1. Introduction
In the 1960s, in emphasizing the necessity of comparing Buddhism and Jainism, the eminent German Indologist Ludwig Alsdorf (Reference Alsdorf and Bollée1965: 3 [2006: 6–7]) said, “especially for the Buddhologist, the knowledge and comparative study of JinismFootnote 1 is of great importance” because “Buddhism and Jinism are only two out of a whole number of 6th [sic!] century bce anti-brahmanical reform religions that arose from the same conditions and show many common traits”. Alsdorf’s statement remains instructive even today. Although modern scholars have not yet reached a consensus on whether Buddhism and Jainism in their initial stages can really be called “anti-brahmanical”, it is beyond question that Buddhism formed part of the multi-religious fabric of ancient Indian society and should, therefore, not be studied in isolation from other contemporary religions.Footnote 2 As three main śramaṇic communities co-existing in ancient India, the Buddhists, the Jainas, and the Ājīvikas had always been rivals with each other, competing for patronage and followers. During this process of competition, the Buddhists and the Jainas proved to be the most successful in establishing and maintaining their own religious identities, securing steady patronage and winning large groups of devotees, whereas the Ājīvikas had totally disappeared by the fourteenth century and have left us with only scant evidence of their doctrines and practices.Footnote 3
This article seeks to investigate what rules the Buddha is said to have made for the sake of differentiating Buddhist monks from their śramaṇic rivals (particularly the Jainas and Ājīvikas) as observed in Indian Buddhist monastic law codes, or more precisely, in the six seemingly complete Vinayas that have come down to us, which belong respectively to the Mahāsāṃghikas, Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas, Sarvāstivādins, and Mūlasarvāstivādins. In what follows, I will successively discuss monastic rules against nudity in various situations, a rule regulating that monks should wear robes made of cloth strips sewn together (i.e. rag-robes) as well as its frame story describing how this rule came about, a rule forbidding monks from plucking out their hair, rules preventing monks from accepting alms-food in their hands, and a ban on monks handing over food to any naked ascetic, or to any male or female heretical (i.e. non-Buddhist) wanderer in general. As we will see, these rules serve to make the outward appearances, customs, practices, and even the social status of Buddhist monks distinguishable and different from those of the Jainas and Ājīvikas.
The present study is not meant to be exhaustive. We should bear in mind that the Vinayas or Indian Buddhist monastic law codes are not the only sources for examining Buddhist reactions to the ascetic life of Jainas and Ājīvikas. Some Jaina or Ājīvika practices rejected by the Buddhists are not found in the Vinayas, but rather in canonical scriptural literature (namely the Nikāya/Āgama corpus). For instance, both the Kassapasīhanādasutta (“Discourse on the Lion’s Roar to Kassapa”) in the Pali Dīghanikāya and its parallel titled Luoxing fanzhi jing 倮形梵志經 (“Scripture on the Naked Recluse”) in the Chinese translation of the Dīrghāgama enumerate various practices of self-mortification performed by non-Buddhist mendicants of the time, all of which are dismissed by the Buddha.Footnote 4 Among them, food habits including, inter alia, not accepting food directly out of a pot or kettle, from behind the doorstep, or from a pregnant woman, a lactating woman or an adulteress are corroborated by corresponding evidence in Jaina texts and undoubtedly represent a Jaina mode of ascetic life.Footnote 5 Moreover, according to both the Cūḷadukkhakhandhasutta (“Shorter Discourse on the Aggregates of Suffering”) in the Pali Majjhimanikāya and its parallel titled Kuyin jing 苦陰經 (“Scripture on the Aggregates of Suffering”) in the Chinese translation of the Madhyamāgama, during his conversation with a group of Nigaṇṭhas/Nirgranthas (lit. “free from all bonds”, a designation for Jaina monks) who practise continuous standing without sitting, the Buddha speaks about the unworthiness of such self-mortification, arguing against extreme austerities.Footnote 6 While none of the extant Vinayas contain a rule explicitly forbidding monks from following the aforementioned Jaina food-habits or practising continuous standing, the Pali and Chinese scriptures introduced above make it clear that it is inappropriate for monks to adopt such heretical habits and behaviours. Thus, not all Buddhist prohibitions against the practices of Jainas and Ājīvikas are incorporated into monastic law codes. The present study focuses strictly on those rules intended to distinguish Buddhist monks from Jainas and Ājīvikas that are included in monastic law codes. Its purpose is to understand how Buddhist canonical lawmakers used legislation as a tool to construct their religious identity, and what their primary concerns and preoccupations were in establishing rules that differentiate Buddhist monks from their major śramaṇic competitors.
2. Rules against Buddhist monks becoming naked in various circumstances
As is known from both Buddhist and Jaina sources, Ājīvika ascetics as well as their leader Gośāla Maṅkhaliputra (also called Maskarin Gośālīputra) engaged in the practice of total nudity.Footnote 7 With regard to Jainas, the situation was more complex. The Jinacaritra (Career of the Conquerors) of the Kalpasūtra (Pkt. Kappasutta), a major canonical text of Śvetāmbara Jainas, begins with a biography of Mahāvīra, according to which, having become a renunciant, “the Blessed One, the monk Mahāvīra, continued wearing robes for one full year and a month. Afterwards he became naked and received [food directly put into his] hands.”Footnote 8 However, not all Jaina monks followed Mahāvīra’s practice of nudity. At the beginning of the Common Era, the Jaina community began to split into two sects: Digambaras (“sky-clad”, i.e. naked) and Śvetāmbaras (“white-clad”). As both Padmanabh Jaini (Reference Jaini1995: 489) and Nalini Balbir (Reference Balbir2000: 14) have rightly noted, even for those naked Jainas, their nakedness still differs from the complete nudity of the Ājīvikas, since the Pali Dhammapadaṭṭhakathā states that the Nigaṇṭhas, who at least wore a covering in front, were to be preferred to the acelakas (“those without clothes”, such as the Ājīvikas) who went entirely naked.Footnote 9
Within Indian Buddhist traditions, the Buddha is well known for having ordered monks to wear a set of three robes including a lower or inner robe (Pali antaravāsaka/Skt. antarvāsa), an upper robe (uttarāsaṅga/uttarāsaṃga), and an outer cloak (saṅghāṭi/saṃghāṭī). The Buddha is also said to have made rules against monks going naked in various situations. Below, I will first introduce rules that prevent monks from voluntarily becoming naked in daily life, and will then turn to rules that save monks from unwillingly becoming naked in dire circumstances. In each case, nakedness is mentioned as a feature of heretics (namely non-Buddhist ascetics),Footnote 10 and the rule concerned serves – either entirely or partly – the purpose of making monks externally different from non-Buddhist renunciants (particularly the Ājīvikas and naked Jainas).
