When and Where is a Monk No Longer a Monk?

When and Where is a Monk No Longer a Monk?

On Communion and Communities in Indian Buddhist Monastic Law Codes

by Shayne Clarke

McMaster University

e-mail: clarsha@mcmaster.ca

Abstract

Indian Buddhist monks and nuns who commit pdrdjika offences are generally deemed to be asamvdsa (“not in communion”). In this paper I question the simplis- tic equation of asamvdsa with “expulsion.” I discuss the case of a matricide monk who, having been expelled, went down the road and set up a new monastery. I use this example to throw light on local and translocal aspects of Buddhist monastic ordination, suggesting that asamvdsa may refer not to a loss of communion from the Sangha of the Four Quarters, but from a specific, local monastic community. © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2009.

Keywords

Asamvdsa, parajika, expulsion, Vinaya

Introduction

It is often assumed that Indian Buddhist monks or nuns who committed1 any of the pdrdjikas1 were automatically and permanently expelled from the 11 While it has become somewhat of a scholarly shorthand to refer to monks who “commit” pdrdjikas, it should be noted that in general, at least in the formulation of the parajika rules in the Vibhangas of the extant monastic law codes, the term parajika normally refers not to the offence per se, but to the state of a monk who has committed such an offence. In this paper I use the phrases “is parajika” and “commits apdrdjika” interchangeably. A detailed study of the usage of the term pdrdjika may prove interesting.

21 As Oskar von Hinüber has pointed out (1988, 3, note 2), the correct etymology of the term pdrdjika seems to have been resolved already by Burnout, who derived it from para + \'aj and took it to mean “to expel” ([1844] 1876, 268—269). Yet, as also noted by vonmonastic order.1 2 This is how Indian Buddhist monastic law codes (Vinayad)

are usually read. Yet what exactly does it mean to be “expelled” from the Buddhist order?3 Is it as straightforward as it has been made out to be? Did monks and/or nuns who committed such offences happily remove themselves—or allow themselves to be removed—from monasteries, never to be heard of again? Did they stop being monastics and/or Buddhists? And if so, what was their new status? In the present paper I seek to address some of these questions.

Asamvdsa: Expulsion or No Longer in Communion? A recent—and, at least in its conclusion, representative—view of Buddhist responses to breaches of the first parajika can be found in Janet Gyatso’s article on “sex” in Critical Terms for the Study of Buddhism. There Gyatso tells us, quite unequivocally, that “sex ... ends a monk’s or nun’s career.”4 Gyatso’s study is based primarily on the Pali Vinaya, but the view that a parajika offence terminates monastic careers is common to studies of other Indian Buddhist monastic traditions. Moreover, although the first parajika seems to receive the lion’s share of scholarly attention, the same also holds for other pdrajikas. There are, of course, exceptions; a monk who has sex does not necessarily commit a parajika offence.5 The focus of this paper, however, is what happens to a monk or nun who, without claiming insanity or availing him/herself of any other legal defences, is or commits a pdrajika.6 7 8 9 10 11 12

A monk or nun who is/commits a pdrajika is usually deemed to be asamvasa, or “not in communion,”13 a term which is often mistranslated as “expelled.”14 As with many technical terms in Buddhist monastic law, a def- inition for asamvasa is already built into the Vibhariga word-commentary, the most fundamental level of analysis given monastic rules in the extant Vinayas. Horner translated the Pali word commentary on asamvasa long ago as follows:15

Is not in communion means: communion is called one work, one rule, an equal training, this is called communion. He who is not together with this is therefore called not in communion!'

This is how the Theravada tradition and, albeit with slightly different wording, all other extant Vinaya traditions define the status of one who is pdrdjika, one who is said to be “not in communion.”16 17 Here neither the Pâli text nor Horner’s translation states, or necessarily even seems to imply, that being “not in communion” is tantamount to expulsion, although this is how it is invariably understood by modern scholars.18

In fact, of the extant definitions of asamvdsa in the various Vibhangas it seems to be only the Vinaya of the Mùlasarvâstivâdins—and even then, only Yijings üîfl (635-713 ce) Chinese translation—that contains any explicit mention of whether a monk or nun who is “not in communion” is banished or expelled. The canonical word-commentary may be translated from the Chinese as follows:19

That which is called “not in communion” means this offender may not be in communion with the other monks, whether with regard to the posadha, pravdrand,jhapti,jnapti-dvitlya, ^ndyhapti-caturtha karmans. If the Commu- nity has business for which it ought to appoint [one of] the twelve kinds of people, this offence places him beyond the limit of appointment. He may not share in the use of [communal property], whether religious (fa St) or material. He ought to be banished!expelled. For this reason, it is called “should not be in communion.”

While this passage in Yijing’s translation seems to state unequivocally that one who is “not in communion” should be expelled or banished, this reading appears not to be supported by the extant Tibetan translation either for monks or for nuns.20 In other words, in the extant Vibhariga word- definitions it seems to be only Yijing’s translation of the Mulasarvastivada- vinaya in which we find an explicit statement about the expulsion or banishment of one deemed to be “not in communion.” Moreover, given what we know about this Chinese pilgrim’s agenda and the reasons for his travels to India, that we find this reference in his—and it would seem only his—text may not come as a surprise.21 Whether this is Yijing’s own addition or even a gloss is unclear; it may well have been in the text he translated. All we can state with relative certainty is that it seems not to be found in the Tibetan translation, and, perhaps more important, it appears not to be confirmed by any of the other extant monastic codes.

Here it may be of use to look at the definition of the term “not in communion” in a closely related monastic code, the Sarvastivada-vinaya. There the canonical word-commentary reads:22

“Not in communion” means: One may not share in the performance of the activities {fa lis. *dharma) of a bhiksu, namely, y/M/rf karmans, jnapti-dvitiya barmans, and jnapti-caturtha karmans, the posadha, or the pravdrand. [One] may not enter [office] in the fourteen [[[monastic]] administrative positions]. This is called being “not in communion” [for having committed] apdrdjika.

