University of Virginia Library

FROM EREMITICAL TO CENOBITICAL LIFE

One last feature remains to be briefly outlined in this historical introduction.
That is the shift in the life of the majority of monks from a wandering
to a settled life and its organizational accompaniments.

This change is significant for two reasons. First, in the India of early
times there were many kinds of wandering sects, and certain particular
features in their communal life distinguished the communities of Buddhist
monks from others. Secondly, these communal practices were set out as
basic regulations that were enshrined and became the charter for future
monks. Buddhism is not indigenous to Ceylon or Burma or Thailand,
though it took root there and over time developed features specific to
each environment. But there are not only general doctrinal principles

but also rules of discipline and set communal ceremonies which are
considered an essential part of the orthodoxy, and these receive validity
precisely because of alleged unchanged transmission of Pali texts from
the time of the founding of the religion.

Most of the formal regulations pertaining to monastic life in Thai
villages today derive their basis from this heritage. They are not indigenously
contrived and nothing in village social organization will explain
the disciplinary code, or the ordination procedure, or the substance of the
Pali chants recited by monks. Yet these features, stemming from the
grand tradition, are woven into the texture of village life and have
associated features and elaborations which constitute the foci of anthropological
investigation.

A legitimate inquiry for an historian—which I am not—would be to
trace how a wandering sect became a settled order, and in the case of the
bhikkhus, how the Sangha which is unitary on conception became plural
monk-communities, which lived virtually as autonomous corporations
supported by the state and lay donors.

The Vinaya texts, as for example the Mahavagga (Rhys Davids and
Oldenberg, Part I, 1881), provide some crucial indications of the features
emphasized and elaborated in early Buddhism. The Mahavagga is
divided into the following four sections which deal with rules and
injunctions that still remain essential features of monastic life in Theravada
countries.

First Khandhaka (The Admission to the Order of bhikkhus): this contains
the rules of admission to monkhood and the upasampada (ordination)
procedure (which are followed to this day), and lists the duties of a monk
toward his upagghaya, preceptor, etc.

Second Khandhaka (The uposatha and the Patimokkha): this section
emphasizes the importance of the monks coming together half-monthly
to recite the penitentiary confession of Patimokkha (which I shall deal
with in detail in the next chapter). A vital clue as regards the decentralized
nature of monastic communities is reported in this section in these terms:
the Buddha is supposed to have ruled that the `complete fraternity' which
should recite the Patimokkha is `one residence' (i.e. a monastery), thereby
emphasizing the autonomy of the fraternities.

Third Khandhaka (Residence during the Rainy Season, Vassa): in
this section is stipulated that the retreat for three months during the rainy
season is obligatory. Great emphasis is placed on the fact that a monk
may not absent himself from his Vassa residence for more than seven
days. He may legitimately leave the residence if his parents are sick, if
his fellow monks or nuns require his attendance, or if he is needed to

officiate at merit-making activities of laymen, but he must return within
the stipulated period.

Fourth Khandaka (The Pavarana Ceremony): at the conclusion of the
Vassa residence the monks are exhorted to hold Pavarana which involves
the following: `Every Bhikkhu present invites his companions to tell him
if they believe him guilty of an offence, having seen that offence, or having
heard of it, or suspecting it' (Rhys Davids and Oldenberg 1881, p. 328).
The object of the exercise is that it would result in the monks living in
accord with each other.

Thus we see in the Mahavagga that regulated ordination, recitation
of the Patimokkha on uposatha days, the observance of Vassa residence,
marked at its conclusion by the Pavarana rite, were considered the basic
features of classical established monasticism. The story of how these
practices were developed, partly as a basis of differentiation from other
sects, and how they led to a change from eremitical to cenobitical life is
not known in detail.

The differentiation and routinization of the life of bhikkhus probably is
best seen in the rain retreat (Vassa), which was a custom among wanderers
of all sects. This general custom was apparently individuated and specialized
by the Buddhists (Dutt 1960; 1962). The rainy season became an occasion
for the bhikkhus to live together in a congregation of fellow monks. The
rule in the past—and which prevails to this day—is that Vassa residence
be taken on the day after the full moon of Asalha (or a month later) and
be concluded three months later. During this period the mobility of
monks is restricted.

