""),,, as a Historical Document: A Reply to
Gregory Schopen,"jPTS 1 5 (991) 207.
97. See n. 77 above.
98. Marshall. Taxi/a. i 233. 320. Cf. Marshall et aI .• Tht M.1Ium<1lfJ olSiiiichT. i 63-64:
"As a fact. ir was nor unril rhe Kushan period [hac [he self-contained monasrery. whICh we
are wont panicularly <0 assoc iate with rhe Buddhist Jdtlghiiriima, made its appearance i n
rhe Northwest of India. and not ur.ril the "Ariy Gupra Age rha[ It found irs way in<o Hin­
dustan and un[rdl l ndia"-the last parr of which is in need of revision.
99. Marshall. Taxila. i 324.
100. See [he All uru inscriprion cited above in n. 22 and rhe well-known Marhufd Lion
Capital lnscnprion (Kha,..,h,hi I1IJcrip,ioNJ. 48-49) for two of the eariies[ inscriprional ref­
erences to donation of land to Buddhlsr communiries.
90 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

10 I . Pili Vina,a ii 1 2 1 .2.

102. J . D. M. Derr�tt. Db.tmwliiIlra aRdjNriai,al Lit..."t"" (A History of Indian Lit­
erature. �. J. Gonda. Part of Vol. IV) (Wi�baden: 1973). 3 1 .
103. R. Lingat. TIN ClaIIi(al L"u- of Inaia. trans. J . D. M . Derertt (B�rkdey: 1973)
99-100.
104. There is at I�t Dn� significant difference. Yiijiavalkya (II. 5.96-97) gi= d=iled
procedures for recording partial rcpaymems and for-when ,he deb, is repaid-nullifying
th� written comract or writing a "receipt" (cf. Chatterjee. TIN Lau·.fDtht in Allei"" India.
345-348). But our Vina)'4 passage knows nothing of this.
105. But ..... J. Filliolat. "La valeur d� connaissances greco-romaines sur node:j..".,.,,1
dtr Ja/-anfJ. avril-juin (98 1 ) 1 1 3 n. 32.
106. See . for example. J. A. Raftis. "Western Monasticism and Economic Organi­
zation: Comparati", StNaia in SO(itty "Rd HiJtD'J 3 0 9( 1 ) 452-469; KJ. Cona"t. "Observa­
tions on the Practical Talems and Technology of tbe M�ieval B�n�ictin�: in Cillnia(
MonaJfi(iI'" in the Ctl/tral lWi""lt Ages. ed. N. Hum (London: 197 1 ) 77-84; eIC.
107. See G. Schopen. " Burial 'Ad Sanctos and the Physical Presence of the Buddha in
Early Indian Buddhism: A Study in the Archaeology of Religions: RtligifJR 1 7 (987)
206-209 [ 8 858M \28- 1 3 1]; Schopen. " The Buddha as an Owner of Properry and Per­
manent R�idem: [ . 8SBM 271-274].
108. A large part of the problem has. of course. to do with what Lariviere has so grace­
fully call� the "chronological house of cards" that has been built up for dha"""iiiItra (Lari­
viere. NJraa.. ii. xix ff). Dates for Viijiia''lJlk}a in particular have v.ri� widely-it has been
assign� to the fourth or even sixth centuryC.E. (Lingat. TINCkmi(al Lau- .fIndia. 99-100).
Should such later dates tum OUt to be correct. then YiijilurlalltJa would be conSiderably later
than our Vi1W)'a tCOXt.
*[It is now much clearer what the Miitru is. and the passage cit� by Gu�prabha
has been identifi� in a section of what in the Tibetan tradition is call� th� Ulfaragrantb.t.
The section is there called th� Miitru. See abov� pp. 8-9. l 7n. 14. and below pp. 125.
162n. 19. 270. 282n. 52.)
 CHAPTER I V

Deaths, Funerals, and the Division

of Property in a Monastic Code

READl1'OG BCDDHlsT ,·inaya texts as we have them can be an unsettling experi­

ence. These texts are huge compilations of rules and regulations meant to govern
the lives of Buddhist monks. Though they were written or compiled by monks for
monks, the life of a monk they envision or take for granted has little in common
with the image of the Buddhist monk that is commonly found in our textbooks,
or even in many of our scholarly sources. That image-which has found its way
even into modern European novels-presentS the Buddhist monk as a lone asce­
tic who has renounced all social ties and property to wander or live in the forest,
preoccupied with meditation and the heroic quest for nin'ii,!a or enlightenment.
But Buddhist monastic literature is more griny; it presents and presupposes a dif­
ferent kind of monk. The monk it knows is caught in a web of social and ritual
obligations. is fully and elaborately housed and permanently settled, preoccupied
not with /lin'jina but with bowls and robes, bathrooms and door bolts, and proper
behavior in public. A French scholar, Andre Bareau, some years ago went so far as
to say that the various monastic codes. or " inaya" "contain hardly a whisper about
the numerous spiritual practices, meditations, contemplations. etc., which consti­
tuted the very essence of the Buddhist ·religion.'" This at least must give us pause
for thought.
But even when elements of the image of the ascetic. meditating monk do
appear in" ina),a literature-and they do-they often appear in unexpected form.
The various "inaya, present the ascetic ideal, for example, i n the instructions they
say should be given to the candidate at his or her ordination. In the Pali Vinaya,
the candidate is to be told that entrance into the monastic order entails exclusive
reliance on only four things, technically known as "requisites" or "means of sup-

Originally published in Buddhism i" P'd(fict. ed.D. S. Lopez (Princ�on. N.).: 1 995):
473-502. Reprinted wilh srylistic changes wirh permission of rhe editor.

91
92 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

port": begged food or scraps; rag-robes, or robes of discarded cioch; the foot of trees
as a place of residence; and urine as medicine. The candidate-the text says-is
ro be told this, and told that he should limit himself to these means of [474] sup­
port "for as long as he lives." But then he is immediately told, in the text as we
have it, that, in addition to robes made from rags, he may also have robes made of
"linen, cotton, silk, wool, and so on." In a Sarvlistivadin Vinaya text that describes
the ordination procedure for nuns, the list of "extra allowances" is even longer and
includes colored cloth, woven cloth, muslin, hemp, silk, wool, fine Banaras cloth,
and linen. If this looks like a double message, anocher passage in the Pali Vinaya
putS this beyond doubt. Though the candidate for ordination is told in one place
to limit himself to rag-robes, the same Vinaya unequivocally says i n another place
that wearing only rag-robes is an "offense of wrongdoing," or a violation ofthe vinaya.
In a late "appendix" to the Pali Vina)"a called the Pariviira, it is even suggested that
most monks who actually wear rag-robes do so "from stupidity" or " from madness,
from a deranged mind: and are ·of evil desires, filled with covetousness."
Other and even more extreme elements of the ascetic ideal also occur in the
vinayas, but they tOO are treated in a curious way. The lIIiilasanliisfiviitia-J'ina)"a, for
example, knows and contains rules ro regulate the behavior of monks who live in
cemeteries or wear robes made from burial cloths. This text says, however:

A monk who dwells in a cemetery, robing himself with burial cloth, must not
enter a mOll<lStery. He must not worship a lfiipa. If he should worship, he must
not approach it any nearer than a fathom. He must not use a monastic cell. He
must not even sir on monastic bedding. He must nor sit among the community
of monks. He must not teach Dharma to br.hmans and householders who have
come and assembled. He must not go to the houses ofbrahmans and householders,
and so on.

If in the former i nstances the ascetic ideal is severely weakened or rendered

purely symbolic by permitting "extra allowances" or calling into question the mo­
tives that lie behind it, in the case of ascetic practices connected with cemeteries­
though nothing is directly said ro discourage them-a set of rules is promulgated
that excludes any monk who engages i n such practices from any meaningful place
in normal monastic life. Such a monk cannot enter or use monastic property; he
is denied full access ro the object of monastic worship; he cannot engage in monas­
tic activities or interact with fellow monks; interaction with the laity-and there­
fore access to economic support-is also either denied him or seriously restricted.
But nocice too that the way in which these rules are framed inadvertently articu­
lates the conception of normal monasticism presupposed by their authors: normal
monks lived in monasteries and had free access to and use of monastic property
Dtalhs, F,,_als, "lid Iht Di";si." .f Pro",,'y 93

and objects of worship; they lived communally and could i nteract with the laity.
The norm here, the ideal, is not of ascetic practice but of sedentary, socially engaged,
permanentl)' housed monasticism. This same norm is equally evident elsewhere as
well.
Much has recently been written about modern Buddhist "forest monks: and
the Pali VifUtya also speaks of such monks. But in one of the passages in this [475]
monastic code in which the lifestyle of such monks is most clearly described, there
are, agam, some surprises:
. .

At that time the Venerable Udiiyin was livi ng in the forest. The monastery of
that Venerable was beautiful, something to ..,." and lovely. His private chamber
was in the middle. surrounded on all sides by the main house, well appointed
with couch and chair. cushion and pillow. well provided with drinking water and
water for washing. the grounds well kept. Many people came to ..,., the Venera­
ble Udayin's monastery. A br.mman and his wife approached the Venerable
Udiiyin and said they would like to ..,., his monastery.
"Have a look: he said, and taking the key. unfastening the bolt, and open­
ing the door. he entered . . .

Though this is in the forest, these are not the quarters that one might expect
for a monk who relied on the four requisites: he had a private room, well-appointed
furniture. and lock and key, and his monastery was something of a tOurist attrac­
tion. And yet this. apparently, is how the compilers of the Pali Vinaya saw the for­
est life. Their forest life was little different from their vision of monastic life in
general : both. for them. weere permanently housed and well appointed, well ordered.
maintained. secured by lock and key, and the focal point of lay activities.
These passages from several different t'ifUt)'aJ-and a large number of other
passages-make it difficult to avoid the conclusion that if the ideal of the indi­
vidual rag-wearing, begging, forest-dwelling monk was in fact ever the rule in the
early h istOry of Indian Buddhism, if thee ideal was ever anything more than "em­
blematic," then it was, by the time the "ifUtyaJ that we have were compiled, all
but a dead letter. The I'inaya texts that we know are little interested in any indi­
Vi dua l religious quest bur are coocerned with the o rgan ization, administration.
maintenance, and smooth operation of a complex institution that owned property
and had important social obligations.
The disincl ination on the parr of scholars to acknowledge fully the institu­
tional preoccupations of the I'inaya, and the complexity of the institutions these
texts presuppose, has distOrted the discussion of the I'inaya$' dates and disguised
their historical importance. In fact, though often pressed into service to do so, our
l'il1aya texts can probably tell us very little about what early monastic Buddhism
94 B U DDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

"originally· was. They can, however, almost certainly tell us a great deal about
what it had-by a certain period-become. And that, for further historical devel­
opments, is far more interesting.
Many, if not most, scholars seem to want to place the canonicai llillayas i n a
period close to-if not even during-the lifetime of the Buddha. But this would
mean that Buddhist monasticism had little or no real history or development, since
by this argument monasticism appeared fully formed at the very beginning. Such
an argument requires, as well, the suppression of what little we actually know about
the various I'illayas and the history of Buddhist monasticism.
In most cases. we can place the "illayas we have securely in time: the San-ani­
lIada-.,illaya that we know was translated into Chinese at the beginning of [476]
the fifth century (404-405 C.E.). So were the Vinayas of the Dharmaguptakas (408),
the MahiSiisakas (423-424), and the Mahasiif!lghikas (4 1 6). The Miilasan.iisfillada­
dnaya was translated into both Chi nese and Tibetan still later, and the aCtual con­
tents of the Pali Vinaya are only knowable from Buddhaghosa's fifth-century com­
mentaries. Although we do not know anything definite about any hypothetical
earlier versions of these "inayas, we do know that all of the ,'inayas as we have them
fall squarely into what might unimaginatively be called the Middle Period of In­
dian Buddhism, the period between the beginning of the Common Era and the
year 500 C.E. As we have them, then, they do not-and probably cannot-tell
us what monastic Buddhism ·orig inally" was, bUt they do provide an al most over­
whelming amount of detail about what i t had become by this time. To use these
,'inayas for what we know them to be-documents from the Middle Period-gives
(0 them and (0 this period the historical importance that both deserve but that
neither has yet received.
!'inayas as we have them do indeed belong (0 and reflect the Middle
That the
Period is obvious from other evidence as well. All ofour .-illayas presuppose a stan­
dard, well-organized. walled monastery with latrines, refectories, cloisters, store­
rooms, dispensaries, doors, and keys; it had more or less extensive landholdings
and a banery of monastic servants and laborers. But we know from archaeological
sources that such an ordered and well-developed monastery did nOt exist before
the beginning of the Common Era and appeared throughout India only in the Mid­
dle Period. Sources that know such monasteries, and are intended (0 regulate them,
could therefore only date from the same period. We know, moreover, from in­
scriptional records that it was only in the Middle Period that Buddhist monastic
groups started to receive large donations of land and, in fact, entire villages. But
the Piili Vinaya, for example, already describes one such village of five hundred
"monastery anendants" that was given to a single monk.
To suggest that the Middle Period saw the compilation of huge monastic codes
should not be surprising. This was, after all, the period d uring which equally enor-
mous doctrinal encyclopedias like the Ahhidha171l4kofa were also compiled; this
was the period during which the various named monastic orders-the Sarvasti­
vadins, Mahasa�ghikas, Dharmaguptakas, and so on-appeared in Indian inscrip­
tions as the recipients of what must have been an enormous amount of surplus
wealth. And there are no such records either before or after this period. What
might be more surprising is that the Middle Period apparently not only saw the
ful l institutional, economic, and doctrinal development of the monastic orders,
but also was the period during which the vast majority of the texts that we call
" Mahayana Jiilra$"' were being written. And these two developments are almost
certainly related; it may well be that much of Mahayana Jiilra l iterature makes
good sense only in light of what else was going on when i t was composed. Such
a possibility gives a new importance to the vinayaJ and demands a new read ing
of them, for i t seems likely that one of the things that those groups that we call
Mahayana were struggling with-and against-was what monastic Buddhism
had become by the Middle Period. To determine what that was, the "inayaJ will
be a major source. (477)
I might cite a single broad example. Unless we know what landed, institu­
tional monastic Buddhism had become when Mahayana JiilraJ were being written.
it is difficult to understand the attacks on "abuses" associated with sedentary monas­
ticism found most stridently in Mahayana texts like the RiiW(/piilaparip�whii; it is
also difficult to understand simi lar, if less shrill, criticisms in Mahayana texts like
the Kiifyapapari'"tIrta, or the constant calls in such texts to return to a life in the
forest, or why long sections of the Samiidhiriija-Jiilra are given over to extolling as­
cetic practices, and why the necessity and value of these same practices are a topic
of sharp debate i n the AJlaJahiiJrikii-prajnapiiramilii. Unless we have a clear picture
of what the authors of these Mahayana texts were surrounded by and reacting to,
we will have little chance of appreciating what they were producing. And an im­
portant source for that piCture will be the "inayaJ that were being compiled at the
same time. It is in this light, I would suggest. that the following selections should
be read.
The following selections are of interest for at least twO related reasons. They
provide some interesting examples of the SOrtS of things that institutionalized
monastic Buddhism was concerned with in the Middle Period: the proper per­
formance of funeral rituals for deceased fellow monks; the inheritance of property;
the performance of death rituals for fellow monks; and negotiating ritual privi­
leges, control of sacred relics, and economic resources. There is perhaps some added
interest from the fact that such monastic concerns have rarely been identified or
studied. But these selections il lustrate as well how far monastic Buddhism had
moved away from what we consider "spiritual" concerns-how far. in other words,
it had developed strictly as an institution and become preoccupied with institu-
96 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

tional concerns. These developments, of coutSe, made it ripe for reformation. And
this was very likely what many of the Mahayana groups were attempting to effect.
The selections that follow all come from a single "inaya, the Miilasarviisliviida­
vinaya, or literature related ro it, so at this stage one must be careful not to over­
generalize. They are-and are only meant to be-suggestive of what we still have
yet to learn. The first consists of three short texts that in their original context, as
here, follow one after another. They define and present as obligatory what appear
to be the three main elements of a Miilasarvastivadin monastic funeral: removal of
the body-undoubtedly ritualized; the honor of the body (farira-piijii)--which ap­
peatS to have involved bathing the body (see section III) and other preparations
prior to cremation; and the recitation of some sacred or "scriptural" text, the merit
from which was to be assigned to the deceased. These actions are presented here
as a set of rituals that the monks must perform before any distribution of the de­
ceased monk's property can be undertaken. They are clearly intended to effect a
definitive separation of the dead monk-here presented as a club-wielding
"ghost"-from his petSonal belongings. Keep in mind that the expression used
here, "robe and bowl," was a euphemism that covered a large variety of personal
property. Notice too that these passages imply a kind of exchange relationship that
is also expressed elsewhere (section VII): the monks are obligated to perform the
funeral and, significantly, to transfer to the deceased [478] the reward, or "merit,"
that results from their ritualized recitation of the Dharma; but the deceased, in
exchange, is to allow the distribution of his estate to take place unencumbered and
without interference. This conception of a set of mutual obligations between the
dead and the living is almost certainly only a specific instance of an established
Indian norm. Indian legal texts, for example, take as a given that the property or
estate of a dead person goes to the petSon or petSons who perform his funeral rites.
The rules regarding monastic funerals in section I were presented as a response
to the problem of inheritance and the distribution of monastic estates, a problem
that will reappear in other selections (sections VII and VIII). The second selection
presents another set of rules as a response to a different problem-that of avoid­
ing social criticism or censure. Buddhism has often been presented as if it had been
a force for social change in early India-a reaction to and an attempt to reform es­
tablished Indian norms. Bur again, if this were ever actually true, it most certainly
was not by the time the villayas were compiled in the Middle Period. The "inayas
are, in fact, preoccupied-if not obsessed-with avoiding any hint of social crit­
icism and with maintaining the status quo at almost any cost. In terms of social
norms the monks who compiled the vinayas were profoundly conservative men.
Our second selection is but one part icularly striking instance of this general trend.
Here the institution of monastic funerals is presented and justified almost exclu­
sively in terms of the need to avoid any offense to the social and religious sensi-
DMlh,. FII1I...aiJ. and I'" Di.i,ion of Proptrt)" 97

bilities of the world outside the monastery. This world was panicularly sensitive
ro the question of the proper rimal treatment of the dead and the need ro avoid
the "pollution" assoc iated with death and dying. Our selection seems, again, to
represent a Buddhist monastic expression of these same Indian concerns . Unlike
section I , it explicidy refers to the means offinal disposal ofrhe body and, in faer,
presents several alternatives designed ro meet various contingencies: cremation is
preferred, but disposal in water or burial are acceptable in certain circumstances.
The text also implies that whatever means of disposal is used, a recitation of the
Dharma and the assigning of the resultam reward ro the deceased are required. Fi­
nally, in regard ro this selection, it should be noted that it contains the first ref­
erence that we have seen ro "the three sections" (tritia'!<!aka) (which is also referred
ro in seer ion VII). Although it is nor certain what this was, it would appear ro
have been a standard formulary made lip of three parts that was used on a variery
of rimal occasions. The first part consisted of a set of verses in praise of the Bud­
dha. the Dharma. and the Sangha; the middle portion was made up of a canonical
text suited ro the rimal occasion; and the third part contained a formal transfer­
ence of merit.
In sections I and II. where the rules governing monastic funerals are presented
as obligarory. there is no reference ro lay participation in these affairs. But in sec­
tion I I I such participation is presented both as an obligation and as a particular
privilege sought after by a number of competing groups. The beginning of the
text-which is omitted here-sets the stage for the events that our selection nar­
rates to justify an exception ro established monastic rule. It was a rule that monks
[479] were not ro enter rowns or villages except at certain regular times. But the
need ro perform proper funer..1 ri mals for a dead monk. the need ro perform "the
honors for his body." was apparendy considered so important by the compilers of
this Vitla)'a that it was able ro override or abrogate this rule. The particular case
that gave rise ro this exception involved the death of a monk named Uda:yin, who
was known as the foremost of monks who were able ro convert families. A mar­
ried woman who had been sleeping with the leader of a gang of th ieves was wor­
ned that this monk knew what she was up ro and would reveal it. She arranged
with her lover ro lure the monk into a house. Her lover was ro wait at the door
and ro dispatch the monk when he came out. Our sdecrion picks up the srory from
here.
In this account the Buddha begins by reiterating the obligation of monks ro
perform the "honors for the body" of a fellow monk. As the srory develops, what
starts as a monastic obligation comes ro be a ritual privilege that several categories
of individuals seek to secure: there is a monastic claim. but it lacks ecclesiastical
specificity-these monks are presented as neither specifically co-residential monks
nor ecclesiastically recognized disciples of Uda:yi n; there is a royal claim, but it
98 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

has a purely personal or biographical basis; there is, finally, a lay claim, but one in
which an institutionally recognized relationship is involved. This final claim is
the one that wins. It is made by Mlllika, who declares that Udllyin was her "teacher"
(iiciirya). This would make her his " disciple" (anleviiJin), which is an institutionally
recognized formal relationship that involves a set of mutual obligations. Malika,
however, is not a nun, but-elsewhere at least-a lay-sister, and herein lies a part
of the significance of the text. Elsewhere in the MiilaJan;iiJlilliida-lIinaya it is made
clear that monks had a series of ritual obligations in regard to lay-brothers and
lay-sisters (lIpiiJaka IlIpiiJikii). What our text seems to be suggesting is that lay­
brothers and lay-sisters might, in tum, have certain ritual privileges in regard ro
monks. But here this is being negotiated, not asserted or made a rule. Our text
seems to carefully avoid making a general rule. It simply establishes a precedent­
"this happened once when . . . "-that is all. Future cases, therefore, would also
have to be negotiated. The ambiguity seems to be intentional, and such ambigu­
ity or ambivalence seems to be characteristic of all those situations in which lay
participation in monastic ritual is at issue, or where control of, and access to, sacred
objects is involved, and it is clearly visible again in section IV.
Section III also represents one of the rare cases in which building a Jliipa, or
permanent Structural reliquary, for the postcremation remains of the deceased is
specifically included as a part of the funeral. Generally these twO things, although
obviously related, were considered and treated separately, as in section IV. But the
Jfiipo referred to here is almost certainly not of the monumental type; given that
it was, as it were, built in a day, it was probably a small structure built over a pot
containing the ashes of the deceased . There is Indian inscriptional evidence indi­
cating that small JfiipoJ were built for the local monastic dead, and in some cases
these are explicitly said to have been erected-as in our text-by a disciple of the
deceased . {480]
Section IV is particularly interesting. In Miilasarvastivlldin literature at
least-and probably in the literatures of other orders-it, and not the account of
the death and funeral of the Buddha in the Mohiiporinirvii,!<,-Jiilro, describes the
origins of what we call the "relic cult" in monastic Buddhism. Like section III,
it deals with questions of access and control and shows the monks and the laity
jockeying for position; the monks win, of course, for they wrote the account. Like
several other of our selections, its denouement deals not so much with devotion as
with "dollars."
The selection starts with what was apparently the established monastic rule:
the funeral of the Monk Sariputra was performed by a fellow monastic. The text
assumes that the remains or relics of a dead monk are the property of the monas­
tic community. However, this position becomes the initial point of friction and
the point to be negotiated. For the established monastic claim cuts off a monk in
 99

death from the laity who in life may have been his supporters and followers. Such
an assertion of proprietary rights by the monks has at least the potential to disaf­
fect that lay group. and all our vinayaJ stress the need to avoid that.
After the Novice Cunda has performed the funeral of the Monk Sariputra
and handed his relics over to the Monk Ananda. the latter goes to the Buddha
to express his dismay at Sariputra's death. The Buddha then delivers a longish
homily on the meaning of Sariputra's death, which is omitted here. The House­
holder Anathapi�4ada, who is the prototypical generous lay donor, then hears
ofSariputra's death and goes to the Monk Ananda to present a claim on the relics.
Ananda responds with a counterclaim in exactly the same terms and refuses to
give up possession of the relics. To this point, we have monastic possession of
the relics, a lay claim. a monastic counterclaim, and unresolved deadlock.
Here-as in so many Other cases in the ,'inaya i nvolving friction between the lay
and monastic communities-the Buddha himself is brought in to mediate. The
layman Anathapi�dada repeats his claim to the Buddha, and the Buddha sides with
him. The Buddha summons the Monk Ananda and tells him to turn the relics over
to Anathapi�4ada. The Buddha is also made to say, in effect, that when monks re­
tain exclusive possession of monasric relics, this is not beneficial to the teaching.
and thar monks should rather occupy themselves with the "business of a monk"­
recruiting, ordaining, and instructing other monks. Here we have articulated some­
thing like a distinction that is commonly said to have existed between the reli­
gious activity of monks and the religious activity oflaypersons in Indian Buddhism:
monks are to be properly occupied with maintaining the i nstitution by inducting
new recruits and with transmitting the teaching; activity in regard to relics is the
concern of the laity. But nOte that it requires the authority of the Buddha to in­
troduce this distinction, that it is presented as an innovation and that the prior or
original monastic pracrice did not recognize this distinction. Also note that the
account as we have it implies that there was some monastic resistance; at least the
compilers of the account must have anticipated such resistance. because they ap­
parently felt compelled to add what amounts to an editOrial comment. After saying
thar Ananda gave the relics of Sariputra to the householder, [481 } the text adds:
"This was so since the Blessed One when formerly a bodhiJallVa never violated the
words of his farher and mOther, or of his precepror or teacher or orher persons wor­
thy of respect." This statement is syntactically isolated and does not form a part
of the ongoing narrative. It appears, rather, to be an editorial intrusion intended
to make explicit how the compilers wanted the text to be read : Ananda acquiesced
not as a resulr of his own inclinations but srricrly as a matter of obedience.
There are other indications that the compilers of the account did not see the
Buddha's instructions as a satisfying solution. for the account does not end here.
Both the Buddha and the reluctant Monk Ananda are presented as accedi ng to lay
100 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSIN ESS MA".ERS