1. A+raAgt

Note that in the explanation of the Sarvastivadin understanding of “not in communion” there is no mention of any kind of expulsion or banishment. In fact, the monastic codes generally state only that monks and nuns who commit or arepdrdjika become “not in communion,” viz., they may not participate in the proceedings or formal ecclesiastical acts {karmans) of the monastic community. With the exception of Yijing’s Chinese translation, the Vibhahgas seem not to say that a monk or nun who is “not in commu- nion” is expelled. What exactly, then, can we say about the status of monks and nuns who commit/are pardjikai

In the Upalipariprcchd, buried within the Uttaragrantha of the Mulasar- vastivada-vinaya, the validity of ordinations conducted by different types of persons acting as officiants {karmakaraka-, las bgyidpa) is considered: from lay officiants to officiants who are pandakas, defilers of nuns, patri- cides, matricides, arhaticides, and so forth, all of which render the ordi- nation invalid. Included among this list is the interloper {steyasamvdsika-, rkun gnas), asamvasika {mi gnaspa), one who is in communion elsewhere {nandsamvasika-, so sorgnaspa), and one who has previously committed a [grave] offence {sngar nyespa byungba). Here one who has previously com- mitted a grave offence seems to refer to one who has committed apdrdjika, but this is to be differentiated from one who is asamvasa, “not in commu- nion.” The precise significance of this distinction, however, is unclear.

One who is/commits apdrdjika and returns to the lay life cannot sub- sequently be re-ordained (unless it is a nun who has committed one of the 181 On the Uttaragrantha, see Clarke (Forthcoming). sTog, Dulba DA 3.31b5-332a2: btsun pa las bgyidpa khyim pas bsnyen par rdzogs par bgyis na bsnyen par rdzogs pa zhes bgyi ’am/u pa li bsnyen par ma rdzogs pa zhes bya ste!'bsnyen par rdzogs par byedpa mams kyang das pa dang hcas pa’o // de bzhin du ma ning dang/dge slong ma sun phyung ba dang/pha dang ma dang!dgra bcompa hsadpa dang/de bzhin gshegspa ngan sems kyis khragphyung ba dang!mu stegs can dang!mu stegs can du song ba dang/rkun gnas dang!mi gnas pa dang/so sor gnas pa dang/sngar nyes byung ba dang/sngar ’khrugs pas las bgyis te! bsnyen par rdzogs par bgyis na!bsnyenpar rdzogspa zhes bgyi ’am/u pa li bsnyenpar ma rdzogspa zhes bya ste/bsnyenpar rdzogs par byed pa mams kyang das pa dang bcas pa’o //.

päräjikas not held in common with monks, e.g., 5-8, who then undergoes a sex change and re-ordains as a monk).23 Support for this assertion can be found in the following dialogue:24

Reverend, if one who previously has committed a [most serious] offence is ordained, is [he] deemed to have been ordained? Upäli, [he] is deemed not to be ordained, and, moreover, those who ordained [him] come to be guilty of an offence.

btsunpa sugar nongspa byung ba bsnyenpar rdzogspar bgyis na bsnyenpar rdzogs pa zhes bgyi ’am/a pa li bsnyen par ma rdzogspa zhes bya ste!bsnyen par rdzogs par byedpa dug ’das pa dang bcas pa’o II

In other words, the re-ordination of one who has previously committed a most serious offence (i.e., apäräjika) seems to be invalid. But can we assume from this that all who commit päräjikas necessarily return to the lay life?25 In what sense has one who is “no longer in communion” stopped being a Buddhist monastic? The definition of a “previous offender” in this Vinaya is, I think, telling:26

Reverend, how is one considered one who previously has committed a [most serious] offence?

Upäli, he who when he had previously gone forth [into the religious life] committed any one päräjika of the four päräjikas without having given up his training, and [then (sDe dge reads: not)] having given up his training and returning to the state of a layman he again wishes to go forth and be ordained in the well-spoken Dharma and Vinaya and become a bhiksu, this one is called a person who previously has committed a [most serious] offence.

btsun pa ji tsam gyis na sugar nongs par gyurpa zhes bgyi/u pa li ganggis sngar rab tu byung la bslab pa maphul bar phaspham pa bzhi las gang yang rung ba’i phasphampa byung bargyurpa dang!des bslabpa (sDe dge adds: md) phul nas khyim pa’i dngos por song ba las!des slar yang legs par gsungspa’i chos dal ba la rab tu byung bsnyen par rdzogs nas/dge slong gi dngos por ’dodpa di ni sngon nyes byung ba’i gang zag ces bya’o //

This passage seems to take a number of things for granted. The first is that a monk only commits a pdrdjika if, for instance, he has sex without first renouncing his training. This is the escape clause already built into the wording of the first pdrdjika for monks (and for nuns in some but not all traditions). If a monk first renounces his training, then in having sex he does not commit a pdrdjika because, technically, he is no longer a monk.

The advantage to disavowing one’s training, that is, formally disrobing, is that a monk is thereupon more or less free to do as he chooses with legal (monastic) impunity. He may have sex as he wishes, quite simply because generally he cannot commit a pdrdjika as a layman.27 The other major advantage is that if he later on decides to come back to the religious life and re-ordain, he can do so at any time. A monk may go back and forth from lay and monastic status. The disadvantage to this, however, is that the monk loses seniority when he re-ordains.28 Yet the door is still open. As these passages suggest, however, if a monk does not first disrobe (renounce his training), he cannot subsequently re-ordain.