Eliot (1954, pp. 245-6) describes the early practices thus: `The year
of the bhikkhus was divided into two parts. During nine months they
might wander about, live in the woods or reside in a monastery. During
the remaining three months, known as vassa or rainy season, residence
in a monastery was obligatory.' Vassa was the time when people had
most leisure so

Over time this temporary residence changed into permanent residence,
and the Vassa itself became a marked phase of retreat and intensified
religious activity in the routine life of monastic communities. The original

settlements during the retreat were of two types—the avasa situated in
the countryside and built and maintained by the monks, and the arama
located in a town or city as a private enclosure within the grounds of
a lay donor and patron. Later on established monasteries came to be
designated as arama or vihara. The critical and essential features of
monastic life—as it is lived today in a Thai village wat (the name for
the temple complex, derived from avasa)—are thus contained in the original
regularization and routinization of the rain retreat (Buddhist Lent), and
codified in the Vinaya texts. Notable among them is the fixing of boundaries
—sima—for the residence. This stating of the limits according to a set
procedure was an essential requirement for a body of bhikkhus to live
together. Today in Thailand the sima stones have to be installed, according
to set procedure and with consent from the higher authorities, to define
the boundary of the uposatha hall (bood in Thai)—which is the most
sacred component of the temple complex and in which ordination, recitation
of the Patimokkha (disciplinary rules), and other prescribed acts
take place.

The concept of sima therefore requires elucidation. In a politico-territorial
sense it defines the boundaries (the widest margin of influence)
of a political state, or smaller administrative unit. In the case of the
localized community of bhikkhus I would suggest that its significance is
somewhat different: it separates out and encloses a sacred space of a limited
extent vis-à-vis the vast secular space of the village and town inhabited
by the laity. It is fully evident in rural Thailand today how important
is the ecological separation of wat (with its widest boundary enclosing
the total complex of buildings and its inner boundary enclosing the
sacred bood) from the ban (village settlement), which parallels the separation
of monk from villager (bhikkhu from grahapati). It is the bood that best
symbolizes this distinction—for in it alone can ordination take place
(in the presence of laymen) and certain recitations be conducted (from
which layman are vigorously excluded because these spiritual exercises
relate to the vocation of the monk). Before laymen can enter the bood
they must remove their footwear, and a candidate for ordination has to
worship the sima stones to mark his entry into the sacred space and
life.

If the Vassa retreat is a critical marker in the annual cycle of activities,
then it is to be expected that its beginning and its conclusion should, as
in the past, receive special recognition. The ordination ritual (upasampada,
meaning `exceeding gain or advantage'), which we have previously noted
is a formalized ceremony of admission to monkhood, is in contemporary
Thailand (as in Ceylon) usually timed to take place in the month preceding

the rain retreat. The vast majority of ordinations take place at this time,
and this again is an old custom. The ceremony assigns certain material
obligations to lay sponsors and ritual roles to the assembled monks. The
end of the retreat is marked by the Kathina ceremony, which in its
classical sense means the distribution of robes by the lay donors to the
monks for their use in the year commencing after the retreat.

While these rituals imply a regular relation of monks with a continuing
congregation, what activities have marked off the monks as following
a vocation set apart from their congregation? For one, the recital of the
Patimokkha by the full assembly of monks living as a community semimonthly
on the sacred uposatha days (at full moon and new moon) is an
imperative act. It is said to be the outward token of the inner bond of the
Sangha. According to Dutt the Patimokkha recital was originally the
renewal of fellowship and unity as a body after a long period of dispersal
by the members of a sect. In settled monkish communities the ritual
became a recitation of the list of transgressions against the collective
Sangha life, and an expression of the unity of the monastic community
undivided by schism. Later with the elaboration of the Vinaya (the
disciplinary code of 227 rules) the Patimokkha recital became the main
item in the liturgy of the uposatha service.

The special characteristic of the decentralized and locally limited
brotherhood of bhikkhus is best represented by the concept of sanghakamma,
transactions of the Sangha. These transactions are held in `full and frequent'
assemblies according to carefully defined procedural rules. An act of
ordination, adjudicating on infringements against the disciplinary rules of
the order, settling schismatic disputes, etc., are examples of the matters
of concern to the assembly. The basic idea behind the notion of sanghakamma
is that a democratic community takes decisions on matters of
concern. Since these decisions are taken by all the members together in
assembly, members are equal and are expected to abide by the decisions
of the majority.

According to Buddhist tradition the Buddha on his last missionary tour
told his disciple Ananda that after his decease the Dhamma (doctrine) alone
should bind the bhikkhus, and that he repudiated the idea of a successor
who would be their leader or head. Thus it is said that in the early Sangha
there was no hierarchy and locus of authority; while the elders and older
monks deserved respect and privilege in etiquette, they could only advise
and instruct, not legislate or compel. The elders (theras) did not possess
episcopal authority; at best they were the chief teachers of the order.

