NOTES ON VINAYA

Study of Vinaya based on Pitaka

Bhikkhu Hiriko

"Bhikkhus, those bhikkhu who explain
what is not an offense as an offense, or what is an offense a no offense;
a light offense as a grave offense, or a grave offense as a light offense,
are acting for the harm of many people, for the unhappiness of many people,
for the ruin, harm, and suffering of many people, of devas and human beings.
 These bhikkhus generate much demerit and cause this good Dhamma to disappear.

"Bhikkhus, those bhikkhu who explain
what is not an offense as no offense, or what is an offense a an offense;
a light offense as a light offense, or a grave offense as a grave offense,
are acting for the welfare of many people, for the happiness of many people,
for the good, welfare, and happiness of many people, of devas and human beings.
These bhikkhus generate much merit and sustain this good Dhamma."

- The Buddha

AN 1:150f


Dear reader,

This is Vinaya Study which is still in progress. The attempt of this studies is to get familiar with the rules from Vinaya Pitaka without following any Commentarial interpretation. Some of the rules will appear more relaxed from some traditions, however some will appear stricter. I like to invite a reader to use those Notes for critical examination of Vinaya and any new insights that are different from our studies are most welcomed to be shared. Any feedback of yours you can email to samanadipa@gmail.com.

In meantime I will keep publishing new studies of all the rules and keep updating the existing ones. I hope you will find it useful too.

Best wishes,

Bh. Hiriko


THE MISSION OF THIS STUDY


INTRODUCTION

An extract from Bhikkhu Hiriko: The Overlooked Allowances in Vinaya.

“Reflecting wisely, he uses almsfood neither for amusement nor for intoxication nor for the sake of physical beauty and attractiveness, but only for the endurance and continuance of this body, for ending discomfort, and for assisting the holy life, considering: ‘Thus I shall terminate old feelings without arousing new feelings and I shall be healthy and blameless and shall live in comfort.’ [...] Reflecting wisely, he uses the medicinal requisites only for protection from arisen afflicting feelings and for the benefit of good health.” (MN 2/i,10)

This is the general statement of guidance for bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs, laid down by the Buddha, which continues to be used as a reminder and guide for reflection by those who have decided to follow the path of liberation from dukkha (suffering). Behind these words we can find many refined and elaborate rules for monastics concerning how to survive in the world without becoming intoxicated with tastes and gains. There are rules about what is allowable for consumption, how one is to seek both food and medicine, in what part of the day one may consume them, what is permitted to be stored and for how long, as well as many other related details. Over the long stretch of monastic history these rules have proliferated along with later interpretations, additions and speculations, so that today we can see a diverse variety of traditions, sub-traditions, and monastic groups, all holding to their own particular views which keep them united in conformity within their particular environments. And since each group keeps its own rules and practices, by default each group regards itself as the ‘best’ and the ‘purest’ among the various communities. As a result, we now have bookshelves filled with commentaries, ancient and modern, which purport to explain away every conceivable confusion and misunderstanding which arises about Vinaya. But there is, in truth, no complete system that can be absolute. Traditional monastic codes remain a living matter within the context of one fixed frame, i.e. the Canon, and change and adjust according to particular times and places, repairing themselves after inevitable disruption. Each community will necessarily have its own organizational structure with internal agreements about how to resolve issues which crop up regarding the rules, and how those rules are to be incorporated into a harmonious life, both personally and collectively.

In this article we will present some particular ideas we have about a few rules related to food. Its main purpose will be to serve as a sort of “reality check”—to see what might be an alternative option for monastics who try to survive sickness, live in seclusion, or face the difficulties of not receiving enough support to keep the body strong and healthy while travelling.

Generally speaking, surviving in monasteries is not difficult. In most parts of Southeast Asia monastics are well supported according to local cultural traditions, which involve long-standing and agreed upon rituals and practices. These cultural frameworks and practices have also been preserved by many Western Buddhist communities in their support of monasteries and smaller viharas, enabling monastics to enjoy the support and benefits familiar to them, and essentially guaranteeing security and comfort, while at the same time offering a sense of continuity—of belonging to a wider community. (For example, Thais generally go to Thai Temple for their own cultural events, while Sri Lankans go to their viharas.) These ethnic communities naturally create a certain ‘bubble’ in which they maintain their cultural identity, defined by accepted behavioural norms, expectations, purposes and meanings. But the question arises: Is it possible to get some support and relief from hunger if the seeker of Dhamma decides to live outside of any particular traditional norm? Is it possible to bring Dhamma-Vinaya to the West without some of the elements or artifact of foreign cultures? Here we assume that there are monastics who want to truly and absolutely renounce the world, to really live up to his or her designation as a “bhikkhu” or “bhikkhunī” (the Buddha said: “If one has taken up a domestic practice, one still has not become a bhikkhu” (SN 7:20)). Unfortunately it can appear that some of the added and minor traditional standards of the monastic code might no longer support or defend the realization of Dhamma, but rather cause an opposite effect: they might actually impose a practical obstacle for those seekers.