2.1. Rules preventing monks from becoming naked voluntarily
The Vinayas of the Mahāsāṃghikas, Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas, Sarvāstivādins, and Mūlasarvāstivādins all contain a rule forbidding monks from deliberately going nude. More specifically, in the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, which is extant in Chinese translation (T. 1425), the rule appears in the *Bhikṣuprakīrṇakavarga (Chin. zasong baqu fa 雜誦跋渠法, lit. “miscellaneous recitation of the varga dharmas”) section, which reads:
Moreover, there was a bhikṣu saying, “Please allow me to become naked [so that] I could have few desires and few demands”. The Buddha said, “Bhikṣu! This [i.e. nakedness] is a custom of heretics (*tīrthikadharma). You should keep the three robes, a water bottle, and an alms-bowl. Such is what few desires and few demands means.”Footnote 11
In the five other Vinayas, which all belong to the Sthavira sects or schools, the rule appears in the Cīvarakkhandhaka/Cīvaradharma[ka]/Cīvaravastu (Chapter on Robes) section. In terms of length and detail, the versions of the rule found in the *Cīvarakkhandhaka (yiqiandu 衣揵度) of the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya in Chinese translation (T. 1428), the *Cīvaradharma[ka] (yifa 衣法) of the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya in Chinese translation (T. 1421), and the *Cīvaradharma[ka] (yifa 衣法) of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya in Chinese translation (T. 1435) are relatively brief. These three versions of the rule read respectively as follows:
At that time, a bhikṣu became naked and went into the Buddha’s presence, saying, “This is a dhūtaguṇa practice [i.e. a practice of austerity].Footnote 12 I hope that the Buddha would allow [me to do so].” The Buddha said, “You should not behave in such a way. This is a custom of heretics (*tīrthikadharma). If [a monk] became naked, he incurs a sthūlātyaya [grave offence].”Footnote 13
There was a bhikṣu saying to the Buddha, “The World-Honoured One often praises, for our sake, the state of having few desires and being contented. I take delight in it greatly. I hope that [the Buddha] would allow us to become naked.” The Buddha said, “[You are] a foolish man who wants to adopt a ritual observance of heretics (*tīrthikavrata). Whoever commits [the act of nudity] incurs a sthūlātyaya.”Footnote 14
There was a bhikṣu saying to the Buddha, “Please allow me to adopt the practice of nudity”. The Buddha said, “The practice of nudity should not be adopted. If [a monk] adopts the practice of nudity, he incurs a sthūlātyaya offence. Why? It is because adopting the practice of nudity is a mark of heretics (*tīrthikadhvaja)”.Footnote 15
The Cīvarakkhandhaka of the Pali Vinaya and the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya give more detailed accounts of the Buddha’s prohibition against monks going naked. I translate the Pali version of the rule (Vin I 305,15–30) as follows:
Then, at that time, a certain monk, having become naked, approached the Blessed One. Having approached, he spoke thus to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir! The Blessed One, indeed, speaks in many ways in praise of desiring little, being contented, austerity, shaking off [defilements], being gracious, decreasing [karmic obstructions], and making exertions. Venerable sir! Nudity is useful in many ways for the state of desiring little, contentment, austerity, the state of having shaken off [defilements], graciousness, decreasing [karmic obstructions], and making exertions. Venerable sir! Let the Blessed One allow nudity for monks! That would be good.” The Buddha, the Blessed One, rebuked [him], “Foolish man! [Nudity] is improper, unsuitable, unfitting, unworthy of a [Buddhist] ascetic, unacceptable, and should not be done. Foolish man! Why on earth do you practise nudity, which is a practice of heretics (titthiyasamādāna)? Foolish man! It is not [conducive] to the faith of one who has not been won over.” Having rebuked [him], having preached a discourse on the Dhamma, [the Buddha] said to the monks, “Monks! Nudity, a practice of heretics, is not to be practised. Whoever should practise it incurs a grave offence.”
The version of the rule in the Gilgit Sanskrit manuscript of the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, dating perhaps from the seventh century, has a somewhat different wording but conveys basically the same point. It reads:
Another monk spoke thus to the Blessed One, “Venerable sir! I want to adopt [the practice of] nudity”. The Blessed One said, “Foolish man! This is a mark of heretics (tīrthikadhvaja) – namely nudity. I have permitted a set of three robes. For what purpose do you want to adopt [the practice of] nudity? Therefore a monk should not adopt [the practice of] nudity. If one adopts [the practice of] nudity, one commits a grave offence.” Then that monk, not attaining [the state of] nudity, after having renounced the training, turned to abandonment [of the monastic life].Footnote 16 The monks, who felt doubt, asked the Buddha, the Blessed One, the remover of all doubts, “Venerable sir! Do you see that this monk, not attaining [the state of] nudity, after having renounced the training, turned to abandonment [of the monastic life]?” The Blessed One said, “Monks! Not only in this life, but also in a past life, due to the fault of shamelessness, he had not obtained the daughter [of a goose-king]. Listen to the following!”Footnote 17
Although the six versions of the rule quoted above are formulated in diverse ways, in all versions the Buddha criticizes the practice of nudity as a characteristic of the heretics, who presumably include (though are not limited to) Ājīvikas and some Jainas (more precisely, Digambaras or their forerunners). In five of the six versions – the exception is the Mahāsāṃghika version – the Buddha stipulates that any monk who adopts the practice of nudity incurs a “grave offence” (Skt. sthūlātyaya, Pali thullaccaya, Chin. toulanzhe 偷蘭遮/touluozhe 偷羅遮).Footnote 18 Meanwhile, it is worth noting that in four of the six versions – namely the Mahāsāṃghika, Theravāda, Dharmaguptaka, and Mahīśāsaka versions – the monk, who requests the Buddha to allow nudity, attempts to associate nudity with the virtue of desiring little (Pali appiccha, Chin. shaoyu 少欲), contentment (Pali santuṭṭhi, Chin. zhizu 知足), and/or with a particular group of ascetic practices known as dhūta (Pali dhuta, Chin. toutuo 頭陀), which the Buddha permits monks to undertake if they wish to observe austerities. These details suggest that at least some members of the Buddhist monastic community in ancient India, perhaps under the influence of the Ājīvikas or Jainas, deemed the practice of nudity to be part of strict and rigorous asceticism.
Besides the Buddha’s direct ban on monks adopting the practice of nudity, there are also other cases where the Buddha makes rules preventing monks from voluntarily becoming naked in daily life. For instance, in the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya we find the following passage about the Buddha’s prohibition against monks bathing naked:
There were some monks bathing naked and scrubbing each other [while bathing]. Moreover, they remained naked while going out of the bathhouse. The white-clad [laypeople] ridiculed and criticized them saying, “These monks are all like the Nirgranthas, without etiquette and discipline”. The monks reported this [matter] to the Buddha. The Buddha, on account of this matter, gathered the assembly of monks. Having rebuked [those monks who had bathed naked], the Buddha said to the monks, “From today onward, I allow you to wear a bathrobe. I do not allow you to bathe naked, or to scrub each other while being naked. Either of the two actions leads to an offence of wrongdoing.”Footnote 19
In this passage, laypeople compare those Buddhist monks bathing naked to the Nirgranthas (i.e. the Jainas) and censure them for being devoid of decency. Within the present context, the Buddha’s prescription of a rule allowing monks to wear a bathrobe – thus reducing their nudity to a minimum while bathing – serves at least three purposes: to preserve the self-respect of the monks, to differentiate them from the Nirgranthas, and to improve the public image of the Buddhist monastic order. Meanwhile, the ban on monks bathing naked may also have been intended to avoid the potential danger of sexual attraction. While the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya does not speak of the potential attraction between monks bathing naked, the Sapoduo pini piposha 薩婆多毘尼毘婆沙 (Skt. *Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā), a commentary on the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, highlights this danger in explaining the necessity for monks to wear a bathing cloth. It reads:
Now whenever bhikṣus bathe, whether in the open air or in a covered building, they should not be together with laypeople.Footnote 20 And one should cover his upper body with a saṃkakṣikā.Footnote 21 This is because, first, one should have a feeling of shame, and second, one [who bathes naked] is likely to arouse desire in another person.Footnote 22
The passage above makes it clear that bathing naked not only leads to shame and embarrassment, but also increases the risk of sexual attraction between monks.