desires to have monastic relics. But-you can almost hear the editors say-look
what happened. Anathapi��ada takes the relics and enshrines them i n his house.
Airhough others had some access to them, the text seems to emphasize that they
vinually became the object of a private household cuir. The issue came to a head
because lay comrol of monastic relics uirimately resulted in exacriy what it was
imended to prevem: access to such relics, when in private hands, was resrricted
and could be emirely shut off. Enter, again, the Buddha. He rules that laypersons
can, indeed, build sliipas for the relics of the monastic dead, but all such sliipas, ex­
cept those for "ordinary" monks, must be built within the monastic complex, that
is, must remain under monastic comrol. It is a clever piece. It makes it possible
to presem the Buddha as reasserting the right of monastic comrol solely for the
sake of benefiting the laity.
Access and comrol, however, are not the only issues here. Relics gave rise to
festivals; festivals gave rise to trade; trade gave rise to gifts and donations. It is
this, in the end, that our text may be about. But to appreciate this particular monas­
tic imerest in monastic relics, an established principle of vinaya law must be kept
in mind. Vinually all the vi1/ayas comain rules stipulating that any donation made
to the sliipa of a Buddha belongs to that Uiipa, that is, to the Buddha himself, and
could not, except under special circumstances (see section VI), be transferred to,
or used by, either the monastic community or an i ndividual monk. This legal prin­
ciple, which cominues in effect even in Mahayana siilra literature, deprived the
monks of an importam source of revenue, and our text is almost cenainly re­
sponding to this situation. It acknowledges that a token pan (the "first fruit" of­
ferings) of the donations i n question is to be given to the Buddha in the form of
the "Image that Sits in the Shade of the Jambu Tree." This was, apparenriy, an im­
age of the Buddha that represemed him in his first youthful experience of medi­
tation. There are several references to it in the Miilasarviisliviida-vinaya (see sec­
tion VIII), and an inscribed second-cemury image of this son has been found at
saiki. A small pan of the donations is also to be used to maimain the sliipa of
Saripurra. Bur the rest-and in this case that is a goodly amoum-is to be di­
vided among the monks. Our text hastens to add that in this instance there is no
offense, because the donations were not made to a sliipa of the Buddha but to a
sliipa of a specific disciple. The qualification to the established rule that is being
imroduced here, and the full range of its applicabi lity, are stated more [482]
straightforwardly in Gu�aprabha's Vinayasiilra, a fifth- to sevemh-cemury monas­
tic handbook that paraphrases our passage as "that which is given to the sliipa of
a disciple belongs indeed to his fellow monks." Such sliipas could, then, come to
be a legitimate source of revenue for the monks, and such a possibility may ex­
plain what Faxian, a fifth-cemury Chinese monk, said he saw in India: "wherever
Dt4ths. Flllln'als. mJ tIN Di,',i"" f ProJIm>
. 101

monks live they build up slupas in honor of the saints Siiriputra. Maudgalyiiyana.
and A.nanda."
We have no idea. of course. if any of the things narrated i n our account actu­
ally occurred. If. as seems very li kely. this account was compiled i n the Middle
Period. then it was written hundreds of years after the events it is supposed to be
describing and has. in one sense. no historical value at all. But i n another sense i t
is an extremely important histOrical document: i t shows us how Miilasarvastivadin
" inaJa masters in the Middle Period chose to construct and to present their past
to their fellow monks; it shows us how the issue of who controlled sacred relics
had-at least for this period-been settled; more generally it shows us vinaJa mas­
ters i n the Middle Period seriously engaged with questions of power. access. relics.
and money. These monks almost look like real people.
SeCtions V and VI both deal with an aspeCt not of death but of dying. and
both link it with property. Both texts refleCt the importance attributed by a vari­
ety of Indian sources-Hindu. Jain. and Buddhist-tO the moment of death. The
basic idea is succinctly expressed in a Jain text: "as is the mind at the moment of
death, JUSt so is one's future rebi rth"; or in the Santiidhiriija-sulra: "when at the
moment of passing away, death, or dying, the thought of something occurs. one's
consciousness follows that thought." The last moment or one's dying thought was
believed. i n effect. to determine one's next birth. However serious the difficulties
such a belief might create for official Buddhist doctrine, it is obvious from our two
texts that "inaJa masters took it as a given, The rules they present here are solely
i ntended either to avoid negative thoughts at the moment of death (section V) or
to ensure positive thoughts at such a time, The failure on the part of the monas­
tic communiry to do what is required to effect either is not only a disciplinary fault
but has disastrous consequences for their dying fellow monk, who is thereby con­
demned to rebirth i n the hells.
How important such beliefs and rituals were to the monastic community is at
least suggested in both texts. In section V. although the Buddha is made to rule
that "excessive attachment" to some possession on the part of a monk is a fault, still
the final ruling provides for the continuing existence of such a fault. In section VI
the need to ensure a positive state of mind i n a monk who may be on the point of
death overrides not one, but twO, otherwise firm " inaJa laws. This need is appar­
ently so important that the monks may use assetS that belong to the Buddha to
meet it. though this is normally strictly forbidden: to meet this need the monks
are also allowed to engage in buying and selling, and this tOO is normally restricted.
I n terms of detail. note that seCtion V contains a reference to the actual crema­
tion of a dead monk as being performed by a low-caste man; this would suggest
[4831 again that the monks had a purely ritual role and did not do the dirty work.
102 BUDDHIST MONKS liND BUSI NESS MIITTERS

In section VI, as in VIII, there is a reference to "the perfumed chamber." We know

from numerous references to this chamber in the MiillZIarvasriviida-viMya, and from
architectural and inscriptional evidence, that it was the residential cell directly
opposite the main entrance of the typically quadrangular Indian Buddhist
monastery of the Middle Period. This cell was both by position and by architec­
tural elaboration set off from the other residential cells and was reserved for the
Buddha himself. The latter permanently resided in such a cell in every fully de­
veloped monastery in the form of what we call an image, and there were specific
monks assigned to this chamber or monastic shrine. Section VI also contains a ref­
erence to a permanent endowment for the Buddha. We know from inscriptions
that Buddhist monastic communities received such endowments throughout the
Middle Period. They were called "permanent" because they consisted of sums of
money that could never be spent but were to be lent out on interest by the monks
to generate usable income. The MiilasarviiJliviitia-<'ifltt)a contains a text that gives
detailed instructions governing such monastic loans and the use of written con­
tracts ofdebt. Note finally that section VI ends by invoking a principle of the Indian
law of property. Buddhist vi1l4)a texts, in faCt, frequently reveal points of contact
with Indian law, as in sections VII and VIII.
Section VII presents an interesting case of interaction between " i1l4)a law and
secular law and involves a sizable monastic estate: "three hundred thousands of
gold. " The latter may appear surprising but should not be. Reference to the pri­
vate wealth of monks is frequently found. In the SUllal'ibhaliga of the Pili Vina)a
it is said, for example, that if a monk asks for yarn and then has it woven into robe
material, that is an offense. But if the monk does it "by means of his own wealth,"
the same act is not an offense. There are a dozen such references to private wealth
in this section of the Pili
ViM)a alone. There are also clear indications in both the
PaIi and Mulasarvastivida Vi1l4)as that seem to suggest that monastic status or
reputation was directly related to a monk's material possessions. Note that in sec­
tion VI the monk who was "little known" had no medicine, and in section IX the
Buddha himself and the selfish monk are each described as both "widely known"
and the recipients of robes, bowls, medicines, and so on. Who you were was de­
termined by what you received and had.
Evidence that individual monks must have had considerable private means is
also available in Buddhist donative inscriptions. Large numbers of monks and nuns
made private gifts to their communities, and some of these were impressive. Such
wealth might very well have been of interest to the state, and establishing who
had jurisdiction over, or rights of possession to, such wealth in the event of its
owner's death was undoubtedly a matter of some negOtiation between the state
and the Buddhist monastic communities. What we see in the first part of section
VII is, of course, only the monastic point of view.
Death,. Ft",n-al,. and tht Di.i,ion of ProptrJy \03

The remainder of section VII suggests further that dealing with monastic cs­
tates could become a major and disruptive monastic preoccupation. and some means
of sorting out the various claims was required. That is the main purpose of the
[484] second half of the text. The Buddha is made to declare that the division and
distribution of a dead monk's estate was to take place on only five occasions. The
first three of these correspond to moments in a Miilasarvastivaclin monastic
funeral: ( I ) "when the gong for the dead is being beaten"-the sounding of the
funeral gong, we know from other sources (see section IX). marked the beginning
of a monastic funeral by summoning the monks; (2) the recitation of the Three
Sections-referred to also in section II; and (3) "when the shrine (caitya) is being
honored"-which seems to have marked the end of the funeral and is also referred
to in section II. The order in which these occasions are listed seems to represent
the order of preference and appears to favor direct participation in the funeral. If
the distribution takes place on these occasions. only those present will receive a
share. The other two occasions appear to take place separately: (4) at the distri­
bution of counting sticks-such sticks are referred to in all the vinayaJ and were
used for a variety of purposes; and (5) the making of a "formal motion"-such
"morions" are also widely noted in "inaya literature and were used for any formal
act or decision that required the consent of the entire community. Of these occa­
sions. only the proced ure for the formal motion is described in detail. Note the
reference to "se II ing" a dead monk's property. Such references also occur elsewhere.
and it appears that the property was first sold and the money realized was then
divided among the monks. In Chinese sources it is clear that this involved an actual
aUC[Ion.
Secrion VIII also deals with the problem of estates. but of a particular kind.
The estate in question belongs to what the text calls a "shaven-headed householder."
Because monks shave their heads but householders do not. such individuals obvi­
ously represented a mixed or intermediate category. Our text purports to describe
the origin of this category : a weal thy layman decided to enter the order and ap­
proached a monk. The monk shaved the householder's head and began to train
him for ordination. But the householder fell seriously ill and-in accordance with
an established "inaya rule against ordaining sick people-the Buddha declared that
"the rules of training" were not to be given until he recovered. The Buddha also
ruled, however. [hat monas ric attendants should be given to the sick man even
when he was taken back home. The man did not recover. but at the point of death
made a written will and sent it to the monastery. He died. and government offi­
cials heard of it and of the size of his estate. They reported his death to the king.
Because the man was sonless. and because according to Indian law the estate of a
man who dies sonless goes [0 the king. the state should have had jurisdiction in
this case and the king should have had clear rights to the properry. But our monas-
104 B U DDHIST MONKS A N D BUSINESS MATTERS

tic text has the king declare-explicitly citing the case adjudicated in section VII­
that a case of this SOrt tOO falls under the authority of the Buddha, that is, under
the jurisdiction of monastic law. The king, in other words, is presented as ac­
knowledging or confirming the religious sratus of the category "shaven-headed
householder": the estate of such an individual is not subject to secular law.
What we see here is another instance of I'inaya law interacting with Indian
law. {485) But we probably see something else as well : this vinaya passage es­
tablishes a precedent and proced ure that would allow a sonless man to avoid the
confiscation of his estate by the state upon his death. The procedure involves a
relationship of exchange and obligation that is embedded i n the text without al­
ways being explicitly stated. The layman undergoes at least a ritual or symbolic
ordination-his head is shaved-but it is not completed. This ritual ordination
itself, however, creates an obligation for the monastic communiry to provide monas­
tic attendants to look after the layman when he falls ill, whether he remains at the
monastery or returns home. In other words, it provides a kind of health insurance
for the layman. But in exchange, as it were, for attending to the layman in his fi nal
days-in this case, apparently for an extended period-the monastic community
receives, upon his death, his entire estate. Both parties clearly gain by the arrange­
ment. Certain rulings in the text itself suggest that what is being proposed here
was intended to apply even to laymen who might have had children-there is a
provision dealing specifically with what should happen to a deceased person's sons
and daughters. In a case of this SOrt, the shaven-headed householder would have
been able to divert his estate from its normal heirs.
What we have in section Vlll is, then, almost certainly a Buddhist version of
a ritual practice commonly found in other monastic traditions as well. Several of
the Hindu Sa'!1nyasa Upani!ads refer to undergoing the rites of renunciation at the
point ofdeath; Jain sources, tOO, speak oflaypersons' being initiated into the monas­
tic order at the approach of death. But the strongest parallels are probably found
in medieval Christian monastic practice: here too a layman is "ordained" at the ap­
proach of death; here tOO the monks are obligated to attend to him in his final
days; and here tOO they receive his estate or substantial gifts i n return.
The reference in section Vlll to a written will is also of interest. Although
the Piili Vinaya, for example, knows and approves of the use, under certain condi­
tions, of oral testaments or wills on the part of monks, nuns, lay-brothers and lay­
sisters, or "anyone else," references to written wills are extremely rare even i n In­
dian legal texts. There is also a reference to "written liens" or loan COntracts that
may form part of an estate, and to both Buddhist and non-Buddhist books. These
and other such references provide important evidence for determining the history
and use of writing in early India, a topic that is as yet little studied or understood .
Finally, in terms of details, section Vlll shows that ownership rights were clearly
Dtarh,. Frlll"/" '. "nd rht Di,i,ion ofPropmy 105

divided in a Miilasarvastiviidin monastery: prope£ry belonged to the Buddha or

the Dharma or the Communiry. In each case such properry could be used only for
specific purposes and normally could not be transferred ro another unit or purpose
(see section VI). This tripartite division of property rights, or some form of it, is
recognized by virtually all the l'inayaJ.
There is one more point that needs ro be noted in regard ro secrion VIII. A
Chinese monk named Yijing visited and studied in India in the last quarter of the
seventh century. He wrote an important account of what he observed , which has
survived and been translared into English under rhe ritle A Rec(Jf'd of the BtltidhiJt
Rtligion aJ P'actictd in India and tlx Malay Archipelago. Much of rhis RtCIJf'd may,
{486} in faer, be based on Yijing's observarions. bur some of ir is nor. The whole
of his chaprer 36, apart from rhe firsr and lasr sentences, for example, is nothing
more rhan a Chinese translation of rhe " inaya passage that we have been discussing.
The failure ro recognize rhis, and rhe facr rhar Yijing gives the passage our of con­
text, have misled a number of modern scholars.
Section IX does nOt come from rhe MiilaJan'iiJtil'iida-I'inaya. Ir is presented
here ro show how some of the concerns in the other selecrions were rreared in more
lirerary form. Section IX is taken from a collection of srories called the At'adiina­
fataL, TIx Htlndred Edifying StorieJ, apparently a Miilasarvastiviidin rexr. Our
selecrion appears ro be in many ways only a narrarive elaborarion of rhe rules gov­
erning monasric funerals found in secrions I and II. Alrhough it is commonly as­
serred rhar At'adiina or Buddhist srory literature was "popular" literature meant
for the laity. there is little evidence for this. and a large number of such srories
were-like our selecrion-explicitly addressed to monks, had monastic heroes and
characters, and dealt wirh specifically monastic concerns that would have been of
little interest ro the laity. Ir is more likely that such moralizing story literature
was written for and read by ordinary monks who probably, at all periods. made up
the largest segment of the Buddhisr monastic population.
Section IX throws some further light on at leasr one particular derail. Sections
I, II, and III all refer ro "assigning" or "directing" a reward ro the deceased monk
as a part of a monastic funeral, but section IX alone actually describes the proce­
dure. Like numerous passages in the Miilasart'iiJlilJiida-lJinaya, section IX makes ir
clear that "assigning the reward" meant making a formal declaration designating
who should receive the merit resulting from a specific aCt. When the Buddha as­
signs rhe reward in section IX, he recires a verse that says in part, "what, indeed,
is the merit from this gifr, may rhat go ro the hungry ghost," that is, rhe dead
monk. In this case the merit is formally designated for the same "person" who made
the gift. In sections I . II. and III the merir results from rhe acts of a group (the
monks) or an individual (Miilikii) but is assigned to someone else (the deceased).
This practice-usually called the "rransference of merit"-used ro be considered
106 B UDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

a Mahayana innovation but is found even in the Pali sources. frequenrly in the
Mi;/aJarviiJli"iida-t'ina)a. and almost everywhere in Buddhist donative inscriptions
that have no detecminable connection with the Mahayana.
The selections presented here are in several senses a mere sampling: they are
taken from a single vina)a. or monastic code; they all deal with a single cluster of
concerns; they all represent fragments of a large and complex literature. But they
also suggest at least the possibility of a new reading of the vina)a. not as sources
connected with the origins of Indian Buddhist monasticism but as documents of
its Middle Period. They show what is to be learned by reading the "ina),aJ not as
documents dealing with spiritual or even ethical concerns but as works concerned
with institutional. ritual. legal. and economic issues. They also show how much
may have been missed or misunderstood by the modern scholarly preference for the
Pali Vina)a. Finally. they at least suggest how complex. rich-in [487) several
senses-and remarkable an institution Buddhist monasticism might have been.
Five of the following selections are from the Cit'arat'aJIII and have been trans­
lated from Sanskrit-I: GMs iii 2. 1 26. 1 7- 1 27.18; V: 1 25 . 1 0- 1 26. 16; VI:
1 24 . 1 1-1 25.9; VII: 1 1 7.8- 1 2 l . 5 ; and VIII: 1 39.6-143. 1 4. One is from the
Vina)avibhanga and translated from Tibetan-III: Derge. 'dul ba Nya 65a. 2-66a.4
[the volume letter was incorrecrly given as Nga in the original publication]. The
remaining cwo " inaJa texts are from the K!lIdraka,'aJIII and are translated from Ti­
betan-II: Tog. 'dul ba Ta 35 2b.7-3 54a.5; and IV: Tog. 'dul ba Ta 354a. 5-368a.5.
IX is translated from Sanskrit: Al'(uiiinafalaka (Speyer) i 27 1 -273.

I. Rules Governing Monastic Funerals and t he Problem of Inheritance

Thi s took plate in SriivastL On that occasion a cerrain monk who was sick died
in his cell. He was reborn among rhe nonhuman beings. The monk who was the
distributor-of-robes srarred to enter rhe cell of the dead monk. saying. "I dis­
tribute the bowl and tobes." But the deceased monk appeared there wirh inrense
anger. wielding a club. and said: "When you perform for me the removal of rhe
body. only then can you proceed with the distribution of my bowl and tobe." The
distributor-of-robes was terrified and forced to flee.
The monks asked the Blessed One concerning this matter.
The Blessed One said: "First the removal of the dead monk is to be per­
formed. Then his robe and bowl are to be distribured."

This took plate i n SrlvastL On that occasion a cerrain monk died. The monks
performed the removal of his body but simply threw it into the burning ground
and recumed to the monastery. The distributor-of-robes entered the dead [488)
monk's cell. saying. "I distribute the bowl and robe." Bur the dead monk had
been reborn among the nonhuman beings. Wielding a club. he appeared in his
Deaths. Fwura/s. and tIN Di.isilNl of Propmy 107

cdl and said: "When you perform the honor of the body for me, only then can

you proceed with the distribution of my bowl and robe."

The monks asked the Blessed One concerning this matter.
n,e Blessed One said: "The monks must first perform the honor of the body
for a deceased monk. After that his bowl and robe are to be distributed. There
will otherwise be a danger."

This took place in Sravasti. On that occasion a certain monk who was sick died
in his cell. Afrer having brought him to the burning ground. and having per­
formed for him rhe honor of the body, thar deceased monk was cremared. Then
rhe monks rerumed to the monastery. The distributor-of-robes entered the dead
monk's cell. The dead monk appeared wielding a club, saying. "You have nor yer
given a recirarion of the Dharma for my sake. but only rhen are you co proceed
with the distribution of my monastic robes.·
The monks asked rhe Blessed One concerning this matter.
The Blessed One said: " Having given a reciration of Dharma in the deceased's
name. having direcred rhe reward to him. afrer rhat his monastic robes are to be
distributed."

II. Rules Governing Monastic Funerals and the Pressure

of Social Criticism

The Buddha. the Blessed One. dwelt in Sravasri. in rhe Grove ofjera, in rhe Park
of Anarhapi,:,9ada.
In Sravasri there was a certain householder. He took a wife from a family of
equal standing. and after h. had lain with her. a son was born. The birth cere­
monies for the newborn son, having been performed in derail for rhree rimes
seven or twenty-one days. rhe boy was given a name corresponding ro his clan.
His upbringing. to his maruriry. was of a proper sorr.
Larer. when rhat householders son had become a Buddhisr monk, his bod­
ily humors became unbalanced and he fell ill. Though he was treared wirh med­
icines made from roors and stalks and flowers and fruits. it was of no use, and he
died.
The monks simply ldr his body. cogerher with his robe and bowl, near a
road.
Later, brahmins and householders who were our walking saw rhe body from
the road. One said: "Hey look, a Buddhisr monk has died." Orhers said: "Come
here! Look ar this!" When rhey looked. rhey recognized the dead monk and said:
"This is rhe son of rhe householder whar·s-his-name. This is the SOrt of thing thar
happens when someone joins rhe Order of those lord less Buddhisr [4891 ascerics.
Had he not joined their Order, his kinsmen would cerrainly have performed fu­
neral ceremonies for him."
The monks reponed rhis matter to rhe Bk'SSed One, and rhe Blessed One
108 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

said: "Now then. monks. with my authorization. funeral ceremonies for a deceased
monk must be performed." Although the Blessed One had said that funeral cer­
emonies for a deceased monk should be performed. because the monks did nor
know how they should be performed. the Blessed One said: '"A deceased monk is
to be cremated."
Although the Blessed One had said that a deceased monk should be cre­
mated. the Venerable UpaIi asked the Blessed One: "Is that which was said by
the Reverend Blessed One-that there are eighty thousand kinds of worms in
the human body-not so?" The Blessed One said: "Upali. as soon as a man is
born. those worms are also born. so. at the moment of death. they tOO surely die.
Still. only after examining the opening ofany wound is the body to be cremated."
Although the Blessed One had said a deceased monk is to be cremated, when
wood was not at hand. the monks asked the Blessed One concerning this mat­
ter. and the Blessed One said: -The body is to be thrown into rivers." When three
is no river. the Blessed One said: '"After a grave has been dug. the body is to be
buried." When it is summer and the earth is hard and the wood is full of living
things, the Blessed One said: "In an isolated spot, with its head pointing north.
having put down a bundle ofgrass as a bolster, having laid the corpse on its right
side. having covered it with bunches of grass or leaves. having directed the re­
ward to the deceased. and having given a recitation of the Dharma of the Three
Sections (l.itianti.tI!4). the monks are to disperse."
The monks dispersod accordingly. But then brahmins and householders de­
rided them, saying: " Buddhist ascetics. after cartying away a corpse. do not bathe
and yet go about their business. They are polluted." The monks asked the Blessed
One concerning this matter, and the Blessed One said: " Monks should not dis­
perse in that manner but should bathe." They all started to bathe. but the Blessed
One said: "Everyone need not bathe. Those who came in contact with the corpse
musr wash themselves together with their robes. Others need only wash their
hands and feet."
When the monks did not worship the shrine (eail)'a). the Blessed One said:
"The shrine is ro be worshiped."

III. The Death and Funeral of the Monk Kilodayin:

Negotiating Ritual Privileges

The ringleader of thieves. having pulled his sword from its sheath, waited ar the
door.
When the Venerable Udayin came OUt. the ringleader. with a mind devoid
(490) of compassion and without concern for the other world. severed his head
and it feU to the ground.
An old woman saw him killing the noble one: "Who is this," she said, "who
has done such a rash thing?"
 109

Th� ringleader said: "You must tell no one or I will make suno that you too
end up in the same condition!"
She was terrified and was then unable to speak. Thinking that perhaps some­
one following the tracks of the Eminent One would come by later. she-given
the circumstances-remained silent.
The two of them. with minds devoid of compassion and without concern
for the other world. hid the body of the Venerable Ud4yin in a heap of trash and
left it there.
That day the monk-in-charge-of-the-fortnighdy-gathering. sitting at the
seniors' �nd of the assembl)·. said: "Has someone determined the inclination of
the Reverend Udiyin? The Reverend Udiyin is not here."
Then the Blessed One said to the monks: "Monks, that one who is the best
of those who make families pious has been killed. His robes must be brought
back. and the honors for his body must be performed!"
The Blessed One set forth but was StOPped by the gate ofSdvasri. He then
caused a brightness like that of gold to shoot forth. He filled all of Sdvasti with
a light like that of pure gold.
Prasenajit. the King of KoSala. thought to himself: "Why has all ofSriivasti
been filled with a light like that of pure gold'" He thought further: "Without a
doubt. th� Blessed One wishes to enter!"
Together with his retinue of wives. and taking the key to the ciry. he un­
locked the gate. and the Blessed One entered.
Prasenajit. the King of KoSaIa. thought: "But why has the Blessed One come
into Srnvasti at an irnogular time?" But since Buddhas. Blessed Ones. are not easy
to approach and ono difficult to resist. he was inca""ble of putting a question to
the Buddha. the Blessed One.
The Blessed One. together with the community of disciples, having gone
ahead. Prasenajit. tOgether with his retinue of wives. went following everywhere
behind the Blessed One. until they came to that heap of trash.
The Blessed One then addressed the monks: "Monks. he who was the best
of those who make families pious is hidden here. Remove him!"
He was nomoved. and those who had depended on the Venerable Udiyin,
seeing there what had truly happened in regard to the Noble One. said: "Since
he was our good spiritual friend. does the Blessed One allow us to perform the
honors for his bod)" "
The Blessed One did not allow it.
Prasen.jit. the King of KoSal•• said: "Since he was a friend of mine from our
youth. does the Blessed One allow me to perform the honors for his body"
The Blessed One did not allow it.
Queen Miilik" said: "Since he was my teacher. does the Blessed One allow
me to perform the honors for his body?" [49 1]
The Blessed One allowed it.
Queen Malilci. then. having had the dirt removed from the body of the Ven-
1 10 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

erable One with white eanh, had it bathed with perfum..! water. Having
adorn..! a bier with various-colored cotton cloths, she put the body OntO it and
arrang..! it.
Then the Blessed One, together with the community of disciples, went
ahead, and the king, together with his retinue of wives, follow..! behind them.
Having put the bier down at an open, extensive area, Queen Milika, heap­
ing up a pile of all the aromatic woods, cremat"! the body. She extinguish..! the
pyre with milk, and having put the bones into a golden POt, she had a mortuary
Itlipa erect"! at a crossing of fout great roads. She raised an umbrella, a banner,
and a flag and did honor with perfumes, strings of garlands, incense, aromatic
'
powders, and musical instruments. When she had venerat"! the Itiipa s feet, the
Blessed One, having assigned the reward, depart"!.

