Sudinna Tale in the Pāli Vinaya and Its Interpretation
The tale of Sudinna, establishing the rule of celibacy for the Buddhist monastic order, has in recent years been the subject of intense investigation and reinterpretation, and much more is to be expected. I came across this story in the course of my research on the Abhidharma doctrines on sexual misconduct,1 and even though I agree with many authors that the tale contains important data for the Buddhist attitude towards sex, also for laypeople, I came to the conclusion that one purpose of the Vinaya rules needs to be considered more centrally: the preservation of the monastic community's public reputation. Methodologically, I primarily address the ideals set forth in the sources analyzed, the intentions of the authors and their literary tools for conveying those intentions. Another question is, then, to what extent the authors and their followers were ultimately able to live up to their ideals, in this case a puritan lifestyle in a society that was only partly supportive. The focus of this paper is on the first aspect prescriptive ethics, while a description of the second, their application in practice, is not attempted here
Why Sexual Intercourse Leads to a Loss of Communion: The Story of Sudinna at Vin I.5.
The Pāli Vinaya tells the story of Sudinna, a monk who is most exemplary in all respects.3 Sudinna takes great pains to break away from his family life in order to become a follower of the Buddha, even acting against the advice of his friends. He should stay, they say, because he is the only son of the family and enjoys much comfort and affection. When the parents deny their consent to his ambitions, Sudinna threatens to starve himself to death. One of his friends then approaches his parents with the argument that Sudinna would die (and then be completely lost for the family) should they keep on denying their consent. Were they to consent, on the other hand, then there would be hope of Sudinna's return: He may not enjoy (abhiramissati) going forth from home into homelessness. So the parents agree, and Sudinna is ordained by the Buddha.4 Sudinna then lives as "a dweller in the jungle (āraññiko), a beggar for alms (pindapātiko)", but when a famine strikes the area, it comes to his mind that he should return to his hometown, seemingly in the company of other monks, where he expects his relatives to support him. They indeed provide him with rich donations, which he disperses among his fellow mendicants. On another begging round, Sudinna comes to his own family house. He is invited in,5 and his family members try their best to make him stay, but Sudinna clearly rejects all their wishes. Finally, his mother implores him to have sex with his former wife, if only to generate offspring to continue the family line. He gives in and "seeing no danger, as the precept had not been made known,"6 takes with her to the forest on the day she is fertile and impregnates her.7 After the act has happened, the earth-gods (bhummā devā) make the following announcement: "Surely, without a stain (nirabbudo),8 friends, is the community of bhikkhus ([bhikkhusa,gho]), without wretchedness. Through Sudinna, the son of the Kalandakas, has a stain (abbudam) been caused to appear (uppāditam), has wretchedness been caused to appear." Having heard the outcry of the earth-gods, the four Mahārāja gods (cātumahārājikā) repeat the announcement. Thus, it is heard by the thirty-three gods, who repeat it, and so on, until it is resounded by the Brahmakāyikā gods: The chorus thus rises from the earth up to the Brahmaloka instantly. Filled with remorse (kukkucca), Sudinna returns to his fellow monks and confesses his deed. They scold him heavily, and "then these monks, having rebuked the venerable Sudinna in various ways, told this matter to the Lord." The Buddha, after questioning Sudinna, again rebukes him in a similar way as the monks had done. Mocking Sudinna as a "stupid person" (moghapurisa), he tells him that what he has done is unfit (ananucchaviyam), not in order (ananulomikam), unseeming (appa0irūpam), not samana-like (assāmanakam), unsuitable (akappiyam), not to be done (akaranīyam). "Why are you [...] not able to exert the complete, completely full ascetic behaviour for as long as you live?" "Has not the dhamma been taught by me in manifold ways in order to be free from passion (virāgāya), and not in order to have passion (sarāgāya)?" "How can you, Oh Stupid Person, when the dhamma is taught
by me in order to be free from passion, be intent on (cetessasi) having passion?"11 The
dhamma has been taught for the sake of being without fetters (visa,yogāya), being
without attachment (anupādānāya), and still, the Buddha says, Sudinna is intent on
doing the opposite. The dhamma has been taught to subdue haughtiness (madanimmadanāya),12
etc., for cessation (nirodhāya), and for nibbāna. The abandoning of
the sensual pleasures has been taught, and the calming of the fever of the sensual
pleasures (kāmapari;āhāna), too. It would be better if Sudinna ("Oh Stupid Person")
were to put (pakkhitta) his "specific organ" (angajāta) into the mouth of a poisonous
snake, or a fire-pit, rather than into the "specific organ" of womenfolk (mātugāmassa
angajāte). Why is that so? Because with the former he will die or experience agony
(maranamatta, vā dukkham, lit. "or suffering as if dying"), but he will not go to hell, to
a lower realm.13 With the latter, i.e. sexual intercourse, he will go to hell, to the lower
realms. Through that deed, Sudinna will enter (samāpajjissasi) upon the untrue
dhamma (asaddhama), "village dhamma" (gāmadhamma), vile dhamma (vasaladhamma),
badness (dutthulla), "what ends with ablution" (odakantika), secrecy
(rahassa), "coming together of the two" (dvaya,dvayasamāpatti)
14 ― Sudinna has just done the first of many unwholesome things.
Finally, the Buddha states ten reasons why sexual intercourse is forbidden, such
as for the excellence of the Samgha (sanghasutthutāya), for the comfort of the Sangha
(sanghaphāsutāya), for the suppression of badly confused persons (dummankūnam,
puggalāna, niggahāya), so that the well-behaved monks may live with ease
(pesalāna, bhikkhūna, phāsuvihārāya), for restraining the inflows (āsavāna,
samvarāya), for the piety of those who are not pious (appasannāna, pasādāya), so
that those who are pious may increase (pasannāna, bhiyyobhāvāya), so that the true
dhamma may be stable (saddhammatthitiyā), for assistance in the vinaya
(vinayānuggahāya).16 Thus the Buddha proclaims the prohibition of sexual intercourse,
the transgression of which makes one liable to the state of asamvāsa, a loss of
"communion" with other members of his group.