Accepting that a monk who commits a pdrdjika is asarnvasa, and if, as some would have it, the latter term is taken to mean that he is automatically expelled, then what is the significance of the distinction made in these passages between one who has committed apdrdjika and is asarnvasa, and

one who has previously committed a grave offence (i.e., pdrdjika ') (sngar nyes pa byung ba)l If it is only that a “previous offender” is one who wishes to be re-ordained, then would it not suffice to state that one who is asarnvasa, “not in communion ,” cannot be ordained? Why it was felt necessary to introduce a whole new class of persons, those who have previously committed a pdrdjika, is an interesting question.

As far as I know, this question is not explicitly raised in the legal texts. And I suspect that it is not raised because asarnvasa may refer to a status somewhat different from one who has committed a pârâjika offence and returned to the lay life. Asamvâsa seems to refer to a status that is still, in some sense, monastic and not lay. In short, I suggest that the status of a monk who is asamvâsa may not be as clear-cut as previously thought.

This evidence is suggestive rather than conclusive. It does not allow us to say much about what asamvâsa might have meant in practise, and it may have meant different things in different Vinaya traditions. Yet the Vinayas also preserve important linguistic evidence including such terms as asamvâsika “one who is asamvâsa’' and asamvâsikatvam “the status of being an asamvâsika."29 Moreover, the asamvâsika appears in enough passages in the extant Vinayas to suggest, at least to me, that we should not (yet) write these “monks” off as a non-existent monastic status.30 In fact, that asamvdsikas, those who are “no longer in communion,” are mentioned at all suggests their continued presence, and not their absence, within the monastic community.

Technical terms such as asamvasa (“not in communion”) generally have been taken to mean that a monk or nun is expelled, a reading largely unsupported by the extant definitions of this term embedded within the law codes. Arguably, this has resulted in statements to the effect that “sex ... ends a monk’s or nun’s career,” and that “[[[Wikipedia:sexual|sexual]]] intercourse will disqualify the monk from being a son of the Sakyans; he can no longer be part of the community.”31 Lest there be any confusion, I do not wish to suggest that monks who had sex were not generally considered to be “not in communion” {asamvasa}. Rather, I question the simplistic equation of asamvasa with “expulsion.”

Indeed, in the extant monastic codes there is very little mention of the physical removal of excommunicates32 33 (asamvdsikas).1"1 Accordingly, until a convincing case is made otherwise, since “expulsion” seems to imply physical removal, I suggest that the term asamvasa, which seems to point to an ostracization or excommunication, should be translated something along the lines of “not in communion,” as Horner had done many years ago.

To be sure, a monk who was “no longer in communion” was not a monk in good standing. He was, perhaps, a bad monk, even a very bad monk. But it seems possible that he may still have been, in some sense, a monk, or at least a member of the monastic community. Of course, in part this depends on how we understand what it was to be a monk in India, how we understand Buddhist notions of “communion” or “community” (samvdsa). But what else can we say about monks or nuns who were “not in communion”? Could they, for instance, simply pack up their bags, move down the road, and set up their own monastery?

Monkhood after Expulsion: The Case of an “Expelled” Matricide Monk Here it may be of use to consider a similar example. Recently, Jonathan Silk has discussed a story in the Pravrajydvastu of the Mulasarvastivada- vinaya in which an “expelled” monk appears to head down the road and set up his own monastery. To be sure, the situation of the monk in the Pravrajydvastu is not the same as that of a monk who has had sex and is regarded as asamvdsaP I suggest, however, that this case provides an illuminating parallel. The passage in question refers to the tale of a matricide who tries to repent his “sins” by joining the Buddhist order. Silk tells us that “ [t]he five sins of immediate retribution,” of which matricide is one, “are “The gates or posts that they cling to may all be cut down.”

“If they cling to the gate-frame and it is also necessary for this to be toppled, who ought to fix the damaged gate-posts?”

The Buddha said, “Either the Great Assembly, or you may instruct the laity to carry out the repairs together.”

3°) With reference to the Theraväda tradition, Nolot (1999, 64-65) states that the expulsion or näsanä of the “eleven kinds of monk who should not have been admitted to the Order in the first place, and whose ordination is in any case invalid” is a linga-näsanä. According to Nolot, this is exactly the same type of “expulsion” that is applied to apäräjika monk or nun (see note 29, above). While we must be careful about applying principles of Theravädin monastic law to the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya, Nolot’s observation does seem to provide further justification for our comparison of the asamväsa monk and the matricide. Moreover, note the interesting discussion in the Samantapäsädikä of the twenty-four types ofpäräjika noted by von Hinüber (2000, 67-68). As von Hinüber has argued, this represents a much broader interpretation of the term, päräjika than that found in the canonical text of the Pali Vinaya and, as far as I know, other Vinayas also.

offences which impede ordination and which, if discovered later, call for expulsion.”34 35 Issues such as this, however, are seldom as simple as we might wish, and Silk’s statement almost certainly requires some qualification. It is true that, in the case in question, the Buddha later has his monks “expel” or banish the matricide: nàsayata yùyam bhiksavo mâtrghâtakam pudgalam asmàd dharmavinayâtd1 It is also true, as Silk notes, that this tale is used to establish a general prohibition against the ordination of matricides.

According to Buddhist monastic law as legislated by the authors/redac- tors of this monastic code, however, it is not the case that a matricide who had been ordained would necessarily be expelled. In fact, this monastic code contains exceptions to most of the so-called prohibitions on ordination. Here, however, we will limit ourselves to the discussion of matricides. In the Upâlipariprcchâ of the Uttaragrantha, Upâli poses a set of questions to the Buddha in which we find the following:36

Reverend, if a matricide is ordained, is [the matricide] deemed to have been ordained?

Upali, some are deemed to have been ordained. Some are not [deemed to have been] ordained ....

bstun pa ma bsadpa’i gang zag bsnyen par rdzogs par bgyis na bsnyen par rdzogs pa zhes bgyi ’am/u pa li kha cig ni bsnyen par rdzogs pa zhes bya’o // kha cig ni bsnyenpar ma rdzogspa ste / ...