IV, Sliriputra's Death and the Disposition of His Remains:

Negotiating Control and Access to Relics

After the Venerable Sariputra had di..!, the Novice Cunda performed the honors
for the body on the remains of the Venerable Sariputra and, taking the remains,
his bowl, and monastic robes, set off for Rajag�. When in due course he arriv..!
at Rajag�ha, he put down the bowl and robe, washed his feet, and went to the
Venerable Ananda. When he had honored wi,h his head ,he feet of Ananda, he sa,
down to one side. Being seat"! to one side, the Novice Cunda said this to the Ven­
erable Ananda: "Reverend Ananda, you should know that my preceptor, the Rev­
erend Saripu,ra, has en,ered into final llirvii,!,-
, rhese are his relics and his bowl
and monastic robes."

The Householder Anathapil)4ada heard it said that the Noble Sariputra had passed
away into final llirviilJa and ,hat his relics were in the hands of,he Noble Ananda.
Having heard [hat, he wen[ to [he Venerable Ananda. When he had arrived [here
and had honored with his head the feer of the Venerable Ananda, he sat down to
one side. Having sa, down to one side, ,he Household., Aoa[hapil)4ada said ,his
to the Venerable Ananda: "May the Noble Anand.• hear! Since for a long ,ime
the Noble Saripu[ra was [0 me dear, beloved, a guru, and an object of affection,
and since he passed away into final lli",ii,!" and his relics are in your possession,
would you please hand ,hem over to me! The honor due to relics should be done
to his relics!"
Ananda said: "Householder, because Saripu[ra for a long rime was '0 me dear,
beloved, a guru, and an objec, of affection, I myself will perform the honor due
to relics for his relics."
Then ,he Householder Anathapil)4ada went to the Blessed One. When he
had arrived [here and had honored with his head ,he feet of the Blessed One,
he sac down to one side. Having sa' down [0 one side, the Householder
 111

Ana[492lthapi,:,�ada said this to t� BI� One: " May the Reve�nd One hear!
For a long time the Noble Sariputra was to me dear. beloved. a guru. and an 0b­
ject of affection. His relics a� in t� hands of the Noble Ananda. May the BI�
One pl� grant that they be given to me! I ask for the honor due to �lics for
his �Iics.-
The BI� One t�n. having summoned Ananda through a messenger. said
this to him: -Ananda. give the �lics of the Monk Sariputra to the Householder
Anathapi,:,�ada! Allow him to perform the honors! In this way brahmans and
householders come to have faith. Mo=ver. Ananda. through acting as you have.
the� is neither benefit nor =ompense for my teaching. Therefore you should
cause others to enter the Order. you should ordain them. you should give t�
monastic requisites, you should attend to the business of a monk. you should
cause [the teachingl to be proclaimed to monks as it was proclaimed. cause it to
be taken up. teach it. and through this. indeed. you profit and give =ompense
for my teaching.-
Then t� Venerable Ananda. by the order of t� Teac�r. gave the �Iics of
Sa.riputra to the Householder Anathapi':'�-this was so because the BI�
One. when formerly a bodhiJaltn,. never violated the words ofhis father and mother
or of his p=eptor or teacher or other persons worthy of respect.
The Householder Anathapi,:,�a took the relics of the Venerable Sa.riputra
and went to his own house. When he gOt there. he placed them at a height in t�
most worthy place in his house and. together with members of his household. to­
gether with his friends. relations. and older and younger brothers. undertook to
honor them with lamps. incense. flowers. perfumes. garlands. and unguents.
The people ofStavasti heard then that the Noble Sariputra had passed away
into final nin-ana in the village of Nalada in the country of Magadha. that the
Noble Ananda. after having obtained his relics. presented them to the House­
holder Anathapindada. and that the latter. together with members of his house­
hold. together with his friends. rdatives and acquaintances. and elder and
younger brothers. honored them with lamps. incense. flowers. perfumes. garlands.
and unguents. When Prasenajit. the King of KoSala. heard this. he went to the
house of the Householder Aniithpin�ada together with his wife Malika. the Lady
Va�kira. both lt�idatta and Puta':'". and Visakha. the mo<her of Mrgaro. as well
as many of the devout. all of them carrying the requisites for doing honor. Through
paying honor to the rdics with the requisites of honor. several of them the� 0b­
tained accumulations of good qualities. But on another occasion when some busi­
ness arose in a �mote village. the Householder Anathapi,:,�ada. having locked
,he door of his house. went away. But a great crowd of people came then to his
house. and when they saw the door locked. they we� derisive. abusive. and erit­
ical. saying. -In that the Householder Aniithapi,:,�a has locked the door and
gone off, he has created an obstacle to our merit."
Later the Householder Anathapi,:,�ada rerumed. and members of his house­
[493lhold said: -Householder. a great multitude of people carrying the requi-
1 12 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

sites of honor cam�, but Stting the door lockffi, they were derisive, abusive, and
critical, saying, 'A niirhapi�<iada has cr�red an obsracle ro our merir:"
Aniirhapi�<iada rhoughr to himself, "This indeffi is whar I musr do: and
wen< ro rhe Blessffi One. When he had arrivffi rhere and had honored wirh his
h�d rhe f�r of rhe Blessffi On�, h� sat down to one side. s.,arffi to on� sid�, he
said rhis ro rhe Blessed One: "R�erend, when a gr�r mulrirude of men who
w�re d�ly d�vorffi ro rhe Venerabl� �ipurra came ro my house carrying rhe
requisires of honor, I, on accoun< ofsom� business, had lockffi the door.; and gone
dsewh�re. They became derisive, abusive, and crirical, saying, 'In rhar the
Householder Aniithapi�<iada has lockffi rhe door and gone away. he has cr�rffi
an obsracle ro our merir: On rhar accounr, if rhe Blessed One would permir it,
I would build a J1iipa for rhe Noble �ipurra in a suirably available place. There
rhe gr..r mulrirudes of men would � allowffi ro do honor as rhey wish."
The Blessed One said: "�refore. Householder. wirh my permission. you
should do ir!"
Alrhough rhe Blessed One had said, "wirh my permission. you should do
it: Aniirhapi�<iada did nor know how a J1lipa should � buih.
The Blessed One said: "Make four rerraces in succession; rhen make rhe base
for rhe dome; rhen rh� dome and the ba""ilta and rhe crowning pole; rhen. hav­
ing made one or two or rhr� or four umbrellas, make up ro rhirt�n, and place
a rain recepracle on rhe rop of rhe pole."
Alrhough rhe Blessed One had said rha, a "iipa of rhis sort was ro be made,
�cause Aniirhapi�<iada did nor know if a J1iipa of such a form was ro � made
for only rhe Noble �ipurra or also for all Noble Ones. rhe monks asked the
Blessed One concerning rhis ma"er. and rhe Blessed One said: '·Householder. in
regard ro rh� J1iipa of a Tarhiigara, a person should complete all parts. In regard
CO the J1iipa of a Solirary Buddha. the rain recepracle should not � put in place;

for an Arhar. rhere are four umbrellas; for One Who Does Nor Return, rhree; for
One Who Rerums, rwo; for One Who Has Enrered the Stream. one. For ordi­
nary good monks. rhe J1iipa is ro � made plain."
The Blessed One had said. "In regard ro a J1iipa for rhe Noble Ones ir has
rhis form, for ordinary men rhis: bur Anirhapi�<iada did nor know by whom
and in which place rhey were ro � made. The Blessed One said: "As �ipurra
and Maudgalyayana sar when rhe Tarhigara was sared. jusr so rhe J1lipa of on�
who has passed away inro final "iroii"" is also CO � placed. Moreover. in regard
ro rhe J1iipaJ of �ch individual Elder, rhey are ro � arrangffi according ro sen­
ionry. Those for ordinary monks are co be placffi ourside the monasric complex."
Th� Householder Anirhapi�<iada said: "If rhe Blessed One were ro give per­
mission. I will celebrare fesrivals of rhe J1iipa of rhe Noble �ipurra."
The Blessed One said: "Householder. wirh permission. you should do it!"
Prasenajir. th� King of KoSaIa. had heard how. when rhe Householder
Ana! 494}rhapi�<iada askffi of rhe Blessed One permission to insrirure a fesrival
of rhe J1iipa of rhe Noble Saripurra. rhe Blessed One had permirrffi irs insriru-
Dutlh,. F,,_al,. aNi Iht On·i,i." .f Propmy 113

tion. Prasenajit, having thought, "It is txcellent! I tOO should help in that: and
having had the bell sounded, proclaimed: "Sirs, city dwellers who live in Sravasti,
and the multitudes of men who have come together from other places, hear this:
'At the time when the festival of Ihe I1ipa of the Ve...,rable �riputra occurs, for
those who have come bringing merchandise there is to be no tax, no toll, nor
lranspurtalion fee. Therefore, tbey musl be allowed 10 pass freely here!'"
AI Ihal lime five hundred overseas lraders who had made a greal deal of
mo...,y from their ships arrived at Sravasl;. They heard Ihen how lhe king, sound­
ing Ihe bell in Sravasti, had ordered, "Whoever, al Ihe lime when Ihe festival of
Ihe I1ipa of Ihe Noble �riputra occurs, comes bringing merchandise, for Ihem
lhere is 10 be no lax, no toll, nor lranspurtarion fee. Therefore, Ihey must be al­
lowed to pass freely here!" Some Ihoughl 10 themselves: "This king abides in the
fruil of his own merit but is still nOl salisfied wilh his meril. Since gifts given
produce meril, why should we nOl give gifts and make merit?" Becoming de­
VOUI in mind, on Ihe occasion of thar festival Ihey gave lortoise shells and pre­
cious stones and pearls and so on.
The monks, however, did nOl know how to proceed in regard 10 these Ihings.
The Blessed One said: "Those gifts that are Ihe 'first fruit' offetings are to
be given to the 'Image that Sits in the Shade of Ihe Jambu Tree.' Moreover, a
small part is to be put aside for the repair of the I1ipa of �iputra. The remain­
der is to be divided by the assembly of monks-Ihis is not for a I1ipa of the Tathi­
gala, this is for a " ipa of�riputra: therefore one does not commit a fault in this
Cast'. ..

V. The Death of a Monk Who Was Excessively Attached to His Bowl

This took place in Sravasti. A certain monk was afflicted with illness, was suffer­
ing, seriously ill, overcome by pain. His bowl was lovely, and he was excessively
attached to if.
He said to the attendant monk: "Bring my bowl!" The attendant did not
give it 10 him. The sick monk, having become angry in regard to the attendant,
died attached 10 his bowl.
He was reborn as a puisonous snake in that same bowl.
The monks, after carrying his body 10 the burning ground, after perform­
ing Ihe funeral rites, relurned to the monastery.
The monks assembled. The belongings of Ihe deceased were set up on lhe
senior's end of Ihe a.<sembly by Ihe distributor-of-robes. AI Ihal moment lhe
Blessed One addressed Ihe Venerable Ananda:
"Go, Ananda' Declare 10 Ihe monks: 'No one should loosen Ihe bowl-bag
of thaI deceased monk. The Tathagala alone will loosen it.'" [495]
The Venerable Ananda told the monks. After that the Tathagara himself
loosened it. The puisonous snake, having made a great hood, held its ground.
1 14 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

Then the Bl",sed One. having aroused it with the sound rvr,,!ii. harnessed it.
"Go!" he said. "you stupid fellow. Give up this bowl! The monks must make a
distribution!"
That snake was furious. He slithered off into a dense forest. There he was
burnt up by the fire of anger. and that dense forest bursr into flames. Because at
the moment when he was consumed by the flames he was angry with the monks.
he was reborn in the hells.
Then the Blessed One addressed the monks: -You. monks. must be disgusted
with all existence. must be disgusted with all the causes of existence and rebirth.
Here. indeed. the body of one person was burnt up on three different occasions:
in the dense fores, by the fire of anger; in hell by an inhabitant of hell; in the
burning ground by a low-caste man. Therefore. a monk should not form exces­
sive attachment in regard to a possession. That to which such an attachment arises
is to be discarded. If one does not discard it. he comes to be guilty of an offense.
But if a sick person asks for one of his own belongings. it should indeed be very
quickly given to him by the attendant monk. If one does not give it. he comes
to be guilry of an offense."

VI. Undertaking ActS of Worship for Sick or Dying Fellow Monks

At that time a monk was afflicted with illness. was suffering. seriously ill. He
was little known; ,here was no medicine for him. Reali.ing 'he nature of hi. con­

di'ion. he said to the attendan, monk: "There is nothing ,hat can be done for
me. You mus' perform worship for my sake!"
The attendan, monk promised. bu, the sick monk died. He was ",born in
,he hells.
Then the Blessed One addressed ,he monks: -Monks. the monk who died,
what did he say to the attendant monk?"
They rela,ed ,he situa,ion as it had occurred.
"Monks. tha, decC2Sed monk has fallen into a bad state. Ifhis fellow monks
had performed worship '0 'he Three Precious Things. his mind would have been
pious. Therefore. a monk should never ignore a sick fellow monk. An attendan,
should be given '0 him. When he asks for it, if there is no medicine for him, a
donor is to be solicited by the attendant monk. If tha, succeeds, it is good. But
if it does no, succeed. what belongs to the Community is to be given. If tha, suc­
ceeds, it is good. If it does no, succeed. tha, which belongs to ,he Buddha's per­
manent endowment is to be given. Bu, if ,ha, tOO does not succeed. an umb"'lla
or banner or flag or ornament on a shrine of a Ta,hagata, or in ,he Perfume Cham­
ber. which is to be pn:served by the Communiry, is to be made use of. After sell­
ing it, the attendant monk should look after him and perform worship to the
Teacher. [496] To a monk who has recovered ,his is to be said: 'Wha, belongs '0
the Buddha was used for you.' If that monk has any means. he, making every ef-
 1 15

fort, should use it for repaym�nt. I f he has none, in regard to that used for him
it is said: 'The belongings of th� father are likewi� fur t1", son. Here tMre should
be no remo�:"

VII. The Death and Property of the Monk Upananda

Wh�n he died, th� Monk Upananda had a large quantiry of gold-three hun­
dred thousands of gold: on� hundred thousand from bowls and robes; • s«ond
hundred thousand from medici� for t"" sick; a third hundred thousand from
worked and unworked gold. Government officials heard about it. Th� reported
it to the king, saying: " Lord, th� Noble One Upananda has died. H� had a larg�
quantity of gold-three hundred rhousands of gold. W� await your orders in re­
gard to that!"
T"" king said: "If it is so, go! Seal his r�id�ntial c�ll!"
Th� monks, having taken up Upananda's body, had gon� to the cremation.
The gov�rnment officials carne and �ed Upanandis c�l1.
Aft�r having performed th� funeral cer�moni� for him at th� cremation
ground, th� monks returned to the monastery. Th�y saw th� c�1I �Ied with the
�I of the king. The monks asked the BI� One concerning this matter. On
that occasion th� BI�ssed One said this to the Ven�rable Ananda: "Go, Ananda!
In my name, ask King Prasenajit concerning his health, and speak thus: 'Great
King, when you had governmental business, did you then consult the Monk
U pananda' Or when you took a wife or gave a daughter, did you then consult
Upananda' Or at sometime during his life, did you pr�nt Upananda with the
standard belongings of a monk-rooo, bowls, bedding and �tS, and medicine
for the sick? Or when he was ill, did you attend him?' I f he were to answ�r no,
this is to be said: 'Great King, the affairs of the hou� of hou�holders are one
thing; those of renounCers quite another. You must have no concern ! Th� pos­
�ions fall to the fdlow monks of Upananda. You must not acqui�e to their
removal!"
Saying "Y�, Reverend: Anandd, having understood t"" BI� One, ap­
proached P��najit, the King of KoSol•. Having approached, he spoke as "" had
been instruCted.
Th� King said: "Reverend Anand., as th� BI� One orders, just so it must
be! I do not acqui�ce to their removaL"
The Venerable Ananda then reported <0 the BI� On� the answer of the
king.
Then the Blessed One addr� the monks: "Monks, you must divide the
estate left by the Monk Upananda!" Having brought it into the midst of the
community, having sold it, the monks divided the rerum. But the monks from
Siketa h�d it said: "Upananda has died. He had a great quantity of [4971 gold­
three hundred thousands of gold-which was divided by the monks." Making
1 16 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

gre-dt haste. the monks ofsaketa went to Stavasti. They said: "We tOO were fellow
monks of the Reverend Upananda. The possessions belonging to him fall to us

as well!"
Having reassembled the estate. the monks of Stavasti divided it again to­
gether with the monks of saketa. The same thing happened with monks from
six great cities. since monks from Vaisali. Viiri.J:lasi , Rajag�ha. and Campa also
came. The monks. having reassembled the estate on each occasion. divided it.
Reassembling and dividing the estate. the monks neglected their exposition. read­
ing. training, and mental focus.
The monks asked the Blessed One concerning this matter.
The Blessed One said: "There are five occasions for the distribution of pos­
sessions; which five? The gong. the Three Sections (Irida�4aIea). the shrine. the
counting sticks. and the formal motion is the fifth. He who. when the gong for
the dead is being beaten. comes-tO him a portion is to be given. It is the same
when the Three Sections (trida'!4aIea) is being recited. when the shrine is being
honored. when counting sticks are being distributed. when a formal motion is
being made. Therefore, in the last case, monks. after making a formal motion
in regard to all the estate. it is to be divided. The formal motion should be a
fixed procedure and should be done in this way : having made a provision of seats
and bedding . . . and so forth. as before. up to . . . when the entire community
is seated and assembled. having placed the estate of the deceased at the senior's
end of the assembly. a single monk seated at the senior's end should make a for­
mal motion: 'Reverends. the Community should hear this! In this parish the
Monk Upananda has died. This estate here. both visible and invisible. is his. If
the Community would allow that the proper time has come. the Community
should give consent. to wit: that the Community should take formal possession
of the goods of the deceased Monk Upananda. both visible and invisible. as an
estate of the deceased-this is the motion: This, monks. is the last occasion for
the distribution of the estate of the deceased-that is to say. the formal motion.
A monk who comes when this motion has already been made is not to be given
.
a portIon.
..

The Venerable Upali asked the Buddha. the Blessed One: "Wherever. Rev­
erend. there is no one who makes a motion through lack of agreement in the
Community-is an estate to be divided there?"
The Blessed One said: "It is not to be divided-Upiil i. after having performed
'the first and last: it is to be distributed.·
But the monks did not know what 'the first and las" was.
The Blessed One said: "After selling as a unit the deceased's belongings, and
then giving a litde to the seniormos( of (he Community and to the juniormost
of the Community. it is to be distributed agreeably. There is in that case no cause
for remorse. When a formal motion has been made, or 'the first and last: then
the possessions helonging to the estate of a deceased monk fall to all pupils of
the Buddha.· (498]
 1 17

VIII. The Death and Distribution of the Estate

of a Shaven-Headed Householder

This took place in Snhast;' At that time in Srivastr there was a householder namod
S�thin who was rich, had great wealth, possessro much property, whose hold­
ings were ."tensive and wide, and who possessed the wealth ofVai�raV3!)3, cqualod
in wealth Vaisravat:la. He took a wife from a similar family. Being sonless but
wanting a son, he supplicated Siva and V� and Kubera and Sakra and Brahm••
and so on. and a variety of other gods, such as the gods of parks, the gods of the
forest. the gods of the crossroads, the gods of forks in the road, and the gods who
seize offerings. He even supplicatod the gods who are born together with indi­
viduals, share their nature, and follow constantly behind them. It is, of course,
the popular belief in the world that by reason of supplication sons and daugh­
ters are born. But that is not so. If it were so everyone-like the wheel.turning
king-would have a thousand sons. In fact, sons and daughters are born from the
presence of three conditions. What three' Both the mother and the father are
aroused and have coupled; the mother, being healthy, is fertile; and a g4,,,ihan 'll
is standing by. From the presence of these three conditions, sons and daughters
are born.
But when there was neither son nor daughter even through his propitiation
of the gods, then, having repudiated .11 gods, the householder became pious i n
regard to the Blessed One. Eventually he approached a monk: "Noble One: he
said, -I wish to enter the Order of this well-spoken Dharma and Vinaya."
-Do so, good sir!- said the monk, and in due order, after shaving the house­
holders head, he began to give him the rules of training. But the householder
was overcome with a serious fever that cre3tod an obstacle to his entering the
Order.
The monks reportod this matter to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "He must be attended to, but the rul .... of training
are not to be given until he is again healthy."
Although the Blessed One had said that he was to be attendod to, the monks
did not know by whom this was to be done.
The Blessed One said: "By the monks. "
The doctors treatod the man during the day, but at night his debility grew
worst:. They said: "Nobles, we treat him during the day, but at night his debil­
ity grows worse. If he were taken home we could treat him at night as wdl."
The monks repotted this matter to the Blessed One.
The Bl ....sed One said: "He should be taken home, but there too you must
give him an attendant!"
His debiliry turned out to be of long duration. His hair grew longer and
longer. It was in regard to him that the designation "shaven-headed householder,
shaven-headed householder arose.
When he did not get better although treated with medicines made from
1 18 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

[4991 roors, stalks, leaves, flowers, and fruirs, rhen, realizing rhe nature of his
condirion, he said, "' am dead." After rhar, ar rhe rime of dearh, he made a wrir­
ren will conraining all rhe personal we-..Jrh belonging ro him and senr ir co rhe
Grove ofjera. And he died.
His governmenr officials reponed ro Prasenajir, rhe King of KoSala: "Lord,
a shaven-headed householder wirhour a son has died, and he had a grear deal of
gold and silver, eiephanrs, horses, cows, buffaloes, and equipmenr. Having made
a wrirren will conraining all of rhar, ir was senr ro jera's Grove for rhe Noble
Communiry. "
The king said: "Even in rhe absence of a wrirren will, , did nor obrain rhe
possessions of rhe Noble Upananda; how much less will ' obrain such gonds
when rhere is a wrirren will. Bur whar rhe Blessed One will aurhorize, rhar ,
will accepr. "
The monks reponed rhis marrer co rhe Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: -Monks, whar is rhere in this case?" The monks fully
described rhe estare.
The Blessed One said: "'r is co be divided according to circumsrances.
Therein, properry consisting ofland, properry consisting of houses, propeny con­
sisting of shops, bedding and seatS, a vessel made by an ironworker, a vessel made
by a coppersmirh, a vessel made by a porrer-excepting a waterpot and a
conrainer-a vessel made by a wondworker, a vessel made by a canesplirrer, fe­
male and male slaves, servanrs and laborers, fond and drink, and grains-rhose
are nor to be distributed bur to be set aside as properry in common for the Com­
muniry of Monks from rhe Four Directions.
"Clochs, large pieces ofcorron dorh, a vessel of hide, shoes, learher oil bocrles,
warerpors, and warer jars are co be distribured among rhe enrire Comrnuniry.
-Those poles rhar are long are co be made inro banner poles for rhe " mage
rhar Sirs in the Shade of rhe jambu Tree.' Those rhar are quite small, having been
made inro staffs, are co be given ro the monks.
"Sons and daughters are nor to be sold at will within rhe Community, bur
when rhey have gained piery, rhey are ro be released.
-Of quadrupeds, the elephanrs, horses, camels, donkeys, and mules are for
rhe use of rhe king. Buffaloes, goars, and sheep are propeny in common for rhe
Communiry of Monks from rhe Four Direcrions and are nor co be distribured.
"And whar armor and so fonh is suitable for rhe king, all that is ro be handed
over ro rhe king, excepr for weapons. The larrer, when made inro knives, needles,
and staffs, are co be handed out wirhin rhe Communiry.
-Of pigmentS, rhe gresr pigmenrs, yellow, vermilion, blue, and so on are ro
be pur in rhe Perfumed Chamber to be used for rhe image. �kha�ika. red,
and dark blue are to be distributed among rhe Communiry.
"Spiriruous liquor, having been mixed wirh roasted barley, is to be buried
in rhe ground. Turned into vinegar, it is to be used Except as vinegar it is nor
.