In the passage quoted earlier from the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, the Buddha also bans monks from scrubbing each other while bathing naked. A partially similar ban is found in the Nidāna of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, where the Buddha bans monks from scrubbing each other when they are half naked, wearing only a skirt or a lower garment. More significantly, in the Nidāna, the Buddha prescribes such a ban in the immediate wake of hearing a householder’s criticism of the Group of Six monks who scrub each other in the bathhouse. This part of the Nidāna is only extant in Chinese and Tibetan translations. The Tibetan version has been previously edited and translated by Kishino (Reference Kishino2013: 206, 391). Here I translate the Chinese version as follows:
At that time, the Buddha was staying at the city of Śrāvastī. Now there was a certain donor who built a bathhouse and offered it to the monastic assembly. The Group-of-Six monks, each wearing a skirt,Footnote 23 scrubbed each other’s body. A layman entered [the bathhouse] and saw them, saying, “What kind of heretics are these people?” Then a pious [Buddhist] devotee replied, “They are sons of the Śākyans [i.e. followers of the Buddha]”. Having heard this, the householder [i.e. the layman] immediately gave rise to derision and contempt [saying,] “Even their great teacher always has a sense of shame. Why are they so shameless?” Then [other] monks, having heard it, reported this matter to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “Monks should not, wearing a skirt, scrub or wash each other. If anyone should commit such a deed, there is an offence of wrongdoing.”Footnote 24
In this story, the Buddha’s ban on monks scrubbing each other in the bathhouse while wearing a skirt comes as a response to the householder’s criticism of the Group of Six monks. The purpose of this ban is not just to differentiate the monks from non-Buddhist ascetics, but more importantly to improve the public image of the monks and to retain the laity’s trust in the Buddhist monastic community. This point is made even more evident in the Tibetan version of the story, where before issuing the ban, the Buddha says, “Since householders and brahmins would complain, monks should therefore not do [washing for] each other while wearing a single cloth in the bathhouse”.Footnote 25 Clearly the monastic jurists who told or retold this story were concerned first and foremost with how to prevent themselves from being criticized by laypeople, so as to keep the laity’s trust.
Apart from the rules discussed above, which regulate the appearance and behaviour of monks in a bathhouse, there are also rules concerning monks bathing in the rain. For instance, the Vinayas of the Mahāsāṃghikas, Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas, Sarvāstivādins, and Mūlasarvāstivādins all tell (or retell) a story that the wealthy laywoman Viśākhā (Pali Visākhā), in order to help monks avoid bathing naked in the rain, expresses to the Buddha her wish to donate “robes for the rains” (Skt. varṣāśāṭīcīvara/Pali vassikasāṭika)Footnote 26 or “rain-bathing robes” (Chin. yu yuyi 雨浴衣) to the monastic community. Compared with the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, the five Sthavira Vinayas provide us with more detailed versions of this story, which may be summarized as follows.Footnote 27 Viśākhā invites the Buddha and his assembly of monks to her house for a meal, and sends a maidservant to the monastery to inform the Buddha of the meal time. Having arrived at the monastery, the maidservant mistakes a group of monks bathing naked in the rain for non-Buddhist ascetics. She wrongly reports to Viśākhā that there is no monk in the monastery. Both the Cīvarakkhandhaka of the Pali Vinaya and the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya state that the maidservant misidentifies the monks bathing naked in the rain as Ājīvikas, while the versions of the story in the Dharmaguptaka, Mahīśāsaka, and Sarvāstivāda Vinayas tell us that the maidservant misidentifies those monks as “heretics” (Chin. waidao 外道) or “naked heretics” (luoxing waidao 裸形外道), which presumably include the Ājīvikas and naked Jainas. The wise lady Viśākhā disbelieves the maidservant’s report. She sends the maidservant again (or another servant according to the Cīvaravastu) to inform the Buddha of the dining time. After the Buddha and his assembly of monks come to Viśākhā’s house, Viśākhā expresses her wish to make eight donations including, inter alia, rain-bathing robes for monks and “water-bathing robes” (Skt. udakaśāṭikā/Pali udakasāṭikā) for nuns. In all five Sthavira Vinayas, there is a conversation between the Buddha and Viśākhā, which reveals the reason for her donation of the two kinds of robes respectively for monks and nuns. The content of this conversation presented in the five Sthavira Vinayas is basically the same. Below I quote in full the Sanskrit version from the Gilgit manuscript of the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, which reads as follows:
“[Viśākhā!] Having what reason in mind do you give monks robes for the rains?”
“Venerable sir! Exactly today I sent a messenger-girl as an announcer of time. She saw the monks bathing naked. Having returned, she said to me, ‘The noble ones have gone out. The monastery has been occupied by the bastard Ājīvikas.’ They [= the monks] shall bathe dressed in robes, which belong to me, for the rains.”
“Viśākhā! Excellent! Excellent! I have also understood this. Having what reason in mind do you give nuns water-bathing robes?”
“Venerable sir! There was an occasion [where] many nuns bathed naked in [the river] Ajiravatī. Housewives, having mocked them [= the nuns], pointed with their fingertips at the private parts of the nuns. While being pointed at, they [= the nuns] became embarrassed. Now they shall bathe dressed in water-bathing robes that belong to me.Footnote 28
In all five Sthavira Vinayas, the Buddha approves Viśakhā’s request and praises her for having proposed to make such donations. More significantly, in the Vinayas of the Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas, and Sarvāstivādins, shortly after returning from Viśākhā’s house, the Buddha gathers his assembly of monks and lays down a rule allowing monks and nuns to accept rain-bathing robes and water-bathing robes respectively. The wordings of this rule as found in the four Vinayas are essentially the same, namely that “[from today onward] I allow rain-bathing robes [for monks] and water-bathing robes for nuns”.Footnote 29 In the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, although this rule is not explicitly stated, it is surely implied, given the Buddha’s approval of Viśākhā’s wish to make such donations. As known from the conversation quoted above between the Buddha and Viśākhā, the Buddha allows monks to wear rain-bathing robes primarily for the purpose of making them outwardly distinguished from the Ājīvikas or naked Jainas, whereas the Buddha allows nuns to wear water-bathing robes chiefly for the purpose of preserving their self-respect (as well as personal security) and avoiding embarrassment.Footnote 30
In addition to the rules allowing monks to wear bathrobes or rain-bathing robes, which prevent them from bathing naked either in a bathhouse or in the rains, there are also other rules found in the Vinaya texts that prohibit monks from voluntarily becoming naked while going to the toilet or urinating. For instance, the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya contains a passage about the Buddha’s ban on monks going to the toilet naked, in order to distinguish them from the Jainas. It reads as follows:
At that time, some monks went to the toilet naked. The white-clad [laypeople] ridiculed and criticized them saying, “These monks are just like the Nirgranthas”. The monks reported this [matter] to the Buddha. The Buddha said, “One should not go to the toilet naked. If [a monk] goes to the toilet naked, there is an offence of wrongdoing.”Footnote 31
In the Chinese translation of a Vinaya text titled Binaiye 鼻奈耶 (transliteration of Skt. Vinaya or its Prākrit equivalent), whose sectarian affiliation is most likely the Sarvāstivādin, we find a similar passage about the Buddha’s ban on monks standing while urinating, also for the purpose of distinguishing them from the Jainas. It reads as follows:
The Group of Six monks stood while urinating. The householders, having seen it, said to each other, “These śramaṇas, sons of the Śākyans, stand while urinating. What is the difference between them and the Nirgranthas?” [The monks] went to report [this matter] to the World-Honoured One. The World-Honoured One said, “One should not stand while urinating. Standing while urinating does not comply with moral precepts, except when one is ill.”Footnote 32
In these two passages, the Buddha’s prohibitions of monks going to the toilet naked and standing while urinating occur immediately after the laypeople’s complaint that some monks behave like the Nirgranthas (i.e. the Jainas). Within such contexts, the Buddha’s prohibitions serve the purpose of making Buddhist monks more thoroughly distinguished from the Nirgranthas, and thereby preventing a repeat of the same complaint. Apart from the cases examined above, where the Buddha establishes rules forbidding monks from voluntarily becoming naked in everyday life, there are also other cases where the Buddha makes rules saving monks from unwillingly becoming naked in dire circumstances. We will now turn to the latter type of rules.