The text then suggests that if one kills one’s mother with the notion that she is someone else (gzhan du ’du shes na}, then the ordination is considered to be valid (’di ni bsnyen par rdzogspa zhes bya ste). The ordination of one who knowingly (*samcintya)}4: deprives his mother of life, however, is deemed to be invalid or, we might say, revoked (ganggis shes bzhin du mai ’tsho ba dang bral bar gyurpa di ni bsnyen par ma rdzogs pa zhes bya ste). Likewise, the same holds for patricides (pha bsadpa), and those who kill arhats (dgra bcompa bsadpa}.

In the case of the matricide in the Pravrajydvastu, he too had been initiated and ordained (sa tena pravrdjita upasampdditaP).ib It was only when his “sin” of matricide came to light that he was “expelled.” Silk sums up the rest of the tale as follows:

It is remarkable that the story goes on to narrate how the monk, apparently merely on his own volition, does not in fact return to lay life, but instead travels to a remote region. He converts a householder, who is so taken with him that he has a monastery constructed for the matricide, which must have been a sizable establishment rather than a mere hut, since monks come from far and wide to dwell there, and “many directly realized the state of arhatship through his instruction.”37

Silk is quite right: this is a remarkable story. How is it that a monk, a matri- cide, who has been banished or “expelled” from the monastic community on the Buddha’s own orders seemingly could continue to be a Buddhist monk down the road, as it were?

Local and Translocal Monastic Communities In order to fully appreciate this -history of the expelled monk, and to throw further light on our previous discussion of asamvdsa, it may be useful to consider the nature of Buddhist monastic ordination as twofold: local and translocal. The matricide was “expelled” or banished, at least according to the text, “from this Dharma and Vinaya” (asmad dharmavmayat).3S In practise, how one can be expelled from an abstract entity such as from “Buddhism” (from this Dharma and Vinaya) is not entirely clear to me. However, one can be expelled from concrete entities such as monastic communities or sanghas. In this case, I would argue that we might best understand this story by accepting that the matricide is expelled or banished not from the sangha (not from the Buddhist order), but from a sangha (a specific monastic community).

Generally, one might assume that expulsion (not sex) ends a monk’s or nun’s career. If this were so, there would be little point in considering whence our monk was expelled. The problem here, however, is that we are fortunate enough to have a text that actually goes into some detail about this expelled monk’s afterlife (both down the road and in the Avici hell). The question, then, is how to understand the matricide’s status, and whether or not this story may have ramifications for other types of expelled or excommunicated monks.

In suggesting that we invoke this twofold understanding of monastic ordination, I am not imposing a foreign theoretical model onto the textual traditions of Indian Buddhist monasticism. Rather, as we will see, this is a distinction already made within the legal literature. It is important here, as elsewhere, to find Miilasarvastivadin answers to Mulasarvastivadin problems, specifically how best to understand the monastic status of this matricide monk within the Miilasarvastivadin legal system. We should not uncritically accept or impose answers from other nikdyas, although these may in some cases shed light. In this context, the following analysis of the various types of monastic communities or sanghas found in the Vinayasangraha, a commentary on the Mulasarvastivadin Vinayavibhariga, may be useful:

3® Vogel and Wille 2002, 50v6.

As for the term sangha, there are six types of sangha: 1) a sangha of [a group of] four people; 2) a sangha of more than this; 3) a present sangha-, 4) the sangha of the four quarters; 5) a host (or local)38 sangha-, 6) a guest sangha.

IdtM

AAW,A^ftM39

dge ’dun zhes bya ba ni dge ’dun la mam pa drug ste!bzhi’i tshogs kyi dge ’dun dang!de las lhagpa’i dge ’dun dang!mngon sum du nye bar ’khodpa’i dge ’dun dang!phyogs bzhi’i dge ’dun dang/gnyug mar gnaspa’i dge ’dun dang!gio bur du lhagpa’i dge ’dun no //40

There are various other types of sanghas and technical definitions thereof throughout Vinaya literature (both of the Mulasarvastivadins and other nikdyas), the most familiar being the bhiksu and bhiksuni sanghas. The above distinctions, however, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Some refer to operational or functional distinctions; others to theoretical models. The categories of sanghas consisting of only four and more than four people, for instance, can be further broken down, and in fact are so in the Karmavastu or Chapter on Formal Ecclesiastical Acts in this monastic code.

There we find mention of sanghas of four, five, ten, twenty, or more.41 Gen- erally, no monastic procedure (karman) can be performed with a chapter of less than four monks. With a sangha of four, however, all karmans other than the pravarana, upasampadd, and avarhana may be performed; these three formal acts generally require a minimum chapter of five, ten, and twenty monks, respectively.42

The distinction between (5) a local or host sangha and (6) a guest sangha has not been sufficiently appreciated.43 44 The former exists, it seems, only in reference to the latter, and vice-versa. A local sangha may perform the full range of ecclesiastical procedures that its size permits. Buddhist monasticisms place importance, if even only in theory, on mendicancy.

