There appear to be two major reasons for the change in the mode of living of most Buddhist monks. First, the Buddha’s followers were able, through their common loyalty to the Buddha and his teachings, to build up a certain coherent organization. Second, as acts of piety, the laity gave gifts of land and raised buildings in which the followers of the Buddha might live permanently, assured of a supply of the staples of life and also able to fulfill the Buddha’s directive to minister to the laity. In this manner small viharas were established in northeastern India and adjoining areas into which Buddhism spread.
Already in the period prior to the reign of King Ashoka, the Buddhist monastic community had become a strong, widely dispersed religious force. The support of Ashoka encouraged further expansion, and in the post-Ashokan period the number, wealth, and influence of the monasteries increased. As Buddhism continued to develop, many kinds of monastic centres were established throughout India, several of which received lavish support from royal courts or from wealthy merchants, who were among the strongest supporters of Buddhism. Among the most interesting centres were the magnificent cave monasteries—for example, at Ajanta and Ellora—which contain some of the greatest examples not only of Buddhist art but of Indian art more generally. Perhaps the most influential monasteries were the great university-like mahaviharas that developed somewhat later in northeastern India.
Ajanta Caves in north-central Maharashtra state, India.Art Resource, New York
In all Buddhist countries monasteries served as centres of teaching, learning, and outreach. Different types of monastic establishments developed in particular areas and in particular contexts. In several regions there were at least two types of institutions. There were a few large public monasteries that usually functioned in greater or lesser accord with classical Buddhist norms. There were also many smaller monasteries, often located in rural areas, that were much more loosely regulated. Often these were hereditary institutions in which the rights and privileges of the abbot were passed on to an adopted disciple. In areas where clerical marriage was practiced—for example, in medieval Sri Lanka, in certain Tibetan areas, and in post-Heian Japan—a tradition of blood inheritance developed. Internal organization of the sangha
The transformation of the sangha from a group of wandering mendicants, loosely bound together by their commitment to the Buddha and his teachings, to monks living closely together in a permanent monastery necessitated the development of rules and a degree of hierarchical organization. It appears that the earliest organization within Indian monasteries was democratic in nature. This democratic character arose from two important historical factors. First, the Buddha did not, as was the custom among the teachers of his time, designate a human successor. Instead, the Buddha taught that each monk should strive to follow the path that he had preached. This decision placed every monk on the same footing. There could be no absolute authority vested in one person, for the authority was the dhamma that the Buddha had taught. Second, the region in which Buddhism arose was noted for a system of tribal democracy, or republicanism, that had existed in the past and was preserved by some groups during the Buddha’s lifetime. Within this tradition each polity had an elected assembly that decided important issues.
This tradition, which was consonant with the antiauthoritarian nature of the Buddha’s teaching, was adopted by the early sangha. When an issue arose, all the monks of the monastery assembled. The issue was put before the body of monks and discussed. If any solution was forthcoming, it had to be read three times, with silence signifying acceptance. If there was debate, a vote might be taken or the issue referred to committee or to arbitration by the elders of a neighbouring monastery. As the sangha developed, a certain division of labour and hierarchical administration was adopted. The abbot became the head of this administrative hierarchy and was vested with power over monastic affairs. In many countries there developed state-controlled hierarchies, which enabled kings and other political authorities to exert a significant amount of control over the monks and their activities.
The antiauthoritarian character of Buddhism, however, continued to assert itself. In China, for instance, the abbot referred all important questions to the assembled monks, who had elected him their leader. Similarly, in Southeast Asian countries there has traditionally been a popular distaste for hierarchy, which makes it difficult to enforce rules in the numerous almost-independent monasteries.
As the Buddhist sangha developed, specific rules and rites were enacted that differ very little in Buddhist monasteries even today. The rules by which the monks are judged and the punishments that should be assessed are found in the vinaya texts (vinaya literally means “that which leads”). The Vinaya Pitaka of the Theravada canon contains precepts that were supposedly given by the Buddha as he judged a particular situation. While in many cases the Buddha’s authorship may be doubted, the attempt is made to refer all authority to the Buddha and not to one of his disciples. The heart of the vinaya texts is the patimokkha, which became a list of monastic rules.
Ideally, the patimokkha is recited by the assembled monks every fortnight, with a pause after each one so that any monk who has transgressed this rule may confess and receive his punishment. While the number of rules in the patimokkha differs in the various schools, with 227, 250, and 253, respectively, in the Pali, Chinese, and Tibetan canons, the rules are essentially the same. The first part of the patimokkha deals with the four gravest sins, which necessarily lead to expulsion from the monastery. They are sexual intercourse, theft, murder, and exaggeration of one’s miraculous powers. The other rules, in seven sections, deal with transgressions of a lesser nature, such as drinking or lying.
In the Theravada countries—Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, and Laos—the Buddhist monastic community is composed primarily of male monks and novices (the order of nuns died out in the Theravada world more than a millennium ago, and contemporary efforts to reestablish it have met with only minimal success), white-robed ascetics (including various types of male and female practitioners who remain outside the sangha but follow a more or less renunciatory mode of life), and laymen and laywomen. In some Theravada countries, notably in mainland Southeast Asia, boys or young men were traditionally expected to join the monastery for a period of instruction and meditation. Thus, the majority of men in these areas were (and to a lesser extent still are, especially in Myanmar) directly involved with the monastic ethos. This practice has fostered a high degree of lay participation in monastic affairs.
In the Mahayana and Vajrayana countries of China and Tibet, there was traditionally a stage of one year before the aspirant could become a novice. This was a year of probation, during which the aspirant did not receive tonsure and remained subject to governmental taxation and service while receiving instructions and performing menial tasks within the monastery. At the end of this period, the aspirant had to pass a test, which included the recitation of part of a well-known sutra—the length depending upon whether the applicant was male or female—and a discussion of various doctrinal questions. In China usually only those who were of exceptional character or who were affiliated with the government progressed beyond the novice stage.
According to vinaya rules, entry into the sangha is an individual affair that depends on the wishes of the individual and his family. In some Buddhist countries, however, ordination was often under the control of the state, which conducted the examinations to determine entry or advancement in the sangha. In certain situations ordination could be obtained through the favour of high officials or through the purchase of an ordination certificate from the government. At times the government engaged in the selling of ordination certificates in order to fill its treasury.