The translation of Vinayas into Chinese

The translation of Vinayas into Chinese took place long after the introduction of monastic Buddhism to China. It is suggested that the earliest rules for monks in China were orally transmitted and were intended for the foreign monk population (Heirman, 2007, 168).

In a letter, Dao’an (道安; 312–385) – translator of Buddhist scriptures and someone who is seen as the author of the earliest monastic rules – laments the fact that there was no complete text of the five hundred monastic rules at Xiangyang (襄陽), which he mentioned was most needed (Zürcher, 2007, 197).

Dao’an’s biography notes that the rules that he eventually developed, which pertained to daily life in the monastery, were followed by monks throughout the empire (Link, 1958, 35, 6).

There is no suggestion that Dao’an directly concerned himself with the administration or manage- ment of a monastery as such. Later on, the regulations that were formulated for Chan monasteries in China were said to be based on Dao’an’s and Daoxuan’s (道宣; 596–667) works (Yifa, 2005, 125). Tradition- ally, Baizhang’s (白丈; 749–814) qinggui (情規; pure rules) are thought to form the foundation for later Chan monastic communities.

Like those of Dao’an, Baizhang’s rules were said to be written for general practice and not for particular circumstances; they concerned themselves with ritual while remaining largely silent on issues of administration. However, many scholars doubt that Baizhang’s qinggui ever existed.

The title is in any case apocryphal, for the term qinggui does not appear in a monastic context before the 12th century (Yifa, 2002, 28–35). The earliest extant text on monastic rules written by a Chan master is Shi guizhi (師規制;

The Teacher’s Regulations), written in 901 by Xuefeng (雪峰; 822–908).

The work is short and is not directed to one single monastery. It not only appears to be in line with rules as laid out in the Vinayapiṭaka but also contains references to more Chinese local practices (Poceski, 2003, 33–56).

The Tiantai monk Zunshi (遵式; 964–1032) revived the abandoned temple Tianzhusi (天竺寺) and wrote guidelines for his successors called the Tianzhusi shifang zhuchi yi (天竺寺十方住持義; Principles for the Ten Directions Abbacy of Tianzhu Monastery) in 1030 (Yifa, 2002, 35–37). Other non-Chan monastic guidelines are so far unknown.

Another very influential set of extant monastic guidelines for a Chan monastery is the Chanyuan qinggui (禪苑情規; Pure Rules for Chan Monasteries).

Written in 1103, it later became the standard for the rulebooks of all bigger Chan monasteries in China and represents an important milestone for Chinese Buddhist history because it was the first indigenous set of monastic rules that more or less equaled the status of the Vinayapiṭaka (Foulk, 2004, 275). These rules may be divided into five sections:

1. standards of behavior addressed to individual monks;

2. procedures for communal calendrical rites;

3. guidelines for the organization and operation of public monastery bureaucracies;

4. procedures for rituals of social interaction; and

5. rules pertaining to the relationship between public monasteries and the outside world, particularly civil authorities and lay benefactors (Foulk, 2004, 289).

The Chanyuan qinggui describes in detail the duties of monk officials responsible for economic matters, such as tax and rent collecting. These new roles were not seen in the administrative structure of the earlier Tang dynasty monasteries (Collcutt, 1983, 182).

Initially this genre of monastic guidelines called qinggui were restricted to Chan monasteries, but by the Yuan dynasty, the practice of compiling codes with qinggui in the title had spread to other branches of Chinese Buddhism (Collcutt, 1983, 169).

Whereas the qinggui were intended for all public monasteries, there were also monastic guidelines written for individual monasteries, which appear quite similar to the Tibetan bca’ yig.

H. Welch found texts called Guiyue ( 規約) to contain the fullest information on the monastic system as actually followed. In the early to mid-20th century, his monk informants thought them to be more relevant on issues of monastic organization than the contents of the praṭimokṣa vows (Welch, 1967, vi).

Such guidelines were usually divided into sections, of which each was dedicated to a certain department in the monastery. Although these texts claim to be based on Baizhang’s works, they were flexible, for when the need arose, the abbot could add new rules (Welch, 1967, 105–107).