Monks, for instance, are generally thought to move from place to place, from monastery to monastery, and stability of residence is a requirement only during the varsâ or rainy season retreat(s). Accordingly, we find various discussions in Vinaya literature about the obligatory behaviour of guest or visiting monks (âgantuka bhiksu),^ and their seniority.45

For our present purposes, however, the most important distinction is that of (3) a present sangha and (4) the sangha of the Four Quarters. The former, the sammukhïbhûta sangha, as it is technically known, refers to a specific monastic community in the here and now. This, I suggest, is the sangha into which the matricide was initiated and ordained, and from which he was “expelled” or banished. By default, his ordination also made him a member of the Community of the Four Quarters, what Hirakawa has called a “universal Samgha.”46 This comprises of, to quote Hirakawa, “not only Bhikkhus present but Bhikkhus future. It is open in all directions. This Samgha has no boundary and is expanding infinitely.”47

While a monk or nun can be evicted or expelled from a specific or local monastic community, whether or not one can be expelled from the Community of the Four Quarters is not clear, at least not to me. Indeed, the Community of the Four Quarters seems not to be a functional or operational monastic community in any real sense. Hirakawa states that it is an “idealistic entity ... this Samgha is not the samgha which operates in actual time.”48 49 It appears to be simply a theoretical model, albeit one developed by Indian Buddhists, and perhaps primarily by monastic lawyers. Unlike the boundless Community of the Four Quarters, specific, local monastic communities (sammukhibhutasanghas) are delineated and demar- cated by boundaries known as simas.™ In the legal literature there are entire chapters devoted to nearly every conceivable aspect of the definition of these boundaries. As ecclesiastical boundaries are generally not supposed to overlap with each other, we find discussions on how and when to dissolve formerly established boundaries, such as in cases when the whole sangha leaves and returns to the lay life, the entire sangha changes sex, or all mem- bers of a sangha pass away.50

Membership in these specific, local monastic communities would have been somewhat fluid. As Hirakawa notes, as soon as a monk leaves a cer- tain sima or ecclesiastical boundary, he is technically no longer a member of that sangha.51 52 53 He is, of course, still a member of the Community of the Four Quarters. That is, he is still an ordained Buddhist monk. Yet he is not “in communion” with any specific monastic community. When he enters another sima, then he becomes a member of that sangha.53 Hirakawa sug- gests that we cannot fully understand the Buddhist monastic community without taking into consideration its twofold structure.54 By extension, I suggest that we can only fully understand the significance and implications of membership in Indian Buddhist monastic communities, to say noth- ing of expulsion thence, if we consider the distinction between local and translocal, or specific and “universal” sanghas.

How exactly, then, does this distinction apply to notions of monastic ordination? The concept of the Community of the Four Quarters is found most commonly not in discussions of ordination, but in the negotiation of monastic property rights. Hirakawa notes that disposable and divisi- ble monastic property generally belongs to specific, local sammukhibhuta sanghas. Land and buildings, however, Hirakawa argues, are generally do- nated to the Community of the Four Quarters, that is, for all Buddhist monks of the present and future.54 It is probably fair to say that in most instances the term sangha is used in Vinaya literature without any lexical distinction between the two types of communities. The Mulasarvastwada- vinaya, however, provides at least one important hint that ordination is primarily a local and specific phenomenon. The passage in question refers to five constituents essential to a monastic ordination. Again in the ques- tions of Upali:55

Reverend, the Blessed One has said through five factors one should be consid- ered ordained, from the announcing of the name of the candidate for ordina- tion to the unimpaired execution of the formal ecclesiastical act.56 57 58 Reverend, when performing the ordination, if the officiant (karmakdraka-, las bgyidpa), without announcing the name of the ordinand, announces the name of the upddhydyajs announces the name of the sangha, and not only makes the motion but the formal ecclesiastical act is also unimpaired, is [the ordinand] deemed to be ordained?

Upali, [the ordinand] is deemed not to be ordained, and, moreover, those who ordained [him] come to be guilty of an offence.

btsun pa beam Idan ’das kyis mam pa Ingas na bsnyen par rdzogs pa zhes bya stelbsnyen par rdzogspar ’dodpa’i ming nas brjod nas las mi nyams par byedpa’i bar duo zhesgsungs na/bstunpa las bgyidpas bsnyenpar rdzogspar bgyidpa na bsnyenpar rdzogspa’i ming nas ma brjod la mkhan po’i ming nas brjod/dge ’dun gyi ming nas brjod/gsol ba ’ang bgyis/las kyang ma nyams na bsnyen par rdzogs pa zhes bgyi ’am/u pa li bsnyen par ma rdzogspa zhes bya ste!bsnyen par rdzogs par byedpa mams kyang ’daspa dang bcaspa’o //39

Here we see that an ordination is rendered invalid if, all of the other elements being properly executed, the ordinand’s name is not correctly announced. The text goes on to discuss various other configurations of the above situation , all of which also result in an invalid ordination: if the names of the upadhyayai" or sangha59 60 are not announced, if the motion is not made,61 or the karman is somehow impaired.62 What exactly is meant by an unimpaired or pure formal act is not entirely clear to me given that the same text also suggests that an ordination is valid even if one’s upadhyaya (but not the officiant)63 is himself not a monk but a lay- man,® or in some cases if the ordinand is a matricide,64 or a despoiler of nuns.65 Unlike some of these cases, however, there seems to be no room for leeway with respect to the motion, the formal act, or, and most important for our purposes, the three names: that of the candidate, of the upadhyaya, and of the monastic community. Buddhist monastic ordination, then, at least according to this passage in our monastic code, seems to presuppose that an ordinand is ordained into a named sangha, which, I would argue, could only refer to a specific, local sammukhibhuta sangha. Ordination into a specific sangha, moreover, presumably automatically confers membership in the Community of the Four Quarters.

How, then, does this relate to the story of the expelled matricide monk, and, if at all, the asamvdsikal I suggest that the case of the matricide monk can be best explained if we accept that monastic ordination is twofold in nature. That is, ordination refers not only to membership in the Commu- nity of the Four Quarters, or, what in scholarly shorthand is referred to as “the Buddhist [[[monastic]]] order,” but also to membership in a specific time and place in a named community, a local sammukhibhuta sangha. The matricide monk was expelled, then, from a specific sangha, the Commu- nity in which the Buddha was residing. Expulsion, however, did not render the matricide no longer a monk. Rather, it simply meant that he was no longer a member of the Buddha’s local monastic community. His member- ship in the Community of the Four Quarters, however, seems not to have been revoked. Accordingly, he was able to go down the road and join (or even start) another (local) monastic community, a place in which he would be “in communion.” While admittedly somewhat speculative, this account does seem to offer a viable explanation for how the expelled matricide was able to continue to be a monk, albeit in another sangha.

