Relationship between the Monastic Rules and the Vinayapiṭaka

The question arises how the rules as laid down in the Vinayapiṭaka and those contained in the monastic codes relate to each other. Some see the monastic guidelines as additions to the existing vinaya code (Seneviratna, 2000, 187) or clarifications and abridged versions thereof (Ellingson, 1989, 209).

For some, the bca’ yigs summarize the details of the Vinaya into basic principles of communal life and government, and articulate soteriological concepts into specific guidelines for the conduct of religious communities. (Elling- son, 1989, 210)

For others, such works present the practical message of the Vinayapiṭaka in a more accessible way (Blackburn, 1999, 286), as the Vinaya texts them- selves were often – not only conceptually but also often even physically – inaccessible.

In China, the Vinayapiṭaka remained untranslated for centuries after the introduction of Buddhism, while in Sri Lanka, Vinaya texts were often not kept in the monasteries (Blackburn, 1999, 286);

in Tibet those who wished to study the monastic discipline as an “academic subject” were required to be bhikṣus (Cabezón, 2004, 6), while the majority of the monk population never took bhikṣu ordination.

Furthermore, in the monastic educational curriculum of the Dge lugs school, the Vinayapiṭaka was a topic only studied for the last four years of the academic training that could take up to two decades (Dreyfus, 2003, 114).

And even then, the canonical Vinaya texts themselves were not treated: the main focus lay on Guṇaprabha’s Vinayasūtra (Tib. ’dul ba’i mdo rtsa ba

[D 4117; P 5619]) and a commentary to this text by the 13th-century Bka’ ’dams master Kun mkhyen Mtsho sna ba Shes rab Bzang po, used in all Tibetan Buddhist traditions.

Despite the Vinayapiṭaka being an integral part of the monastic curriculum, extensive knowledge of the contents was not a requirement for one’s scholastic progress (Dreyfus, 2003, 117).

The number of studying monks in traditional Tibet was small; thus the vast majority of monks never studied the Vinayapiṭaka in any detail: all their awareness of monastic regulations and their vows came through bca’ yig literature and oral instructions (see above).

It is thus plausible that, at least in Tibet, exactly because they usually addressed all monks that inhabited a monastery, the monastic guidelines were not mere appendices to Vinaya texts.

Although such texts overtly address only the saṅgha, these types of works are witness to the fact that lay people – both monastery employees and lay devotees – were often part of the “jurisdiction” of the monastic institution.

In Tibet, for example, hunting on monastic property was forbidden, and a bca’ yig by the 13th Dalai Lama states that hunters who were caught were to be made to leave their weapons in the protectors’ chapel and promise not to reoffend (Huber, 2004, 135).

In the case of Tibetan monastic Buddhism, a need was felt to supplement the general discipline with more specific documents that focused on “the practical aspects of daily life” (Cabezón, 1997, 337).

Such documents have on the whole little to do with clarifying the vinaya or the praṭimokṣa vows but contain practical instructions that seek to regulate monastic life. Monastic codes thus are neither necessarily clarifications or new standards, nor merely supplements to the Vinayapiṭaka, but rather handbooks or guidelines.

In this way, many aspects of monastic life were regulated more by local monastic constitutions than by the Vinayapiṭaka (Dreyfus, 2003, 40).

According to the Vinayapiṭaka, the First Buddhist Council decreed that the saṅgha was not to alter Buddha’s laws (Bechert, 1970, 772).

The notion that the vinaya, and in particular the monks’ vows, cannot and should not be modified, appears to be very much alive.

Many contemporary senior Tibetan monks insist that rules for the monastery have no bearing on the rules contained in the Vinayapiṭaka, because the monastic rules are flexible whereas the Vinayapiṭaka ones – that is to say, the praṭimokṣa vows – are not (personal communication, July 2012).

It is perhaps for that reason that one can see the Vinayapiṭaka rules and the monastic rules as exist- ing – at least in theory – alongside each other.

The literature containing monastic rules is, strictly speaking, never presented as commentary to Vinayapiṭaka material.

Nonetheless, the authors of these works do tend to state that they write in accordance with the contents of the Vinayapiṭaka, and they sometimes add that certain Vinayapiṭaka-like works have been consulted.

While the Chan Qinggui (Pure Rules), for example, incorporated contemporary Chinese cultural values, they were also strongly influenced by the Vinayapiṭaka and other Vinaya literature (Yifa, 2005, 134).

It is also not uncommon for these types of works to cite the Vinayapiṭaka in order to lend authority to their rules or to incorporate well-known Vinayapiṭaka strands into the text.

This is not to say that these monastic rulebooks were never in contradiction with rules found in the Vinayapiṭaka. As mentioned above, the contents of the katikāvata sometimes did deviate from the canonical law and even directly contradicted it (Bechert, 1970, 765).

It is, however, rare for this type of literature to display an awareness of the possibility of a contradiction between Vinayapiṭaka and monastic rules.

The author of the Chanyuan qinggui, Canglu Zongze (長蘆宗賾; d. 1107?), appears to have been aware that he was writing a set of rules different from or competing with the Vinayapiṭaka.

He solved this by pointing to precedence and by claiming that the rules that he promulgated were aimed at furthering the good of the monastic community (Foulk, 2004, 285).

Another notable exception is a monastic code for Drepung (’Bras spungs) Monastery from 1682, in which the fifth Dalai Lama Ngawang Lobzang Gyatso (Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho; 1617–1682) wrote the following:

Because going on an alms-round in Tibet proper, during for example the autumn, is in accordance with the intent of the Vinaya, it does not need to be stopped.

Except for people who collect offerings for the general good (spyi don) in China, Mongolia, and Khams, etc. one is not to go to ask for donations, on one’s own accord, without it being an exception [on behalf of] the officials and the general good.

(Ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, 1682, 313; Jansen, 2013, 130) To what extent did monastic regulations silently “overrule” Vinayapiṭaka rules, rather than merely existing alongside them?

Further, if this overruling were a regular occurrence, then which set of rules would hold final authority?

Even though it is impossible to determine the way in which all Buddhist monasteries in all traditions amended the rules for purely practical reasons, it is important to keep in mind that the Buddhist monastery is an institution that was (and still is) ultimately pragmatic.

The monastic guidelines are witness to this pragmatism.

They show the efforts made by the authors to regulate the monastic community and to negotiate its position within society.