The Sangha

A detailed account of the Buddhists’ rules can be found in the Vinaya Pitaka and the Buddhists are unique in the sense that they alone have done this work. Buddhism is considered to be the earliest surviving religion that have organized itself and have created a confederate institution in the process. Scholars^[1] noticed the use of the term sangha for the federal organization of bhikkhus and the analogy with the Lichchhavis, which the Buddha used for the bhikkhu-sangha^[2], and argue that the political system of the gana-sangha was the model for the bhikkhu-sangha. This characteristic has been shared by all the titthiya sects to some extent whose leaders were called sanghino, ganino, ganacariyo. Nevertheless, the ability of the Buddha’s organization enabled this system to be translated into one which worked for an expanding group like the Buddhists. The Vinaya Pitaka bears testimony to the wide range of rules embracing all aspects of a bhikkhu’s existence. Two important facets of the bhikkhu’s life have been covered by the Vinaya Pitaka: (1) his relationship with members of the confraternity, and (2) his interaction with the lay public outside the sangha, with whom he came into contact in the course of his daily alms-round. A unique status was rendered to the Vinaya Pitaka in Buddhism. Firstly, the Vinaya was enumerated and codified and took precedence over the Sutta Pitaka^[3], when the sangha attempted to compile a canon, after the death of the Buddha. It has been pointed out by Horner that the commentary to the Vinaya Pitaka refers to it as ayu, the life or vitality of Buddhist dispensation, and this accounts for its being chanted first.^[4]

One of the major reasons for the popularity of Buddhism was the solid foundation on which the sangha’s development was based in its early stages. The great concord that existed in the sangha was very much impressive even to outsiders, like brahmanas and king Pasenadi.^[5] The federal structure of the sangha and the elimination of leadership tussles fostered this atmosphere. There was no question of nominating a successor after the death of the Buddha^[6], who was the undisputed leader of the sangha during the lifetime. Instead, the vinaya was to be the only guide of the sangha.^[7]

The moral and ethical behaviour of the bhikkhus were guided by the vinaya rules and the growing sangha made necessary the development of norms concerning the minimum material needs of the sangha. In the beginning bhikkhus lived by the stricter rules which they shared with the wider samana culture. But, as the sangha expanded the institution of the vassa-vasa became the basis for developing permanent residential settlements for bhikkhus. Associated with this development was the acceptance by the sangha of land, which came into the exclusive possession and control of the Buddhist sangha. The Pali canon provides the evidence that in pre-Buddhist days there were common areas of residence for all samanas, either in open parks^[8] or in common halls. Member of the royal family provided these as for instance, the Ekasala park donated by queen Mallika^[9] or by the resident community as a whole as in the case of the Lichchhiavis and the Vesaliyan Kutagarasala.

A king provided the first gift of property exclusively to the sangha. A new feature in the development of religious organizations was introduced by this, aramas were arranged for other individual sects where they could reside or use as halting places from time to time. The Valuvana aramas was accepted as the first gift of property to the sangha by the Buddha. The Buddha’s statement to the sangha, immediately after receiving the gift is indicative of the fact that the VaỊuvana aramas was a new phenomenon for the samana culture. His statement is as follows: ‘I allow you Bikkhus, to receive the donation of an arama.^[10]

The tradition of gifting brahmadeya lands to brahmanas by the king of Kosala and Magadha could have been the probable precedent for this development. Nevertheless, there were very significant differences between the gift of brahmadeya lands to brahmanas, and the dana of aramas to the Buddhists. Individual brahmanas were allotted the brahmadeya land, who then utilised them for agricultural purposes. Sometimes the income from these lands were used by them for performing large sacrifices.^[11] The individual brahmadeya holders regarded this income to be their personal property. On the other hand, the dana to the Buddhists was always made to the sangha as a collectivity. When a gift was made to the Buddhists, the recurrent formula was that it was a gift dedicated (patitthapeti) or established to the sangha of the four quarters (catudissa sangha)^[12] of the present and the future. It was used completely for residential purposes and in the opinion of Dutt, it was maintained by the original donor.^[13]

The Cullavagga reports that the special sanctioning of the institution of the vihara took place after the gift of an arama. The samanas erecting the temporary rain shelters (avasas) in the common parks in the past were different from Viharas, which were permanent structures. The Buddha’s sanctioning^[14] of the various objects have been accounted by the Vinaya, which gives a graphic account of the development of the sangha from the original position, where all that bhikkhus collected from the people was alms-food. They either depended on nature or on cast off objects from the people for the rest. For example, their robes were originally pieced together from rags collected by the bhikkhus.^[15]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

See, for example, K.P. Jayaswal, Hindu Polity, p. 86.

[2]:

D.N., II, pp. 61-2.

[3]:

Cullavagga, p. 408.

[4]:

B.O.D., V, p. xvi.

[5]:

M.N., II, p. 368; S.N., I, p. 73.

[6]:

This cannot be traced to the lack of existing talent. There were at the time of Buddha’s nibbana a number of senior monks like Upali , Maha Kassapa, and ananda, who could very well have stepped into the Buddha’s place.

[7]:

D.N., II, p. 118.

[8]:

D.N., I, p. 150.

[9]:

M.N., I, pp. 126, 291; M.N., II, p. 173, 224.

[10]:

Mahavagga, p. 38; B.O.D., IV, p. 51.

[11]:

D.N., I, p. 109.

[12]:

The Vinaya defines vatthu or property as consisting of an arama or a vihara. Both served as residences for the bhikkhus (Parajika, p. 60).

[13]:

S. Dutt, Buddhist Monks and Monasteries of India, p. 58.

[14]:

Cullavagga, pp. 239, 282, 336.

[15]:

A.N., II, p. 29.