Interpretation of the Story
The Prohibition
What, then, do the single elements of the narrative tell the reader? Sudinna himself is
shown as not actively interested in sexual pleasure. There is also no real danger that he
would break away from the community: The agreement with his mother was clear, and
for his part, Sudinna was ready to remain in the community as before.18 From the point
of view of lay ethics there were no objections of caste, and the act happened with the
consent of his wife's superior in the family hierarchy, Sudinna's mother, who accepted
the fact that Sudinna had neglected his duties as a husband and was intent on doing so
in the future. Therefore, I think the message of the story is as follows: Even if the
conditions are highly favourable, even if there is apparently no harm to a third party,
sexual intercourse is forbidden, i.e. under no circumstances should the monk have
sex.19
Soteriology: The Liberation of the Individual
Sudinna is accused of not having inferred the prohibition of sex from the fundamental
precept of the dhamma: moving away from desire, towards the cessation of desire. That
is, of course, a soteriological goal.20 And indeed, celibacy fits in well with the general ascetic lifestyle, which consists in restraint of the senses for goals such as overcoming thirst (tanhā) or attainment of peace.21 That being true, how does expulsion from the ascetic community fit in here? Does Sudinna's single transgression really endanger his ascetic lifestyle to such an extent that there is no hope for Sudinna's return to his formerly exemplary discipline? Is it really justified to truncate the career of an ascetic such as Sudinna, giving him up as a hopeless case? The Buddha here presupposes that Sudinna will not be able to carry out the ascetic behaviour for as long as he lives (yāvajīvam), and I think it is worthwhile to dwell upon this expression a bit. The term yāvajīvam comes into play quite unexpectedly since, as is well known, Buddhist monastic ordination comprises no obligation to remain a monk for the rest of one's life. It is true, on the other hand, that disrobing is judged quite differently in different Buddhist countries, and the author of the Sudinna story was probably not very supportive of giving a Bhikkhu's ordination to someone who knew beforehand that he would not pursue his monk's career for the rest of his life. In any case, an expression similar to yāvajīva, can be found in a well-known passage describing the conversion of General Sīha, who asks the Buddha to consider him his lay follower and proclaims to take refuge "from today on for as long as I live (ajjatagge pānupetam,).22 In fact a Bhikkhu, too, once ordained, remains a Bhikkhu for the rest of his life unless he is expelled from the order or chooses to quit on his own part.23 Strikingly, the formula used by General Sīha is explicit about the starting point of his commitment, too, saying "from today (or, "now", ajja) on." One would naturally assume that the commitment of a Bhikkhu is equally directed into the future, even if he happens to fail in his observances one or the other time. Still, the Buddha here takes Sudinna's past transgression as sufficient evidence that Sudinna will not be able (na sakkhissasi) to follow this lifestyle, even in the future.24 In that case, it seems, a rule "indecent for a day, indecent for a lifetime" is applied–a paradigm which is absent in some other rules of the Vinaya: Former laymen, for example, are ordained without consideration of their former sex lives, and also monks are not punished with expulsion for a variety of sexual practices. Equally, minor offences that have nothing to do with sex are punished without presuming that the culprit will compulsively repeat that behaviour in the future. For males, it is relatively easy to leave the order, lead an ordinary layman's life, and become ordained again later.25 That Sudinna should be unable to live a celibate life in the future is unconvincing when we consider that he was once determined to starve himself to death were he not allowed to enter the order. Even before and after his transgression he is shown as a person very much in control of his libido. In my own interpretation, Sudinna's behaviour does not point to a fundamentally immoral character, but rather to a cognitive mistake; he simply did not make the right inference that sexual intercourse is opposed to the soteriological goal of Buddhism under any circumstances.26 Were one to maintain that the sole aim of the Vinaya rules was the liberation of the individual monk, expulsion from the community would be hard to justify. In the story, there is no indication that the Buddha's ruling on Sudinna was conducive to his spiritual progress in any way. One can, of course, construe that the threat of expulsion would motivate the monks to abide by the rules. That is, I assume, what the expression "for assistance in the vinaya" (vinayānuggahāya) means, rather than the purity and discipline of the monastic community as a whole. Nonetheless, judging from the point of view of individual liberation exclusively, other forms of penance, less devastating than expulsion, would be preferable. That systematical problem applies to all offences punished by "defeat", not only sexual intercourse: A person once expelled from the community is bereft of an important means to his own liberation. 27 It is in this category, individual liberation, that the simile with the snake and the fire-pit primarily belongs. Here, the Buddha tells the monk Sudinna that sexual intercourse leads him to rebirth in a hell.28 The Buddha is able to do so, primarily because of his supernatural insight into the workings of kamma. At this point, his spiritual superiority and authority come into play directly: The Buddha can see things that the ordinary person cannot see, in this case the long-term results of Sudinna's misdeed, hence he has the spiritual power to give a ruling on Sudinna's act in an apodictic manner.29 Besides, the similes reinforce the Vinaya law by linking the images of a mouth of a venomous snake or a fire pit to the imagination of a vagina, a conditioning meant to counteract any intention to transgress the Vinaya
Is Sudinna Actually Expelled? The Vinaya story itself does not tell us anything about Sudinna's fate after the Buddha's condemnation: Quite contrary to the expectations a modern reader may have to a storyline, once the Buddha speaks, the narrator of the story is completely silent about Sudinna. The appearance of the Buddha seems to outshine all other characters in the story, including the original protagonist. Everything we learn about him comes from the mouth of the Buddha who says that Sudinna is a "first-doer (ādikattā), a forerunner of many unwholesome dhammas" 31 Making Sudinna's future career explicit, the Vinaya commentary Samantapāsādika states that Sudinna was not found guilty of an offence entailing expulsion (pārājika) since he was the ādikammika, the "initial perpetrator" of an offence not yet defined as such. With this interpretation, the Samantapāsādika follows a Vinaya regulation found near the end of the Pārājika section. Here, the Vinaya (Vin III, p. 33) prescribes that the initial perpetrator is to be exempt from this kind of punishment, a merciful approach, notably quite the opposite of contemporary case law.32 That the ādikammika rule applies in the case of Sudinna, i.e. that he was not expelled, seems to be generally accepted in traditional and modern scholarship, and still I remain reserved with regard to this assumption. That said, I should clarify that I presume the story to be fictional, so the question cannot be whether Sudinna was factually expelled or not, and it is equally out of question that the tradition applies the ādikammika rule to Sudinna, at least since the Samantapāsādika. It is nonetheless debatable whether the author of the Sudinna story (in the Pāli version transmitted to us) actually knew of the ādikammika rule. This rule, at Vin III, p. 33, stands in a slightly peculiar position, between the narratives and a section in verse. Within the Sudinna story itself, to the very end, we find neither the slightest hint of any pardon, nor even the word ādikammika. Quite to the contrary, I assume that, such an exception on the basis of a legal technicality would go against the current, or rather the torrent, of the Buddha's definitive condemnation; even more so since the Buddha strongly and verbosely makes his point that it is obvious that sexual intercourse is diametrically opposed to the dhamma and that Sudinna is doomed to continue his evil ways in the future.33 In the context of the Buddha's speech, it seems to fit in more smoothly to understand that Sudinna has made his first step on the path of non-virtue, his future destiny
Public Reputation
The author of the Sudinna tale does not explicitly admit that public reputation plays a major role in the context of this breach of celibacy, and it is therefore not easy to confirm such a concern in the narrative.34 Let us first take a look at the Buddha's "sermon" to Sudinna. Some of the accusations point towards the issue of public reputation, but none is really explicit. The Buddha formulates that Sudinna's deed was "unseeming" (appatirūpa), "not sāmana-like" (assāmanaka), and "unsuitable" (akappiya). Celibacy, in contrast, serves "for the piety of those who are not pious" (appasannāna, pasādāya), for the excellence of the Sangha (sanghasutthutāya), for the comfort of the Sangha (sanghaphāsutāya), so that the well-behaved monks may live with ease (pesalāna, bhikkhūna, phāsuvihārāya), so that those who are pious may increase (pasannāna, bhiyyobhāvāya), so that the true dhamma may be stable (saddhammatthitiyā).35 The text itself is indeed quite brief, providing plenty of room for interpretations and associations. "For the excellence of the Sangha" (sanghasuttutāya), for example, could imply that the Sangha is to be viewed upon as excellent by the laypeople, but it could also stress that the Sangha has to remain an excellently pure assembly for the sake of those who enter it and profit spiritually from such exalted company.36 It is not in the Buddha's speech but in another narrative element in the story where concerns for public opinion become more obvious: the recital of the gods and the description of how the word spread throughout the world. The gods say: "Surely, without a stain, friends, is the community of bhikkhus [...]