[5001 ro be used but is co be thrown away. Monks, by those who recognize me

 119

as Teacher spirituous liquor must neither be given nor drunk-even as little as

could be held on the tip of a blade of grass.
-Medicines are to be deposited in a hall suitable for the sick. Thence they
are to be used by monks who are ill.
-Of p=ious jewels-except for pearls-the gems, lapis lazuli, and conch
shells with spirals turning to the right are to be divided into twO lotS: one for
the Dharma; a second for the Community. With that which belongs to the
Dharma, tbe word of the Buddha is to be copied, and it is to be used as well on
the lion seat. That which belongs to tbe Community is to be distributed among
the monks.
"Of books, books of the word of tbe Buddha are not to be distributed but to
be deposited in the storehouse as property in common for the Community ofMonks
from the Four Di=tions. The books containing the treatises of non-Buddhists
are to be sold, and the sum =eived is to be distributed among the monks.
"Any written lien that can be quickly realized-the share of the money from
that is to be distributed among the monks. And that which is not able to be so
realized is to be deposited in the storehouse as property in common for the Com­
munity of Monks from the Four Directions.
-Gold and coined gold and other, both worked and unworked, are to be di­
vided into three lots: one for the Buddha; a second for the Dharma; a third for
the Community. With that which belongs to the Buddha repairs and mainte­
nance on the Perfumed Chamber and on the Jliipal of the hair and nails are to be
made. With rhat belonging to the Dhuma the word of the Buddha is to be copied
or it is to be used on the lion seat. That which belongs to the Community is to
be distributed among the monks.·

IX. Monastic Rules Expressed in SlOry:

The Death and Funeral of a Rich Monk in the Avadii naialaiea

The Buddha, the Blessed One, honored , revered. adored. and worshiped by kings.
chief miniSters. wealthy men. city dwellers, guild masters. traders. by gods,
Ug#l, )'a�/, 111,"111, gan"!41. ki"""'#I, and ma/xwllglll, celebrated by gods and
ug#l and y� and #1'"111 and gll'� and ki�""'dJ, and ma/xwllg#l, the Buddha.
rhe Blessed One. widely known and of great merit, the =ipient of the requi­
sites, of robes. bowls, bedding, seats, and medicines for illness, he. rogetber with
the community of disciples, dwdt in �ravasti. in Jetas Grove. in the Park of
Anathapil)dada.
In Sravasti there was a guild master who was rich, had great wealth. pos­
sessed much property. possessed the wealth of VaistaYal)". equaled in wealth
Vais ..�vana. He on one occasion went to Jetas Grove. Then he saw tbe Buddha.
the Blessed One. fully ornamented with the thirty-two marks of the Great Man.
his limbs glorious with the eighty secondaty signs. ornamented with an aureole
1 20 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

[501] of a full farhom. an aureole rhar surpassed a rhousand suns-like a mov­

ing moumain of gems. emirely beauriful. And afrer having seen him. afrer hav­
ing worshiped ar rhe feer ofrhe Blessed One. he sar down in from of him (0 hear
rhe Dharma. To him rhe Blessed One gave an exposirion of rhe Dharma. insrill­
ing disgusr wirh rhe round of rebirrhs. When he had heard rhis and had seen rhe
faulrs of rhe round of rebirrh and rhe qualiries in "in'ii'!a. he emered rhe Order
of rhe Blessed One. When he had emered rhe Order. he berame widely known.
of grear merir. approached. a recipienr ofrhe requisires. of robes. bowls. bedding.
sears. and medicines for illness. He. having accepred rhe requisires. obrained more
and more. He accumulared a hoard bur did nor share wirh his fellow monks. He.
rhrough rhis selfishness. which was culrivared. developed. and exrended. and be­
ing obsessed wirh personal belongings. died and was reborn in his own cell as a
hungry ghosr.
Then his fellow monks. having s!ruck rhe funeral gong. performed rhe re­
moval of rhe body. Having performed rhe honor of rhe body on his body. rhey
rhen rerurned ro rhe monasrery. When rhey unlarched rhe door of his cell and
began ro look for his bowl and robe. rhey saw rhar deceased monk who was now
a hungry ghosr. deformed in hand and foor and eye. his body (Orally revolring.
standing rhere clurching his bowl and robe. Having seen him deformed like rhar.
rhe monks were rerrified and reporred ir ro rhe Blessed One.
Then rhe Blessed One. for rhe purpose ofassisring rhar deceased son ofgood
family. for rhe purpose of insrilling fear in rhe communiry of srudems. and for
rhe purpose of malcing fully apparenr rhe disadvanrageous consequences of self­
ishness. wenr ro rhar place. surrounded by a group of monks. ar rhe head of rhe
Communiry of monks. Then rhar hungry ghosr saw rhe Buddha. rhe Blessed One.
fully ornamemed wirh rhe rhirry-rwo marks of rhe Grear Man. his limbs glori­
ous wirh eighry secondary signs. ornamemed wirh an aureole of a full farhom. an
aureole rhar surpassed a rhousand suns-like a moving moumain of gems. en­
rirely beautiful-and as soon as he had seen him. piery in regard [0 the Blessed
One arose in him. He was ashamed.
Then rhe Blessed One. wirh a voice rhat was deep like rhar of a heavy rhun­
dercloud. like rhar of rhe kertledrum. admonished rhe hungry ghost: ·Sir. rhis
hoarding ofbowl and robe by you is conducive ro your own desrruction. Through
it you are reborn in the hells. Indeed. your mind should be pious in regard to
me! And you should rum your mind away from these belongings-lest. having
died. you will next be born in the hells!"
Then rhe hungry ghosr gave rhe bowl and robe rO rhe Communiry and threw
himself ar rhe Blessed One's feer. declaring his fault. Then rhe Blessed One as­
signed the reward in the name of the hungry ghost: ··What. indeed. is the merit
from this gift-may thar go to the hungry ghosr! May he quickly rise from the
dreadful world of hungry ghosts!"
Then thar hungry ghost. having in mind become pious roward rhe Blessed
One. died and was reborn among the hungry ghosts of great wealth. Then the
DeathI. F._alI. and the DiliIion of ProfJn'/Y 121

hungry ghosr of grear wealrh. wearing rrembling and brighr earrings, his limbs
[502] glillering wirh ornamems of various kinds, having a diadem of many­
colored gems and his limbs smeared wirh saffron and ramala leaves and sp�.
having rhar very nighr filled his skirt with divine blue loruses and red lotuses
and whire lor uses and mandara flowers. having suffused rhe whole of)eta's Grove
wirh blinding lighr. having covered rhe Blessed One wirh flowers. sar down in
from of rhe Blessed One for rhe sake of hearing rhe Dharma. And rhe Blessed
One g'dve him an appropriare exposirion of rhe Dharma. Having heard ir and be­
come pious, he departed.
The monks �mained engaged in rhe pracrice of wakefulness rhroughour rhe
enri� nighr. They saw rhe blinding lighr around rhe Blessed One. and having
seen ir-being unsure-rhey asked rhe Blessed One: "Blessed One . did Brahma.
rhe Lord of rhe World of Men. or Sakra. rhe Leader of rhe Gods. or the Four
Guardians of rhe World approach in rhe nighr for having rhe sight (","11111)11 of
rhe Blessed One?"
The Blessed One said: ··Monks. ir was nor Brahma. rhe Lord of rhe World
of Men. nor Sakra. rhe Leader of rhe Gods . nor even the Four Guardians of the
World who approached for having sighr of me. Bur ir was thar hungry ghost who.
having died. was reborn among the hungry ghosts of great wealth. In the night
he came imo my presence. To him I gave an exposition of the Dharma. He. be­
coming pious. departed. The�ore. monks. work now toward getting rid of self­
ishness. Practice. monks. so thar rhese faults of rhe guild masrer who became a
hungry gllosr will rhus nor arise for you:
This rhe Blessed One said. Delighred. the monks and orhers-dn...., tlIWIII.
gart"laI, ki"maral. mahordgal. and so on-rejoiced in what the Blessed One spoke.
 CHA P T E R V

Dead Monks and Bad Debts

Some Provisions of a Buddhist
Monastic Inheritance Law

DEBT WAS A MAJOR concern it seems for those brahmins who wrote or redacred
borh anciem and classical Indian religious and legal texrs. It was a cenrral piece of
brahmanical anthropology-Patrick Olivdle, discussing what he, following
Charles Malamoud, calls "the theology of debr" in Vedic lirerarure, says rhat "the
very existence, the very birrh of a man creates his condition of indebtedness," and
Malamoud had already said: "In the same way as rhe norion of debr is a1read)' there,
fully formed, in rhe oldest texrs, so does fundamemal debr affect man and define
him from rhe momem he is born,"· Borh are of course, ar leasr in parr, alluding
to rhe famous passage in the Tailliriya Sa'!lhilii (6,3, 1 0.5), which says: "A Brah­
min, ar his very birrh, is born with a triple debt-of srudemship to the seers, of
sacrifice ro rhe gods, of offspring [0 rhe farhers,"2
Brahmanical literarure was not, however, concerned only wirh man's religious
or anrhropological debt-ir was equally occupied wirh real financial debr, and offen
the rwo sorrs of debt are righdy emangled. Typical of the legal concern wirh debt
is rhe Niiradasmrri , "rhe only original collecrion oflegal maxims (mii1aJmrri) which
is purely juridical in characrer. "3 The firsr and by far rhe longesr of irs chaprers
dealing with "rides oflaw" (vyal/ahiirapad4"i) is devoted to "nonpaymem of debt"
(f1!iidina
i ",). It conrains 224 verses. By comparison, the second-Iongesr chapter,
the chaprer dealing wirh "relations berween men and women" (JlriplI'!1Jayoga), cov­
ers whar one might have rhought was a far broader range of issues bur consisrs of
only 1 1 7 verses; and rhe (horny issue of "parrition of inheritance" (diiyiibhiiga) is
rreared in only 49 verses. A preoccuparion wirh legal debr and rhe recovery of
debt is moreover by no means limited to Niirada, as a glance ar modem works
like Chauerjee's The Law ofDtbl i" A fUittll l"Jia will show: rhe topic was similarl)'

Originally published in '"a"-'ra,,ialljfJlmfal 44 (2001) 99-148. Reprim«l wirh srylisric

changes wirh permission of K1uwer Academic Publishers.

122
 123

addressed by previous JiislraleiiraJ and by rhose who followed him, and ir also forms
a significanr part of almosr all rhe "digesrs: or nibandhaJ.4
Given rhe lengrh ro which Niirada pursues rhe ropic, ir is probably nor surpris­
ing rhar we find reference in his discussion-and rhar fairly early on (I. 7)-to
ascerics who die in debt. Even though we do not often think of { I 00] Indian as­
cetics as having or entering into contractual obligations, Niirada says:

lapan'; (agniholri fa ma"an mriyalt yadi /

lapa! (ai,-agnihol'a'r' fa JJ""''r' lad dhaniniim dha1lJm 1/

which Richard Lariviere translates as

asceric or an agnihotrin dies in debt, all of the merit from his austerities
If an
and sacrifices belongs ro his creditors.'

The exact status of the lapaH'in, or "ascetic," here is of course nor clear, and rhe ref­
erence ro debts may refer to debts incurred or contracred before the individual un­
dertook rhe practices of an ascetic. But that is not stated to have been the case. A
little clearer perhaps is Vi!,!" 6.27: "Vi!,!" is explicit on this point: when a debtor
dies or renounces [/Wal ..ajila] or is away in a distant land for twenty years, his sons
and grandsons should settle the debt"; and, as Olivelle notes, Kiil)"iiyana makes a
similar statement.6 Care. however. is probably best taken not ro exclude the pos­
sibility thar "ascetics" and/or "renouncers" were nor as socially dead as some of the
prescriprive rexrs make our. Some of rhese same rexts contain explicit rules gov­
erning the inherirance of a deceased renouncer's property even rhough he was not
supposed ro have any-Olivelle in fan says thar "rhe civil death of the renouncer
makes him incapable of owning property."7 Some Indian vina)'a literamre would
seem ro require rhar such quesrions be lefr open or, ar rhe leasr, problemarizes rhe
civil srams of borh Buddhisr monks and Indian renouncers and the relarionship,
or comparabiliry, of rhe rwo.s "Some" here. however, is rhe operable rerm.
There has been a marked rendency even in scholarly lirerarure ro refer ro "rhe
Vina),a," as if rhere were only one, when in facr rhe actual reference is only to the
Pali Vinaya. This is a habir rhar should nor be encouraged for any number of good
reasons, nor rhe leasr of which is rhar rhere are a half a dozen orher exranr f·i114)·as.
Moreover, rhe relarionship of rhe Pali Vinaya ro Indian pracrice may not be as clear
and srraighrforward as has been unquestionably assumed,9 and the cirarion of ir
alone is certainly disrortive, as can be seen in a case rhar is particularly germane
ro our ropic. Charrerjee, for example, has said wirh some confidence: "The entan­
glement and anxieties of debr as well as corporare liabiliry belonging ro commu­
nisric life in a religious order rendered ir necessary ro debar any candidate from
Orad M...!r aNi Bad [)d;u 125

to it.17 It is already clear that this sort of pattern repeatedly occurs, but the appar­
ent priority of texts in the Vllaragralllha may also be detected in another pattern
as well.
There are, to be sure, instances where a version of a text found in the Vllara­
gralllha occurs elsewhere in the !tI iilaJan'liJlit'a4a-f'iuya, or a topic treated in the
Vllara is simi larly treated in some orher twlAI or section, but these are almost never
exact doublets and often there is at least some indication suggesting the priority
of the version in the Vllara. Both the K!AlJraka,'aSIAI and the Vllara, for example,
have a similar text dealing with a monk's continuing right to inherit family prop­
erty even after he is ordained, but-as I have pointed out elsewhere-the version
found in the K!AlJraka has a reference to the monk's "foster mother,· which makes
no sense there and could only have been taken over from the version of the text
found in the Vllara, where it also occurs and makes perfectly natural narrative
sense.18 Likewise, both the Villayavibbaliga and the Vllaragralllha have texts deal­
ing with permanent endowments or perpetuities whose funds are to be lent out
on interest. But whereas in the Vibhaliga these loans are to be made and serviced
by the monks themselves, in the Vllara it is explicitly said that this is to be done
by a monastery's factotum (iiriimika) or a lay-brother (AlpiiJaka), suggesting perhaps
a far greater fastidiousness on the parr of the Vllara in regard to the open engage­
ment of monks in commercial matters, at least in this case. 19
These sorts of patterns pointing roward the priority or importance of the
Vllaragranlha can also be detected even beyond the boundaries of the I'inaya proper.
In recent years the Miilasarva.stiviidin affiliation of the AI'adiinafalaka, for exam­
ple, has become increasingly clear, and it is even beginning to appear that the
AI'adiinafalaka-like the Diz'Yiit'adiilla-is heavily dependent on this VifUl]a.
Michael Hahn. for example. has already pointed out that the Miilasarviisliviida-vifUl]a
has versions of both the Safa and DbarmagalJt!ill Avadiinas, which are very close to
those now found in the AI·adiinafalaka (nos. 37 and 38). He says: "Except for a few
redactional changes which became nec essary because of the different frame stories.
the Tibetan textS of the MSV VifUl]a point to a wording which is absolutely iden­
tical with that of the AI'tIdiil/afalaka. - He goes on to say-quite rightly. I think­
that "in principle. borrowing in either direction is possible, although in this par­
ticular case it seems to be more likely thar the redactors of the AI'adiinafalaka
extracted the two legends from the MSV VifUl]a and furnished it with the stan­
dardized frame they used throughout their work."20 Professor Hahn's observations
are particularly relevant here, ofcourse, because wy could just as easily be describing
two other texts also in the AI·adiinaialaka. Mailrakan-yaka and the [ 1 03J
Both the
Srimali A I adiinas-n umbers 36 and 54 in the A ,'adiinafalaka-a1so have close par­
'

allels in the Miilasan·iiJlit·iida-,·;naya. and in these cases too "the Tibetan texts of
the MSV Vina)'a point to a wording which is absolutely identical with that of the
126 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

A"adanafataka." But whereas in one of Hahn's cases the redactors of the A"adana­
ialaka appear to have borrowed from the Bhai!ajyavaJIII, and in the other they ap­
pear to have gotten their text from the K!lIdrakavaJllI, both the Mailrakatryaka and
the Srimali almost certainly were taken from the Ullaragrantha.21
A final consideration concerning the importance of the Ullaragrantha is re­
lated to the apparent use made of it by GUt:\aprabha in his remarkable VinayaJNlra.
The sources ofGut:\aprabha's individual IN/raJ can-especially with the help ofBu
ston-usually be identified with a reasonable degree of certainty, and a large num­
ber of them tum out to be based on the Ullaragranlha. This will be clear, perhaps,
even if we limit ourselves to a single example that is particularly germane to our
topic. In his sixth chapter, headed Ci"artWtIJllI, GUt:'aprabha has a series of JNlraJ
dealing with what can only be called Miilasarvastividin monastic inheritance law.
According to the commentaries and Bu ston's equally remarkable 'Dill bapha'i glmg
'bllm chen mo,22 it would appear that these JNlraJ are based on and are digesting at
least twenty-five separate canonical texts or passages. The sequence and distri­
bution of these canonical passages is interesting and indicative of GUt:\aprabha's
working methods. Both can be clearly seen in the following table, which lists the
canonical passages in the order in which Gut:'3prabha treats them:

.
I. Ullaragrantba-o.,rge Pa 85a.3-86a.2 Bu ston 29Oa.2-.3zl
..
II. Pa 86a.2-.6 29Oa.3-.5
III. Pa 86a.6-bA 29Oa.5-.6
IV. Pa 86bA-.7 29Oa.6-.7
v. Pa 86b.7-.87aA 29Oa.7-b. 1
(i--v continuous)
VI. C;''tIravaJtN-GMs iii 2, 1 1 3.1 4-1 1 7A 290h. I-29 Ia. 1
VU. 1 17.8-122.20 29la.I-292a.2
(vi-vii.. an udt:Ja na intervenes, otherwise continuous)
VIII. Ullaragra",ba-Derge Pa 88a.1-.2 292a.1
IX. C;varavajfN-GMs iii 2, 143. 1 5-145. 12 292a.I-.7
x. 147.10-148.20 292a.7-bA (104]
XI. 146.7-147.9 292bA-.6
xii. 1 26.17-127.18 292h.6-293a.3
XIII. Ullaragralltba-o.,rge Pa 87a.4-.6 2938.3-.4
XIV. Pa 132h.2-.7 293aA-.7
xv. Pa 132h.7-133a.3 293a.7-h.2
XVI. Pa 133a.3--b. 1 293b.2-A
XVII. Pa 133h.1-.4 293hA-.5
XVIII. Pa 133hA-1 34a. 1 293h.5-.7
(xiv-xviii continuous)
XIX. C;vara''tIJtN-GM s iii 2, 145. 1 3-146.6 293h.7-294a.2
xx . 1 22.20-1 23. 1 5 2948.2-.5
 127

XXI. Ullaragranlha-o"rge Na 261a.1-.5 294a.5-.7

XXII. Ci''ara'Wltt--GMs iii 2, 1 24. 1-. \ 0 294a.7-h.2
XX I I I . KittJraka'",lItt-o"rge Tha 252b. 3-254a.l 294b.2-.6
XXIV. Ullarar.ralflha-o"rge Pa 1 30a.4- 1 3 1a.3 294b.6-295a. l
xxv. Cit'ara"aJIM--GMs iii 2, 1 39.6-143.14 295a 1
. -. 3

Several [hings are fairly obvious from [his rable. Firsr, bearing in mind rha[ rhe
SMlras in rhe Vina)"asMlra rhar digesr rhis canonical marerial cover only a lirde more
rhan a single large page of primed Devanagari in Sankriryayana's edirion (rhirry-five
lines), ir is clear rha[ Gunaprabha has packed a grear deal-marerial rhar covers nearly
ren folios, or rwemy pages, of primed Tiberan, plus more rhan rwenry primed pages
of Devanagari in Durr's edirion of rhe Civarat'astll-imo a small space. Ir is equally
clear rhar Gu�prabha does nor presem his marerial in anyrhing like irs canonical
order. He srarrs by summarizing in sequemial order marerial rhar covers rwo leaves
of rhe Ullara, rhe lasr seerion of rhe canonical Vilfll)'a; [hen he summarizes, again in
sequemial order, marerial rhar covers nine pages of rhe Cit'aravaslll, which is rhe
sixrh or sevemh subsecrion of rhe firsr seer ion in rhe canonical Wnaya;24 rhen he
jumps back ro a rwo-line r!.'Xr in rhe Ullara; rhen back again ro a block of marerial
from rhe Ci,'ara, which he presems complerely our of order; rhen again back ro a
block of marerial-[his time presemed in sequence-from rhe Ullara; and so on.2'
Bur rhough our table provides what might well rum our ro be some good indica­
rions of Gur:taprabha's general working methods, perhaps the most imporram rhing
it shows for our immediare purposes is the significant place that the Ullaragra1llha
has in Gu�prabha's understand ing and presentation [ \ 05] of the rules governing
Mulasarvastiva:din monasricism: his presenrarion of Mulasarvasriv1idin inheritance
law, while it makes considerable use of rhe CivaraVil.IllI, stans with rhe Ullaragranlha,
implicirly indicating what is confirmed by rhe canonical r!.'Xr irself, thar the foun­
darional ruling for all the rest is found there. Although the Cit.",.al'aStll served as
the basis for many of Gu�prabha's SMlras and ren of rhe idemifiable texrs he used
come from ir, fourfeen are from [he Ullaragra1llha. The larrer, therefore, could hardly
have been considered by him as a mere "appendix" or "abridgemem" rhat conrained
norhing nor found elsewhere. To judge by this example-and [here are many more
like it-the Ullaragrantha must have been considered an inregral, an imporranr,
and in many inslances a foundalional parr of the IIfMlasan>asl;"ada-"inaya.
Our rabie, moreover, shows ar least one orher imporranr thing as well. Because
almost all of Ihe [exes thaI we are abou[ ro discuss dealing wilh debt and the death
of a monk are included in the list ofGur:taprabha's sources-they are numbers xiv
rhrough xvii-ir is clear rhar, at least as Gur:taprabha saw it, they are a parr of a
larger "system" of Mulasarvas[iva:din monastic inheritance law and by no means
isola[ed or anomalous rulings [har had no conrinuing influence. Once these rul-
1 28 BUDDHIST MOSKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

ings were enshrined in GUnaPrabha's Vinayasiilra, moreover, they were ensured a

cominuing long life in it, in the bulky commemarial tradition that quickly grew
up around it, and on into the Tibetan exegetical tradition,16
The texts in the Ullaragranlha that deal with private debt and the death of a
monk are typical of many other sets of texts there, They are all short and sim ilarly
structured; their narrative frame is lean and repetitive; they follow one another in
a sequential order; and they deal with one issue at a time, Because these texts are
little known, an edition of the Tibetan text will be given first, followed by a trans­
lation. The Tibetan t('XtS are based on the three Kanjurs that are available [0 me:
the Tog Palace Manuscript Kanjur (* Tog); the Derge Xylograph ( . Derge); and
the Peking Edition (. Peking). I reproduce the "puncruation" that is found in Tog."

II, ( . xi,,)
TOil Na l9Ob.�19IL4 . D<rg. Pa I32b.2-.7 . P.king Ph< 129L34>.1
sallgs "yas be_ Ida" 'das ",,,>,,,, ,u. Jot!pa'i Ju la 'i IShal "'gon ""a Z4J ,b)i" gJi kllll
'ga" ra ba IIa b:hllgs 10 I ( 106]
'
'gt sl."g g:ha" :hlg gis' �i'" bdag cig las kar sha pa '!<I :hig bsk)'is ba dallg f
tk ,u.s Ityi "'Iha' :hig III ri4 :hig gis,u.s 'das liaS I 'gt slong tk ji Itar 'IIJ� ilas pa �'I'"
btlag tks lhos s. I 'gt slong tk ji lIar 'liS 'das pa "byi", bdag tks lhos lIaS I glSllg lag
"ha"" ,III s"'g sit I shes b:hi" ,u. 'gt sl."g dag la 'ns pa I 'phags pa (Ii zhts bgJi ba'i
agt slong tk ga"g "" ""his '
tk dag gis s",ras pa / b:hill /nallgs ,u.s ilas s. I
I
'phags p.I' tks btlag gi kar sha pa '!<I :hig bs"yis It 'Ishal lo' I
bzhill 6u"gs tk "i allr JehroJ all 6,fty,,1 gyis a.,. s"'g sit "'" shig I
'phags pa �·td Ityil tk'i Ihllllg bztd dang rhos gos bgos IIa bJag gis ji lIar allr "hrod
'II ""K SIt bda' l ilhytd" Ityis sls0l9 rig m so",,, pa dang / " ltar g)1Ir pa 'gt slong
",,"m Ityis "'_ Ida" ilas Ia gsol liaS / be.", Ida" 'das Ityis bila' sisal pa I agt sl.IIg dag
�'i'" btlag tks "i Iqs par s_as It I tk'i _ las bsltyis pa 'gt sl.IIg ""8 gis byi" cig f
" dag gis gallg lIaS sbyill pa lIIi shes lIaS f IKDlll ldan 'das "yis bila' mal pa f tk'i
IhllSfg buJ da"g mos gos }oJpa las byi" rig I
'8' sl."g " dag gis IhI"'g bztd dang rhos gos tk dag b);" pa dang I rhos gos """g
Ihll"g bztd'O " dag "'" 'dtxI 1IaS I "'- Ida" 'das Ityis bI!a' sisal pa I lshmrg' Ia b)i" cig f
'gt ,Iollg dag gis " dag Iha1l9S (aJ byi" n. '
IKDlll lda" 'tJas Ityis bila' SISal pa f ji lsa", blangs pa tk 114", all byi" Ia lhag "'"
bps shig I

The Buddha, the Blesstd One, was staying in the Park of Anl.hapi�g..d., in .he
Jetavana of �ravasri.