If the expulsion of a matricide did not end his monastic career, but rather only his membership in a specific community, it seems at least possible that monks who had sex or committed any other pdrdjika and were thereby deemed to be “no longer in communion” may in fact only be asamvdsa with regard to the specific community of residence at the time of their offence.

Whether or not this made them no longer monks is not clear, at least not to me. Could they too not have simply gone down the road and joined another sangha? While this is all again highly speculative, I do think that it is worth considering.

Conclusion

In sum, on the basis of the passages presented above, I hope to have shown that it is not entirely clear what happens to a monk who commits apârâjika. What is clear is that he is no longer considered to be “in communion,” and in communion, I suggest, with a specific, local sangha. Whether or not this is tantamount to “expulsion” remains a topic for further research.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank James Benn, Oskar von Hiniiber, Ute Hiisken, Petra Kieffer-Piilz, Jonathan Silk, and Peter Skilling for various suggestions and corrections. All errors arc my own. I wish to acknowledge financial assistance from the Arts Research Board, McMaster University.

Abbreviations

BD The Book of the Discipline. Translated by I.B. Horner. Sacred Books of the Buddhists. 6 vols. London: The Pah Text Society, [1938-1966] 1996-1997.

sDe dge The Sde-dge MtshaTpar Bka’-’gyur: a facsimile edition of the 18th century redaction of Si-tu Chos-kyi- ’byun-gnasprepared under the direction ofH.H. the 16th Rgyal-dbari Karma-pa. 103 vols. Delhi: Delhi Karmapae Chodhey Gyalwae Sungrab Partun Khang, 1976-1979-

GMs GilgitManuscripts. Edited by Nalinaksha Dutt. 3 vols. in 4 parts. 2nd edition. Delhi: Sri Satguru, [1943-1950] 1984. T Taisho shinshu daizokyo dul'AMU AwkJT. Edited by Takakusu Junjiro and Watanabe Kaikyoku 100 vols. Tokyo: Taisho issaikyo kankokai All: RTJTIIJJjTL 1924-1935-

sTog The Tog Palace Manuscript of the Tibetan Kanjur. 109 vols. Leh, Ladakh: C. Namgyal Tarusergar, 1975-1980. Vin The Vinaya Pitakam: One of the Principal Buddhist Holy Scriptures in the Pali Language. Edited by Hermann Oldenberg. 5 vols. London: The Pali Text Society, [1879-1883] 1969-1982. References

Barrett, T.H. (1998). Did I-ching go to India? Problems in Using I-ching as a Source for South Asian Buddhism. Buddhist Studies Review, 15(2), 142-156. Burnouf, E. ([1844] 1876). Introduction a I’histoire du buddhisme indien. 2nd edition. Paris: Maisonneuve et Cie, Libraires-Editeurs. Childers, R.C. ([1875] 1979). A Dictionary of the Pali Language. New Delhi: Cosmo Publications.

Chung, J. (1998). Die Pravdrand in den kdnonischen Vinaya-Texten derMülasarvä- stivadin und der Sarvdstivddin. Sanskrit-Worterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden. Beiheft, 7. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Clarke, S. (2001). The Mülasarvdstivdda VinayaMuktaka IST-aJŽ—'‘©WSP@WiM. Bukkyõ kenkyü 30, 81-107.

Clarke, S. (2002). The Mülasarvästivddin Vinaya: A Brief Reconnaissance Report. In Sakurabe Hajime Hakushi Kiju Kinen Ronshu Kankõkai sElžttraÄHfTzx (Ed.), Sakurabe Hajime hakushi kiju kinen ronshU: shoki Bukkyõ kara abidaruma e SnlLÜlWÜf ' ' (pp. 45—63). Kyoto: Heirakuji shoten

Clarke, S. (2004a). Vinaya Mdtrkd—Mother of the Monastic Codes, or Just An- other Set of Lists? A Response to Frauwallner’s Handling of the Mahäsämghika Vinaya. Indo-Iranian Journal, 47(2), 77—120.

Clarke, S. (2004b). Right Section, Wrong Collection: An Identification of a Ca- nonical Vinaya Text in the Tibetan bsTan ’gyur—Bya ba’iphungpo zhes bya ba (Kriydskandha-ndma). Journal of the American Oriental Society, 124(2), 335— 340.

Clarke, S. (2006). Miscellaneous Musings on Mülasarvästiväda Monks: Tire Mülasarvdstivdda Vinaya Revival in Tokugawa Japan. Japanese Journal of Reli- gious Studies, 33(1), 1—49.

Clarke, S. (2008). The Case of the Nun Mettiyä Reexamined: On the Expulsion of a Pregnant Bhiksuni in the Vinaya of the Mahäsänghikas and other Indian Buddhist Monastic Law Codes. Indo-Iranian Journal, 51(2), 115-135. Clarke, S. (2009). Monks Who Have Sex: Pdrdjika Penance in Indian Buddhist Monasticisms. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 37(1), 1^43.

Clarke, S. (Forthcoming). Towards a Comparative Study of the Sarvästiväda- and Mülasarvästiväda-vinayas: Studies in the Structure of the Uttaragrantha (1): Kathdvastu—A Preliminary Survey.

Deeg, M. (2005). Was haben ein Mönch und Fisch gemeinsam? Monastische Regeln und Lebensrealität und der Aussagewert chinesischen Pilgerberichte. In Peter Schalk, Max Deeg, Oliver Freiberger, Christoph Kleine and Astrid van Nahl (Eds.), Im Dickicht der Gebote: Studien zur Dialektik von Norm und Praxis in der Buddhismusgeschichte Asiens (pp. 99—151). Stockholm: Uppsala Universitet.