." They obviously find it necessary to emphasize this purity in the beginning, but can one expect such a differentiated judgement from ordinary worldlings? In the gods' recital, the stain (or scandal) appears in the form of Sudinna's deed exclusively. The word of the gods then spreads throughout the world, up to the highest level or the divine hierarchy, and I think the morale of this mythological element shines through quite clearly: The reputation of the order can be severely damaged and word will spread up to the king, even from the lowest members of society. 37 The next event after the god's recital is Sudinna's return to his fellow monks. Word of his deed spreads among them, too, until it reaches the Buddha. The story explicitly mentions the divine society and that of the monastic order, ignoring rumours among ordinary people ― on purpose, I assume, for the above-mentioned reasons. In real life, it was more than rumours that the monastic community had to face. In fact, the pārājika transgressions of stealing and murder were surely transgressions of secular law. There are indications in the Vinaya that the monastic Sangha to some extent was not subject to secular law,38 even though this was probably handled quite differently in various Indian dynasties. How, then, could the Sangha avoid having its supramundane status challenged by secular law? Firstly, by internalizing secular law in the shape of the Buddha's word, 39 and secondly, by expelling members who broke the law, hopefully before the king's henchmen arrived and put their hands on a wearer of the robe.40 It is hard to imagine that a murderer, for example, should not be subject to royal law on the grounds that he is a monk. Even if that was formally so, a religious order that protects offenders from persecution would, in the long run, risk its royal acknowledgment altogether. The Vinaya, thus, comprises the wholly rational and pragmatic solution that a murderer, for example, is by definition not a member of the Sangha anymore.41 The latter function of the expulsion from the Sangha has already been described by Heinz Bechert in 1966, stating that "the King could not exert sovereign rights on the Sangha directly, which was as such immune. In general, the monks were subject only to clerical jurisdiction; in case of capital offences they had to be expelled from the Sangha before they were subject to state jurisdiction."42 I see no reason to doubt Bechert's analysis, even though it would be good to have reliable accounts of the actual application of this convention, and even though it is clear that many exceptions have been made, especially with transgressions of celibacy.43 The fact that exceptions have been made can actually serve to support Bechert's thesis: There were probably cases where public or legal pressure was not so strong as to necessitate the expulsion of the offender. It seems that the autonomous power of the Sangha and its influence on governmental affairs at times became so strong that the government in turn tried to intervene in the politics of the Sangha. In the words of Bechert: “Because of the tremendous influence of the Sanngha in the Buddhist countries, and the tight intertwining of the Sangha and the state, the king had to be able to intervene in cases of malpractice within the Sangha."44 That is of course the ideal from the point of view of the government and it was surely not always realized.45 On the other hand, the Buddhist order probably did not have the means to enforce an excommunication to the extent that, for example, the Catholic Church in the European middle ages had. 46 Not a few Indian dynasties adhered to the rule of highly decentralized jurisdiction as laid down in the laws of Manu,47 which implied that that guilds and similar decentralized institutions covered a significant part of the jurisdiction in ancient India, just as the ascetic orders did. As an example, we find lying in the midst of a meeting of the merchant’s guild as the main example for lying in the context of the Yogācārabhūmi’s explanation of the ten unwholesome deeds of laypeople. This probably refers to a guild’s meeting in order to settle a legal case.48This principle of decentralized jurisdiction implies that an acknowledged social group is mostly autonomous in its internal affairs, while it has no control over former members once they have left the group. Conflicts can occur, of course, when a member of one group abuses a member of another, and it is only natural that an authority of a higher order should step in if the issue is not sufficiently resolved.49 Regarding celibacy, it is widely held that the behaviour of monks towards women was strictly regulated primarily because monks would meet women on their begging rounds, a situation which is also well-documented in Jaina sources, where the almsgivers are usually women. We find the same element in Sudinna's story: When he arrives at his home, he is first called in by the female family slave (ñātidāsī), who calls his mother, apparently at home at the time. Sudinna's father meets him only later, on coming home from work (kammantā āgacchanto) in a room prepared for ascetics eating almsfood (kuddamūla).52 In such encounters, the main risk for the monastic order seems to be extramarital sex which can give the order a doubtful reputation in the first place, and it can also result in various kinds of law cases or vendettas, let alone the birth of illegitimate children, all of which would demonstrate that the noble Sangha is not above worldly matters. Compared to that, the individual monk breaking away from the order in order to enter family life seems to be a much lesser threat. That is to say, when discussing celibacy, I consider it essential to distinguish between the prohibition of sexual intercourse on the one hand, and the prohibition of marriage on the other.57 In fact, when looking at the less severe transgressions, many of them deal with lewd behaviour,58 but I am not aware of any rule in the canonical Vinaya that would forbid a monk to talk to his parents or hopeful parents-in-law if they want him to disrobe and get married.59 We find negotiations of a similar kind in the Sudinna tale. There, the parents (now custodian to Sudinna's former wife) are those who lead the conversations and negations with Sudinna, while his wife plays a much lesser role. In real life, I suppose, contact with hopeful parents-in-law could be equally threatening to the monastic status as direct contact between possible partners. The latter was not the usual way to initiate a marriage in ancient India.60 In either case, from the point of view of the Vinaya rules, a monk or nun who wished to leave the order could do so at his or her own will, even though it might not be good for his or her own reputation. Another aspect I would like to discuss in the context of public reputation is the ascetic's control over his needs, his sacrifice of pleasure. Indian asceticism knows many practices where the ascetic does not fulfil his physical needs, such as food, drink, sleep, even breath (in certain breathing techniques), and so on. The Buddhist ascetic, too, raises his prestige and demonstrates his being different by his sacrifice of several worldly pleasures and by his control over physical needs. Still, the "Middle Way" allows him to fulfil most of his primary needs, moderately and just enough to keep his body functioning for his progress on the Path (mārga). It is thus mostly through control over the sex drive that the Buddhist ascetic can demonstrate spiritual control over his or her physis. Thus, abstinence, too, is a sacrifice on the part of the monastic. There were probably few laypeople who wished to give alms to other laypeople ― be they beggars or religious seekers ― who enjoyed the same standard of living as they themselves did.62 Thus, Buddhist monks and nuns chose to call themselves "beggar" (bhikkhu, bhikkhunī), dressed in rags, no matter what clothes they had at their disposal, and made it their program to abstain from sensual pleasures as far as medically tenable
The ascetics had given their sacrifice and now it was up to the donors to give theirs.65 For that purpose, it is essential for the ascetic not only to gain the reputation of a modest lifestyle and mastery over sexual desire, but also to preserve it. It is easily lost by a single transgression, and so the strict regulations of a monastic's sexual behaviour surely helped not to irritate the donors.66 The donors are explicitly mentioned in the story accompanying the Vinaya prohibition of masturbation: The monk Seyyasaka takes to masturbating in order to regain his physical strength. His fellows, seeing his health has increased, find out what he does and interrogate him: "Do you, Venerable Seyyasaka, emit what is impure, making do with the very same hand you eat (buñjasi) the gifts of the faithful?" 67 The donor's opinion is not explicitly mentioned here, but Seyyasaka obviously understands the metaphor without further explanation. The monks then spread the words amongthemselves and bring the issue before the Buddha, who rebukes Seyyasaka in almost the same words as Sudinna, saying that it is "not sama%a-like" (assāma%aka), while the Buddha has taught the dhamma "for the sake of being free from passion" (virāgāya), even though Seyyasaka allegedly did not act out of mere sensual desire, just as Sudinna.68 This is, by the way, one of several Vinaya regulations on sexuality which do not directly aim at preventing childbirth. Apart from the pārājika transgressions, a ritual that came close to the excommunication of lay people developed in Buddhist culture: the "turning around of the alms-bowl". The Monks would go to the house of a layperson and turn their alms-bowl upside down in order to demonstrate that they no longer accept offerings from that person. In this context, I assume, it is not a mere coincidence that the Vinaya story introducing the ritual of reversing the alms-bowl deals with the layman Vaḍḍha who wrongly accuses a monk of having “defiled” (dūsita) his wife.69 As much as Sudinna stands for the monk who has sexual intercourse, Vaḍḍha exemplifies those laypeople who accuse members of the community of such an act. Still, Vaḍḍha’s exclusion from “common life” (asambhoga, see CPD) with the Bhikkhus is later revoked by the Buddha after Vaḍḍha has properly confessed his misdeed. Étienne Lamotte has noticed that this is one of the few passages where a layman engages in a confession, quite different from the formal confession routines that the monks take upon themselves
Ascetic Community versus Family Community