2.2. Rules saving monks from becoming naked involuntarily
In the Vinayas of the Mahāsāṃghikas, Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas, Sarvāstivādins, and Mūlasarvāstivādins, the sixth niḥsargika/naiḥsargika-pāyantika/pāyattika/pātayantika (Pali nissaggiya-pācittiya) rule, namely the rule concerning the sixth “offence entailing expiation with forfeiture”, prohibits any monk from asking a male or female householder, who is not a relative of his, for a robe except at the time when the monk’s own robes are lost, stolen, burned, or ruined.Footnote 33 In all six Vinayas, this rule is introduced with a frame story describing how a group of wandering monks, after having been robbed of their clothes by thieves, are misidentified by their fellow monks as naked heretics. Below I quote in full two versions, respectively from the Pali Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavibhaṅga, to illustrate two different storylines. The Pali version of the story (Vin III 211,37–212,31) may be translated as follows:
Now at that time many monks were taking a path for journeying from Sāketa to Sāvatthī. In the middle of the path, thieves came forth and robbed them. Then these monks, [thinking,] “It has been prohibited by the Blessed One to ask for a robe from a householder or householder’s wife, who is not a relative”, being overscrupulous, did not ask. Like the naked ones, having reached Sāvatthī, they saluted the monks [there]. The monks said, “Friends! These Ājīvikas who salute the monks [here] are really nice”. They said, “Friends! We are not Ājīvikas. We are monks.” The monks [at Sāvatthī] said to the venerable Upāli, “Friend Upāli! Please question them.” Then the venerable Upāli, having questioned the monks [from Sāketa], said to the monk [at Sāvatthī], “Friends! They are monks. Please give them robes.” Those monks who had few desires became annoyed [saying], “How can monks come naked? Shouldn’t they come after having covered themselves with grass or leaves?” Then the monks reported this matter to the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One, having given a discourse on the Dhamma for this reason and on this occasion, said to the monks:
“Monks! I allow one whose robes have been taken away, or one whose robes have been lost, to ask for a robe from a householder or householder’s wife, who is not a relative [of his]. If the monastic community in the first residence which [the monk] approaches has a vihāracīvara Footnote 34 or a bed-cover, or a ground-cover, or a mattress-cover, [I allow] him to take it and put it on. Having obtained it, [he may say,] ‘I shall deposit it’. If the monastic community does not have a vihāracīvara or a bed-cover, or a ground-cover, or a mattress-cover, he should come after covering himself with grass or leaves, but he should not come naked. If anyone should come [naked], there is an offence of wrongdoing. Thus, monks, the following rule of training is to be recited: if any monk should ask for a robe from a householder or householder’s wife, who is not related [to him], there is an offence entailing expiation with forfeiture, except at the right time. Here this is the right time: a monk becomes one whose robes have been taken away, or one whose robes have been lost. This is the right time in the present case.”
In the first half of the Pali account, we are told that the monks, who had been robbed of their clothes and had not covered themselves, are mistaken by their fellow monks as naked Ājīvakas. In the second half of this account, the Buddha lays down a series of instructions to save monks from becoming naked when their robes are lost or destroyed due to either robbery or natural disasters. More specifically, first, a monk stripped of his robes is allowed to accept a robe from a non-relative householder or householder’s wife. This is a formal exception to an earlier precept (Vin III 211,33–34) made by the Buddha (i.e. the precept preceding the story above), which bans, in a general way, all monks from asking for a robe from a non-relative householder or householder’s wife. Second, a monk stripped of his robes is also allowed to ask for a robe from the first monastic community that he approaches (i.e. the monastic order nearest to him). Third, if no robe is found there, the monk in question should cover himself with a bed-cover, ground-cover, or mattress-cover. If none of these options are available, he should cover himself with grass or leaves, or anything necessary to prevent himself from becoming naked. If he does go naked, he incurs an offence of wrongdoing (āpatti dukkaṭassa). Here the Buddha instructs any monk who has lost his robes to seek any possible means to keep himself clad or covered, to make sure that he does not go naked, and thereby to avoid the awkward scenario of being misidentified as an Ājīvika.
In the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, the story appears in the Vinayavibhaṅga that is extant in Chinese and Tibetan translations. The account given in the Tibetan version of the Vinayavibhaṅga, which is somewhat different from that quoted above from the Pali Vinaya, reads as follows:
The Buddha, the Blessed One, was dwelling in Śrāvastī, in the Jetavana, in the park of Anāthapiṇḍada. When 40 monks from the village of MālinFootnote 35 were travelling in the country together with merchants, they were plundered by a group of robbers. Then they thought, “The Blessed One has established this rule of training, ‘If any monk approaches a non-relative householder or householder’s wife and begs for a robe, there is an offence entailing expiation with forfeiture’. Since we do not have any relative here, if we go to Śrāvastī, we could let our fellow monks there distribute robes to us.” Having thought so, they discussed, “How can we go naked? We shall go at night, concealing ourselves [from people]. We shall enter wild thickets in the daytime, and shall walk on the surface of the road at night.” They went to the Jetavana at night, concealing themselves [from people]. Some monks, who were staying awake and meditating in the first and last watches of the night, saw them and said, “Bald Nirgranthas!Footnote 36 This is neither a dwelling place nor a monastery for you. Where did you come from?”
“Venerable ones! We are not Nirgranthas.”
“Well then, who are you?”
“We are [Buddhist] monks.”
“Are there this kind of monks?”
“Whoever have been plundered by robbers are like this.”
“What is your name?”
“We are forty monks from the village of Mālin.”
“Welcome, welcome, venerable ones!”
Some of them [i.e. the monks in the Jetavana] gave them [i.e. the naked monks] outer robes; some gave them upper robes; others gave them lower robes; still others gave them cloths for covering their chests.Footnote 37 The monks reported this matter to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said, “Therefore [a monk should not ask for a robe from a non-relative householder or householder’s wife] except on the [right] occasion. In this case the [right] occasion refers to the following: a monk’s robes have been taken away, ruined, burned, blown away by wind, or carried away by water. This is the [right] occasion in the present case.” Then the Blessed One, having spoken in praise of those who desire the training, those who respect the training and those who simplify their lifestyle in accordance with the training, and having moreover preached to the monks a discourse conforming with the Dharma in association with this [event], said to the monks:
“Monks! Therefore, with regard to that stipulated in the past, now [an exception] is allowed. I shall establish a rule of training in the discipline for my śrāvaka [auditor] disciples as follows: if any monk approaches a non-relative householder or householder’s wife and begs for a robe, there is an offence entailing expiation with forfeiture, except on the [right] occasion. In this case the [right] occasion refers to the following: a monk’s robes have been taken away, ruined, burned, blown away by wind, or carried away by water. This is the [right] occasion in the present case.”Footnote 38
In the Mūlasarvāstivāda version of the story, the monks robbed of clothes are not only misidentified by their fellow monks as the Nirgranthas (Jainas), but also initially denied residence in the monastery, until later when they clarify their real identity as Buddhist monks. This detail suggests that once having become naked and mistaken as non-Buddhist ascetics, monks would almost certainly encounter practical problems in monastic life. While in the Pali version of the story the elder Upāli, the leading Vinaya expert, verifies the identity of the naked monks by asking them questions, in the present version the naked monks themselves manage to convince their fellow monks of their real identity. Unlike in the Pali version where the Buddha lays down a series of instructions, in this version the Buddha prescribes mainly one rule allowing monks, whose robes have been stolen or lost, to ask for a robe from a non-relative householder or householder’s wife, thus making a formal exception to a general ban established earlier on accepting a robe from a non-relative householder or householder’s wife.