Derrett, J.D.M. (1983). A Textbook for Novices: Jayaraksita’s “Perspicuous Com- mentary on the Compendium of Conduct by Srighana”. Torino: Pubblicazioni di “Indologica Taurinensia”.

Eimer, H. (1983). Rabtu ’byuri ba’igzi. Die tibetische Ubersetzungdes Pravrajyävastu im Vinaya der Mülasarvästivädins. Asiatische Forschungen, 82. 2 vols. Wies- baden: Otto Harrassowitz.

Enomoto F. KLT ZÄ. (1998). ‘Konponsetsuissaiubu to ‘setsuissaiubu r®2^t5i t ri(ii Indogaku Bukkyögaku kenkyü 47(1), 111-119.

Enomoto, F. (2000). ‘Mülasarvästivädin’ and ‘Sarvästivädin’. In Christine Choj- nacki, Jens-Uwe Hartmann and Volker M. Tschannerl (Eds.), Vividharatnaka- randaka: Festgabe für Adelheid Mette (pp. 239—250). Indica et Tibetica, 37. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica.

Faure, B. (1998). The Red Thread: Buddhist Approaches to Sexuality. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton U.P.

Gonda, J. (1970). Notes on Names and the Name of God in Ancient India. Amster- dam & London: North-Holland Pub. Co.

Gyatso, J. (2005). Sex. In Donald S. Lopez, Jr. (Ed.), Critical Terms for the Study of Buddhism (pp. 271—290). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Heirman, A. (1995). Some Remarks on the Definition of a Monk and a Nun as Members of a Community and the Definition of‘Not to live in Community.’ The Indian Journal of Buddhist Studies, 7(1/2), 1—22.

Heirman, A. (1999). On Päräjika. Buddhist Studies Review, 16 f), 51—59. von Hinüber, O. (1988). Die Sprachgeschichte des Päli im Spiegel der südostasiatis- chen Handschrifienüberlieferung. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

von Hinüber, O. (1995). Buddhist Law According to the Theraväda-Vinaya: A Survey of Theory and Practice. Journal ofthe International Association of Buddhist Studies, /5(1), 7-45.

von Hinüber, O. (1996). A Handbook of Pali Literature. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.

von Hinüber, O. (2000). Die Nonnen im Theravada-Buddhismus: Zu einer weit- eren Göttinger Dissertation über das buddhistische Recht. Wiener Zeitschriftfür die Kunde Südasiens 44, 61-85.

Hirakawa, A. (1966). The Twofold Structure of the Buddhist Samgha. Journal of the Oriental Institute, 16(f), 131—137.

Hirakawa A. f )!!$(. (2000). Genshi Bukkyö no kyödan soshiki 8. Hirakawa Akira chosakushü ¥11WffÄ, 11-12. 2 vols. Tokyo: Shun- Horner, I.B., trans. (1964). Milinda’s Questions. 2 vols. London: Luzac & Com- pany.

Hu-von Hinüber, H. (1994). Das Posadhavastu Vorschriften für die buddhistische Beich feier im Vinaya der Mülasarvästivädins: Aufgrund des Sanskrit- Textes der Gilgit-Handschrift und der tibetischen Version sowie unter Berücksichtigung der Sanskrit-Fragmente des Posadhavastu aus zentralasiatischen Handschriftenfunden herausgegeben, mit den Parallelversionen verglichen, übersetzt und kommentiert.

Reinbek: Verlag für Orientalistische Fachpublikationen. Hüsken, U. (1997). The Application of the Vinaya Term näsanä. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 20(2), 93—111.

KiefFer-Pülz, P. (1992). Die Sima: Vorschrifien zur Regelung der buddhistischen Gemeindegrenze in älteren buddhistischen Texten. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer. Kieffer-Pülz, P. (Forthcoming). Die Ganthipadas in der Vajirabuddhitlkä. 2 Vols. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz (Veröffentlichungen der indologsichen Kommission). Kishino R. (2008). ‘Satsubatabu bini matoroka’ wa ‘Jüjuritsu’ no chü- shakusho If Indogaku Buk- kyögaku kenkyü 56(2), 183-186.

Lamotte, E. ([1958] 1988). History of Indian Buddhism: From the Origins to the Saka Era. Translated by Sara Webb-Boin. Louvain-Paris: Peeters Press. Lee J. (2007). näsana ni tsuite näsanaC-'A 't'Z.. Indogaku Bukkyögaku kenkyü 55(2), 136-141.