I have put forth the thesis above that a distinction between marriage and family life on the one hand, and sexual relations on the other is essential when trying to understand the issue of celibacy in Buddhism. The Sudinna tale addresses both issues: in the beginning, the difficulties Sudinna has in getting away from his family life, and later, his act of sexual intercourse. Interestingly, the narration seems to take it for granted that an ascetic should not live the life of a married householder, and the Buddha's rebuke seems to deal with the sexual act exclusively. Upon ordination, Buddhist monks and nuns become members of one group and ideally leave the other. They have "gone forth from their home into homelessness," just as all their fellow ascetics have done; they are sons and daughters of the Sakya Sage.75 The rules of the monastic order now govern the relationship with their family, the family ties being to a huge extent, but not always completely, severed.76 Sudinna finds himself in a dilemma endangering his loyalty to either the word of his mother or the (hitherto unspoken) rules of his order. To understand the role of sexuality in the context of conflicting group identities, it is worth taking a look at the regulations of the Veda students, which are in many ways predecessors to the Buddhist monk rules. While the typical Brahmin, Kṣatriya, and Vaiśya7male in pre-Buddhist India was married in his adulthood, he had to undergo a period of celibacy during his adolescent education (age ca. 9-20), after which he would normally marry and lead the householder's life.79 During his Brahmacārin time, he would ideally live in the household of a Brahmin (gurukula).80 At some point in history, the education of the adolescent even included his introduction to sexuality between the age of sixteen and twenty-one, but that procedure was later abolished.81 The Brahmin family in charge of the young students partially took over the role of the parents and looked after the students' good manners.83 Therefore, it seems that much of what society expected of good breeding was codified in the rules for Brahmacārin behaviour, including the norms concerning premarital sex.84 I assume that the Veda students (ideally) did not marry (or lived away from their wives) because they were supposed to concentrate on their studies, and they were prohibited from having sex so that they may grow up as well-behaved persons and create no turmoil around the guru, especially when they lived in the guru's house. It can be assumed that once such a household gained a reputation as being strict in its observance of good manners, this may have fostered some amount of elitist spirit and group identity, while the students were still fulfilling the duties of a layman.85 Furthermore, ascetics and Veda teachers in ancient India, celibate or not, did not always belong to groups that were as well defined as the Buddhist Sangha in its classical shape.86 The strengthening of group identity via contraception was thus only one of many reasons for a Brahmacārin's celibacy, and I
strongly believe the same applies to the Buddhist order. In fact, the life of a Buddhist
novice monk between the ages of nine and twenty may not have significantly differed
from Veda students of the same age, the difference lying more in factors such as the
texts recited, the doctrines studied or certain mediation practices, and probably quite a
few novices returned to family life before adulthood without ever aiming at a bhikkhu
ordination.
A logical issue occurs in the Buddhist judgement of family life. On the one hand
the way of renunciation implies turning away from worldly objects of desire – not only
to counteract desire fundamentally, but also because that turning away denotes the
sacrifice of the Buddhist ascetic. On the other hand, the monks and nuns are to be
cautioned against worldly life. In the first case, family life is to be depicted as joyful,
something to be heroically abandoned for the sake of a higher goal. In the second, the
disadvantages of a worldling's existence are to be stressed. That, I think, explains why
we find various judgements and tendencies in the scriptures. A statement in the
Anguttaranikāya partially harmonizes those two different judgements: "There are,
monks, two kinds of happiness. Which two? The happiness of the householder and the
happiness of having gone forth. [...] Among those, monks, the highest is [...] the
happiness of having gone forth."88 The judgement of the followers' lifestyle is indeed a
question of a delicate balance, since the order could not be seriously interested in
offending the lay followers. 89 The dignity of the lay followers had to be preserved, and
so it is important to note that the Sudinna story, being part of the Vinaya, is not meant
for lay-followers. Expressions such as "village dhamma" (gāmadhamma) for the path
Sudinna has taken clearly show disesteem for the ways of the common laypeople.
All that said, one may ask why, then, infertile men and women were denied
ordination. Were they not ideal candidates in terms of non-conception? Again, there
were probably both external and internal reasons for this. From the outside, the
Buddhist order surely did not want to be seen as a dumping ground for unmarriageable
men and women, even more so since the sacrifice of family life played a major role in
the public and self-image of the order. Internally, it can be assumed that many of the men and women so discharged would have been weak in ascetic motivation and thus burdensome to the more engaged Sangha members.91
Is Sudinna's Marriage Dissolved?
Since marriage in ancient India was less often preceded by romance than by formal negotiations and financial agreements, the legal question whether, or in how far, a marriage is annulled when a monk has been ordained is of a major importance, not only for the couple in question but also for the family members involved. While it is often claimed that a monk's marriage is void once the upasampadā ordination is completed, The Sudinna story does not address the issue explicitly, but only speaks of Sudinna's "former wife", or "ancient wife" (purānadutiyikā), which is evidently distinct from "wife". She is clearly a member of his family and both parents call her "daughterin-law" (vadhu, etymologically "led into the house"). She seems to be fine with this, but when Sudinna addresses her, using the word "sister" (bhagini!) she faints right away. The marriage is, thus, legally not dissolved as far as the woman's status is concerned, while Sudinna, for his part, prefers to consider her a member of his family, but not his spouse.
A Note on Lying
As noted above, the Yogācārabhūmi presents false testimony during a guild’s meeting as the main example for the unwholesome deed of lying. It comes to some surprise to find this rare occasion of lying as an example, among all the possible forms and facets of dishonesty,93 and I think this indicates that small-scale everyday lies were not so much the focus of attention. The Brahmacārin rules, in contrast, oblige the Veda student to adhere to the truth (satya), one of the four most central rules of conduct.94 If we look at the language acquisition of children, it is obvious that they do not know how to produce a socially acceptable truth when they speak their first sentences. A child learns how to speak, then how to lie and is only then, as the third step, told to tell the truth. It is at this third step, I assume, that the Brahmacārin rule to be truthful sets in, primarily directed to the adolescent Veda student living in the house of his guru.95 Adults, on the other hand, know that complete honesty is not always feasible or even desirable, which is probably the reason why the Yogācārabhūmi does not make such demands. As for the Buddhist pārājika offences, the Brahmacārin obligation to truthfulness has been replaced by the prohibition of false claims to spiritual achievements.96 The Vinaya authorities were probably aware of social tensions which would ensue that if all monks in a sizable monastery were constantly honest to each other;97 and even if complete honesty was not intended by the decree of truthfulness, such a phrasing could easily be misused for expelling monks on the basis of a white lie, i.e. arbitrarily.98 Why, then, does the rephrasing in the Vinaya differ so much from the Yogācārabhūmi’s explanations on karman? 99 On the one hand, Buddhist lay followers were probably not prone to spurious spiritual claims, while in the monastic Sangha such claims can easily lead to charismatic abuses and disruptions within the hierarchy. On the other hand, the Vinaya authorities were obviously not intent on depicting the scenario of a monk or nun testifying in a court case, especially in such an exalted position as the pārājikas. Even though a truthful testimony means abstention from lying, it still means involvement in worldly matters, an involvement which the three other pārājika rules counteract more plainly.
Conclusion
I hope to have shown that, when analysing celibacy in Buddhism, the role of public opinion needs to be taken into account as a central issue. I also suggest that in dealing with this aspect of the Vinaya, it can be helpful to distinguish between abstaining from marriage, on the one hand, and abstinence from sex, on the other. The two certainly overlap, but not in every respect. For reasons of time, this study is limited quite narrowly to the prescriptive ethics of the Sudinna tale, even though I am convinced that a diachronic study, beginning with the roots of Buddhist monasticism in pre-Buddhist times, is still a rewarding field of research, just as much as a comparative study taking non-Buddhist religious movements into account, or research focusing on the description of the actual ethical norms prevalent in the every-day life of the Buddhist order and the society that surrounded it. The importance of Vinaya research lies, I think, not in making moral judgements about ancient times, but rather in creating a solid historical foundation for a discourse about the role of celibate community in society, a discourse that has been going on from the rise of Mahāyāna, through the formation of Neo-Confucianism, up to the Meiji Restoration and the reshaping of Sri Lankan Theravāda. Currently, this discourse is accelerated by a multitude of factors such as global media accessibility or the rise of a highly educated middle class with its low birth rates in traditionally Buddhist societies, to mention just a few. It is my personal wish that the Buddhist Sa4gha as a whole may adapt well to these rapid changes
Why Sexual Intercourse Leads to a Loss of Communion: The Story of Sudinna at Vin I.5.