1 . Peking: dg.'i. 2. Tog: omirs li� but cf. 11. 3. Derg.: k4r 1M '" !'iI. 4. Tog: ji. �. p.king: tiM. 6. p.king:
omirsJ>or. 7. Derg., ""king: I•. 8. Derg., p.king: !thy"". 9. Peking: JOt. 10. Derg., Peking: Ihl/IIK 1r-tJ
u_,. mo, ps, I'C'\'t'ning (� items.
 129

A C<rtain monk had borrowed some money from a householder. and when
his time had come and he had died of something, that householder heard how
that monk had died. When that householder had heard how that monk had died,
he wem to the "ihiir" and-although he knew-asked the monks: "Noble Ones.
where is that monk named so-and-so?"
"He. sir. is dead: they said.
-Noble Ones. he borrowed some of my money and I wam it."
-Well. sit. since he has be.:n carried out to the cremation grounds. you will
just have to go there and collecr'"
-When you. Noble Ones, ha"e already divided his bowl and robes. how am
I going to go and collect in the cremation grounds? You must repay me!: he
said. And when the monks teported what had occurred to the Blessed One. the
Blessed One said: -TIlat householdet. monks. speaks properly. and the monks mUSt
repay the money that was borrowed from him!-
When the monks did nor know from what he was to be repaid. the Blessed
One said: "He must be repaid from the bowl and robes that deceased monk had!"
The monks gave him th... bowl and robes, bur when he did not want robes
and bowls. the Blessed One said: ·You must sell them and then repay him!"
The monks gav... the householder all of the proceeds.
The Blessed One said: "As much as ,.-as taken. so much must be teturned.
and the rest must be divided!" [ 1 07}

The first thing that might be noted about this short text-the first of the
series-is that although it might not always be possible to determine the exact
Sanskrit vocabulary underlying its Tibetan translation. the meaning of the text on
almost every important point is virtually certain. That we are dealing here with
money. for example, is absolutely certain. The key term is in every case but one
transliterated. not translated. and was kiir!lip",!a, the designation of a coin type of
variable value that is also widely used in Sanskrit to refer in general to "money,
gold and si lver. "28 That the monk had "borrowed" kii rllipa1fal from a layman is also
not in doubt. Here the Tibetan is hs/eyil ba, the past tense of l/eyi ba, and jaschke,
for example. gives under nor-which also occurs once in our text in place of
kii'"!iipa1fa-'IM" sltyi ba, as meaning "to borrow money."29 Likewise, the first mean­
ing under l/eyi ba in the Bod rgya uhig mJzod flxn mo is dnglil logl g-yar ba, "to bor­
row silver {or money}, etc."� Lokesh Chandra's Tibetan-Samkrit Dictionary gives
IIddhara as the Sanskrit equivalent of lltyi ba. and a form of IIddiJlira is twice trans­
lated by the closely related lityin po in a passage in the Carmavaltll of the MiilasarviiJ­
tit·ada -t·;naJa that also occurs in the Dilylit-adiina :H l/eyin pa means "a loan, a thing
borrowed" ; and both Edgerton and Cowell and Neil recognize the meaning "debt"
for IIddiJlira, a meaning it also has in Pali, though not commonly in Sanskrit. The
Sanskrit equivalent for the one other important action in our text is, finally. much
1 30 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSIN ESS MATTERS

more straightforward. At the end of our text the monks are told, in effect , that
they must liquidate the deceased monk's estate, that they must "sell" it. The Tibetan
here is Ishongs, an imperative form of 'uhong, which is a widely and well-anested
equivalent for forms from Sanskrit vi"kri, perhaps the most common Sanskrit term
for "to sell. "12 This is, moreover, as we will see, nor the only place that monks are
ordered by the Buddha to do this.
But apart from maners of vocabulary, it is also worth noting here that the de­
ceased monk's action-a monk's borrowing money from laymen-passes entirely
without comment: this is not the problem. and no rule forbidding it is provided
by our text or by any other that I know of.ll The problem that our text addro:-sses
appears, ironically, not even to have heen a particular concern of the general run
of monks. Their cheeky response to the layman's assertion-which, as we will see,
will be repeated-is nothing if not dismissive: they tell him in effect to buzz off.
But although this might be well and good for individual monks, it was precisely
this sort of thing that the "author" of our ruling-who we can assume speaks
through the Buddha's mouth-apparently wanted to stOp.
Like the authors of all Buddhist texts, whether slitra or fastra, our author was
almost certainly not an average or rypical lndian Buddhist [ l OR} monk. Moreover,
as a vinayadhara, or monastic lawyer, he would have had specific and specialized
concerns and would have heen charged, as it were, with a particular mission. Herein,
of course, lay the problem. Almost everything in the Miilasan'asli,'ada-villaya­
and perhaps in other vinayas as well-suggests that its author or authors were
concerned with building and maintaining an institution and therefore avoiding
social criticism. This concern appears to have prompted , especially in the Miila­
sarvasli"iida" 'inaya, any number of rulings that would accommodate and bring its
version of Buddhist monasticism into line with brahman ical values and concerns.
A good example of this can be seen in M iilasarvastivadin rules governing monas­
tic funerals.}4 Given that they deal with a related issue. it should be no surprise
that the textS we are concerned with here provide another example: they too ap·
pear to have heen designed to shield the institution from criticism and to bring
its practice into conformity with dharmafaslric law or expectation. It probably did
not escape our ,'inayadhara's notice that by doing so they would as well provide
some assurance to any potential lender or creditor that a loan to a member of a
Buddhist communiry would not go bad. This last may have heen more important
than we can realize, because the Mlilasan'asti,'ada" 'inaya itself contains repeated
references, put i n the mouth of tradesmen, that suggest that its author or authors
knew that Buddhist monks had a reputation among such folk for not paying their
bills. In the I4l1drako,'astll, for example, when a monk's bowl begins to leak and
he takes it to a smith to be repaired, the laner tries to get rid of him, thinking to
himself, the text says: "Although these monks commission work, they do not pay
Dead Monkl and Bad Dehll 131

the bill" (de Jag IIi khaJ 1m byed du 'jug pa yill gyi I gla mgall ni mi sler ba). In the
Carmal'aslu a cobbler says much the same SOrt of thing when a monk brings him
his sandals to repair: "Buddhist monks wane us to work, but without wages" (fakya 'i
sras kyi dge slong moms ni mgall pa med par '(hol gyis . )Y Ie is, of course, almost
. .

impossible to know at this distance anything certain about the relationships be­
tween Buddhist monks and Indian tradesmen. The presence ofpassages like these­
and many others-suggests that they had them, and that such narrative criticisms
occur even in Buddhist sources may suggest that such relationships were not al­
ways good. Moreover, that several of the texts in our series also deal-as we shall
see-with the same relationships would seem to indicate that our "illayadhara
thought they were in need of careful regulation.
Considerations of this kind must of course remain conjectural. What is far
more certain, though, is the effect of the ruling put in place by our text, which,
again, is only the first of the series. Classical "Hindu" [ 1 09] law was clear on cer­
tain aspectS of the law of debt. Chatterjee, for example, says: "Gautama prescribes
that those who inherit the property of a person should discharge his debt. The idea
finds place in the texts of Yiijnal'alkya and Vi!'!u." Gautama's text is particularly
elegane: riklhabhiija mam pralikuryu� (xii.37).!6 Because our text explicitly indi­
cates that, in the case it is describing, the monks had already "inherited" (bgos na­
translating a past tense from Vbhaj) the dead monk's estate (his "bowl and robes"),
the householder's assertion ("You [monks] must repay me!") is not-in light of
G"ulama et al.-an individual claim or private opinion but the invocation of
brahmanical law or expectation. When the Buddha is made to declare that "that
householder . . . speaks properly," he is only saying that he speaks in conformity
with dharnJajiiJ1ra. And when the Buddha then immediately-and, by implica­
tion, consequently-orders that the monks must repay what was borrowed, he is
in fact insisting that his monks conform to brahmanical norms.
One last observation in regard ro our text concerns the good business sense
of this Vina)'a's Buddha. Although we are not told how much money the de­
ceased monk had borrowed, the text explicitly says that when the monks liqui­
dated his estate, they gave everything to the Jay creditor, and the clear implication­
especially in light of our next text-was that this was in excess of what had been
borrowed. At this poine the Buddha, unasked, ineervenes and insists on a much
more enlightened procedure that would be far more favorable to his monks: they
must repay only as much as was borrowed-nothing here is said about ineerest
even though our redactors elsewhere required monks themselves to charge ineer­
est on money that they lene, and even though dharnJajiislri( texts have a great deal
to say about it, some of which our monks appear to have knownY
We have, then, in our little text a good solution to a potentially serious prob­
lem. It averrs social criticism of monastic practice; it brings Buddhist monastic
132 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

practice into conformity with brahmanical norms; it-incidentally-might also

serve to assure members of the Buddhist monastic community continuing access
to credit by providing any potential lender something like a limited guaranty. But
though it was a good solution. it was not a complete solution. and the problem
remained that the guaranty was based on the size of the deceased monk's estate: if
the estate was equal to or in excess of what had been borrowed. then the guaranty
would have effect. But what if i t were not? Moreover. the ruling our text ptovides
could be interpreted to admit. in principle. corporate liability for the debt of its
individual members and to expose Communiry assets or those of other monks ro
any action for recovery. How important these considerations [ I I OJ were to our
" i"ayadha,a may be indicated by the fact that both points of law were explicitly
addressed in a separate text that immediately follows the one we have been deal­
ing with in the Ulla,ag,anlha.

III, ( x,,)
.

Tog N. 1910.4-h.2 = Derg< Pa 1 32b.7-13k3 . p.king Ph< 1 2%.1-.4

""'yaR tiN yad pa lid dg. ,lollg gzhall :hig gil khyim IxIag cig laJ L, ,ha pa �' :hig
blltyil ba danK / '" tiN, Ityi mlha' :hig III ji :hig2 gil dNrl 'daJ pa dang / dXt I/ollg '"
dag gil 'nga _ b:hill dll Ihllng bud dallg <hoI gOl blJongl IIdl '" la byill no I
Ith)i.. IxIag gil '''''a, pa I 'phag' pa tkJ4 1x1ag laJ5 'tIi lJam :hig 'lJhal l. / IxIag la
lIi 'tIi far ma ural gyil / gzhan ,''''g mol cig at ,,,.,a, pa dallK I '" Ila,· XJ"' pa dgt
,loRg rna"" Ityis I beom Idall 'tJa, Ia g'oI pa dang I beom Idall 'tJa, kyi' bL' 'Iral pa f '"
la ""i Ihllllg bud dallg choJ gOl ni 'tIi la, "i<tI do' zher ,go' :hig I '" Ut yid ",i cbel "",
go ba, gyi, ,hig I go ba, b'go yallg m,"9 billb lid ",10 la dgt 'till" g)"i am f ga"x 14g �,.h.",
gyi la, lIi _" ,byill cig I rig, Ityi gu bo rna1lu kyi' go ba, blgo la Ihollg :hig f

In Srivasti a c�rtain monk borrowed som� money from a household... and when
his time had come. he died of som..hing. Then after the monks had sold his bowl
and robes as before. they repaid the householder.
The householder said: "Noble Ones. that monk took this much from me.
but since you have not returned it to me from this. you must return still more!"
And the monks reported <0 the Blessed One what had occurred. and the Blessed
One said: -You must inform him saying: 'In regard to his bowl and robes there
is nothing beyond this.' If he does not believe that. you must make a clear ac­
coum. If. even when a clear account is declared. that is not acceptable. you must
not repay him from what belongs to the Community or another individual monk!
Mediators of good family must declare a clear accoum and sellie it!"

1 . De'8e: ilii, Jhi; pa "". 2. Derge. p.king: ci zhig. 3. Derg•• Peking: omi, tlMS. 4. Derg•• Peking: "".
5. Tog: Ia. 6. Derge. Peking: '" Ita h",. 7. Peking: probably -" tI4. but could also be read as manK
"".. 8. Peking: bst;". 9. Peking: /JIa. 10. Peking: tIa. 1 1 . Peking: "" ....
146 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

related,73 and yet the language of rhe Pali rexr is on irs own-or at leasr as ir has
been translared-nor immediarely rransparent. In the Piili rexr the Buddha is made
ro say: anlljanami bhikkhatJe phlilikammallhaya parifJalltllln ti, and rhis has produced
some awkward translarions. Rhys Davids and Oldenberg have represented it by "I
allow you, 0 Bhikkhus, ro barter . . . rhese rhings in order ro increase rhe srock of
legally permissible furniture," bur rhis, of course, is more of a paraphrase rhan a
rranslarion, and rhe added gloss-"rhe stock of legally permissible furniture"­
irself runs into rrouble because, as rhe arrached nore implies, kambala is nowhere
declared "impermissible." Horner's rranslarion is much less padded bur no more
srraighrforward : "I allow you, monks, ro barrer ir for (somerhing) advantageous,"
and Wijayararna undersrands it ro mean rhar rhe monks '·were allowed ro exchange
ir for somerhing else. "74
Parr of the problem here must be rhar phlitikammallhaya is an unusual ex­
pression. According ro the recent and useful Index to the Vinaya-Pifaka, ir occurs
in rhe Pali Vinaya only in rhis passage and rhe one rhar immediarely follows ir.
The only orher relared for�phafiklifllm-also only occurs once in rhe enrire
Vinaya.75 The Pali Texr Society dicrionary gives for phlifikamma in our passage rhe
meanings "increase, profit, advanrage" and phlifiklifllm in rhe phrase na pafibalo . . .
adhigafa'!1 I'a bhoga'!1 phlifiklifllm ar Vinaya i 86. 1 2 has been ( l 25) rendered by
Horner as ·'1 am nor able . . . ro increase rhe wealrh (already) acquired."76 Since
parit'afftfi is cerrainly used in the Vinaya ro mean "inverr," "barter," and "ex­
change"-rhe larrer once where "gold and silver" is "exchanged" for some producr­
ir would seem thar rhe phrase phlifikammallhaya parifJalleflln should mean "ro ex­
change/barrer/sell for rhe purpose of making a profir" or somerhing like rhar. Bur
if ir does mean rhat-and rhe Miilasarviisrivadin parallel also would suggesr ir
should-that meaning is not immediarely obvious and requires some efforr ro see.
Perhaps rhe mosr easily available explanarion for rhis lack of transparency is rhar
it is intenrional, rhat in having rhe Buddha say phlifikammJllhliya parifJaffeflln rhe
redacrors of rhe Pali Vinaya were employing a conscious euphemism. A relucrance
on rhe parr of modern scholars ro see what even Pali rexts mighr have been saying
probably has also nor helped rhe discussion.
The larger issue in all of this is, however, rarher simple. It would appear rhat
we have a grear deal yer ro learn abour whar has been presented as, or assumed ro
be, a serded issue: wherher or not and to whar degree Buddhisr fJinaya literarUte­
all Buddhisr vinaya lirerature-allowed, permirred, or mandated rhe parricipa­
rion of monks in commercial acrivity. Our Uffaragranfha rexrs make a significanr
conrriburion roward understanding rhe Miilasarviisriviidin posirion(s) on rhese is­
sues, and rhe rext mosr immediarely ar hand here (IV) would seem ro indicate nor
only that Miilasarviisrivadin monks were expecred ro engage in monerary purchases
Dtad Monks and Bad Deb" 147

on a regular basis but also that Mul asarviistiviidin vinayadharas were redacting rules
that would address some of the problems between merchants and monks that could
arise from these activities. The ruling in IV seems, indeed, to have no other pur­
pose than to establish a procNure that-again without exposing community
assets-would provide merchants some assurance that credit extended to a Bud­
dhist monk would be made good by the inheritors of his estate upon that monk's
death. This ruling, even more than the others we have seen, would seem to favor
the creditor over the monks: what would otherwise have gone to them must be
used to make up any shortfall that results from the sale of what the deceased had
bought on credit. But like the other rulings, this ruling too is most directly en­
gagN in establishing the liabili ties of monks in regard to the estate of a fellow
monk, not their rights. Our t·illayadhara, however, is not yet finished.
The vast majority of the canonical texts dealing with monastic inheritance
that were digested by Gu�aprabha do not in fact deal with the issue of [126] lia­
bility. They are overwhelmingly concerned with rights. There are texts dealing
with the rights of nuns to the estate of a dead monk (ii-except in the absence of
other monks they have none), and vice versa (iii-to the same, though reversed,
effect). There are texts detailing the rights of monks to the estate of another monk
who dies between monastic boundaries (sima) (viii) or to the estate ofone of a group
of traveling monks who dies within the monastic boundaries of another group (xi).
There are texts determining the priority of the rights of monks to the estate of a
dead monk that is in the possession of a layman (xiii), and a considerable number
of others. The next two texts in che sequence of texts from the Ul1aragrantha that
we are here dealing with form, then, in at least some sense, a subset of this larger
group: they tOO deal with the rights of monks. But they also belong to our se­
quence because they address the issue of debt. In these two cases, however, the is­
sue is not what a monk owed at the cime of deach but racher whac was owed to
him. These lasc two texts are even shorter chan the others and are most conveniently
creaced together.

v (s x.·;;)
Tog N. 1920.2-.7 • 0.'80 P. 1 33b.1-A • Poking Ph< 1 30..2-.6
glmg gzhi ni mny"" du yod pa na' I dgt sll11lg zhig gis tha ga pa la ras 'thag pa'i pbyir
sl,,'" pa da"g I mga" pa byi" pa fas I dgt sf'''g tk dlls 'da, rws1 I dgt ,f.II8 rnams leyis
tha ga pa fal bos It f Wi" bUllgs' kbyod fa dgt sl."g ming iii zheJ bya has ras 'Ihag
pa'i phyir skNJpa dang rngan pa by;n pa tk slar5 phlll rig (t1 smras pa dang I tks 'phags
pa rnam' bdag gis tk la ras sbyi"" par byas Iey;s" I sklldpa dallg mgall pa "i tria fags so

I . Poking: ad<ls lit. 2. 0.'80. Poking: haY< dus 'das po ';""g instead of"'" 'das ""'. 3. o.rgo: omits Ia.
4. Poking: /nang. 5. Poking: ,Iah. 6. Poking: byi". 7. o.rgo. Poking: /tyi.
148 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSIN ESS MATTERS

:/;(s I,,"aJ pa dang I dgt 1101/8 rnamI kyiJ tk ji /tar bya ba ma IixI fIdl I tk lIar gyllr pa
dgt Ilo"K rnamI kyil I h<om ldan 'tiaJ Ia gIoi pa dang /) «om ldan 'dal kyil dgt II.rtg
rnarm lha ga pa Imra ba ni htkn gyiJ ral III I.ng zhig (tl I,,"al pa dang" I dKt II.ng
rnamI kyi. phra mo las hkllg pa dang I tks9 'phags pa rnams Mag gis tk la .hom po sbyill

par byaJ JO :/;(s "m'aJ pa dallg , brom ldan 'tiaJ kyiJ hu' mal pa I dKt slong tk ni dlls
iJaJ kyiJ ti'O lIar byill pa tk /ta hll I.llg zhig" ,

VI ( ,,,,iii)
�

Tog Na 192a.7-h.S . Dergo Pa 133b.4-I34a.l • Poking Ph< 1 30a.6-b. l

glmg gzhi IIi m11)"" dll yodpa "" .It , dgt Ilollg zhig gil gOJ 'llballg ba I" ur Iha pa
"., ' byill It ' raJ Ihig byill tig m I"".as pa dang ' dgt II."g tk dill 'dal ",,1 / dgt Ilong
rna",. kyi. gOJ 'Ilhong ba la 1m It ' hzhillg butng.l kh)·od I" dgt Ilong ",inK 'tii :/;(s by"
ba. raJ kyi rin zhig byin pa tk on (ig mI I""."s pa dartg I tks 'phagI pa rnam. tk la' raJ
.11 .byin par bgyi• •0 :/;(s s"".as pa dang I dgt .Iong rnamI kyi. tk la ji l'ar bya ba mi

.h.. .. ,
tk liar gyllr pa dgt Ilong rna",. kyi. h<om ldan 'das Ia g.oI ""1 1 "':om ldan 'da. kyis
dgt II."g rna",. gOJ 'llballg ba tk I,,"a ba IIi htkn gyiJ , r". III lo"g zhigS (tl ImraJ pa
dang I dgt .10"8 rnam. kyiJ phra mo bkllg pa datil' , tk. 'phags pa rnamI- Mag gil tk
I" .hom po dhlll bar bgyiJ •• :/;(s JmraJ pa dang I «om ldan iJaJ kyis bu' m,,1 pa ' dgt
11.rtg tk ni dill 'tiaJ "" ji Ila hll byill pa tk hzhirt dll 10"8 zhig" I

v (s
X1'ii)
The serring was in Sriivasti. When after a monk had given thread and wag..
toa weaver for the purpose of having cloth woven, and the monk died. the monks
summoned the weaver and said: "Sir. the monk named so-and-so gave you thread
and wag.. for the purpose of having cloth woven and you must give that back!"
But the weaver said: "Noble Ones. since I was to give him cloth. there is no thread
or wages." And when the monks did not know what to do in regard to that. they
reported to the Blessed One what had occurred. and the Blessed One said: "Monks.
since what the weaver says is true. you must accept cloth!" But the monks called
for fine cloth. and the weaver said: "Noble Ones. I was <0 give him coarse." And
the Bl..sed One said: "Since that monk is dead. you must accept what is given!"

VI ( xI'iii)
=

The setting was Sriivasti. A monk gave money <0 a cloth merchant and said: "You
must give me cloth." But when that monk died, the monks summoned the cloth

8. Derge. Peking: iKrnn Ida. 'ihs ttyis dge sl...g ....""

. Ia bk4' IISalpa tho ga pa s_a ba .j bda "is [Pekin/::
"i) ras ",/."" shig as bk4' stlllipa dang. 9. De'lle: '" i4. 10. DerS., Peking: ii. I I . Derge. Pokin/!: shig.
[127)
I . Derg<: "'r sh.i pa �. 2. Peking: bung. 3. Peking: 00. 4. Tog: omirs '" i4 bu, has " in ,he similar
statement below. S. Derge. Peking: sbig. 6. Derge. Pekmg: bkwg JtaS ins,ead of bkwg pa dang. 7. Peking:
omirs """"s. 8. Derg<, Peking: shig.
Dead Mont. and Bad DtbIJ 149

merchant and said: "Sir, the monk named so-and-so gave you 'he prico of the cloth
and you must return it'" Bu, ,he cloth merchan, said: "Noble One, cloth was to
be given to him"; and the monks did no, know wha, to do in regard to that.
When 'he monks had reported to ,he Blessed One what had occurred, the
Blessed One said: "Monks. since wha, 'he cloth merchan, says is true, you mus,
accep' clo,h!" Bu, ,he monks called for fine cloth. and ,he cloth merchant said:
"Noble One. I was to give him coarse." And ,he Blessed One said: "In that that
monk is dead. wha, SOrt is given, so you mus' accept!" [ 1 28]