The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya not only contains the same rule allowing monks who have lost robes to accept a robe from a non-relative householder or householder’s wife, but also gives detailed regulations on what a monk should do in case of robbery. In particular, the text stipulates that a monk robbed of his clothes should use anything available – including any clothing procured lawfully, leaves or even his own hands – to keep himself from being naked, so as to distinguish himself from the Nirgranthas. The relevant passage reads:
Having given his belongings [to robbers], [a monk] should slowly leave. Having entered into woods or thickets, [he should] hide himself there, observing [robbers] from afar. After the robbers leave, if there remains any robe that [the monk] had not previously taken, [the monk] should take it. If no robe remains, supposing that there is any [other] monk or heretical mendicant killed by the robbers, he should seize the robe [of that dead monk or heretical mendicant]. If no renunciant dies, supposing there is any dead layperson, he should take that layperson’s robe, cut off the stray threads, purify [the robe], and then put it on. If there is no robe of a dead person, supposing a merchant has discarded any good robe or property, he should not take it. If [a merchant] has discarded any tattered robe, he should take it. If a merchant returns and summons a bhikṣu, giving him a good robe, he should take it. Having taken it, he should cut off the stray threads, dye [the robe] with cow-dung, purify it, and then put it on. If the merchant says to a bhikṣu, “I lend you this robe to wear. Return it to me when you reach the residence ahead. Do not let it be damaged,” this bhikṣu should take the robe. [He should] gather the stray threads into the inner side of the robe, stitch [the threads] together so that the threads cannot be seen, purify [the robe], and then put it on.Footnote 39 As soon as he reaches the residence, he should return [the robe to the merchant]. In the absence of these options, he should join together leaves to cover his front and back, and then leave. [Even] in the absence of this option, he must not walk on the road with his arms hanging down, like a Nirgrantha. [Instead] he should cover his front with his hands, conceal his physical body, and walk along the roadside.Footnote 40 He must not enter deep inside thickets to walk there, which would cause the robbers to say that this is someone to be captured. [Instead] he should walk in shallow thickets of grass on the roadside. While walking, if someone else happens to come, he should immediately sit down at an empty spot in the shallow thickets of grass, so as to let passengers see him. If people ask him, “Who are you?” He should reply, “I am a renunciant.” “Through which path do you become a renunciant?” He should reply, “I am a renunciant of the Śākyan clan.” “Why are you naked?” He should reply, “I have been robbed.”Footnote 41
According to this passage, when a monk is stripped of his clothes by robbers, he should seek any discarded robe material (such as the clothes of dead people, or tattered clothes abandoned by merchants) or even leaves to cover himself. Even if he cannot find anything available (not even leaves) to cover himself, he is still not allowed to behave like the Nirgranthas, namely to walk naked on the road freely and openly with his arms hanging down. Rather, he is instructed to use his own hands to cover his body, and to walk cautiously in shallow thickets of grass on the roadside (rather than in the middle of the road). If any passenger spots him and questions his identity, he must identify himself as a Buddhist monk and clarify the cause (i.e. robbery) leading to his nudity. Moreover, the text stipulates that no matter whether the monk takes a dead layperson’s robe or accepts a robe from a merchant, he should always cut off any stray threads from the robe before putting it on. It is worth noting that in a later portion of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya, the Buddha, upon hearing that both some monks and heretical ascetics wear robes with remaining stray threads, orders the monks to cut off stray threads from a robe before wearing it so as to differentiate themselves from the heretical ascetics.Footnote 42 In the present context, the regulation that any monk robbed of clothes, after receiving a secular robe, should cut off its stray threads may well serve a similar purpose, that is, to make monks outwardly distinguished from non-Buddhist ascetics. In short, the passage above suggests that the Mahāsaṃghika lawmakers were concerned not only with preserving the self-respect of monks and reducing their embarrassment, but more importantly also with how to prevent any monk who had unfortunately lost his own robes from being misidentified as a heretical ascetic by the public. In fact, such misidentification does occur elsewhere in the Vinaya literature. For instance, both the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya recount the story of King Bimbisāra’s mistaking a non-Buddhist ascetic for a Buddhist monk, which ends with Bimbisāra’s act of requesting the Buddha to prescribe some distinctive mark on the robes of monks, so as to make the robes of monks distinguishable from the attire of non-Buddhist ascetics. Let us now look at that story in detail.
3. King Bimbisāra’s mistaking of an Ājīvika for a Buddhist monk and the Buddha’s subsequent prescription of a rule on robes made of cloth strips sewn together
The story of King Bimbisāra’s mistaking a non-Buddhist ascetic for a Buddhist monk, which subsequently leads to the Buddha’s prescription of a rule allowing monks to wear robes made of cloth strips sewn together, appears only in the *Cīvaradharma[ka] of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya and the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. In particular, in the Cīvaravastu, the non-Buddhist ascetic is explicitly specified as an Ājīvika. No account of this story is found in the Vinayas of the Mahāsāṃghikas, Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, or Mahīśāsakas, where the Buddha’s stipulation of the rule on robes made of strips sewn together is preceded by totally different stories.Footnote 43 The version of the story in the *Cīvaradharma[ka] of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya is relatively brief. It may be summarized as follows.Footnote 44 King Bimbisāra, a devotee of the Buddha, inadvertently mistakes a non-Buddhist ascetic for a Buddhist monk and prepares to venerate him, but is stopped by his ministers on the spot, who tell the king the real identity of the ascetic, thus saving the king from embarrassment (namely venerating a non-Buddhist ascetic in public). The king immediately reports the happening to the Buddha, and requests the Buddha to make the robes of his monks different from the attire of non-Buddhist ascetics. The Buddha expounds the Dharma for the king, who then respectfully departs. In comparison, the version of the story in the Cīvaravastu of Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya has a different and more complicated storyline. In the Gilgit Sanskrit manuscript of the Cīvaravastu, the story reads as follows:
It was a usual practice of King Bimbisāra, upon seeing a Buddhist monk or nun, to venerate their feet after dismounting from the back of his elephant. On a later occasion, having mounted his elephant, he set out to venerate the feet of the Blessed One. As soon as he saw an Ājīvika in the middle of the road, being totally confused with regard to him [= the Ājīvika], he [= Bimbisāra] fell at his [= the Ājīvika’s] feet after having dismounted from the back of his elephant. Then those who were non-believers thought, “The lord is not only devoted to Buddhist monks. He is also devoted to the Ājīvakas.” But those who were believers thought, “Surely [the king], being totally confused, thinking ‘this is a Buddhist monk’, fell at his [= the Ājīvika’s] feet after having dismounted from the back of his elephant.” They, with a doubtful mind, said to the king, “To whom did the lord show veneration?” [Bimbisāra said,] “To a disciple of the Blessed One.” [They said,] “Lord! That was an Ājīvaka, not a disciple of the Blessed One.” Then it occurred to King Bimbisāra, “I must do something about this!” He went to where the Blessed One was. Having approached, [and] having venerated the feet of the Blessed One with his head, he sat down at one side. Seated at one side, King Śreṇiya Bimbisāra of Magadha said to the Blessed One, “Sir! It is my usual practice, upon seeing a Buddhist monk or nun, to venerate their feet after dismounting from the back of my elephant. Then, being totally confused, thinking, ‘This is a Buddhist monk’, I fell at the feet of an Ājīvika after having dismounted from the back of my elephant. Alas! May the Blessed One, showing compassion, prescribe some distinctive mark on the robes of noble ones!” The Blessed One consented to King Bimbisāra through silence. Then King Bimbisāra, having understood the Blessed One’s consent through silence, [and] having venerated the feet of the Blessed One with his head, departed. At that time the Blessed One said to the monks, “Monks! That Ājīvaka, who accepted veneration from the one who has seen the Truths [i.e. from Bimbisāra], is ruined, destroyed.”Footnote 45