The Pāli Vinaya tells the story of Sudinna, a monk who is most exemplary in all respects.3 Sudinna takes great pains to break away from his family life in order to become a follower of the Buddha, even acting against the advice of his friends. He should stay, they say, because he is the only son of the family and enjoys much comfort and affection. When the parents deny their consent to his ambitions, Sudinna threatens to starve himself to death. One of his friends then approaches his parents with the argument that Sudinna would die (and then be completely lost for the family) should they keep on denying their consent. Were they to consent, on the other hand, then there would be hope of Sudinna's return: He may not enjoy (abhiramissati) going forth from home into homelessness. So the parents agree, and Sudinna is ordained by the Buddha.4 Sudinna then lives as "a dweller in the jungle (āraññiko), a beggar for alms (pindapātiko)", but when a famine strikes the area, it comes to his mind that he should return to his hometown, seemingly in the company of other monks, where he expects his relatives to support him. They indeed provide him with rich donations, which he disperses among his fellow mendicants. On another begging round, Sudinna comes to his own family house. He is invited in,5 and his family members try their best to make him stay, but Sudinna clearly rejects all their wishes. Finally, his mother implores him to have sex with his former wife, if only to generate offspring to continue the family line. He gives in and "seeing no danger, as the precept had not been made known,"6 takes with her to the forest on the day she is fertile and impregnates her.7 After the act has happened, the earth-gods (bhummā devā) make the following announcement: "Surely, without a stain (nirabbudo),8 friends, is the community of bhikkhus ([bhikkhusa,gho]), without wretchedness. Through Sudinna, the son of the Kalandakas, has a stain (abbudam) been caused to appear (uppāditam), has wretchedness been caused to appear." Having heard the outcry of the earth-gods, the four Mahārāja gods (cātumahārājikā) repeat the announcement. Thus, it is heard by the thirty-three gods, who repeat it, and so on, until it is resounded by the Brahmakāyikā gods: The chorus thus rises from the earth up to the Brahmaloka instantly. Filled with remorse (kukkucca), Sudinna returns to his fellow monks and confesses his deed. They scold him heavily, and "then these monks, having rebuked the venerable Sudinna in various ways, told this matter to the Lord." The Buddha, after questioning Sudinna, again rebukes him in a similar way as the monks had done. Mocking Sudinna as a "stupid person" (moghapurisa), he tells him that what he has done is unfit (ananucchaviyam), not in order (ananulomikam), unseeming (appa0irūpam), not samana-like (assāmanakam), unsuitable (akappiyam), not to be done (akaranīyam). "Why are you [...] not able to exert the complete, completely full ascetic behaviour for as long as you live?" "Has not the dhamma been taught by me in manifold ways in order to be free from passion (virāgāya), and not in order to have passion (sarāgāya)?" "How can you, Oh Stupid Person, when the dhamma is taught
by me in order to be free from passion, be intent on (cetessasi) having passion?"11 The
dhamma has been taught for the sake of being without fetters (visa,yogāya), being
without attachment (anupādānāya), and still, the Buddha says, Sudinna is intent on
doing the opposite. The dhamma has been taught to subdue haughtiness (madanimmadanāya),12
etc., for cessation (nirodhāya), and for nibbāna. The abandoning of
the sensual pleasures has been taught, and the calming of the fever of the sensual
pleasures (kāmapari;āhāna), too. It would be better if Sudinna ("Oh Stupid Person")
were to put (pakkhitta) his "specific organ" (angajāta) into the mouth of a poisonous
snake, or a fire-pit, rather than into the "specific organ" of womenfolk (mātugāmassa
angajāte). Why is that so? Because with the former he will die or experience agony
(maranamatta, vā dukkham, lit. "or suffering as if dying"), but he will not go to hell, to
a lower realm.13 With the latter, i.e. sexual intercourse, he will go to hell, to the lower
realms. Through that deed, Sudinna will enter (samāpajjissasi) upon the untrue
dhamma (asaddhama), "village dhamma" (gāmadhamma), vile dhamma (vasaladhamma),
badness (dutthulla), "what ends with ablution" (odakantika), secrecy
(rahassa), "coming together of the two" (dvaya,dvayasamāpatti)
14 ― Sudinna has just done the first of many unwholesome things.
Finally, the Buddha states ten reasons why sexual intercourse is forbidden, such
as for the excellence of the Samgha (sanghasutthutāya), for the comfort of the Sangha
(sanghaphāsutāya), for the suppression of badly confused persons (dummankūnam,
puggalāna, niggahāya), so that the well-behaved monks may live with ease
(pesalāna, bhikkhūna, phāsuvihārāya), for restraining the inflows (āsavāna,
samvarāya), for the piety of those who are not pious (appasannāna, pasādāya), so
that those who are pious may increase (pasannāna, bhiyyobhāvāya), so that the true
dhamma may be stable (saddhammatthitiyā), for assistance in the vinaya
(vinayānuggahāya).16 Thus the Buddha proclaims the prohibition of sexual intercourse,
the transgression of which makes one liable to the state of asamvāsa, a loss of
"communion" with other members of his group.
Interpretation of the Story
The Prohibition
What, then, do the single elements of the narrative tell the reader? Sudinna himself is
shown as not actively interested in sexual pleasure. There is also no real danger that he
would break away from the community: The agreement with his mother was clear, and
for his part, Sudinna was ready to remain in the community as before.18 From the point
of view of lay ethics there were no objections of caste, and the act happened with the
consent of his wife's superior in the family hierarchy, Sudinna's mother, who accepted
the fact that Sudinna had neglected his duties as a husband and was intent on doing so
in the future. Therefore, I think the message of the story is as follows: Even if the
conditions are highly favourable, even if there is apparently no harm to a third party,
sexual intercourse is forbidden, i.e. under no circumstances should the monk have
sex.19
Soteriology: The Liberation of the Individual
Sudinna is accused of not having inferred the prohibition of sex from the fundamental
precept of the dhamma: moving away from desire, towards the cessation of desire. That
is, of course, a soteriological goal.20 And indeed, celibacy fits in well with the general ascetic lifestyle, which consists in restraint of the senses for goals such as overcoming thirst (tanhā) or attainment of peace.21 That being true, how does expulsion from the ascetic community fit in here? Does Sudinna's single transgression really endanger his ascetic lifestyle to such an extent that there is no hope for Sudinna's return to his formerly exemplary discipline? Is it really justified to truncate the career of an ascetic such as Sudinna, giving him up as a hopeless case? The Buddha here presupposes that Sudinna will not be able to carry out the ascetic behaviour for as long as he lives (yāvajīvam), and I think it is worthwhile to dwell upon this expression a bit. The term yāvajīvam comes into play quite unexpectedly since, as is well known, Buddhist monastic ordination comprises no obligation to remain a monk for the rest of one's life. It is true, on the other hand, that disrobing is judged quite differently in different Buddhist countries, and the author of the Sudinna story was probably not very supportive of giving a Bhikkhu's ordination to someone who knew beforehand that he would not pursue his monk's career for the rest of his life. In any case, an expression similar to yāvajīva, can be found in a well-known passage describing the conversion of General Sīha, who asks the Buddha to consider him his lay follower and proclaims to take refuge "from today on for as long as I live (ajjatagge pānupetam,).22 In fact a Bhikkhu, too, once ordained, remains a Bhikkhu for the rest of his life unless he is expelled from the order or chooses to quit on his own part.23 Strikingly, the formula used by General Sīha is explicit about the starting point of his commitment, too, saying "from today (or, "now", ajja) on." One would naturally assume that the commitment of a Bhikkhu is equally directed into the future, even if he happens to fail in his observances one or the other time. Still, the Buddha here takes Sudinna's past transgression as sufficient evidence that Sudinna will not be able (na sakkhissasi) to follow this lifestyle, even in the future.24 In that case, it seems, a rule "indecent for a day, indecent for a lifetime" is applied–a paradigm which is absent in some other rules of the Vinaya: Former laymen, for example, are ordained without consideration of their former sex lives, and also monks are not punished with expulsion for a variety of sexual practices. Equally, minor offences that have nothing to do with sex are punished without presuming that the culprit will compulsively repeat that behaviour in the future. For males, it is relatively easy to leave the order, lead an ordinary layman's life, and become ordained again later.25 That Sudinna should be unable to live a celibate life in the future is unconvincing when we consider that he was once determined to starve himself to death were he not allowed to enter the order. Even before and after his transgression he is shown as a person very much in control of his libido. In my own interpretation, Sudinna's behaviour does not point to a fundamentally immoral character, but rather to a cognitive mistake; he simply did not make the right inference that sexual intercourse is opposed to the soteriological goal of Buddhism under any circumstances.26 Were one to maintain that the sole aim of the Vinaya rules was the liberation of the individual monk, expulsion from the community would be hard to justify. In the story, there is no indication that the Buddha's ruling on Sudinna was conducive to his spiritual progress in any way. One can, of course, construe that the threat of expulsion would motivate the monks to abide by the rules. That is, I assume, what the expression "for assistance in the vinaya" (vinayānuggahāya) means, rather than the purity and discipline of the monastic community as a whole. Nonetheless, judging from the point of view of individual liberation exclusively, other forms of penance, less devastating than expulsion, would be preferable. That systematical problem applies to all offences punished by "defeat", not only sexual intercourse: A person once expelled from the community is bereft of an important means to his own liberation. 