There is a good deal that is by now not new in these two little textS, the last
two in our continuous sequence from the Ullaragranlha. The Communiry or cor­
paration (Jangha) is again noticeable only by its absence; it has no role in the ac­
tions undertaken, nor in the resultant ruling. The text is dealing with the estate
of an individual monk who had entered into a private transaction with another
private individual. and a claim lodged by a group of individual monks. It is by
now hopefully clear that for our /'inayadhara "a group of individual monks" does
not constitute a or the Sangha. Which monks are included in the group is here not
explicitly stated, although context and the texcs seen previously allow, or even re­
quire, the assumption that "the monks" referred to are the monks who will par­
ticipate in the division of the estate-in effect the dead monk's heirs-and a large
number of GUrlaprabha's canonical texts are taken up with determining who and
in what circumstances these monks will be (ii-viii, xi-xiii, xx, etc.). There is, more­
over, no reference in our last tWO texts to the monks' having already divided the
estate, almost certainly because, as is clear from still other texts (vii, ix). procedure
requi red that the content of the estate should be determined and gathered before
any division takes place, and the monks in our two textS are engaged in that nec­
essary preliminary.
In these two texts we also have, as in several earlier instances, monks inter"
aCting with merchants and tradesmen. There is another cloth merchant and also a
weaver-lha ga pa I ba is an attested equivalent of lanlil/ ii),a' - and, in regard to
the latter, specific reference to "wages" (rngan ; bhrtiki'i). The MiilaJarviiJliviida­
vinaya has a wealth of material on wage labor, but it has yet to be studied. And if
there were any lingering doubts about whether our monks were thought to enter
directly inca financial transactions with tradesmen or to directly purchase goods
from merchants. V and VI should put them at rest. Here we see monks themselves
hiring weavers and themselves buying clOth. What is differenc here-especially
from the tales of smiths and cobblers referred to above-is that in these two cases
the monks actually paid in advance, and therein lay the problem.
What is new here is that in these last two cases the monks concerned did nor
die in debt. When they died, something in both cases was owed to them, and the
1 50 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

primary purpose of our two texts was, it seems, to determine what that was, and
what the deceased 's co-religionists had a right to expect, what, in short, they could
or could not legitimately seek to recover, Notice that the monks' right to insti­
tute an action for recovery was not argued or ruled upon: it was simply assumed;
but notice tOO that it is "the monks'" [ 1 29] right co i nstitute the action, not the
Community's, This, presumably, is based on the fact that because they will inherit
and therefore will be obligated-within established limits-co pay the deceased's
debts, they also have the rights co anything that was owed to him. Although none
of this is here explicitly stated, the assumption that the right of recovery inhered
in "the monks" is at least narratively asserted co have been held by both monks
and merchants: neither the weaver nor the cloth merchant challenge the monks'
right to make their claim. The challenge of both is only co its terms, and here we
strike an element that, while not necessarily new, is certainly far more pconounced
in our last cwo texts,
It is something of a truism in the hiscory of law that one of the earliest-if
not indeed the earliest-forms of contract was debt. Ie is, moreover, notoriously
difficult in a number of contexts co clearly separate a law of debt from contract
law. That, starring with IV but more cerrainly with V and VI, we have moved al­
most imperceptibly from the former to the latter should not, then, be an undue
surprise. The dispute in both V and VI-if we may call it such-is not about the
rights of the monks co make a claim for recovery. That, as we have seen, is con­
ceded. The dispute and the Buddha's ruling are about the terms, about, in other
words, the terms or provisions of what would have to be called the contract, Al­
though neither text uses a term for "contract"-and this may have some chrono­
log ical significance-both carefully state the intended nature of the transaction
that the dead monk had entered into: V explicitly states the purpose for which the
deceased had transferred his properry co the weaver-"for the purpose of having
cloth woven"; in VI the deceased himselfdeclares the merchant's obligation-"You
must give me cloth," The acceptance of thread and money on the parr of the weaver
and the merchant-which is a narrative fact-would have signaled their accept­
ance of the terms of the contract, and their understanding of those terms is made
explicit in response co the action of the monks, They, the Buddha, and the dead
monk are all presented as understanding that the contract or agreement called for
cloth.
Given the careful presentation of the "facts" by our vina)"adhara, it is impos­
sible not co see the action of the monks as the issue, alchough that action can be
described in more than one way. It could be said that the monks were attempting
co recover something other than what was specified in the contract; it could also
be said that they were in effect seeking to abrogate or annul the contract, How­
ever phrased, this is what the Buddha is asked to adjudicate, and his ruling is un-
DtmJ Mods "IfIi BaJ Dthts 1�1

mistakably that either or both are at fault, He-like the weaver and the merchant­
does not question the monks' right of recovery, but he-again like [he weaver and
the merchant-in effect insists [ 1 30] that that right only operates within, and is
constrained by, the terms of the dead monk's agreement, What had been instituted
and agreed [0 by the monk while alive cannot be altered by either party-notice
that merchant and weaver do nothing else than insist on the original terms, The
Buddha's original ruling, then, does no more nor no less than insist that his monks
abide by the terms of the contract that their now deceased fellow monk had en­
tered into with both weaver and merchant, He insists, in other words, on the rule
of law, in this case the accepted law of COntract, and by doing so he makes this ac­
cepted law of contract a specific element of Buddhist monastic law,77
The second ruling of the Buddha in both V and VI seems to be directed [Oward
the question of witness, although no such term is used, As the case is developed the
dispute comes down to the narrative fact that although both parties now agree that
by terms of the original COntract "cloth" was [0 be delivered, and the monks, in
compliance with the Buddha's first ruling. are seeking only to recover that, there
is a disagreement as [0 the quality of that cloth, In the first ruling the Buddha had
declared that what the merchant said was true and the monks must act accord­
ingly, In his second ruling, however, the Buddha does not explicitly say this, and
the implications seem [0 be that although the existence ofa contract, and the broad
content of it, can both be determined in the absence of one party-the now dead
monk-a determination of its finer terms must depend on, and be conceded to,
its surviving witness. that is [0 say, the merchant, Once again, it seems, the Bud­
dha's ruling does not necessarily favor the monks but would seem rather to ac­
commodate the authority oflay claims and [0 insist once more that his monks play
accord ing [0 lay rules, This apparent emphasis on accommodation-whether
rhetorical or reaI-brings us [0 the last text from the Uttaragranlha that we can
look at here,
What has so far been presented here will probably suggest an unexpectedly
sophisticated and developed Buddhist monastic law of debt and contract, But it
is good to keep in mind that what we have seen is really only a small part-a dis­
tinct subset-of a much larger corpus of Mulasarviistivlidin Vinaya texts that ar­
ticulate an equally sophisticated monastic law of inheritance, When we are con­
fronted with this substantial corpus, certain questions seem unavoidable, but the
chief of these would seem to be quite simply, how did all of this happen, how did
what was supposed to have been little more than groups of celibate men without
possessions, social ties, or fixed addresses get tangled up with property law and
[ 1 3 1 ] laws of inheritance, with dharmafiiJlra and U'7iipa,!"J and commercial deals?
Any answer will undoubtedly be a long time coming and complicated and may
end in seeing that in fact these groups were so entangled from the start, But mod-
1 52 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

ern historians themselves might start with a clear awareness that they are not the
first to have tried to offer some kind of answer to a pan of the question-our I';....'.,a­
"harm had already done so in our final text.
Our final text is actually the first to occur in the Ullaragrantha-it occurs
almost 70 folios before the sequence of texts dealing with private debts of indi­
vidual monks, and more than 1 60 folios before the text on corporate or Commu­
nity debt, There are, moreover, good reasons for thinking that it was intended as,
or at least taken to be, the Mulasarviistiviidin "origin tale" for monastic inheritance
law, the textual source, in other words, for how all of this came to be. Perhaps the
best evidence that this was so is that our final text was the first of the canonical
sources that is given by Bu ston for Gw:taprabha's IMlrtn on inheritance-it (I) stands
at the head of, and was by implication the foundation for, all the rest. This foun­
dational charaCter of I is also suggested, as we will see , by its contents, It gives a

series of initial solutions-none of which worked-to the problem of what to do

with the property that a deceased monk left behind, and it is presented as if it were
the first of the Buddha's rulings to do so, It begins with a "period" during which
a very different approach was taken to the issue, a "period" before which, it seems,
the Buddha had made any ruling on the marrer,

1 (. ;)
TOfi N. 12Ib.2-122b.� D<t-go P. 8�L�-860.2 Poking P� 82b.�-8�b.2
• •

"'''g' 'ly'" brom IJa" iJaJ "''')'''' "" yod po. "" du 14,' " NI 11111.." mtd %A' ,byi" gyi
Itll" dga' 'a ha "" hzhllg' 10 I
"'''Ya" ,III Jodpo. "" Ith).j", hJag gzha" zhig ""'11. po. del I rig, ",,,yam po. fa, chll"g
_ zhig bia"g' lUI' I .I. .I. Ja"g IN" cir III YIlt dgll' zhi"gl Y01lg' 'II ,pyod do / .I. rrlt
dga' :hi"g Y01lg' 'II ,pyad po. laJ / J.'i Chll1lg "'" '''''' ca" Ja"g IJa" po.r gy"r It / .I. zfa
ha brgyad Ja", ,111." I." po. Ja"g h" pho zhig b,,.., 1. 1 .1. zb.tg """" 11.'''''' tryi ,hll· gcig
gi bar "" HJal po.'i bl"" ,,." chm po' 'l)a chtr by", "'" / rig, Ja"g "" h",," par ",i"g
bl4g" 10 I
.I. ,I", phyi8 zhig "" be"", IJa" 'Ja, ttyi h""" po. fa rah III byll"g "'" / .I. ya"g ,I",
phyi zhig 114 """ Ityi, blab Jft dllJ 'JaJ po.9 Ja"g I dg. ,1000g Jag giJ J. lh""g bztd Ja"g
choJ g01 Ja"g be", ft dllr Ithrod ,I" bor ba bra", u Ja"g Ithyi", hJag lam dtr b)'""g ".'0/
Jng ba .I. Jag gis "" Ixt"g 1/aJ / .I. Jag gcig fa gcig glam "" 'J...tr ci"g 'dtmg Jlt / /tyt hJag
C4g /thyi", po. lthyi", "" f.1IaJ po.s Ihab,11 ""'", po. "" _, "or rri%A' Jag b,grtlb, ttya"g
",od ,pyad Ja"g 11.01 Jag "i ",i 'dor "" I dgt ,by."g ,hii /tya'i h" 'di Jag "i ,go'i Ihnn ' 2
[1 32] po. brg", 'lal zhi"g dA4' hzhi" ,111 1,. 'gntgJ ,hilfg h,od '''YIIIIU b,grtlb' l "a / ci'i
phyir Ihll"g bztd Ja"g cho' g" 'dOl' zha '"".a ba lUI I dgt ,101111. Jag ">a"g J.'i ",d,," 1/aJ

1 . Pdcing: ilztl4'i. 2. p.king:grig. 3. IXrS" p.king: omit zhi",. 4. o.r8<, p.king: add rtSil. 5. p.king:
omitS 1M [Jo, but this looks like . -cometion." 6. Poking: 'I""". 7. p.king: gtllg'. 8. p.king: ",,·u. 9.
IXr8<, P.klng: tIJtS Lu iW p.s. 10. IXr8<, Poking: p.s insttod of st,. 1 1 . Pdcing: IN.., Id IRSttod of
,w.. 12. Pdcing: ,Nt.. 1 3. o.r8<. Pdc.ing: ,,,,,6.
Drad Mow ..rJ Bad Dtlm
, 1 53

IShlll" inrgs pa dang I tit dag g;s tit dag Ia s,,"as pa I 'phags pa bJag rag khyi. pa khy;.
114 gnas " I ,habs rna. pa "" _s _ rdzas b1grttbs ftyang sllOli spyad dallg gos III; 'dw

114 I IIhytd cag sgo'; ,htm pa "'v'a rgal zhillg dlla' bzhill ""I� 110 gmgsl' ",'j bsod sll]­

Qtrlj bsgrttbs I. I Ihllng hwl dallg rhos gos 'tii ga las inrg 114 tit ri'; phyir IIhytJ ftyis dg.

sl{)lft. 't/; '; Ihllng bztd da"g rhos gos Sll bras It dill" IthrrxJ dll bar zhtJ J1m'as", dallg I tit
dag gis Ixom ldan iJas ftyis _ gna"g 1Igo zhts s_as '" dallg I tit dag rang IIIi ur bar
dong 111.0 1
tit ltar gylll" ba dg. sltmg dag la s_as pa dang I dg. slang dag gis I Ixom ldall iJaJ
Ia gsol lo l
/xom Ida" iJas it}'is blla' SIsal pa I lhll1lg hztd dallg chos gos sli lKas It _ b rigl
Ixom ldan iJas ftyis Ihllllg Ir..td da1lg rhos gos slI lKas It _ b rig as gunrgsl6 pa
dallg I dg. slang dag l? gis grtr Ollr bar nas I Ixom ldan 'das ftyis blla' sIsal pa I grtr bill"
_ b bar s_d g-yags dallg rdlll gutnl8 gyis bllrisl9 It bar rig I
tit 1ttIS dg. slong dag gis 80S !nallg po dang bar ""s I Ixom ldan iJaJ ftyis !nallg po
dallg _ b rig as blla' SIsal", da"g I tit dag gis IIgall pa dallg bar ,.. I
Ixom ldan iJaJ ftyis 1Igall '" dallglO yang _ b bar 'brillg po dallg bar rig as blla'
Slsal ,o l
""om ldan iJaJ ftyis Ihllng bwl dang rhos gos Sll bras It _ b rig as blla' sIsal '"
dall!.21 I dg. slang dag gis ji ltar bya ba ",j shes ""s I Ixom ldall 'das ftyis dg. sing gallg
'pboll!.s ba tit Ia byill rig as bIIa' sIsal 10 I
dntg stit dag rlag III 'pbongs pa lIar hytJ22 1ttIS I tx- ldan iJaJ ftyis dTllg stit dag
la ma sbyill par Iji liar rgan rims bzhin dll byill rig as blla' sIsal", dallg I gsar bll dag
ma lhob par gylll" nas I Ixom ldall 'das ftyis ilris pa Ia 1,," 'tkbs ",'i dg. sl..g gis dg. 'thm
Ia bsgo la I dt.< slollg gi dg. 'tillll lhams cad 'tINs shmg '1!hoJ pa dang I glsIIg lag khall"
sfty..g gis dg. 'tIN" gyi ""ng "" rill lhang bsftytdp4r hyos shig as blla' sIsal I. II

The Buddha, th� Blessed One, was staying in �ri.vasti, in t� Jetavana. in t�

Pask of Anathapin4ada.
When a householder living in �ri.vasti had taken a wife from a suitable fam­
ily. � enjoyed himsdf and made love with h�r. From that enjoyment and love­
making, his wife became pregnant, and, eight or nine months passing. s� gave
birth to a male child. When. during three times seven. or twenty-one. days. t�
birth festival for t� newborn had bttn performed in detail. � was given a name
that was in conformity with the family.
When at a la..r tim� th� son had entered the religious life in t� Order of
the Blessed One. and still later had bttn struck with illness and had died. th�
monks had thrown him. toget�r with his bowl and �, into the burning
ground. When brahmins and householders coming our and going along the road
saw him. they talked among themselves as they went: -Hah! When we laymen

14. Peking: omi .. n. 15. Peking: pgs. 16. Peking: 6s_xs. 17. Peking: omits ""g. 18. Pekmg: Iw
either /wan or .,,11 as ,he sc<ond �mher of ,he compound-it is difficult '0 read . 19. Derge: JBis;
Peking: tigris. 20. [)erge, Peking: omi, "".g. 21. Peking: omi .. ""ng. 22. Peking: bytu.
1 54 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

living in a house do not throw away v�ls and garments ( 1 33) even though we
can acquire money and goods in all sorts of ways, how is it that these Buddhist
ascetics, when they cross a hundred thresholds and still with difficulty fill their
bellies and get alms, throw away bowls and robes?" While they were saying this,
monks tOO were returning from there, and the laymen said to them: "Noble Ones,
when we laymen living in a house do not throw away vessels and garments even
though we can acquire money and goods in all SOrtS of ways, and when you, cross­
ing a hundred thresholds still get alms that fill your bellies with difficulty, where
did these bowl and robes come from, and how is it that you have thrown that
body'· inro the burning ground together with this monk's bowl and robes?" But
the monks said: "The Blessed One has nor authorized it otherwise," and they left
without saying more.
The monks told the other monks what had occurred, and those monks re­
ported it to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "He must not be thrown out together with his bowl
and robes!"
When the Blessed One had said "He must not be thrown Out together with
his bowl and robes," and the monks threw the corpse out naked, the Blessed One
said: "It must not be thrown out naked. Rather, when you have wrapped it in an
undergarment and a sweat cloth, it must be thrown out!"
Then when the monks threw it out with expensive cloth, the Blessed One
said: .. It must nor be thrown our with the expensive!" and the monks threw it
out with the cheap.
The Blessed One said: "It must also not be thrown out with the cheap, but
it must be thrown out with the run-of-the-mi11!"
When the Blessed One said: "He must not be thrown out rogether with his
bowl and robes: and the monks did not know what should be done with them,
the Blessed One said: "They must be given to that monk who is poor !"
When the Group of Six constantly acted as if they were poor, the Blessed
One said: "They must not be given to the Group of Six, but they should be given
according to seniority." But when the junior monks did not get any, the Blessed
One said: "The Monk"Who-Answers-Questions79 must summon the Commu­
nity, and when the whole Community of Monks is assembled and seated, the
Guardian"of"the-MonastetyRO must auctionS I them in the midst of the assembly!"

The narrative logic of our final text-the first to actually occur in the Ulfara"
granrha-is not difficult co discern if we move from the end backward. A monk's
estate is sold at auction in the midst of the Community by a monastic officer to
ensure an otherwise unachievable equitable distribution. {Though not explicitly
stated, it is vireually cereain from other references co monastic sales, like that of
the valuable woolen blanket already cited, that this sale would be followed by the
division among the monks of the proceeds}. Some form of distribution was required
Drad M....., and Bad Debt, 155

because the Buddha himself had ruled that the monks could not simply throw a
dead monk's property away, and it did not by implication belong to the Commu­
nity either. It could not be thrown away because to do so would invite and had
produced lay criticism-that criticism, which is expressed in one long sentence
that is not easily turned into felicitous English, comes down to this: monks who
would do so are even ( l 34) by lay standards profligate and wasteful; and monks
who could afford to do so wen: not what they made themselves out to be. Ergo,
monks kept the estates of their deceased brethren and disposed of them responsi­
bly to accommodate lay standards and expectations! It is a nice argument and one
by which the monks win both ways: they get to keep the goods and what the
" i1ll1yadhara seemed to think was their good reputation. But others might see here
some loss.
The actions of the monks in our text in regard to the estate of the dead monk,
prior to the Buddha's ruling, appear to be fully consonant with ascetic ideals and
a life of voluntary poverty-they simply left his property with his corpse in the
cemetery. It is the intervention of the Buddha and the force and consequences of
his ruling that move his monks away from what might have been thought was his
own ideal and, in effect, involve them with the whole issue of inheritance law and
sales by auction: once the estate was kept, something had to be done with it. This
movement-if movement it was-is presented by the text itself as entirely the
result of lay reaction to narratively prior practice: the monks themselves did not
want or seek to retain the estate; lay criticism forced it on them. This quite dearly
is the subtext of the tale, and because this tale was apparently understood to stand
as the foundation for all the rest of Miilasarvastivadin inheritance law. it would
appear to represent that tradition's understanding of how. in our words, all this
came to be. The charge-if there was to be a charge-was laid firmly at the feet
of laymen. The Buddha did not innovate but only reacted to lay pressure; the
monks did not assert their own individual or institutional interests but only
accommodated lay values. The question that remains here-and it is a historical
one-is. of course, whether and in what sense any of this is true. Does the tradi­
tional explanation identify an actual historical mechanism that operated in the
development of Buddhist monastic orders, or is it just a tale told by monks to
other monks to explain why things are as they are, an explanatory trope they used
to cover their tracks' Although I am not at all sanguine that this question can
ever be fully or satisfactorily answered , an attempt might at least flush out some
useful observations.
Then: are several discomforting things about our origin tale, but the first must
be that the laymen in our text criticize Buddhist monks for doing what elsewhere
in our Vinaya laymen themselves do or are said to do. The laymen in our text say
not once, but twice, that they "do not throw away vessels and garmentS," and, given
1% BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

the comext. this would seem [0 refer to their funereal practices. But-[O cite only
one very clear example-the Vinayal,ibhaliga has a text that says that laymen did
the very thing they criticize monks for doing. The Vibhaliga text concerns a monk
with ( 1 35 ) the unsavory name of Mahlikala. He is described as "one who obtained
everything from the burning ground" (lhams cad tiN, khrodpa dang ldan po yin It)­
his bowl. robe. alms. etc. The text then goes on [0 explain what this means:

What is an alms bowl from the burning ground? It is like this-his relatives
throw away in the burning ground the pot of one who has died and passed away
(II)'t d" Jag gis shi zhing dill la bab po'i ,du'" dN' khrod tiN 'dor ba, by'" pa). Then
the Venerable Mahakala. squaring the pieces and having heated them. takes pos­
session of it as an alms bowl and keeps it. Just so is an alms bowl from the burn­
ing ground.
And what is a robe from the burning ground? It is like this-his relatives
throw away in the burning ground the garments of one who has died and passed
away (nYl d" Jag gis shi zhing tiNs fa bab pa'i gM Jag dN' khrod d" 'rJq, ba, by'" pa).
Then the Venerable Mahaklila washes and stitches them, and having altered them,
he takes possession of them as a robe. etc,82

Apart from noting it. it is hard [0 know what todo with this discrepancy. Our
text has laymen saying that they do not throw away vessels and garmems. and the
verb here is 'dor ba. But theVibhaliga represems them as routinely doing JUSt that.
at least in their funereal practice. and the verb here too is """ ba. In light of the
Vibhaliga passage. the practice of Buddhist monks prior to the Buddha's ruling in
the Ul1a,ag,antha would have to be seen as conforming almost exactly [0 lay prac­
tice and. therefore. hardly open to the kind of criticism it receives. Given that there
are a significam number of othet passages elsewhere in this Vinaya referring [0 a
variety of goods deposited in burning grounds-indeed the fmiifanika. a distinct
category of monks. would seem to presuppose this-a Miilasarvlistivlidin monk
who knew his Vinaya might be legiti mately puzzled by the explanation offered in
our text for how monks came [0 be required [0 retain the estates ofa deceased mem­
ber of their Community. That same monk. moreover. would almost certainl y have
noticed something else as well.
A Miilasarvlistivlidin monk who knew his Vinaya would almost certainly have
noticed that the text in the Ul1a,ag,antha that explained the origin of Mula­
sarvlistividin inheritance law was remarkably similar [0 another text about an­
other dead monk and the problems that what he left behind had created. This
other text-found in the l4ud,aieavaslu-is one of tWO that explain the origin of
Miilasarvlistiviidin monastic funerals. The l4ud,akallastu text is now easily avail­
able"l and can therefore be only briefly summarized here. A householder in Sriivasti
took a wife from a suitable family and lay with her. and as a consequence a son
 \57

was born. The birth fesrival was held, and the son was named. Larer rhe son en­
rered the Buddhisr Order but got sick and died. Up ro rhis point, of course, the
rexr in the K{lIdraka rells rhe same srory, using much rhe same language, as our
Ullara text. And rhe similariry conrinues. The former then says: "The [ 1 36] monks
len him (i.e., his body), rogether wirh his bowl and robes, near a road (tit dgt slong
dag gis Ihllng bud dang ixas I ,hos gos dang ixas par lam dang nyt ba zhig III bar "' I). "
Then brahmins and householders came along, saw the body discarded along the
road, and scoffed at Buddhisr monks and their practices. The Buddha, when told
of this, rhen gave a detailed set of rulings governing a monk's funeral, indicar­
ing rhat rhe body musr be properly and ritually rreated and thar ideas of death
pollurion must be accommodared.
Both texrs are obviously built up on the same narrative armarure, and in both,
it seems, the Buddha's ruling moves monastic practice away from whar mighr have
been thoughr ro be somerhing like Buddhisr docrrine. Once again the monks'
behavior prior ro the ruling-the casual discarding of the body, the absence of rit­
ual, and rhe lack of concern for social and religious norms, especially in regard to
pollurion-would seem ro have been far more consonanr wirh formal Buddhisr
notions of "person" and body. But once again rhey are not allowed ro stand. Once
again roo rhis movemenr away from Buddhist ideal and toward social convention
is caused or morivared by, and explained as a reaerion ro, social criricism. In orher
words, our monk might well begin ro dereer an explanarory pattern. If he knew
both accounrs he might, moreover, not JUSt have noriced the partern bur even have
concluded rhat rhe ruling governing funerals must have preceded the ruling gov­
erning inheritance, ar least in narrative time, because the monks in the K{lIdraka
were still disposing of the bowl and robes rogether with the body, and rhis, oar­
rarively, had not yet become an issue and had nor yet been ruled against by the
Buddha.
The criticism spoken by the brahmins and householders in rhe K{lIdraka is
also particularly inreresring. When rhey see the discarded body, their conversarion
goes like this:

On� said: -H�y look, a Buddhisr monk has died. - Orh�rs said: -Com� he�! Look
ar rhis! - When they looked, rh�y m:ognized che dead monk and said: -This is
rh� son of Ih� hou�holder so-and-so. This is che SO" of Ihing chac happt'ns wh�n
somfflne joins lhe Order of I hose lordless Buddhisr ascecics. Had he nor joined
rheir Order, his kinsmen would ce"ainly have pt'rformed fu""ra\ c�remonies for
" ,­
h .m.

And rhis roo would have looked familiar ro our Miilasarvasriviidin monk. lfhe had
known his Bhai{ajyal'aJIII, he would have encounrered something like it at least
1 58 BUDDHIST MOSKS AND BUSIN ESS MATTERS

twice-once. for example. in a Story about a young monk named Sviiti who was
bitten by a snake and went unattended. The text says that Sviiti "fainted from the
poison. fell to the ground. foamed at the mouth. and his face was contorted and
his eyes rolled." Then:

SII lalhii ,.In.,.I. briihma""grhapalihhir ""tal? l it kalha)tmli I bhat"llnlah kaldTa,yiiYam

grhapaltlJ pllira iii I aparJih ,allliki h)'iilam I "mllka,)" iii I It kalhay""li I ( 1 37)
<l1liiIhii1lii� fra_1IaJiikyllp1tlriyii1lii� madbYtprat"'ajila� IJaJi na prll'.,.lIjil. 'hha"ii)"1
ft/iiI,hhir II'Y" (il.ilsii /eiirilii ahhavi,yaJ iii I

Brahmins and ho�holde� saw him affiicted in that way. They said: "Of which
householder. Si�, is ,his ,he son?" Othe� reported; " Of so-and-so." They said;
"He en,ered in,o ,h" religious life in ,he mids, of those lordless Buddhis<
ascetics-if he had not entered 'he rdigious lif". his kinsmen would certainly
have had him medically ,reated!""