The absence from the beginning of a firm hierarchy of positions and
consequently of authority relations is so conspicuous and intrinsic a feature

of the Buddhist Sangha that it needs to be firmly underlined.[1] In earliest
times the want of a central authority in the Sangha was shared with
brahmanism. However, in theory, the members of the Sangha were not
`priests' or `mediators'; they joined a confraternity to lead a higher life
which could not be achieved within the ordinary society. This openness
and voluntariness of the vocation was expressed in the mode of recruitment.
Subject to certain conditions, any free man was admitted; and there were
two simple ceremonies for admission—the novitiate and the higher
ordination (upasampada). The monk took no vows of obedience and
was at perfect liberty to return at any time to the world of lay life.

The tradition of sanghakamma in full assembly and the Patimokkha
confessional (and other customs), although at one level diacritical and
ideological markers of the monastic way of life, were in actual practice
fluid in interpretation and thereby somewhat `anti-structural'. The way
in which the Patimokkha confessional service was actually conducted in
the past (and is conducted today) is instructive. The Mahavagga (Rhys
Davids and Oldenberg 1881, pp. 242-5) records the procedure thus: `He
who has committed an offence, may confess it; if there is no offence you
should remain silent . . . if a Bhikkhu, after a three-fold proclamation, does
not confess an existing offence which he remembers, he commits an
intentional falsehood.' Thus the practice is that the list of offences is
read out and the brethren are asked three times after each item whether
they are pure in this matter; `only if a monk has anything to confess does
he speak. It is then in the power of the assembly to prescribe some form
of expiation. The offender may be rebuked, suspended or even expelled.
But he must admit his guilt. Otherwise disciplinary measures are forbidden'
(Eliot 1954, Vol. 1, p. 244). Eliot sums up the organizational structure
of the pristine monastic communities thus:

This ancient tradition that Buddhist monastic communities are democratic,
self-governing organizations has relevance and a large degree of
application to the contemporary Sangha in Thailand (and Ceylon), although
the historical facts are complex. A true estimation of the persisting underlying
organizational principles can only be arrived at after considering
the relationship of Buddhism and the Sangha to kingship and the state;

the administrative requirements stemming from the ownership of land
and other endowments; and the size of the monastery itself, which is
partially related to its location in urban or rural environments and to the
kind of patronage it enjoyed or enjoys.

It would take us too far from the interests of this book if we considered
these questions in detail, so I shall make only a few simplified statements.
Buddhism in the so-called `Theravada' countries came to have a recognized
relationship with the state. By and large the theory of kingship and the
rituals associated with it in Burma, Thailand and Cambodia were influenced
by Indian brahmanical ideas. But there is a striking difference in that,
unlike in India, the brahmans were confined to the court and were not
a general caste or stratum in the society. Dumont has asserted that in
India, dharma (morality), as represented by the brahmans, was superior
to artha (power), as represented by the kshatriya ruler; morality legitimated
power; dharma and artha in turn stood opposed to the inferior domain of
kama (economy). In `Theravada' countries there was no such dharma
of the brahmans acting as a check on kingship.

A conception of anacakra, royal power, as opposed to buddhacakra, the
spiritual power of the Sangha deriving from its inner discipline and the
vocation of the monks, prevailed in Theravada countries. The king was
indeed the protector, defender and patron of the Sangha, and at the
very apex of the society there was a fusion of politics and religion, spiritual
and secular power, to a degree perhaps unknown in India. Just as the
status of Chakravartin (world ruler) was equated with that of Buddha
(the idea being that a world conqueror and world renouncer are alike), so
did the kings claim the title of embryo Buddha (bodhisattva), and the
relics of the Buddha became the symbols of kingship and political autonomy.
In this capacity, the king gave patronage to Buddhism: he built monasteries
and temples, and endowed them with land. But he interfered little with
ecclesiastical matters, and wherever monasteries were endowed with
property they enjoyed autonomy in administering them, as well as judicial
and fiscal exemptions and other immunities. In the heyday of such thriving
monastic communities the differentiation of roles, the division of labour
and bureaucratization of organization was complex (e.g. see Rahula 1956 for
ancient Ceylon); but in contemporary Ceylon, the monastic bodies enjoying
landed property (the Malwatte and Asgiriya chapters of the Siyam Nikaya)
show a much looser and decentralized organization, more in line with
the classical theory of localized communities and also with anthropological
expectations of what might be expected in a society with certain types of
kinship and caste institutions (e.g. see Evers 1967). Ceylonese `sects'
which arose in the nineteenth century, and which do not enjoy such

landed property, are even more fragmented and decentralized (Ames 1963)
and have resisted any interference by political authorities in respect of
a more `rational' and country-wide organization.[2]