27 It is in this category, individual liberation, that the simile with the snake and the fire-pit primarily belongs. Here, the Buddha tells the monk Sudinna that sexual intercourse leads him to rebirth in a hell.28 The Buddha is able to do so, primarily because of his supernatural insight into the workings of kamma. At this point, his spiritual superiority and authority come into play directly: The Buddha can see things that the ordinary person cannot see, in this case the long-term results of Sudinna's misdeed, hence he has the spiritual power to give a ruling on Sudinna's act in an apodictic manner.29 Besides, the similes reinforce the Vinaya law by linking the images of a mouth of a venomous snake or a fire pit to the imagination of a vagina, a conditioning meant to counteract any intention to transgress the Vinaya
Is Sudinna Actually Expelled? The Vinaya story itself does not tell us anything about Sudinna's fate after the Buddha's condemnation: Quite contrary to the expectations a modern reader may have to a storyline, once the Buddha speaks, the narrator of the story is completely silent about Sudinna. The appearance of the Buddha seems to outshine all other characters in the story, including the original protagonist. Everything we learn about him comes from the mouth of the Buddha who says that Sudinna is a "first-doer (ādikattā), a forerunner of many unwholesome dhammas" 31 Making Sudinna's future career explicit, the Vinaya commentary Samantapāsādika states that Sudinna was not found guilty of an offence entailing expulsion (pārājika) since he was the ādikammika, the "initial perpetrator" of an offence not yet defined as such. With this interpretation, the Samantapāsādika follows a Vinaya regulation found near the end of the Pārājika section. Here, the Vinaya (Vin III, p. 33) prescribes that the initial perpetrator is to be exempt from this kind of punishment, a merciful approach, notably quite the opposite of contemporary case law.32 That the ādikammika rule applies in the case of Sudinna, i.e. that he was not expelled, seems to be generally accepted in traditional and modern scholarship, and still I remain reserved with regard to this assumption. That said, I should clarify that I presume the story to be fictional, so the question cannot be whether Sudinna was factually expelled or not, and it is equally out of question that the tradition applies the ādikammika rule to Sudinna, at least since the Samantapāsādika. It is nonetheless debatable whether the author of the Sudinna story (in the Pāli version transmitted to us) actually knew of the ādikammika rule. This rule, at Vin III, p. 33, stands in a slightly peculiar position, between the narratives and a section in verse. Within the Sudinna story itself, to the very end, we find neither the slightest hint of any pardon, nor even the word ādikammika. Quite to the contrary, I assume that, such an exception on the basis of a legal technicality would go against the current, or rather the torrent, of the Buddha's definitive condemnation; even more so since the Buddha strongly and verbosely makes his point that it is obvious that sexual intercourse is diametrically opposed to the dhamma and that Sudinna is doomed to continue his evil ways in the future.33 In the context of the Buddha's speech, it seems to fit in more smoothly to understand that Sudinna has made his first step on the path of non-virtue, his future destiny
Public Reputation
The author of the Sudinna tale does not explicitly admit that public reputation plays a major role in the context of this breach of celibacy, and it is therefore not easy to confirm such a concern in the narrative.34 Let us first take a look at the Buddha's "sermon" to Sudinna. Some of the accusations point towards the issue of public reputation, but none is really explicit. The Buddha formulates that Sudinna's deed was "unseeming" (appatirūpa), "not sāmana-like" (assāmanaka), and "unsuitable" (akappiya). Celibacy, in contrast, serves "for the piety of those who are not pious" (appasannāna, pasādāya), for the excellence of the Sangha (sanghasutthutāya), for the comfort of the Sangha (sanghaphāsutāya), so that the well-behaved monks may live with ease (pesalāna, bhikkhūna, phāsuvihārāya), so that those who are pious may increase (pasannāna, bhiyyobhāvāya), so that the true dhamma may be stable (saddhammatthitiyā).35 The text itself is indeed quite brief, providing plenty of room for interpretations and associations. "For the excellence of the Sangha" (sanghasuttutāya), for example, could imply that the Sangha is to be viewed upon as excellent by the laypeople, but it could also stress that the Sangha has to remain an excellently pure assembly for the sake of those who enter it and profit spiritually from such exalted company.36 It is not in the Buddha's speech but in another narrative element in the story where concerns for public opinion become more obvious: the recital of the gods and the description of how the word spread throughout the world. The gods say: "Surely, without a stain, friends, is the community of bhikkhus [...]." They obviously find it necessary to emphasize this purity in the beginning, but can one expect such a differentiated judgement from ordinary worldlings? In the gods' recital, the stain (or scandal) appears in the form of Sudinna's deed exclusively. The word of the gods then spreads throughout the world, up to the highest level or the divine hierarchy, and I think the morale of this mythological element shines through quite clearly: The reputation of the order can be severely damaged and word will spread up to the king, even from the lowest members of society. 37 The next event after the god's recital is Sudinna's return to his fellow monks. Word of his deed spreads among them, too, until it reaches the Buddha. The story explicitly mentions the divine society and that of the monastic order, ignoring rumours among ordinary people ― on purpose, I assume, for the above-mentioned reasons. In real life, it was more than rumours that the monastic community had to face. In fact, the pārājika transgressions of stealing and murder were surely transgressions of secular law. There are indications in the Vinaya that the monastic Sangha to some extent was not subject to secular law,38 even though this was probably handled quite differently in various Indian dynasties. How, then, could the Sangha avoid having its supramundane status challenged by secular law? Firstly, by internalizing secular law in the shape of the Buddha's word, 39 and secondly, by expelling members who broke the law, hopefully before the king's henchmen arrived and put their hands on a wearer of the robe.40 It is hard to imagine that a murderer, for example, should not be subject to royal law on the grounds that he is a monk. Even if that was formally so, a religious order that protects offenders from persecution would, in the long run, risk its royal acknowledgment altogether. The Vinaya, thus, comprises the wholly rational and pragmatic solution that a murderer, for example, is by definition not a member of the Sangha anymore.41 The latter function of the expulsion from the Sangha has already been described by Heinz Bechert in 1966, stating that "the King could not exert sovereign rights on the Sangha directly, which was as such immune. In general, the monks were subject only to clerical jurisdiction; in case of capital offences they had to be expelled from the Sangha before they were subject to state jurisdiction."42 I see no reason to doubt Bechert's analysis, even though it would be good to have reliable accounts of the actual application of this convention, and even though it is clear that many exceptions have been made, especially with transgressions of celibacy.43 The fact that exceptions have been made can actually serve to support Bechert's thesis: There were probably cases where public or legal pressure was not so strong as to necessitate the expulsion of the offender. It seems that the autonomous power of the Sangha and its influence on governmental affairs at times became so strong that the government in turn tried to intervene in the politics of the Sangha. In the words of Bechert: “Because of the tremendous influence of the Sanngha in the Buddhist countries, and the tight intertwining of the Sangha and the state, the king had to be able to intervene in cases of malpractice within the Sangha."44 That is of course the ideal from the point of view of the government and it was surely not always realized.45 On the other hand, the Buddhist order probably did not have the means to enforce an excommunication to the extent that, for example, the Catholic Church in the European middle ages had. 46 Not a few Indian dynasties adhered to the rule of highly decentralized jurisdiction as laid down in the laws of Manu,47 which implied that that guilds and similar decentralized institutions covered a significant part of the jurisdiction in ancient India, just as the ascetic orders did. As an example, we find lying in the midst of a meeting of the merchant’s guild as the main example for lying in the context of the Yogācārabhūmi’s explanation of the ten unwholesome deeds of laypeople. This probably refers to a guild’s