Lee J. (2008). Sanga no “wago” wo megutte: samänasamväsaka to nänä- samväsaka no kentö 'CT'samänasamväsaka k nänäsam- vdsakaCAyFyi. Bukkyö kenkyü fASW^c 36, 231-253. Miyabayashi A. (1984). Gijö no chügoku bukkyö hihan ?AA-" '11'! 4 ■fAÄfttW. In Takenaka Shinjö Hakushi Shöju Kinen Ronbunshü Kankökai fJ't'fB iBWiSW(Ed.), Shükyö bunka no shosö: Takenaka Shinjö hakushi shöju kinen ronbunshü Oriffll ’ 'W‘4a'fB'fiflWAiS^?BBfB: (pp. 799—819). Tokyo: Sankibö Busshorin lllWßjfAWtt. Miyabayashi A. (1985). Gijö no chügoku bukkyö hihan: ‘Kikiden’ jo . In Mibu Taishun Hakushi Shöju Kinen Ronbunshü Kankökai n jB^tiiu XMfllff (Ed.), Mibu Tai- shun hakushi shöju kinen: Bukkyö no rekishi to shisö 3czL A? Sfll fBAAfA «JfDlSÜ®;® (pp. 459-478). Tokyo: Daizö shuppan AAKlüliK. Miyabayashi A. Af ftHBW• (1986). Gijö no chügoku bukkyö hihan (shözen): ‘Kiki- den’ ichi kara roku shö ItlAoA’BllAWJtTÖ (fRliU) • Tai- shö Daigaku kenkyü kiyö Ä ll:Ä'7oi)f AA A, 72, 27M4. Miyabayashi A. (1991). Gijö no chügoku bukkyö hihan (shözen): ‘Kiki- den’ daikyüshö jusai fushö (1) SlAO^BIfAfOtTÖ (f^tll) ‘ SWihaf (I). Taishö Daigaku kenkyü kiyö 76, 1-17. Miyabayashi A. DJ. (2001). Gijö ‘Nankai kiki naihöden ni mieru Dosen hihan iWiSW'MlAllAfaj AJRLAAlästltT1!. In Ishigami Zennö Kyöju Koki Kinen Ronbunshü Kankökai AfWsBiaAMACAtflJffA? (Ed.), Ishigami Zennö kyöju koki kinen ronbunshü: Bukkyö bunka no kichö to tenkai ft(pp. 209-225). Tokyo: Sankibö Busshorin |1|Wf§lAWtt. Nolot, E. (1999). Studies in Vinaya Technical Terms W-A. Journal of the Pali Text So eiet}/, 25, 1—111. Norman, K.R. ([2000] 2007). Review of Oskar von Hinüber’s Das Pätimokkha- suttader Theravädin. Reprinted in Collected Papers, 8 (pp. 309-321). Lancaster: The Pali Text Society. Pradhan, P. (Ed.). (1975). Abhidharmakosabhäsyam ofVasubandhu. Tibetan San- skrit Works Series, 8. 2nd edition. Patna: K.P. Jayaswal Research Institute. Prasad, B.N. (2008). Major Trends and Perspectives in Studies in the Functional Dimensions of Indian Monastic Buddhism in the Past One Hundred Years: A Historigraphical Survey. Buddhist Studies Review, 25(1), 54—89. Prebish, C.S. ([1975] 1996). Buddhist Monastic Discipline: The Sanskrit Prätimoksa Sütras of the Mahäsämghikas andMülasarvästivädins. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Prebish, C.S. (2003). Varying the Vinaya: Creative Responses to Modernity. In Steven Heine and Charles S. Prebish (Eds.), Buddhism in the Modern World: Adaptations of an Ancient Tradition (pp. 45—73). Oxford & New York: Oxford U.P.

Prüden, L.M. (1988—1990). Abhidharmakosabhäsyam. Being a translation ofLouis de La Vallee Poussin’s LAbhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu: traduction et annota- tions. 4 vols. Berkeley, Calif.: Asian Humanities Press. Rhys Davids, T.W., and W. Stede. ([1921—1925] 1997). Pali-English Dictionary. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Salomon, R. (1999). Ancient Buddhist Scrolls from Gandhära. The British Library Kharosthi Fragments. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Sasaki, S. (1994). Buddhist Sects in the Asoka Period (4): The Structure of the Mahäsämghika Vinaya. Bukkyd kenkyü 23, 55-100. Sasaki S. fcATfclH]. (2000a). Indo Bukkyö hen’i ron: Naze Bukkyö wa tayöka shita no ka 4 'C FJASiS^ Im ‘ A GA-*. Tokyo: Daizö shuppan ÄÄ №. Sasaki S. (2000b). Basharon to ritsu Indogaku Bukkyögaku kenkyü EPffi^JAf^W^S, 49(1), 86-94. Sasaki S. (A7? vEPil. (2006). Ritsuzö no seiritsu mondai ni kansuru genzai no jökyö Indogaku Bukkyögaku kenkyü EPK^fA fJPW<54(2), 175-182. Schopen, G. (2001). Dead Monks and Bad Debts: Some Provisions of a Buddhist Monastic Inheritance Law. Indo-Iranian Journal, 44(2), 99-148. Silk, J. (2007). Good and Evil in Indian Buddhism: The Five Sins of Immediate Retribution. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 35(3), 253-286. von Simson, G. (Ed.) (2000). Prätimoksasütra der Sarvästivädins: Kritische Textaus- gabe, Übersetzung, Wortindex sowie Nachträge zu Teil I. Nach Vorarbeiten von Else Lüdersf und Herbert Härtel herausgegeben. Teil 2. Sanskrittexte aus den Turfanfunden, 11. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Singh, S. (1983). A Study of the Sphutärthä Srlghanäcärasangraha-tlkä. Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, 24. Patna: Kashi Prasad Jayaswal Research Institute. Snellgrove, D. ([1987] 2002). Indo-Tibetan Buddhism: Indian Buddhists and their Tibetan Successors. 2nd edition. Boston: Shambhala.

Thomas, E.J. ([1933] 2002). Use History of Buddhist Thought. 2nd edition. Mine- ola, New York: Dover Publications.

Tsomo, K.L. (Ed.) (1988). Sakyadhltä: Daughters of the Buddha. Ithaca, N.Y: Snow Lion Publications.

Tsomo, K.L. (1996). Sisters in Solitude: Two Traditions of Buddhist Monastic Ethics for Women: A Comparative Analysis of the Chinese Dharmagupta and the Tibetan Mülasarvästiväda Bhiksunl Prätimoksa Sutras. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Vogel, C. and K. Wille. (2002). The Final Leaves of the Pravrajyävastu Portion of the Vinayavastu Manuscript Found Near Gilgit. Part 2: Nägakumärävadäna and Levi Text. With Two Appendices Containing a Turfan Fragment of the Nägakumärävadäna and a Kucä Fragment of the Upasampadä Section of the Sarvästivädins. In Jin-il Chung, Claus Vogel and Klaus Wille (Eds.), Sanskrit- Texte aus dem buddhistischen Kanon: Neuentdeckungen und Neueditionen IV (pp. 11—76). Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan- Funden, 9. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Rupert. Yao F. (2007). ‘Konponsetsuissaiubu to iu meishö ni tsuiter®2|xfji— k Indogaku Bukkyögaku kenkyü 55(2), 132-135.