Almost exactly the same conversation among brahmins and householders is

also reported to have occurred in the Bhai!pjy"''aSIIi. when they saw another Bud­
dhist monk named Saikata wandering around insane.H) The first of these conver­
sations motivated the Buddha to rule that, under a doctor's orders. his monks could
take "foul foods" (/'ikrta-bhojana) and to ptovide them with a charm against snake
bite (the Miiyu.·i-vidyii); the second led him to rule that his monks could-again
under the orders of a doctor-take "raw flesh." Though less obviously. perhaps.
both of these new rulings also go toward weakening the al ready lukewarm ascetic
ideal found in the Miilasan'iislil"iilia - l"inaya. There is reference in the Mula­
satviistivadin ordination formulary to the candidate, when a monk. relying for
"medicines" on "medicinal decoctions" (piilimlilua) only, and although this sale re­
liance is already weakened in the formulary itselfby a long list of "extra allowances"
(ali�), the two rulings just cited go a long ways beyond even them.
What our Mulasatviistivadin monk might have made of all of this is, of course,
hard to determine. but one thing at least is fairly certai n, and this itself is of some
importance to the historian: MUl asatviistivadin monks were repe-.ttedly told by their
own Vi1la)\1 that not JUSt the rules governing monastic inheritance. but 3 whole range
of practices requi red of them that departed from ascetic ideals and the idea of vol­
untary poverty. were instituted in direct response to lay criticism.86 Whether such
monks believed this or not may not be as important as the fact that their I'inlZ)a­
dharas felt compelled, apparently, to repeat it. That their l,j11a)adhar(lS did so in a
stereotypical way, using the same conventional trope over and over again. makes it
at least doubtful that this narrative "explanation" can tell us anything certain about
actual historical processes. Indeed there are good reasons for suspecting that "brah­
mins and householders" in India might well have been entirely indifferent to what
 159

Buddhist monks did or did not do-it is, after all, only Buddhist literature that
says otherwise. and it is perhaps painfully obvious that Buddhist monks were of
absolutely no concern or importance for the authors of Indian dhmmaJaJ,ra: they
have no place in this old. large. and continuous normative literarure.S? What we see
in our Vtnaya. then. can it seems at best tell us only about one important group of
monks and how they chose to represent their communiry and (l 38) its history to
other monks. This may have been an influential group of monks-they wrote or
compiled the texts and thereby made the rules-but if they were. this is the same
group of monks who appear to have had some knowledge of dharmafiislra. even if it
had virtually no knowledge of them. and who appear to have been much concerned
with representing their Community to their fellow monks as sensitive to and ac­

commodating toward the norms and values of what they took to be theirsunounding
community. Knowing even this may prove. perhaps. to be of some value. (l 39)

Notes

I . P. Olivdle, Tbt Af,,,,,,,, 5YII"". Tbt HilIOf'] "",, H""""',"licI of" RJigiDIII /III1illlli."
( New York and Oxford: 1993) 5 1 ; C. Malamoud. Cooki"X Ibt World. Rilual "",, Thottghl ;"
A ntiml /ndi". trans. D. White (Delhi: 1996) 95 (for the original French version. see
C. Malamoud. "La thc!ologie de la dette dans Ie brahmanisme: Pllrll!4rtha: 5cimu I«iauI m
as;t d" Ilid 4 [ 1 980] 39-62); see also M. Hara. -A�", - in ["'"Xllt. I1y/, II I".,,<1l1rr dam U
mDttik ;"dim. emlmairr" l...fJIiI I Rmoll. &I. N. Balbiret aI. (Paris: 1996) 235--2 6\. � redac·
tors of the MiLtwn"iiIli•.;;da . ,·i""Ya. the text we will he most directly concerned with here,
elearly knew something of this brahmanical anthropology. For example. the f.uherofa new·
born son is repeatedly said in this Vi""Ya to declare to his wife, in a narrative elich<!, blkulrr
jiilo 'mliik.",
. rnaharo dha"aharai!, which in spite of Edgerton (s.v. �a), and in light of
far more occurrences than he knew and their Tibetan translations, must mean "My dear.
(both) a remover of our debt (and) a taker of our wealth has been born to us· (see for oc­
i by Edger.
currences of the elich<! in Sanskrit, in addition to those cited from the Dir;ya.'lldi1W
ton: Bhai!"iY"'WIIi. GMs iii I , 87.5; Pr"''''''iYa.'aIIII. GMs iii 4, 54. 1 ; Satighabbtdm.wlli
(Gnoti) ii 32.22, 91.9: and the commentary on the elich<! in the Vi""Ya,'aslll!ikii, Derge.
bstan ·gym. 'dul ba Tsu 284b.l-cf. E. H. Johnston, Tbt B"ddha<a,ila (Calcutta: 1935) IX.65:
"",ai! pilf/!iim anrnah prajiihh;, . . .). Edgerton's rnadhara. by the way, is almost certainly a
ghost form that should he disregarded.
2. The translation here is Olivdle's-Tbt Afra"", 5111"", 47.
3. R. W. Lariviere. Tbt NiiraJaI"'!'Ii, Prs. I-II (Philadelphia: 1989). � quotation is
from Pt. II. ix. All references to NiiraJa are to this careful edition.
4. H. Chatterjee, Tbt Lau' of Dthl i" A",imt l"di" (Calcutta: 197 1 ).
5. Chatterjee. Tbt Lau' of Debl, 86, also cites this verse. but, because he was using an·
other edition, as IV.9.
160 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

6. P. Olivelle, "Renouncer and Renunciation in the DharmaSlistras,· S,IIiiies ill Dharma­

Liltra, ed. R.W lMiviere (Calcutta: 1984) 8 1- 1 5 2; here 145.
7. Olivelle, "Renouncer and Renunciation in the DharmaSlistras,· 144 (for inheritance
of a renounc.,rs property), 143 (for the quotation).
8. Even only desulrory observation would seem to indicate that some Buddhist monks,
although they sometirms claimed or invoked the StatUS of "renouncer" (/Walral',a), did
nor-by the testimony of their own rules-have that status. Olivelle ("Renouncer and Re­
nunciation: 149) has said, for exam ple, "His vow of poverty exempted the renouncer from
both tolls and taxes"; but Miil asarviistivadin monks at least were both subJect to and ex­
pected to pay such tolls-their Vihhanga has a section of more than twenty pages (Derge
Ca 72b.6-84a.6) dealing with their obligations in regard especially to road taxes. Olive lie
(ibid., 143) has also said, "Aft.. renunciation he [the renouncer) Can no longer inherit any
property"; but again the MiilasarviiJli<'iitia-I'iM),a has two separate texts dealing with a
Miilasarviistivadin monk's continuing right to inherit family property at,.,. his otdination
Ut,a,agra",ha, Derge Pa I 30aA-1 31 a. 3-
(see l4'IIJraul'aJIII, Derge Tha 25 2b. 3-254a.l;
the first of these has been discussed in some detail in G. Schopen, "Monastic Law Meets
the Real World: A Monk's Continuing Right to Inherit Family Property in Classical In­
dia: HR 35.2 (l995) 101-123 [. Ch. VI below) . Mort()ver, as will be seen below,
Miilasarviistivadin monks are routinely presented as inheriting the estates of deceased fel­
low monks. A systematic study of issues of this sort would undoubtedl)' bear handsome
fruit and might even point to inconsistencies on some of these questions in dhtzrmaiaJl,.a
itself-see n. 42 below.
9. See , as G. Schopen , "The Monastic Ownership of Servants or Slaves:
an example,
Local and ugal Factors in the Redactional History of Two ViMYaJ: jlABS 17.2 ( 1 994)
145-173 [. Ch. VII below).
10. Charter;ee, TIN /..au. o/Othl, xxv-xxvi.
I I . Pili ViMya i 76.18. Even otherwise very careful scholars have said the same SOrt
of thing�livelle, "Renouncer and Renunciation: 146 n. 1 2 1 : "In Buddhism detailed
rules were formulated regarding those disqualified from emering the Jangha. Thieves,
debtors and slaves w..e spec ifically barred from entry. a. Mahii-wgxa 1 . 39-76"; Olivdle,
TIN !'kama SyJI."" 176: "Buddhist l iterature also indicates that 'being without debt' was
a condition for becoming a monk. . . . One of the questions put to the candidate for ordi­
nation is 'Are you without debt?" A man with debts should not be allowed to become a
monk (Vin I, 76). . . . One can understand the concern of the Buddhists; they did not wam
their monasteries to become havens for people trying to dodge debt collectors" (see also
195 n. 38); R. S. Sharma, ·Usury in Early Mediaeval India (A.D. 400-1 200): Compa,ali..
S,IIiiies ill Socidy a"d Him,,"), 8 ( I %5-1966) 74: "The Buddhist Order did not admit a per­
son who had not paid off his debts." There is what appears to be an occasional reference
i n brahmanical sources to freedom from debt as a prerequisite (?) to renouncing; see P. Oliv­
e1le, RIIUJ ""d Rtglilali01lJ 01 B,alnna"k,,1 AKttkis",: YalldhtzrmaJ"MllrrdJ" of )atia,·" p,,,ltiifa
(Alb&ny, NY: 1995) 68, 235 (IV. 1 9); Ma"l1 VI.94; etc.
12. See G. Schopen, "The Good Monk and His Money in a Buddhist Monasticism
of -the Mahayana Period,'" TIN EaJltnt BIIii"hiJI, n.s., 32. 1 (2000) 85-105, esp. 88ff [ =
Dead "f.okI and Bad Dum 161

Ch. I above. 3]. For .he .ex.s. see B. Jinananda. UpaIa.,pad4jiiaPli� (Pa.na: 1 96 1 ) 1 5 . 5:
(The candida.e for ordina.ion mus. be asked:) ma It uly",i[l] kiiicid tk}am alpam n; pra­
hhilam t-a [?] yadi urha,ari ik)d'!'. I'dltllll,)a", I fai<!yali prabrajyiiya,!, d4ll1m [/] Ylldi ltalha­
yali nil. l'II'11"'''I,)am ala ft'a gac(ha [/] )adi ulhayali fakIyiimili. vaklat'ja'!' . e.e. (i.e . • • he
ordination can proceed): P,,,,.-aniil'alrll (Eimer) ii 1 4 2 . 1 3: Ithyod la la la'i bll I.n ""'ng
)'ang n"'g n)lIng yang 'ling I (illig :ad (hagl pa mtd tLt", I gal It DII 1011 (hagl I. zhes ztr nil I
kh)od bill),'" pa, ,d.ogl IfllI 'fa1 1l1l1 lam zhes d,i bar byaD I gal It mi nMS lhes ztr ifil l ... IfII I.IIg
shig ctS brjod pa, bya. 1 gal It hlll)'t1l pa, ,dZ.gI n"I ,al nliI lhes ztr na. etc.; Kalyal)am irra.
VinaYIIVaJlllliil;; . Derge. bs.an ·gyur. 'dul ba Tsu 250b.l: Itb)od la la la'i hll lo" ""'"K yang
'ling n)II11K )'a"g nlng (lid Z4d (hagl pa nud tLtm zhes bya Da "i hll 10" ni gzhal ba, bya ba yi"
pas tU'i pbyi, Dil lon (all 'aD III db) lI"g ba tLtng ,dzogl pa, DIII)'''' pa, mi byaD I hil i... (an lhams
(ad ,ah III dlryllng ba tLt"C rd:ogl pa, DIll)'" Pd' mi bya ba ya"g ma yin 1. 1 iii lIar gal ft rdZOgI
pa, DillY'" 0111 'jal "111 S. zhes Ztr na tU 'dD III dD)'II"g ha tLtD [Peking Dzu 283b.l has, cor­
reedy, tLt"g] ,dZOgI pa, b"')'tn pa, by'a D I. Notice .ha. there is some difference in these
sources i n regard to when .he candida.e should be able .0 repay .he loan: in the Upa­
JJIllpad4;l;/ap i it is after he has "gone forth: or en.ered .he order (prat.-ajyii); in .he P,al.-a­
nii.'aIIII i . is af.er he ha.\ been fully ord�ined (lipalampa"na); in the commentary it is af­
ter bo.h. The "unna.-akJl'" from Gilgi. says in A. C. Banerjee, Ttl'D BliddhiIl Vi...ya Ttxts
i" Samkril (Calcutta: 1977) 63.4: ma It ulyacil ki;;cid tUy'"'' alpa", .-a prahhil4,!, ,-a falt1l",i
l-a IlpaldlllpatLt,!, dalllm. bu. the manuscrip. (GBMs i 73.5) has: ma It ulyacil ki[m]cid
tUyalll alpam IW prahhild,!' I'ii fai<!),asi l-a prd•.-ajyii dalll'!'. See also Vina)lIliil'" (San­
kri.yayana) 4 . 1 ; VilfllYlIsitra (Bapa' and Gokhale) 20.26; '0111 ha'i mdo, Derge, bs.an 'gyur,
'dul ba Wu 4a.4; S,·al,·iilthyii"a. Derge, bsran 'gyur, 'dul ba Zhu 20b.l; etc. The sratement
abour repaymen. is not found in M . Schmidt, "Bhi�ul)i-Karmaviicanii. Die Handschrift
Sansk. c.25(R) der Bodleian Library Oxford," in SllIdi", Z1I' llIdoiogit lind BliddhilltflilltlintU.
Fmgaht dtI StminarI fii, I ndologit und BliddhilmUIkllntU fiir ProftIl., D,. Htinz Btchtrt zlim
60. GthlirtSlllg am 26 . Jllni 1 992, ed. R. Griinendahl e. al. (Bonn: 1 993) 239-288, esp.
254. 1 .
1 3. G. Schopen. Vail, hllkk,a kalei jitLti: ["do nO loi" stiUIIII• • rans. Odani Nobuchiyo
<Tokyo: 2000) 70-146; Schopen, "At!, Beamy, and .he Business of Running a Buddhis,
Monas.ery in Early Northwes. India: Ch. II above.
14. Cf. H . Eimer, "Which Edi.ion of .he Kanjur Was Used by A la � Lha blSun in
Studying .he Vinaya?" in H. Eimer. Elltjahruhnr Slliditn %II' Obrrliej.,.,,,,g dts lihtlilchm Kan­
iM (Vienna: 1992) 1 85-1 89. esp. 1 87 n. 7. Eimer says ,hal "in .he Derge and in .he Urga
edition . . . the ViR4)'oIlaraxralf,ha and the- Vind)'olfdfIWgra"lha are not dj$(incdy separated."
bu. 'hey are so a' least in (he Taipei reprin. of (he Derge; see G. Schopen, "If You Can't Re­
member. How 10 Make i, Up: Some Monas.ic Rules for Redac,ing Canonical Texrs: i n
Balltidhal'ldJiillldhii/ea,ah 580 n . 30 [ . Ch. XIV helow].
1 5 . A. C. Banerjee, San'iillil-iitLt Li'tra'urt (Calculla: 1957) 99.
16. G. Schopen. "Marking Time in Buddhisr Monas.eries: On Calendars. Clocks, and
Some L,urgicai Practices: in Sirylltalld,iiya. ElsayI i.. H....II, of Alti,a YII)'ama on Iht Otra­
lio" of HiI 65lh BinhtLz). ed. P. Harrison and G . Schopen (Swisttal-Odendorf: 1 998)
1 57-1 79. esp. 1 72 ff [ . Ch. IX below, 270ff].
162 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

17. Civaralwtll, GMs iii 2, 1 1 9. 1 5 , 1 2 1 .2. For the Vttaragrantha text, Stt the text
marked "I" below (in the present chapter), and fOr the auction, especially n. B l .
lB. See the references in n . 8 above; and Schopen, "Marking Time in Buddhist Monas­
teries: 172 n. 54 {below, p. 282n. 541.
19. G. Schopen, -Doing Business for the Lord: knding on Interest and Written Loan
Contraccs in the MiilaJart'iiJlil'iiJa-I'iu),a: lAOS 1 14 (1994) 527-554 [= Ch. 1II abovel
(for the text in the Vttaragrantha-which I did not know at the time I was writing this
essay-Stt Derge Pa 265a.6-b.2). GUl)aprabha appears to have used the Vttara text, though
he refers to his source as 'The Miilrka" (pp. 543-544) {= Ch. III above, 66-6Bl. (For more
on the monastic use of substitutes or surrogates, Stt below, pp. 143-145). Although the
question needs much fuller study. what appears to be another example of the pattern is
worth mentioning because it concerns the ganJhaku!i. 5ttyaniiJanar'astli (Gnoli) 10-12 has
an important proof text that places the gandhaltll!l within the t'ihiJra, but this placement is
attested in the archaeological record only rather late (fourth-fifth centuries) and appears to
be completely absent in Gandhara. The Vttara. however. has a text that places gandhaku!is
around the perimeters ofsliipas (Derge Pa 1 1 9b.2: . , . ",e/xid rtm la "'tha' ma dri glJang khang
gil bsltor la . . . ), and this may be precisely what we Stt at, for example, the Dharmar-Ajika
at Taxila.
20, M. Hahn, "The AvadiinaSataka and Its Affiliation," in Prrxmiings of the XXXII
Inlmlalional Congmsfor Asian and North African StuditJ. Hambllrg 25th-30th Aliglist 1986,
ed. A. Wezler and E. Hammerschmidt (Stuttgart: 1992) 1 7 1 .
2!. For th«exts in [he VIlaragranlha. see Derge Pa I 04b.6-I 08a.4 ( a Mailraltanyalta);
Derge Po 1 1 5b. I-1 I 9a.6 ( Srimali-Avadiina). M, Deeg ("The Sangha of Devadatta: Fic­
.

tion and History of a Heresy in the Buddhist Tradition,"l_i of the Inlentational CoIl'Et
for Adr'a",yJ Br.Jdhisl Sludies 2 ( l 9991 I B3-2 18, esp. 198-199 and n. 86) says. referring
to the Srimali in the Avadiinafatalta, "This episode . . . is not found anywhere else in Bud­
dhist narrative literature: but the Vtlara version requires that this be revised. J. L. Pan­
glung, Die Erziihlsloj/t d.s Miilasan'iistit-ada-vinttya. Anaiysim all!GnlRdtkr Tibnischm Vbtr­
sdZJIng (Tokyo: 1 98 1 ) has nm included the Uttara in its survey and does not always give
the parallels in the Arwliinafatalta for stories found even elsewhere in the Miilasart'iistj,'iida­
,'inaya; e.g., under what it calls "Die Bekehrung einer a1ten Frau" (p. 30), it does not indi­
cate that this tale has a close parallel in Ar'adanafatalta no. 78, "Kacangala.· This is a par­
ticularly important parallel because the r�naya version is preserved in Sanskrit (Bhai!"jyavastll,
GMs iii I , 20.3ff) and can therefore be directly compared with the Sanskrit text of the
Arwliinaiatalta. The fourth I'arga of the At'adana!alalta, by the way, appears 10 be particu­
larly dependent on the Miilasart'iiJliviida-vinaya-as many as half of the tales in the former
may have come from the latter (nos. 3 1 , 36, 37, 38, and 40).
22. This work has received little attention and has yet to be described in any detail.
L.WJ van der Kuijp ("The Yoke Is on the Reader: A Recent Study of Tibetan Jurispru­
dence: CAl 43 (l 9991 266-292, esp. 2BO n. 29) has recently referred to it as a source for
Buddhist Vina)"a narrative literature bearing on legal matters, but it is also more than that.
I myself have described it as "a condensed version of the entire Miilasart,iistil'iitia-vina)"a"
and noted [hat "it follows the rearrangement of the canonical material effected by
Dt4d ;\fonkJ .m" BaJ DtblJ 163

Gurulprablu in his Vill4ydJilra" (Schopen. "Marking Tim� in Buddhist Monasteri�: 1 78

n. 67 ! . Ch. IX below. 284 n. 67]). But wher= in the Vill4yaIiltra we get only tbe rul­
ings. and then too in sometim� incredibly compact Iil.a form that renders any identifi­
cation of source difficult. in Bu ston we get a more or less condensed version not only of
the rulings but also of the narrativ� that generated tbem. These. of cou�. are much =­
ier to recognize. though doing so requires a reasonably good knowledge of the canonical
Vill4)a. The commentari� on the VindJaJil.a-there are four by Indian authors-also oc­
casionally cite something of the canonical narrativ� Gut:"'prabha is drawing on. and a com­
bination of these sourc� usuall)' allows one to identify the texts in the canonical Vill4ya h�
is dig�ting with at l=t some degree of certainey.
23. The ref�renc� here are to the text of the 'Dill ba pha'i glmg 'bllm (hm mo published
in The Colkaed l1?orleJ of BII-Slon, Pt. 23 (l:Ia). c-d. L. Chandra (New Ddhi: 1971), and the
numbers given are tbe original folio numbers.
24. On the oederof the ."I111J in the ;\filaJanw/itoada-.';IIa)a, see H. Hu-von Hiniiber.
"The 17 Titles of the ViIl4Ja-."IIII in th� /IIahii','lIlpalli. Contributions to Indo-Tibetan
Lexicography II: BaIlJJha"idJilJlldhiikaral? 339-345.
25. No one, to my knowledg�. has yet studied the thematic logic of GUl)aprabhas
rearrangement of the canonical material. The study of the Vi"a)aIiitra and its commen­
tarial literature in general has moved at something l�s than even the usual snail's pace.
Only recently. for example. have we begun to get some material for �tablishing better
Sanskrit texts; see M. Nakagawa. "On the Adallildiina-pilriljikam in the Vi"ayaJitrat.,.,li­
Transcription Text on the Ilitrai no. 120-1 23-: l"dogakll bllkleylJgalell lemleyi. 48.2 !96}
(2000) 1 1 35-1 1 33. and his ocher papers cited there in n. 1 (note. however. that this list is
not complete).
26. Her� it is worth noting that there appears to be at l=t one oth�r .tt�mpt to sys­
tema[iu Buddhist monastic inheritance law that is much in need of study. S. Weinstein
has said: "The importance of th. qu�[ion of the disposition of the property of deceased
monks. technically known as u""f.pi-(b·ill U7I • • can be seen from the fact that Tao-Hsiian.
• •

the tit fado founder of the l..ii (or Villa)a) school. wrote a work solely devoted to this sub­
jcct (the LUt"g-(b'lI (b'i"g-(b,I1/g I . . . in two fascicl� . . . )" (BlltiJhiJm II""" the T;'''g (Cam­
bridge. U.K.: 1987) 183 n. 25; cf. 93-94). As far as I know. however. this work has been
little more [han mentioned in W�tern sourc�; �.g J . �CMt. Us aIp.ds /rollOmiqllD ""
.•

bollJdhi"M dlnJ Ia IrxiiJi (bi"oi" "" .� all x' Iiicl. (Paris: 1956) 66 n. 2. 70 n. 2, etc.; J. Kie­
schnick. The E",inml M."Ie. BlltiJhlJl ldtalJ i" /IIedi"",1 CbifWt Hagiograph)' (Honolulu: 1997)
1 2 n. 43.
27. Capital coman numerals in the section heads below indicate the actual oeder of oc­
currenco in the Vlla.agranlha of the main texts presented here-th� first text presented.
for example. occurs in [he Vlla.a at Tog Na 190b.3 and therefore after the last text pre­
sented in this chapter-i.e [ext I. which occurs at Tog Na 1 2 1 b.2, This seemed a good
.•

way of highlighting the fact that in presenting texts we often rearrange them and produce
a "system " that is �ntirdy of our own making. Lowercase roman numerals in parenth��
refl�ct the order or position of the texts treated here in GUl)aprabha's "system" and refer [0
th� table on pp. 1 26-1 27.
164 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

28. So M. Monier-Williams. A SallSkril-E"gliJh DiClitmary (Oxford: 1899) S.v. �pa'!4.

though he cites only " lexicographers"; for the Miilasa"Wli.'iida -IIina)"a and related litera­
ture. see. for convenience. K. Upreti. lndia as Rt/l«ttd in lIN DiV)"iivad4na (New Delhi: 1995)
40. 43. 44. 72-73. 96. 105. 1 30.
29. H. A. Jaschke. A Tibtla,,-English Dieliowary (London: 1881 }-hereafter cited sim­
ply as Jaschke.
30. Zhang Yisun et aI Bod rg)"a Ishig mdwd ch<..
.• ",0. Vols. I-III (Peking: 1985}­
hereafter cited by title only.
3 1 . Ca,."".IIaslu. GMs iii 4. 192. 1 7 : ma yU!mabhiIJ kiiicid uddh"iikr/a",
ir I . . . niismiibhiIJ
kiiicid uddhiirikrta,!, = Tog Ka 382b.4: khytd k)"is sltyi1l po rung zad ma byas sam I . . . bdag eag
gis skyi" po "I1Ig zad kyang ma byas It = Diryiivad4na 23.14.
32. Stt . for example. Priilimolt!a (Banerjee) 29.20 . Derge Ca 1 0a.6; Sal/ghabhtda.wlU
(Gnoli) ii 1 04. 1 3 = Tog Nga 246a. 1 and ii 106.22 & Tog Nga 247b.5; CillaratlaJlu. GMs
iii 2. 143.7 . Tog Ga 1493.5; Canna,",slll. GMs iii 4. 192. 1 3 = Tog Ka 382b.2; etc.
33. One might have thought that this would be covered by the 19th Naisargika­
piiyaflliltii (yaJ,>Pllrwt' bhi1t!lIr niiniipraura,!, rupika-[ms.: riipika1-ryawhiira,!, samapadJda nai­
sargiltii piiya"liu-Priilimolt!a [Banerjee1 29.18; GBMs i 44.2), but the treatment of this
rule in the Vibhaliga (Derge Cha 149b.7-1 55b.3) shows no sign of that. On the contrary,
it is precisely under this rule that the Vibhatiga authorizes monks to lend money on inter­
est (see Schopen, " Ooing Business for the Lord; 527-554 [. Ch. III above1). Moreover.
the wording of this ruling is open to the same range of interpretations as is the 20th Nai­
sargika. which is discussed in the text. pp. 142-143.
34. Stt G. Schopen. "On Avoiding Ghosts and Social Censure: Monastic Funerals in
the Miilasa"Wli,'iida-IIinaya;jlP 20 ( 1 992) \-39 [= BSBM 204-2371.
35. l4udraUr>aslll. Tog Ta 450.6-46a. 1 • Derge Tha 3Ia.5-b.4; Canna,,,,slll. GMs iii
4. 210.6-. 14 [though the Sanskrit text is here faulty} . Tog Ka 395b.6-396a.7 = Derge
Ka 277a.6-b.5. Stt also Ksudraka,·aslll. Tog Ta 306a.6-3070.5 Derge Tha 204b.l-
•

205a.3.
36. Chatterjee, TIN Law olDebl in AfI{il1ll lndia. 90-91 . For Galilama, see now P. Oliv­
e1le, DhanR4siilras. TIN Law Codes 01 Anciml lndia (Oxford: 1999) 99-his 1 2.40: "Those
who inherit the property of someone have to pay his debts." For the text and translation of
Yiijiallalft)'a and Vi!!,II, see, for convenience, B. N. Mani, Lau, olDhanR4Saslras (New Delhi:
1 989) 170.
37. Schopen, "Ooing Business for the Lord: 537.
38. "Das Priilimo1t!asfjlra . . . ist nach ubereinstimmender Ansicht der Forschung eines
der iiltesten Werke, wenn nicht das iilteste Werk des buddhistischen Schrifttums iiberhaupr";
D. Schlingloff. " Zur Interpretation des Priitimo�iitra: ZDMG 1 1 3.3 (964) 536.
39. For the Miilasarvistividins see. for example, the 9th Piiya1ltiltii , Priitimo1t!a ( Baner­
jee) 32. 1 7. But note too that the occurrence alone of the term sii�ghika must of necessity
imply the acknowledgment of other kinds of "monastic" property. For example. if all llihiiras
belonged to the Communiry, then the expression sii,!,ghiltt "ihii.... "in 0 monastery belong­
ing to the Community: is redundant and the specification pointless. The presence of
sii'!'ghi!ta makes no sense unless there were other kinds of llihiiras that did not belong to the
Dead Monh and Bad Dt6ls 165