meeting in order to settle a legal case.48This principle of decentralized jurisdiction implies that an acknowledged social group is mostly autonomous in its internal affairs, while it has no control over former members once they have left the group. Conflicts can occur, of course, when a member of one group abuses a member of another, and it is only natural that an authority of a higher order should step in if the issue is not sufficiently resolved.49 Regarding celibacy, it is widely held that the behaviour of monks towards women was strictly regulated primarily because monks would meet women on their begging rounds, a situation which is also well-documented in Jaina sources, where the almsgivers are usually women. We find the same element in Sudinna's story: When he arrives at his home, he is first called in by the female family slave (ñātidāsī), who calls his mother, apparently at home at the time. Sudinna's father meets him only later, on coming home from work (kammantā āgacchanto) in a room prepared for ascetics eating almsfood (kuddamūla).52 In such encounters, the main risk for the monastic order seems to be extramarital sex which can give the order a doubtful reputation in the first place, and it can also result in various kinds of law cases or vendettas, let alone the birth of illegitimate children, all of which would demonstrate that the noble Sangha is not above worldly matters. Compared to that, the individual monk breaking away from the order in order to enter family life seems to be a much lesser threat. That is to say, when discussing celibacy, I consider it essential to distinguish between the prohibition of sexual intercourse on the one hand, and the prohibition of marriage on the other.57 In fact, when looking at the less severe transgressions, many of them deal with lewd behaviour,58 but I am not aware of any rule in the canonical Vinaya that would forbid a monk to talk to his parents or hopeful parents-in-law if they want him to disrobe and get married.59 We find negotiations of a similar kind in the Sudinna tale. There, the parents (now custodian to Sudinna's former wife) are those who lead the conversations and negations with Sudinna, while his wife plays a much lesser role. In real life, I suppose, contact with hopeful parents-in-law could be equally threatening to the monastic status as direct contact between possible partners. The latter was not the usual way to initiate a marriage in ancient India.60 In either case, from the point of view of the Vinaya rules, a monk or nun who wished to leave the order could do so at his or her own will, even though it might not be good for his or her own reputation. Another aspect I would like to discuss in the context of public reputation is the ascetic's control over his needs, his sacrifice of pleasure. Indian asceticism knows many practices where the ascetic does not fulfil his physical needs, such as food, drink, sleep, even breath (in certain breathing techniques), and so on. The Buddhist ascetic, too, raises his prestige and demonstrates his being different by his sacrifice of several worldly pleasures and by his control over physical needs. Still, the "Middle Way" allows him to fulfil most of his primary needs, moderately and just enough to keep his body functioning for his progress on the Path (mārga). It is thus mostly through control over the sex drive that the Buddhist ascetic can demonstrate spiritual control over his or her physis. Thus, abstinence, too, is a sacrifice on the part of the monastic. There were probably few laypeople who wished to give alms to other laypeople ― be they beggars or religious seekers ― who enjoyed the same standard of living as they themselves did.62 Thus, Buddhist monks and nuns chose to call themselves "beggar" (bhikkhu, bhikkhunī), dressed in rags, no matter what clothes they had at their disposal, and made it their program to abstain from sensual pleasures as far as medically tenable
The ascetics had given their sacrifice and now it was up to the donors to give theirs.65 For that purpose, it is essential for the ascetic not only to gain the reputation of a modest lifestyle and mastery over sexual desire, but also to preserve it. It is easily lost by a single transgression, and so the strict regulations of a monastic's sexual behaviour surely helped not to irritate the donors.66 The donors are explicitly mentioned in the story accompanying the Vinaya prohibition of masturbation: The monk Seyyasaka takes to masturbating in order to regain his physical strength. His fellows, seeing his health has increased, find out what he does and interrogate him: "Do you, Venerable Seyyasaka, emit what is impure, making do with the very same hand you eat (buñjasi) the gifts of the faithful?" 67 The donor's opinion is not explicitly mentioned here, but Seyyasaka obviously understands the metaphor without further explanation. The monks then spread the words amongthemselves and bring the issue before the Buddha, who rebukes Seyyasaka in almost the same words as Sudinna, saying that it is "not sama%a-like" (assāma%aka), while the Buddha has taught the dhamma "for the sake of being free from passion" (virāgāya), even though Seyyasaka allegedly did not act out of mere sensual desire, just as Sudinna.68 This is, by the way, one of several Vinaya regulations on sexuality which do not directly aim at preventing childbirth. Apart from the pārājika transgressions, a ritual that came close to the excommunication of lay people developed in Buddhist culture: the "turning around of the alms-bowl". The Monks would go to the house of a layperson and turn their alms-bowl upside down in order to demonstrate that they no longer accept offerings from that person. In this context, I assume, it is not a mere coincidence that the Vinaya story introducing the ritual of reversing the alms-bowl deals with the layman Vaḍḍha who wrongly accuses a monk of having “defiled” (dūsita) his wife.69 As much as Sudinna stands for the monk who has sexual intercourse, Vaḍḍha exemplifies those laypeople who accuse members of the community of such an act. Still, Vaḍḍha’s exclusion from “common life” (asambhoga, see CPD) with the Bhikkhus is later revoked by the Buddha after Vaḍḍha has properly confessed his misdeed. Étienne Lamotte has noticed that this is one of the few passages where a layman engages in a confession, quite different from the formal confession routines that the monks take upon themselves
Ascetic Community versus Family Community
I have put forth the thesis above that a distinction between marriage and family life on the one hand, and sexual relations on the other is essential when trying to understand the issue of celibacy in Buddhism. The Sudinna tale addresses both issues: in the beginning, the difficulties Sudinna has in getting away from his family life, and later, his act of sexual intercourse. Interestingly, the narration seems to take it for granted that an ascetic should not live the life of a married householder, and the Buddha's rebuke seems to deal with the sexual act exclusively. Upon ordination, Buddhist monks and nuns become members of one group and ideally leave the other. They have "gone forth from their home into homelessness," just as all their fellow ascetics have done; they are sons and daughters of the Sakya Sage.75 The rules of the monastic order now govern the relationship with their family, the family ties being to a huge extent, but not always completely, severed.76 Sudinna finds himself in a dilemma endangering his loyalty to either the word of his mother or the (hitherto unspoken) rules of his order. To understand the role of sexuality in the context of conflicting group identities, it is worth taking a look at the regulations of the Veda students, which are in many ways predecessors to the Buddhist monk rules. While the typical Brahmin, Kṣatriya, and Vaiśya7male in pre-Buddhist India was married in his adulthood, he had to undergo a period of celibacy during his adolescent education (age ca. 9-20), after which he would normally marry and lead the householder's life.79 During his Brahmacārin time, he would ideally live in the household of a Brahmin (gurukula).80 At some point in history, the education of the adolescent even included his introduction to sexuality between the age of sixteen and twenty-one, but that procedure was later abolished.81 The Brahmin family in charge of the young students partially took over the role of the parents and looked after the students' good manners.83 Therefore, it seems that much of what society expected of good breeding was codified in the rules for Brahmacārin behaviour, including the norms concerning premarital sex.84 I assume that the Veda students (ideally) did not marry (or lived away from their wives) because they were supposed to concentrate on their studies, and they were prohibited from having sex so that they may grow up as well-behaved persons and create no turmoil around the guru, especially when they lived in the guru's house. It can be assumed that once such a household gained a reputation as being strict in its observance of good manners, this may have fostered some amount of elitist spirit and group identity, while the students were still fulfilling the duties of a layman.85 Furthermore, ascetics and Veda teachers in ancient India, celibate or not, did not always belong to groups that were as well defined as the Buddhist Sangha in its classical shape.86 The strengthening of group identity via contraception was thus only one of many reasons for a Brahmacārin's celibacy, and I
strongly believe the same applies to the Buddhist order. In fact, the life of a Buddhist
novice monk between the ages of nine and twenty may not have significantly differed
from Veda students of the same age, the difference lying more in factors such as the
texts recited, the doctrines studied or certain mediation practices, and probably quite a
few novices returned to family life before adulthood without ever aiming at a bhikkhu
ordination.