While the Sarvāstivāda version of the story has the king prevented from venerating an Ājīvika, the Mūlasarvāstivāda version not only has the king actually fall at the feet of the Ājīvika, but also vividly depicts the reactions of both believers and non-believers toward the king’s astounding act. Compared with the Sarvāstivādins, the Mūlasarvāstivādin lawmakers reveal a more acute awareness of the intimate connection between monastic attire and public image. Interestingly, the story does not end here. The Cīvaravastu goes on to describe the Buddha’s visit, along with Ānanda, to a field in Magadha laid out in rows, the landscape of which prompts the Buddha to rule that monastic robes should be made of cloth strips sewn together, following the pattern of the Magadhan field. The description reads as follows:
At that time, the venerable Ānanda was standing behind the Blessed One, holding a fan fanning the Blessed One. There the Blessed One said to the venerable Ānanda, “Ānanda! Have you seen the Vaidehaka mountain?” “No, venerable sir!” “Grasp the hem of the Tathagata’s robe!” He [= Ānanda] grasped it. Then, exactly from there the Blessed One, going above through the sky by means of his supernatural power, disappeared in Rājagṛha and appeared on the Vaidehaka mountain. At that time, having seen the fields and environs of the Magadhan people adorned with rows, particularly lovely in their divisions in arrangement, [the Buddha] then said to Ānanda, “Ānanda! Have you seen these fields and environs adorned with rows, particularly lovely in their divisions in arrangement?” [Ānanda said,] “Venerable sir! I have seen”. [The Buddha said,] “Therefore, Ānanda, monks should cut cloths [into strips] and sew them together in this manner”. The elder Ānanda told the monks, “You should, after splitting cloths [into strips], sew them together in this manner”. The monks, having split cloths [into strips], started to sew them. They let the borders [of a robe]Footnote 46 fall to one side. [The borders thus placed] do not look nice. The venerable Ānanda said, “This has not been authorized by the Blessed One, given the situation that he will only authorize it after finding a reason”. He [= Ānanda] placed borders on both sides. [Thinking,] “Even so, it still does not look nice without trimmings around the edge [of borders]”, he added the trimmings. Then that [robe] which had been completed was presented to the Blessed One. The Blessed One said, “Excellent, excellent, Ānanda! You have known what I have not authorized. Therefore I authorize that monks should, after cutting cloths [into strips], sew them together in this manner.” The monks, having cut one piece of cloth [into strips] and having sewn them together, began to purify [them]. The remaining [cloths] were uncut.Footnote 47
The *Cīvaradharma[ka] of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya gives a parallel, albeit less detailed, account of the same events.Footnote 48 In both the Sarvāstivāda *Cīvaradharma[ka] and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Cīvaravastu, the Buddha’s visit to a Magadhan field and his ruling on the field-like pattern of monastic robes appear immediately after the story of King Bimbisāra’s mistaking a heretical (or Ājīvika) ascetic for a Buddhist monk and his ensuing request to the Buddha to prescribe some distinctive mark on the robes of monks. This arrangement is likely not accidental. It suggests that, in the eyes of the Sarvāstivādin and Mūlasarvāstivādin lawmakers who composed the *Cīvaradharma[ka] and the Cīvaravastu respectively, the Buddha’s ruling on monastic robes made of cloth strips sewn together represents a formal response to Bimbisāra’s request, and provides a practical strategy to differentiate the attire of Buddhist monks from that of non-Buddhist renunciants.
4. Rule prohibiting Buddhist monks from hair-plucking
Hair-plucking occupied (and still occupies) an important place in Jaina monastic life. As Balbir (Reference Balbir, Balbir and Pinault1996: 352) has aptly put it, for both Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras, the plucking out of one’s own hair is “a ritual and solemn act to be performed by monks and nuns”. According to the Ācārāṅgasūtra (Pkt. Āyāraṅgasutta) and the Jinacaritra section of the Kalpasūtra, it was after plucking out his hair in five handfuls that Mahāvīra started his career as a Jaina monk.Footnote 49 In the Mūlācāra, one of the oldest Digambara texts on mendicant conduct, hair-plucking is listed as one of the 28 “root qualities” (mūlaguṇas) of a Jaina monk.Footnote 50 Both Śvetāmbaras and Digambaras regard hair-plucking as an essential practice of asceticism. It stands symbolically for renunciation, and has been an indispensable act in Jaina mendicant initiation (dīkṣā) from the past until today.
Within Indian Buddhist traditions, both the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya and the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya explicitly forbid monks from plucking out their own hair. According to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, when the Group of Six monks plucked out their hair, the Buddha rebuked them, saying that hair-plucking should not be done.Footnote 51 In the Mūlasarvāstivāda Cīvaravastu, when a monk expresses his intention to pluck out his hair, the Buddha replies:
I have permitted the shaving of hair. Why do you pluck out hair? Foolish man! This is an observance of heretics: namely, hair-plucking. Therefore a monk should not pluck out hair. If he plucks out hair, he becomes guilty.Footnote 52
In his response above, the Buddha condemns hair-plucking as an “observance of heretics” (tīrthika-vrata) and bans monks from performing it. Here the term “heretics” or “adherents of another sect or other sects” (tīrthika) refers almost certainly to Jaina ascetics, given the significant role of hair-plucking in Jaina monastic life. Moreover, while the Pali Vinaya contains no ban on hair-plucking, the Samantapāsādikā, a commentary on the Pali Vinaya attributed to Buddhaghosa (c. fifth century), gives the following definition of “one who has gone over to a heretical sect” (titthiya-pakkantaka, a type of unqualified monk), in which hair-plucking is mentioned as a heretical practice not to be adopted by qualified Buddhist monks. The definition reads as follows:
Here “one who has gone over to a heretical sect”Footnote 53 refers to one who has gone over and entered [i.e. joined] the heretics. He is never to be ordained. Then he is not to be allowed to live the homeless life [of a Buddhist monk] … Now, having been asked, “What is the superior [aspect] of your life as a homeless ascetic”, he says, “Plucking out [my] hair and beard, and so on”. He lets even the one [remaining] hair [of his] be plucked out. He takes up observances beginning with the squatting exercise, or clads himself with [material] beginning with a peacock’s feather … Saying, “This is the best life as a homeless ascetic”, he enters the [so-called] best state, and does not give it up. He is one who has gone over to a heretical sect.Footnote 54
Since hair-plucking as done by the Jainas is by nature a practice of extreme austerity, the prohibition of such a practice as found in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, and the Samantapāsādikā undoubtedly indicates the Buddhist rejection of extreme asceticism and the intention to differentiate Buddhist monks from Jaina monks. The fact that no explicit ban on hair-plucking appears in the Vinayas of the Mahāsaṃghikas, Mahīśāsakas, and Sarvāstivādins does not mean that these sects allowed their monks to pluck out their hair. Rather, it could simply be that the compilers/redactors of the extant versions of these three Vinayas had not encountered the issue of a Buddhist monk emulating a Jaina monk and plucking out his own hair, or had not paid due attention to this issue.