Community. Although not yet fully stUdied, it is already clear that the Pili Villaya knows
and takes for granted viMa> owned by lay-brothers (lIpa",ka-Paii ViIla)"4 ii 17404, iii 65.38,
102.5). And there is no doubt that the Miilasanw/ivJda-lIillllJa even more fully acknowl­
edges the private ownership of monasteries by both laymen and monks (see G. Schopen,
"The Lay Ownership of Monasteries and the Role of the Monk in Miilasarvastivadin Monas­
ticism:}fABS 19. 1 (l996} 81-126 [� Ch. VIII below}, to which should be added at least
two texts, one from the Vibha7lga [I)erge Cha 203ao4-205b. l} and one from the UII,"a­
granlha [[)erge Pa 82b. I-84b.2], which deal with a dispute centered on a monastery that
was the personal properry of the Monk Riihula). These considerations, moreover, would ap­
pear to place a significant restriction on a not insignificant number ofPriili� rules. The
14th-18th Piiya",ikiis, for example, would appear to apply, by virtue of the qualification
sii",ghiltt "ihiirt in them, only to Community-owned lIihiira>. In any other case the action
described would not constitute an offense. I hope to return to these issues in the not tOO
distant future.
40. Chatterjee, Tht Lau' OfDtbl, 1 0 1 .
4 1 . OliveUe, -Renouncer and Renunciation," 144-145---d.b.trmbhr
a iilr is another
dharmaJiislri{ term found in the MiilasartWli,-ada-,';naya. In the Uttaragranlha (Derge Pa
86a.2-.6), a nun claims the estate of a dead monk that was in her possession on the basis of
the assertion that " he was also our brother in religion," Mag {ag gi )<Ing chos kyi ",ing /XI lags
so zhtr "'Ira> pa, and (Ix» It)"i ",ing /XI can hardly be anything other than a translation of
dharmabhriitr. In a pendant to this text in which monks make a claim on a nun's estate, the
assertion is "she was also our sister in religion: de )"(11Ig ngtdkyi rhos kyi Iri"g mo yin no (Derge
Pa 86a.6-bo4), and here the text must be translating something like the lesser-known dharma­
bhagini. Both claims are rejected on the principle that what belonged to a member of one
gender goes to others of that same gender, except when there are no others of that same gen­
der present. All these texts are taken up by GUl)'lprabha (ii-v in the table above, pp. 126-1 27).
42. There is as well another potential difficulty here i n terms of dharmafiislra itself.
If, as Yiijiia'<Ilkya says, the heirs of a renouncer (yall) are, in part even, his dharmabhriilr,
his "spiritual btOthers," then because hisdharmabhriilrs are also presumably renouncers, this
would seem to indicate that renouncers can indeed inherit, and this would collide with
Olivelle's assertion that "after renunciation he [the renouncer} can no longer inherit any
property" (-Renouncer and Renunciation," 143).
43. Chatterjee, Tht Lau' of Debl, 1 22.
44. Ibid., 83; see also 84-87; Niirada 1.6.
45. C/''IIra,-aslll, GMs iii 2, 1 24 . 1 1 - 1 25.9. Although I cite the Sanskrit text here, it
is by no means free of textual andior lexical problems, the chief of which concern what Outt
reads as palliya,!, and patal,)a", (nn. 2 and 3) but prints as Jani)"a,!, and Jala,,)a,,, (see GBMs
vi 851 .2-.6). These problems do not obscure the general sense, which is clear in the Ti­
betan (Derge Ga l04b.2-105a.1 DTog Ga 1 36b.6-137a.7) and even in the VillllJasiilra
(VinaJa>iilra (Bapat and Gokhale] 47.2ff), but they need to be sorted out.
46. ViIlllJ",·ibhafiga, DergeCa 79b.3ff: {Ix» gos gSll", la 'cht/ N.
47. Vill4)aJiilra (Sankrityayana) 33.22-'DIII N'i f1'IIi<J, Derge, bstan 'gyur, 'dul ba Wu
27a.2.
1 66 BUDDH IST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

48. On rhis ride and office, see rhe unpublished disserrarion, J. A. Silk, The O'iginl
and Ea,ly HiJtor-y of the Mahd,alnakil!" T,,,dition of Mahd)iina Bllddhi"" "'ilh a SllIdy 01 the
Ralna,iiiiJiit'a and Relaid Mat"ia", Universiry of Michigan. 1 994, 2 1 5ff.
49. See Vi",,)'aliit,a (Sankriryayana) 33.22: nii/JrSlVii ,,.JJhiim ,
. 'Dul !Jd'i tndo, �rge,
. =

bsran '!''YlIr, 'dul ba Wu 270.3: .-gan ,,,bJ ,ga" ,abJ Jag kt ",o zhllgl pa' . . . .
50. Though limired for irs relCrual sources <0 Pali marerial. see M. Njammasch. "�r
Ra,'aka",,,,ika und seine Stellung in der Hierarchie der buddhisrischen KlOster." Altor-im­
lalilehe F()t'Jehllngm 1 ( 1 974) 279-293; for rhe Mlilasarvastivadin rradi[ion, see ar leasr
Vinay"Jiir.a (Sankriryayana) 1 1 2. 16-3 1 .
5 1 . UII",ag,alllha. �rge Pa 1 1 2 b. I - 1 1 3a. l ; see also Vinaya"ibhaliga �rge Ca
75b.5-76bA.
52. Pali Vi""ya i 297. 33-298.3; see also iv 286.3.
H. 0, von Hiniiber, entJlthllng lind AII/hall Je,.jiitaka-Sawt",ltlllg, Stlldim ZII' Lil"atll'
tks Tb..aviida-BlltidhiJ"'IIJ I (Akademie der Wisscnschafren und drr Li[erarur. Mainz)
(Stu[[garr: 1 998) 23-24; also L. Feer, "Erudes bouddhiques. Mairrakanyaka-Minavindaka.
La pi�e filiale." jA ( 1 878) 388-392.
54. PO!<Jdha'WIII ( Hu-von Hiniiber) 280-2 8 1 ; SayaniiJana,'aJlII (Gnoli) 38.30, 47.18.
5 5 , On lenders and lending instirurions in early India, see, (or example. L. Gopal.
"Credit Laws in Ancien< India." Ftlicilatio" Voillme (A CoIltctio" of FMI)'-tu .. Indologif,,1 el­
sayl) Pmmltd 10 Maha�"Ja Dr. V. V. Mi'aJhi. ed. G. T, �shpandc et al. (Na/:pur:
1965) 444-458; H. S. Singh, "Insrirurions of Money-lending," }OtIr7Ial ol lIN Ganganatha
jha Kmd';"a Sa",It';1 Vidya/>«tha 38-39 0 982-1983) 109-124; S. Gururajachar. -Sank­
ing Pracrices in India (Up <0 A.D. 1 6(0)." Ntu, Tmuis i" Indian Art and Arrhatology, S. R. RaOl
70lh Birthda), Felieitalion Volume, ed. B. U. Nayak and N. C. Ghosh (New �Ihi: 1992) Vol.
2, 573-582.
56. As already noted in rhe apparatus <0 rhe Tiberan rexr (n. 3), a negative ap!"""rs ro
have dropped our of [he text. Although it occurs in neirher Tog, �rg<, nor Peking-nor
even in Bu ston-borh the conrext and rhe previous 1f1a byin pa, in line I would seem <0
require ir, and I have supplied it in translarion.
57. L. Finor, "Le priitimo�lirra des sarvasrivadins." jA ( 9 1 3) 498 (no. 20); P'iili­
",� (Banerjee) 29 (no. 20); P'iili�iil,a", of the Lokolla'a''iidimahd'iifighika S,'hool, ed.
N. Taria (Parna: 1 976) 1 6 (no. 1 9); PiitimoUha, ed. R. D. Vadekar (Poon.: 1 939) 9 (no. 20),
58. Schapen. "The Good Monk and His Money." 103 [Ch. I abo"e, 14].
59. S. C. Vidyabhusana, "So-sor-[har-pa; or, a COO. of Buddhist Monastic Laws: Be­
ing rhe Tiberan Version ofPriiri mok� of rhe Mlila-Sarvas[ivada School."jOIl-noloflhe AJi­
alie Sod'l) 01 Bmgal. n,s. I I ( 19 1 5) 99. Norice roo rhar rhe "Old Commentary" embedded
in irs Vibhaliga glosses -nom pa "'" IJhogl (niiniip..akii,a) wi[h mom pa mang po (�rge Cha
1 56.7), and in the previous rule rhe same rerm is glossed by rna", pa tiM ",a. ManK po mosr
commonly means "many." and dll "'" virrually rhe sam.; neirher carries [he sense "all."
60. Huber in Finor, "Le priirimo�lirrades sarv..rivadins: 498. CfL. Wieger. Boud­
dhi"nuhinoil. Vinaya. M.nachi""�d diJ(iplillt. Hina}a"", ,>/hi(1I1. inllri.1I..(Paris : 1 910) 233:
"Si un moine fair Ie commerce. en qudque marchandise que ce soit, il y a [ransgression"­
Dharmagup[aka.
Dedd M.nk.. and Bad Dthll 167

61 . M. Wijayararna, Le m.ine oouddhiJlt "I.n III lexlll du Ihtra.·iida (Paris: 1983) 97;
I. B. Horner, Tht Book oflht Dilciplint (Sacred Books of rhe Buddhisr I I ) (Oxford: 1940) Pr.
2, l l l ; T. W Rhys Davids and H . Oldenberg, Vinaya Texll (Sacred Books ofche Easr 1 3)
(Oxford: 1 885) 27.
62. Schopen, "The Good Monk and His Money: 1 00/ nCh. I above, 12-13].
63. Chatterjee, Tht Lau' of Dthl, xvii, xx.
64. Pali Vinaya iii 242. 1 1 ; Horner, Tht Book of Iht Disciplint ii 1 1 2-see also R . Gom­
brich, Thtra"ada Buddhilm. A Social HiSlO1')"from Anciml Btnaro 10 Modern Co/oatoo <London
and New York: 1 988) 92-93, 102-103, 162-164.
65. Ullaragrantha, Derge Pa I 34a. I-b.7 = Tog Na 192b.5-194aA.
66. Villayavihbaliga, Derge Cha 1 56b.3.
67. The definirion is from W Doniger, Tht Laws o!ManN (London: 1 99 1 ) 3 1 6; see also
R. Lingat, Tht Classical Lau' of India, rrans. J. D. M. Derrett (Berkeley: 1973) 39-40.
68. Notice rhe qualification of lay.brorhers borh here and in rhe rext jusr cited from
the Ullara. Borh indicare rhar a "truscworrhy" lay-brother should be used, meaning, it seems,
rhar nor all lay-brorhers were so. For yet another reference ro the use of a "trusrworrhy"
lay-brorher, see the text treated in Schopen, " Doing Business for rhe Lord: 530 [Ch. III
above, 49], where dge hJn)"tn dad pa can is incorrectly translared as "a devout lay-brorher."
69. For rhe rext, see Vinayavihhanga, Derge Cha 149b. I-.7. For another instance of
the use of surrogates in the Miilalartlitlli.·ada-.·inaya, see p. 1 25 above, and norice the dif­
ference in rhis regard berween the Vihhaliga and the Ullara poinred our there.
70. For some indications of rhe same sore of thing even in the Pali Vinaya, see Gom­
brich, Thera"ada Buddhilm, 103.
7 1 . l4udralw"dsIN, Derge Tha 262bA-263a.6 = Tog Ta 392b.2-393b.2.
72. Sec, for example, Civara'"(Illu, GMs iii 2, 1 1 9 . 1 4 = Tog Ga 133b.6; GMs iii 2,
1 2 1 .2 = Tog Ga 1 34b.6; GMs iii 2, 1 25.6 = Tog Ga 1 37a.5.
73. At first sight at least the Pali version looks like a much condensed or "edited" ver­
sion of rhe text found in rhe Jlfiilasan'asli,-iida-vina)'a, and rhere are orher instances of whar
seems to be the same pareern, alrhough rhe whole question has yet co be carefully studied.
74. Pali Vina)"a ii 1 74.18-.24; Rhys Davids and Oldenberg, Vina)"" Texll iii 2 1 7;
Horner, Tht Book ofIht Dilciplint v 245; M. Wijayararna, B"ddhill Monaslic Lift. Acrording
10 lht Texts of Iht Theraviida Tradilion, trans. C. Grangier and S. Collins (Cambridge, U.K.:
1990) 8 1 . The original (Wijayararna, Le moine oouddhillt, 97) reads: " . . . furenr aucoris6 a
l"echanger conrre un arricle plus utile."
7 5 . y. Ousaka, M. Yamazaki, and K. R. Norman, I",fix 10 Iht Vinaya.Piralea (Oxford:
1996) 472.
76. Horner, Tht Book ofIht Discipline iv 109.
77. For a good idea of whar could fall under conrraC[ law in dha,."zajaslra, see Narada
V, VI, VIII, and IX. The binding nature of the act of acceptance of a fee is starrlingly clear,
for example, in "arada V1.20: INIIea,!, grhilvii pa'!yaSlri n«<banli dvis lad awhtl.
78. As is characteriseic of rhe prose of the Miilasartlitsliviida-.·inaya, in both Sanskrit
and Tibetan, rhe texr here and throughout can be both elliptical and heavily dependent on
the use of pronouns. The text never uses a term for "body" or "corpse: but simply rhe
1 68 BUDDHIST MONKS AND BUSINESS MATTERS

"demons,ra,ive pronoun" tk. I have as a consequence some,imes ,ransla,ed ,his by supply­

ing wha, I ,ake [0 be ,he referen<, and somerimes simply by "i,."
79. Our ,ex' makes dro pa Ia Ian 'dJ,I pa'i dge II01Ig . . . look like a ride or designa,ion
for yet another monas,ic office, and yet i, can hardly be any'hing else ,han an a<remp' [0

render some,hing like ,he common P'!!a'ikikaJii hhi�iin ,ama"IIYlljya (KalhillalWIII [Chang)
52.28), which is more typically rendered: aril pa'i IIhig gil age Ilo"g rnaTIIJ la y""g Jag par
b'g. la (Chang 80.1 3). The Sanskri' phrase i'5Olf, however, especially prJ/a- or prJ/ha­
,%irik.. , remains problematic (see Edgerton 353; Pruadha,wlli (Hu-von Hinuber) 2 1 2-214;
H. Ma,sumura, " The Ka�hinavas,u from 'he Vinayavas,u of 'he Mulasarviis,iviidins," in
Samltril-Ttx/t aliI tkm buddhilliIChm Ka"o,,: Nnlmltkckllngm lI"d Nell"'ili."." 11/ [Sanskri,­
Wiirterbuch der buddhis,ischen Tex,e aus den Turfan-Funden. Beih� 6) [Gottingen: 1996)
193 n. 72). Given ,his, i, migh' be useful [0 ci,e 'he 'wo commen,arial "defini'ions" ,ha,
I have come across. Silapii1i,a, J.gama�lIarak..v)'iikhyiina; Derge, bstan 'gyur, 'dul ba Dzu
22a.6: aro pa'i Ishig gis zoo b)'a ba "i ga '!f!i Wllngs ba "a lam g}i pbyogs na gllas pa'i age slO1lg
gil ri'i pby;. ga'!f!i brdngJ ba mg01l tiN JOn/( ba (an gyi 'tiNI pa ",d:aa as aril ba gan/( yin pa tk
la 1 ","is nas la" all /wj«I pa tk "i aris pa'i IIhi" yin 11. I, which-if I have understood i,
correctly-might be transla,ed as: ·'Wi,h ,he pronouncement of wha, is asked' means: when
,he monk sta,ioned [0 ,he side of the path when the ga�4i is struck is asked 'he ques,ion
'for what reason is an assembly preceded by striking 'he ga'!f!i called?' and he gives the
answer-,hat is the pronouncement of wha, is asked." Vinitadeva, Vinaya"ibhaitgapa­
Jalyubyiina, Derge, bs,an 'gyur, 'dul ba Tshu 91b.4: aris pa'i IIhig gis zhts bya ba "i ci'i pb)-jr
ga'!4i lmiIIngJ zhts gzhan gyiJ dri' pa la 'di 'i pbyir WII1IgS J. zhts Ian gJah pa'i IIhig gil s. I:
"'Wi,h 'he pronouncement of wha, is asked' means: wi,h ,he pronouncement of rhe an­
swer "i, has been struck for this reason" when someone asks 'for wha, reason has ,he ga'!4i
been struck?'"
80. glSllg
lag khang sk)"01Ig (ba) can hardly be any,hing bu, a transla,ion of some,hing
like ,�hiirapiila--glsllg lag khang is 'he s,andard ,ransla,ion of I'ihiira, and skyong ba com­
monly renders forms of'JpiiI. This office is referred to elsewhere in 'he Vltar" as well, a,
Derge Pa 72a.1 (where ,h. ,'ihiirapiila is on. of cwo officers-the o,her is the s"mghaJlhat'ir,,­
charged wi,h keeping track of the da,e; see Schopen, '"Marking Time in Buddhist Monas­
,eries," 1 73,175 leh. IX below, 27 1 , 272) , I 5 l a.5 (which would seem [0 indica« ,ha, i,
was a ro,a,ing office: IIbe Jang ldan pa 11II1I aga' ho la gtsllg lag khan" sky.ng gi rtS bab ho I),
200b.5ff, ere. ¥i;ing says, '"Those who srand guard, adminisrcr the monasrery ga'es, and
announce 'he business [0 'he communiry meeting are called ,·ihiirapiila" (Silk, Tbe Origins
and Early HisllJf")' oflbe MahiiralnakN!a, 235). Wha, is probabl)' ,he same ride occurs in ,he
form g""g I"g ft.hang dag J01Igs 'II Iky."g bar by'" ba in ,he K!uarak.. (see, Schopen, "The lay
Ownership of Monas,eri.. ," l i O n. 60 [Ch. VIII below, n. 60) .
81. rin lhang bJIt,.dpa as a unit does not yet have an a<r..,ed equivalent, bu, ri" lhang
is given as an equivalen< of argha and miilya in ,he Tihetan-Sansltril Dieti."",> (2264), and
bJit)"td pa is given for ,,,rdha,,,, (207). The Tibe'an, 'hen, is not far from one of ,he defini­
,ions ,ha, Monier-Williams (E"gliJh-Samlt.ril Dietio""r>" 32) gives-on what authoriry I do
not know-of rhe English word "auaion": ,,,rrJdhamii,,amiil),tIIa niinia i r"11·al"ikraJa�. The
Vllaragra"tha has detailed rules governing ,his kind of sale, which include one agains,
Dtad Monks and Bad DtlJIJ 169

monks artificially inflating the bid (Derge Pa 177b.2). But a discussion of these and other
references to monastic auctions must wait for another time. Note, for the moment, only
that other Buddhist monastic traditions also appc:ar to have known such sales-= G. Roth,
Bhiks""i-r'ilfd)a, Manual of Disciplint fDr Buddhist Nuns (Patna: 1970) 182. 1 3 • E. Nolot,
Riglt1tu discipline d<1 "o"n<1 IxmJJhilles (Paris: 1991) 184.18,
82. Vi""YdVihhaliga, Derge Ja 1 54b.2-1 56b.7.
83. Schopen, "On Avoiding Ghosts and Social Censure," 14-17 [ . BSBM 21 5-218].
84. Bhaisajyanmu, GMs iii 1 , 285.17.
85. Bhaisaj),,,,'astu, GMs iii 1 , ix-the passage here has been i n large part reconstructed
by Dutr.
86, Though the story line differed. the same "explanation" was also given to justify,
for exarnple. monastic control of important relics; = G, Schopen, "Ritual Rights and Bones
of Contention: More on Monastic Funerals and Relics in the Miilasarr,iillit'tida-r';1Ia)'a,·JIP
22 (1994) 31-80, esp. 52 [= Ch. X below. 302-303].
87. It has indeed been difficult to detect even a trace of Buddhists in dharma-litera­
ture; = Lngat. Tht Ciassical Lau'oflndia. 123. See also. for examples: ). Filliozat, "La valeur
des connaissances greco-tomaines sur !'inde," Journal Je.s S",,,,,,IS, avril-juin ( 1 98 1 ) 1 1 3 n.
32; R, Gombrich, "The Earliest Brahmanical Reference to Buddhism?" in Rtlativism, Suf­
ftri"g and Bryond. Essays in M""or), of Bimal K. Matilal, ed. p, Bilimoria and J , N , Mohanty
(Delhi: 1997) 32-49, But = also Olivelle. Rules and RtgulatioTlJ of Brahmanical Asctticism,
32 n. 10; O. von Hiniiber. o..s Piitimokkhasulla dtr Thtral'iidin. Studim %Ur LiteratII' Je.s
ThtraviiJa·BuddhiJmuJ II (Akademie der Wissenschaften und der litera,ur, Mainz)
(Stuttgart: 1999) 23 n. 50. It is, of course, commonly suggested that "Buddhists" are in­
cluded by dharmafaJira writers under the 'erm pii!,'!4a
, , but ,his is only made explicit in
later commentaries; =. for example. lariviere. Tht NiiraJaJmrti, Pt, II, 1 30,
 CHAPTER V I

Monastic Law Meets the Real World

A Monk's Continuing Right to Inherit Family
Property in Classical India

ACCORDING TO WILLIAM of Saint-Thierry, the greater part of "the world" in the

twelfth century was owned by monks . · William, of course, did not mean that it
was owned by individual monks. "The Rule of St. Benedict was quite clear: per­
sonal poverty is required from the monks, bur this is distinct from corporate pos­
sessions." Moreover, "the denial of private property [in the Rule] does not imply
in any way a materially poor lifestyle. -2 The Rule of St. Benedict, in fact, which
J . P. Greene calls "the foundation upon which the entire structure of medieval
monasticism in Western Europe was eventually built:J has little to say about cor­
porate or institutional wealth or property. Its aim was directed , rather, toward "this
vice of personal ownership: and on this it was, indeed, "quite clear."
Chapter 3 3 of the Rule, under the heading " Whether monks may have per­
sonal property," says in part: "It is of the greatest importance that this vice should
be totally eradicated from the monastery. No one may take it upon himself to give
or receive anything without the Abbot's permission, or to possess anything as his
own, anything whatever, books or writing tablets or pen or anything at all. . . .
Everything should be common to all. [ 1 02] as it is written, and no one should call
anything his own or treat it as such." And chapter 5 5 reads: " The beds should be
frequently inspected by the Abbot as a precaution against private possessions. If
anyone is found to have anything which was not given him by the Abbot, he is to
undergo the severest punishment; and that this vice of personal ownership may be
totally eliminated, everything necessary should be given by the Abbot; namely, a
cowl, a tunic, stockings. shoes. a belt, a knife, a pen. a needle, a handkerchief and
writing tablets, so that all excuses about necessity are removed."4
The clarity in Benedict's Rule in regard to "whether monks may ha\'e per-

Originally publ is hed in HiJlory ofR.ligio,1J 35.2 ( 1995) 101-1 23. Reprinted with "ylistic
changes with perm ission ofU nive rsiry of Chicago Press.

170
M.llaIlic LaU' M«II IIx Real World 171

sonal property" must at least partially be a function of the fact that Benedict was
able here-as elsewhere-to avoid sticky issues and the largely legal di fficul­
ties that could, and did, arise when an individual renounced real property. He
may have been able to avoid these difficulties in part, perhaps, because one of
his predecessors-the author of the only other "Rule" that he refers his monks
to-had already dealt with them in some detail and in part, perhaps, because he
was writing for a world on which the weight of Roman secular law was pressing
much less heavily. '
Although Basil of Caesarea. St. Basil the Great (330-379), "wrote no Rule,
his conferences and replies to questions were treated as a guide and were quoted
as a rule by St. Benedict and others."6 These were translated into Latin in 397 and
circulated widely.7
Basil. of course, lived in a world very different from Benedict's. "It is neces­
sary: for example, "to recall that at this period the burdensome tax system inau­
gurated by Diocletian is still operative throughout the Roman Empire and that
monks are laymen and are not, therefore, eligible to the immunities granted the
cler.!,'y." So, although Basil "states that the monk upon his entrance into the
monastery has renounced all right to the ownership and use of his possessions"
and-as Benedict ruled-that he has no ownership rights in the property of the
monastery, still [ 1 03] Basil had to deal, for example, with prior unpaid taxes. His
solution, according to M. G. Murphy, was to rule that "the monk actually renounces
his rights to the ownership and administration of the funds he has brought to the
monastery. but not his obligations to pay the taxes which have accrued before his
entrance."s
Given the complexity of Roman laws of inheritance in their full vigor, this was
another area with which Basil-unlike Benedict-was forced to deal. On this ques­
tion, Murph)', summarizing several passages from The AJCtlic WorkI, says: "In regard
to the property that might come to the monk by way of inheritance or donation,
St. Basil teaches that his monastic profession has deprived him of all right to own­
ership of this," and "in the case of the inherited property, therefore, St. Basil recom­
mends that it be entrusted to the proper ecclesiastical authority to be disposed of as
the latter deems fit."9
Whether in BenediCt or Basil, then, what characterizes relatively early Chris­
tiao monastic legislation in regard to private ownership by monks, or any contin­
uing right of inheritance, is its clariry: monks have no ownership rights, and al­
though they might technically inherit, the property i n question does not go to
them but to "the proper ecclesiastical authority to be disposed ofas the latter deems
fit." Two points are worth noting here. First, these issues are explicitly engaged in
Christian monastic literature, and positions in regard to them are clearly articu­
lated. Second. we seem to see here-at least on these issues-a case where the im-