Those who have decided to step out of their comfort zones and face the challenges of uncertainty that monastic life entails necessarily bring risk to their reputations, safety, comfort, and perhaps even basic requisites. But do seekers of Dhamma really need extra comforts with respect to lodgings? Do their dwellings need to be constructed according to a special architectural style? Do they need privileged health care while the majority of people around them cannot afford the same? And the issue of food is of particular significance: how is a monastic to survive while embracing the risks of ‘going against the stream’ of society? This ‘going against the stream’, though it may bring fear and dread to one’s precious life, is the direction to be seriously considered and, in fact, taken as the right and only way.

“The house-holder cannot emulate the monk,
the secluded sage meditating in the forest.” (Sn 4:12.15)

“He should train only for seclusion
for that is highest for Noble ones.” (Sn 4:7.9)

“Contacted by the pain of disease and by hunger
he should tolerate it, and also the cold and the hot.
Being contacted by these in many ways,
the homeless one with persisting energy should make firm.” (Sn 4:16.12)

“What shall I eat?”—“Where shall I eat?”
“I slept uneasily”—“Where shall I sleep tonight?”
These thoughts causing lament
the one in training should dismiss. (Sn 4:16.16)

A seeker of Dhamma is one who has taken upon himself/herself this practice because he/she is no longer able to deny the fragility of the six sense existence. There is only one aim: to let go before it is taken away (“die before you die”). This requires a total renunciation of all that signifies or defines a householder: wealth, house, parents and relatives, love, friends. As the Buddha said: “I don’t form intimate ties with people, nor does intimacy with anyone get a chance with me” (AN 10:26). Also, it is often stated in the Suttas that a bhikkhu should not be a nuisance to laypeople nor build any intimacy with them. (“He should not make close connections with the village” (Sn 4:9.10). “He should close his ears to village talk” (Sn 4:14.8). “He should not get attached in the village” (Sn 4:14.15).) Likewise, the seeker will not create a sociable environment in his secluded place.

“From socialising fear is born,
from the house dust arises.
Freedom from house and society
that is the Muni’s vision.” (Sn 1:12.1)

A bhikkhu or a bhikkhunī who decides to live such a hermitic life, by not being too involved with people and not requesting that people visit the monastic to provide support, that hermit will have to rethink for himself/herself how to keep Vinaya within his/her cultural context in these modern times. In this paper our intention is not to look for ‘loose’ or ambiguous points in the Vinaya but, rather, to share an investigation of an alternative way of surviving, especially in the West, allowing a reduced engagement with society, without violating the Vinaya Canon. [...]

In this study we will follow only what we have available in the Vinaya Canon (Khandaka and Vibhaṅga) and use the Great Four Standards (cattāro mahāpadesā) to determine what we might be able to regard as allowed and not allowed. In some cases one could argue that the connection between facts presented is just a tiny thread, solely for the purposes of argument. Nevertheless, the threads are there, and they are worthy of attention and further discussion. [...]

[A] secluded life in areas that are not well or regularly supported can force a seeker of Dhamma to study Vinaya more thoroughly than he or she might do otherwise. With greater knowledge and a deeper understanding a monastic should be able to skilfully and appropriately put aside some of the traditional additional and minor rules that make a secluded or wondering life excessively difficult, if not impossible—without breaking the Vinaya standard as given to us in the Vibhaṅga and Khandakas. [...]

What is Vinaya and what is not Vinaya requires continuous study, but first we must examine the oldest and most traditional records that are available to us. If the Buddha-sāsana wishes to preserve its very essence—the forest monks and nuns who live as hermits away from society—then it will have to consider how to let go of some of the traditional ideas that have, over time, begun to obscure the Buddha’s guidelines designed to help the seeker come closer to the Dhamma. It would be most unfortunate if we become so mired in tradition that we become unable to discern the essence of the training.