5. Rules preventing Buddhist monks from accepting alms-food in their hands
There is textual evidence indicating that both the Ājīvikas and at least some Jainas (particularly Digambaras) did not eat from vessels, but instead accepted food put directly into their hands. For instance, the Pali Mahāsaccakasutta (MN I 238,12–14) tells us that the leaders of the Ājīvika sect, such as Makkhali Gosāla, Nanda Vaccha, and Kisa Saṅkicca, all licked their hands after eating, which implies that they ate directly from their palms. The Jinacaritra of the Kalpasūtra states that, after having continued wearing robes for one full year and a month, Mahāvīra went naked and “accepted food [put directly into] his hands” (pāṇipaḍiggahie).Footnote 55 According to the Mūlācāra, Digambara monks ate food put into their “hand-bowls” (pāṇipatte), namely their cupped hands.Footnote 56 In his Suttapāhuḍa (Gift of Scriptures), the Digambara scholar Kundakunda (c. second or third century) states, “The supreme lords of the Jinas have taught that nudity and hands [used as] bowls [for accepting alms-food] are the only path to liberation. All others are not [right] paths.”Footnote 57 Today, Digambara monks still eat from their hands, whereas Śvetāmbara monks have generally adapted themselves to using alms bowls (made of gourds, wood, or clay) to receive food.
Ancient Indian Buddhists were undoubtedly aware of such a practice of the Ājīvikas and Digambara Jainas. The Buddha is said to have made some rules that directly or indirectly prevent monks from accepting alms-food in their hands. For instance, the Vinayas of the Mahāsāṃghikas, Theravādins, Mahiśāśakas, Sarvāstivādins, and Mūlasarvāstivādins all contain a rule forbidding monks from licking their hands, which entails a ban on accepting food in their hands.Footnote 58 Further, the “section on twenty cases where one should not be ordained” (naupasampādetabbakavīsativāra) in the Mahāvagga (“Great Division”) of the Pali Vinaya gives an account of the Buddha’s ban on ordaining anyone who has no bowl (Vin I 90,10–14), which I translate as follows:
Now at one time, monks ordained one who had no bowl. They [i.e. the ordained ones] wandered for alms-food [to be put directly] into their hands. People complained, criticized, and spoke disparagingly, “Just like adherents of other sects”. They [i.e. the monks] reported this matter to the Blessed One. [The Blessed One said,] “Monks! One who has no bowl should not be ordained. Whoever should ordain [such a person] incurs an offence of wrongdoing.”
Here the term “adherents of other sects” (titthiyā) refers most likely to the Ājīvikas and Digambara Jainas (or their forerunners). By issuing a ban on ordaining anyone who has no bowl, the Buddha ensures that all members of his community possess a bowl to accept alms-food. It is also worth noting that the Cullavagga (“Small Division”) of the Pali Vinaya contains the Buddha’s ban on monks using a gourd to accept alms-food. The account given in the Cullavagga (Vin II 114, 33–37) may be translated as follows:
Now at that time, monks wandered for alms-food [put into] a vessel made from a gourd. People complained, criticized and spoke disparagingly, “Just like adherents of other sects.” They [i.e. the monks] reported this matter to the Blessed One. [The Blessed One said,] “Monks! One should not wander for alms-food [put into] a vessel made from a gourd. Whoever should wander [in such a way] incurs an offence of wrongdoing.
The “adherents of other sects” mentioned in this passage certainly include Śvetāmbara Jainas, since it was (and still is) a common habit of Śvetāmbara monks to receive food with a gourd-bowl,Footnote 59 while Buddhist monks were only allowed to use two types of bowls: an iron or clay bowl.Footnote 60
Even when a Buddhist monk’s bowl is heavily broken or destroyed, he should still not accept alms-food in his hands. Nevertheless, he is allowed to ask for a new bowl. The narrative frame of the 22nd nissaggiya-pācittiya (expiation with forfeiture) rule in the Pali Vinaya contains an episode showing that the Buddha makes an exception to his initial ban on asking for a new bowl, so as to prevent monks whose bowls are broken or destroyed from accepting alms-food in their hands. Below is my translation of this episode (Vin III 245,14–24):
Now at that time, a certain monk’s bowl became broken. Then the monk, [thinking,] “It has been prohibited by the Blessed One to ask for a [new] bowl”, being overscrupulous, did not ask. He wandered for alms-food [to be put] into his hands. People complained, criticized, and spoke disparagingly, “How can these ascetics, followers of the Sakyan son, wander for alms-food [to be put] into their hands, just like adherents of other sects?” The monks heard the people complaining, criticizing, and speaking disparagingly. Then the monks reported this matter to the Blessed One. Then the Blessed One, having preached a discourse on the Dhamma for this reason and on this occasion, said to the monks, “Monks! I allow [you] to ask for a [new] bowl, when [your] bowl is broken or destroyed.”
In this episode, the “adherents of other sects” refers implicitly to the Ājīvikas and Digambara Jainas (or their forerunners). Since the way in which a monk accepts alms-food is closely linked with both his religious identity and his public image, by allowing a monk whose bowl is broken or destroyed to ask for a new bowl, the Buddha ensures that no member of his community accepts food in his hands, thus making Buddhist monks as a whole distinguishable from non-Buddhist ascetics. The story does not end here. As the text goes on to tell us, the mischievous Group of Six monks ask for many bowls when their old bowls are only slightly broken, and their behaviour draws criticism from laypeople. This leads the Buddha to establish a rule that “whichever monk should exchange a bowl with less than five mends for another new bowl incurs an offence entailing expiation with forfeiture”,Footnote 61 namely the 22nd nissaggiya-pācittiya rule. Basically the same rule also appears in the Vinayas of the Mahāsāṃghikas, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas, Sarvāstivādins, and Mūlasarvāstivādins, but in these five Vinayas, the rule is introduced with different frame stories, which do not have a plot showing that a monk whose bowl is broken accepts alms-food in his hands and is subsequently compared to a non-Buddhist renunciant by laypeople.Footnote 62 Thus, the episode quoted above is unique to the Pali version of the frame story of the rule in question.
6. Rule prohibiting Buddhist monks from giving food with their hands to any naked ascetic or to any male or female heretical wanderer
Sometimes Indian Buddhist lawmakers promulgated, through the mouth of the Buddha, certain rules not only for the sake of differentiating monks from non-Buddhist ascetics, but also for the purpose of making monks superior to non-Buddhist ascetics (particularly the Ājīvikas and naked Jainas). The rule that forbids monks from giving food with their hands to any naked ascetic, or to any male or female heretical wanderer in general, is a prime example in this regard. This rule appears as the 52nd pāyattika/pācattika rule in both the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya and the Bhikṣuprātimokṣa of the Mahāsāṃghika-Lokottaravādins,Footnote 63 the 41st pācittiya rule in the Pali Vinaya (Vin IV 91,1– 92,25), the 41st pācittika rule in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya,Footnote 64 the 40th pācittika rule in the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya,Footnote 65 the 44th pāyitti/pātayantikā rule in the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya,Footnote 66 and the 44th pāyattika/pāyantika rule in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavibhaṅga.Footnote 67 In the Pali Pātimokkha of the Theravādins, this rule is called acelakasikkhāpada (rule about naked ascetics),Footnote 68 whereas in the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition it is known as aceladāna ([rule on] giving [food] to naked ascetics).Footnote 69 In all these Vinayas, the wording of this rule is more or less identical, namely that if any monk should give, with his hands, solid or soft food to any naked ascetic, or to any male or female heretical wanderer, there is an offence entailing expiation.Footnote 70
The frame stories introducing this rule as recounted in the six Vinayas – six frame stories in total – vary in both length and detail.Footnote 71 Nevertheless, their storylines show some significant similarities. For instance, all frame stories cover the same series of three events. First, Ānanda (or some unnamed monk/monks) hands over one portion of food – which laypeople had earlier offered to the Buddhist monastic community – to a naked recluse (or a heretical ascetic),Footnote 72 who later shows no gratitude but instead disparagingly calls Ānanda (or the unnamed monk giving him the food) a “shaven householder”. Second, Ānanda inadvertently hands over one cake to a female naked ascetic (or a female heretical wanderer), but two cakes to another female naked ascetic (or another female heretical wanderer), which leads the former to assert that Ānanda has sexual desire for the latter. Finally, third, the Buddha thereupon prescribes a rule, banning monks from giving solid or soft food with their own hands to any naked ascetic, or to any male or female heretical ascetic in general.