A logical issue occurs in the Buddhist judgement of family life. On the one hand
the way of renunciation implies turning away from worldly objects of desire – not only
to counteract desire fundamentally, but also because that turning away denotes the
sacrifice of the Buddhist ascetic. On the other hand, the monks and nuns are to be
cautioned against worldly life. In the first case, family life is to be depicted as joyful,
something to be heroically abandoned for the sake of a higher goal. In the second, the
disadvantages of a worldling's existence are to be stressed. That, I think, explains why
we find various judgements and tendencies in the scriptures. A statement in the
Anguttaranikāya partially harmonizes those two different judgements: "There are,
monks, two kinds of happiness. Which two? The happiness of the householder and the
happiness of having gone forth. [...] Among those, monks, the highest is [...] the
happiness of having gone forth."88 The judgement of the followers' lifestyle is indeed a
question of a delicate balance, since the order could not be seriously interested in
offending the lay followers. 89 The dignity of the lay followers had to be preserved, and
so it is important to note that the Sudinna story, being part of the Vinaya, is not meant
for lay-followers. Expressions such as "village dhamma" (gāmadhamma) for the path
Sudinna has taken clearly show disesteem for the ways of the common laypeople.
All that said, one may ask why, then, infertile men and women were denied
ordination. Were they not ideal candidates in terms of non-conception? Again, there
were probably both external and internal reasons for this. From the outside, the
Buddhist order surely did not want to be seen as a dumping ground for unmarriageable
men and women, even more so since the sacrifice of family life played a major role in
the public and self-image of the order. Internally, it can be assumed that many of the men and women so discharged would have been weak in ascetic motivation and thus burdensome to the more engaged Sangha members.91
Is Sudinna's Marriage Dissolved?
Since marriage in ancient India was less often preceded by romance than by formal negotiations and financial agreements, the legal question whether, or in how far, a marriage is annulled when a monk has been ordained is of a major importance, not only for the couple in question but also for the family members involved. While it is often claimed that a monk's marriage is void once the upasampadā ordination is completed, The Sudinna story does not address the issue explicitly, but only speaks of Sudinna's "former wife", or "ancient wife" (purānadutiyikā), which is evidently distinct from "wife". She is clearly a member of his family and both parents call her "daughterin-law" (vadhu, etymologically "led into the house"). She seems to be fine with this, but when Sudinna addresses her, using the word "sister" (bhagini!) she faints right away. The marriage is, thus, legally not dissolved as far as the woman's status is concerned, while Sudinna, for his part, prefers to consider her a member of his family, but not his spouse.
A Note on Lying
As noted above, the Yogācārabhūmi presents false testimony during a guild’s meeting as the main example for the unwholesome deed of lying. It comes to some surprise to find this rare occasion of lying as an example, among all the possible forms and facets of dishonesty,93 and I think this indicates that small-scale everyday lies were not so much the focus of attention. The Brahmacārin rules, in contrast, oblige the Veda student to adhere to the truth (satya), one of the four most central rules of conduct.94 If we look at the language acquisition of children, it is obvious that they do not know how to produce a socially acceptable truth when they speak their first sentences. A child learns how to speak, then how to lie and is only then, as the third step, told to tell the truth. It is at this third step, I assume, that the Brahmacārin rule to be truthful sets in, primarily directed to the adolescent Veda student living in the house of his guru.95 Adults, on the other hand, know that complete honesty is not always feasible or even desirable, which is probably the reason why the Yogācārabhūmi does not make such demands. As for the Buddhist pārājika offences, the Brahmacārin obligation to truthfulness has been replaced by the prohibition of false claims to spiritual achievements.96 The Vinaya authorities were probably aware of social tensions which would ensue that if all monks in a sizable monastery were constantly honest to each other;97 and even if complete honesty was not intended by the decree of truthfulness, such a phrasing could easily be misused for expelling monks on the basis of a white lie, i.e. arbitrarily.98 Why, then, does the rephrasing in the Vinaya differ so much from the Yogācārabhūmi’s explanations on karman? 99 On the one hand, Buddhist lay followers were probably not prone to spurious spiritual claims, while in the monastic Sangha such claims can easily lead to charismatic abuses and disruptions within the hierarchy. On the other hand, the Vinaya authorities were obviously not intent on depicting the scenario of a monk or nun testifying in a court case, especially in such an exalted position as the pārājikas. Even though a truthful testimony means abstention from lying, it still means involvement in worldly matters, an involvement which the three other pārājika rules counteract more plainly.
Conclusion
I hope to have shown that, when analysing celibacy in Buddhism, the role of public opinion needs to be taken into account as a central issue. I also suggest that in dealing with this aspect of the Vinaya, it can be helpful to distinguish between abstaining from marriage, on the one hand, and abstinence from sex, on the other. The two certainly overlap, but not in every respect. For reasons of time, this study is limited quite narrowly to the prescriptive ethics of the Sudinna tale, even though I am convinced that a diachronic study, beginning with the roots of Buddhist monasticism in pre-Buddhist times, is still a rewarding field of research, just as much as a comparative study taking non-Buddhist religious movements into account, or research focusing on the description of the actual ethical norms prevalent in the every-day life of the Buddhist order and the society that surrounded it. The importance of Vinaya research lies, I think, not in making moral judgements about ancient times, but rather in creating a solid historical foundation for a discourse about the role of celibate community in society, a discourse that has been going on from the rise of Mahāyāna, through the formation of Neo-Confucianism, up to the Meiji Restoration and the reshaping of Sri Lankan Theravāda. Currently, this discourse is accelerated by a multitude of factors such as global media accessibility or the rise of a highly educated middle class with its low birth rates in traditionally Buddhist societies, to mention just a few. It is my personal wish that the Buddhist Sa4gha as a whole may adapt well to these rapid changes
can you please tell me where you found the exact translation of "mutagamassa angajate angajatam pakkhittam"? I'm using a 100-yr old Pali dictionary which is no help at all. What case is "angajate"? Is "pakkhittam" a past perfect participle modifying "angajatam"?
ReplyDelete