Thailand in some ways exemplifies this decentralizing tendency. Land
endowment to the monasteries by the king and laymen was customary,
and the monasteries apparently enjoyed immunity of control from royal
officers (Wales 1965). Today the association of royal temples with property
is by no means great or spectacular. While some monasteries enjoy
traditionally derived property, royal patronage consists of the wat having
no more than a special status, with some superior-titled monks getting
allowances from the state, and the prestige of royal presentations of
robes and other gifts at the Kathina ceremony at the end of the Lenten
season. Thus monastic communities enjoy in most matters a great autonomy.
Their internal structure is loose. The only recognized position is that of
the abbot (chao wat). In large monasteries there may be informal positions
of deputies and assistants, or even groupings of monks into divisions
(gana) with their heads. In small monasteries—especially in village wat—
there is scarcely any formal hierarchy of office below the abbot. However,
the assemblage is not altogether one of equals. The distinction between
novice and monk, the distinctions of seniority of service, the relation
between ordainer (upacha) and ordained, pupil and teacher, senior monk
and junior monk attached to him, etc., are all important for the internal
ordering of the monastic community.

What I have tried to say so far is that at the macro-level the relationship
between king (and his administrative machinery) and the Buddhist Sangha
(itself fragmented into separate communities and sects) was in the main
one of patronage and protection without interference.

But the nature of this association has to be modified in two directions,
although the essential point remains intact. There is evidence for ancient
and medieval Ceylon that the Sangha had some influence on kingship and
politics: kingship and the polity were infused with Buddhist meaning
and identity, the coronation ritual over time shifted (in part at least)
from a brahmanical to a Buddhist form, and various kings ceremonially
dedicated their kingship and their realms to the sasana or even to the
Sangha. Apart from these ideological and ceremonial features, it appears
that the Sangha even played politics in earnest: it sometimes determined
the succession to the throne, and its various sects competed for royal
favour and patronage. (See Rahula 1956, Ariyapala 1956, Geiger 1960,
Paranavitana in Ray (ed.), Vol. 1, 1959, Ch. 9.)

However, the evidence, especially in modern times, shows a more

pronounced counter-tendency for the king and the political state to
influence the Sangha.

There are known instances in Ceylon, Burma and Thailand when the
king, as defender and protector of the religion, has `purified the religion'—
such as settling schismatic disputes and rival claims of sects, or, when the
order of monks was in danger of dying out or was debased, re-establishing
it through new ordination succession (usually through the agency of
monks invited from other Buddhist countries). Not unrelated to these
reforms were moves made to ensure a Sangha loyal to the king and willing
to act in support of the regime.

The successful unification of a territory and the expansion of frontiers
by a king, with the increase of royal power through greater centralization
of control, has been paralleled in attempts to introduce some kind of
national hierarchy and unification in the Buddhist Sangha. Ceylon in
the eighteenth century under King Kirti Sri provides an example. Thailand,
which never became a colony, is an example in recent times, and its
achievement on a formal level is quite complete. There exists in Thailand
today a national ecclesiastical hierarchy which is largely the creation of
the central political government and in fact reflects the institutions and
divisions of civil and territorial jurisdiction. One should not underestimate
the importance of this official hierarchy for the organization and activities
of the Sangha as a whole. The hierarchy of officers and organs, and the
country-wide network of educational establishments are significant avenues
of social mobility and channels for the acquisition of prestige and power
in a political sense (see Appendix to this chapter).

Nevertheless, it is important to note that at the base of the system
are a multitude of local wats supported by lay congregations, headed by
abbots chosen by them (though ratified by the ecclesiastical superiors), and
in the main run as relatively autonomous monastic communities in close
integration with the villages or towns which maintain them. Important
connections between these localized wats produce regional networks which
are not the product of the official Sangha organization. This book is
concerned with the village wat, its monks, and its lay supporters in terms
of this latter perspective.

A different perspective, also important, looks at the various kinds of
links, including those in the official (formal) organization, which produce
a network of social relations, channels of mobility, levels of differentiation,
and a distribution of power at the level of the total society. This theme
is proper for a different and more ambitious work on Thai religion.