Not surprisingly, the genre of qinggui also spread to Japan. Dōgen (道元; 1200–1253) wrote regulations for Eihei Monastery later collected in the Eihei shingi (永平情規; Pure Rules for Ehei Monastery), which includes regulations and procedural instructions for a variety of monastic activities.

This work consists of six parts written on separate occasions (Leighton & Okumura, 1996, 21–23).

Dōgen is sometimes viewed as an innovator of Zen monastic Buddhism, but almost all the texts on monastic rules attributed to him are in fact commentaries on the Chanyuan qinggui and other works deriving from the Vinaya tradition. This makes Dōgen a transmitter rather than an innovator of monastic rules (Foulk, 2006, 140).

Generally speaking, the codes compiled in Japan are often shorter than their Chinese counterparts, and they do not entirely reproduce the issues addressed in the qingguis: local and specifically Japanese concerns were also voiced in the shingi (Collcutt, 1983, 170).

As in the case with China, aside from the shingi that were directed to all Zen monasteries, there were also regulations called kakun (訓)for individual Zen monasteries or schools.

The latter term suggests a connection to aristocratic and warrior house codes, which bore the same name (Collcutt, 1981, 152). The Rinsen kakun (臨川家訓), compiled in 1317, is an example of an individual monastery’s code (Collcutt, 1981, 149–165).

The articles in this text appear to be responses to particular problems. Although similar guidelines for Japanese monastic institutions affiliated to other traditions exist, Western-language scholarship so far has been limited to those of the Zen tradition.

Another way in which rules for monastic conduct and life in Japan were created was through external authorities, perhaps comparable to the way the Sinhalese sāsana katikāvata were promulgated. The Nara court issued regulations for monks and nuns in 701, called the Sōniryō (僧尼令), which consists of 27 articles (translated by Piggott, 1987, 267–273).

Even though these regulations contain rather stringent measures, they appear not to have been strictly enforced (Augustine, 2005, 60–62). The Hōjō and the Ashikaga rulers issued many codes for individual Zen monasteries (Collcutt, 1981, 165–166).

This practice was already current in China from the 5th century onward: the sengzhi (僧制; saṅgha regulations) were attempts by the secular authorities to regulate the monk community, in particular with the aim to control monk ordinations, thereby countering tax evasion (Foulk, 2004, 276, 290).

In Korea, monastic regulations written specifically for local monasteries appear to be rare. In the Sŏn (禪) monasteries, monks studied a basic handbook called the Ch’obalsim chagyŏng mun (初發心 自警文; Admonitions to Beginners), a collection of three works. This book serves to inform monks on basic monastic rules and the right way of behaving in a monastic environment (Buswell, 1992, 80).

One work included in the collection, by Chinul (知訥; 1158–1210), is called Kye ch’osim hagin mun (誡初心學人文; Admonitions to Neophytes; trans. Buswell, 2012, 195–205). The Ch’obalsim chagyŏng mun does not seem to serve as a manual for monastic organization but functions more as a manual for individual monks. It is one of the most commonly read and studied works among Korean Sŏn monks (Buswell, 1992, 101).

The absence of guidelines for monastic governance may be explained by the intimate relationship between the monastic community and the state.

In the Koryŏ dynasty (高麗; 918–1392), a saṅgha registry was instated that functioned as mediator between temples and state officials, modeled after that in China, albeit without the anti- Buddhist undertone.

This system may have caused the Korean monkhood to lose its autonomy (Vermeersch, 2008, 183–237), which then accounts for the lack of monastic guidelines, which are often an expression of autonomy – be it political, religious, or both.

However, similar information to that which we find in the monastic codes of other Buddhist countries is contained in prohibition orders (禁 令; kŭmnyŏng) and chapters on law in the Koryŏsa (高麗史;

History of Koryŏ), which were promulgated by the secular authorities. In these works, one can find rules on monastic behavior that occasion- ally correspond to the contents of the Vinayapiṭaka (Vermeersch, 2008, 161).