The frame stories of this rule in four Vinayas (namely the Pali Vinaya, the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavibhaṅga) all present laypeople’s complaints about Ānanda’s (or certain unnamed monks’) act of handing over food to non-Buddhist ascetics. According to the Pali Vinaya, laypeople report this matter to the Buddha and state, “Venerable sir! It would be good for the noble ones not to give [food] with their own hands to adherents of other sects”.Footnote 73 The Buddha adopts the laity’s suggestion right away and prescribes the rule in question. In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, laypeople complain three times in total. The first time, upon seeing the monks giving leftover food to non-Buddhist ascetics, the laypeople blame the monks for not cherishing the food donated by them and then ridicule the monks saying, “Even the śramaṇas, sons of the Śākyans, make offerings to heretical ascetics. Why shouldn’t we do service [for the heretics]?”Footnote 74 The second time, upon hearing that certain monks had given honey cakes to a naked ascetic, laypeople criticize the monks saying:
The śramaṇas, sons of the Śākyans, do not know how to restrain themselves. They greedily accept [our offerings] and are never satisfied. We have cut down the portions [of food used to feed] our wives and children, in order to make offerings to them. But they gave the food [offered by us] to such an evil man possessed of perverted views. If he is worthy of being provided with offerings, we will make offerings to him. Why [should it be done] through the śramaṇas?Footnote 75
In response to such criticism, the Buddha immediately bans monks from giving food to any naked ascetic and to any other heretical ascetic. No monk dares to break the ban. Later, some heretical ascetics come to ask the monks for alms-food, but are rejected. Having heard this, laypeople complain for a third time, saying, “Why is it that the śramaṇas always approach people to beg for alms, but they do not let others [i.e. non-Buddhist ascetics] get alms?”Footnote 76 In response to this complaint, the Buddha allows the monks to give food to non-Buddhist ascetics on the condition that they do not give it with their hands. Although versions of this story in the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavibhaṅga make no mention of the laity’s complaint, in both versions there are unambiguous indications that the laity have misgivings over monks offering food to heretical ascetics. According to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, a lay devotee (who is a brahmin) becomes annoyed after hearing a heretical ascetic, who had earlier received food from the monks, insultingly call the Buddha a “shaven householder”. The brahmin then reports this matter to the monks, and precisely in response to his report, the Buddha bans monks from giving food to any heretical ascetic.Footnote 77 In the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavibhaṅga, a chief merchant, who had diligently provided the Buddha and the monks with offerings, is astonished to hear a naked ascetic, to whom the monks had given leftover food, claim himself (i.e. the naked ascetic) to be a “field of merit” for the monks. Although he does not report this matter to the Buddha, the merchant warns the naked ascetic about the impropriety of such a claim. These details suggest that the monastic lawmakers who composed or redacted this story (or more precisely, the versions of this story in the Vinayas of Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas, and Mūlasarvāstivādins) were greatly concerned with how laypeople would think and react if the monks give some portion of the food donated by laypeople to non-Buddhist ascetics, particularly when they give with their own hands and thus place themselves in the position of being supporters of non-Buddhist sects. In all of these four Vinayas, the Buddha’s eventual prescription of a rule forbidding monks from giving food with their hands to any naked ascetic, or to any male or female heretical wanderer in general, represents a response to the laity’s complaint or their misgivings. This rule not only serves to differentiate and distance Buddhist monks from non-Buddhist ascetics, but more importantly to retain the laity’s trust and confidence in the Buddhist monastic order, and ultimately to maintain the laity’s material support of the order.
Now, here arises a question: when giving food to a non-Buddhist renunciant, if the monks cannot give it with their hands, what would be the right way of giving it? The Vinayas of the Mahāsāṃghikas, Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, and Mahīśāsakas provide clear answers to this question. The Pali Vinaya of the Theravādins states that if a monk “gives by means of his body or something attached to his body, or by means of something that may be cast, there is an offence entailing expiation”,Footnote 78 which implies that the giving of food to a heretical ascetic can only take place when there is no direct or indirect bodily contact whatsoever between the monk and the heretical ascetic. The Pali statement matches partially with Guṇaprabha’s (c. fifth to seventh centuries) Sanskrit exegesis of the keyword aceladāna or “[rule on] giving [food] to naked ascetics” in the prāyaścittika section of his Vinayasūtra, a remarkable Sanskrit digest of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. Guṇaprabha’s exegesis may be translated as follows:
[If a monk gives] his own solid and soft food to the body, or to something attached to the body, of a male or female naked wanderer who has no such signs [as being the monk’s relative, or desiring to become a Buddhist renunciant, or being sick], and [if the monk] himself gives, [there is an offence entailing expiation], except [when the naked wanderer] is [the monk’s] relative, or a person desiring to become a [Buddhist] renunciant, or a sick person, and except for the sake of dissuading [the naked wanderer] from abiding in evil views. On two improper occasions, namely when one is forced to give and when one allocates [food], there is an offence of wrongdoing. This is [a rule on] giving [food] to naked ascetics.Footnote 79
In the exegesis above, Guṇaprabha clarifies that both bodily contact and indirect contact by means of something attached to the body are forbidden when a monk gives food to a naked ascetic. This clarification is not found in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavibhaṅga extant in Chinese and Tibetan translation, which only in a general manner bans monks from giving food with their hands to any naked ascetic, or to any male or female heretical wanderer.Footnote 80 Furthermore, according to the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, “There is no offence, if a monk gives [food] by throwing it on the ground, or gives [food] by asking another person [to pass it on]”.Footnote 81 Similarly, the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya states, “If a heretical ascetic comes to beg for food, [a monk] should set aside one handful from his own share [of food] and should place it separately at one place, letting [the heretic] himself take it”.Footnote 82 The Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya stipulates that a monk “should ask an intermediary person (Chin. jingren 淨人, Skt. kalpikāra) to pass on food [to a heretical ascetic]”, and that “if there is no intermediary person, one should tell [the heretical ascetic] to take food himself”.Footnote 83 More strikingly, the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya advises monks to discriminate openly against such heretical beggars. It stipulates the following:
If a heretical ascetic, who is [a bhikṣu’s] relative, speaks [to the bhikṣu] derisively like this, “Now you treat me simply as a caṇḍāla/cāṇḍāla”, the bhikṣu should reply, “You have renounced the household life but have not attained the right status [of becoming a Buddhist monk]. The World-Honoured One has established a precept in this way. If you want to eat, then eat it. If you do not want to eat, do as you like.”Footnote 84
This passage shows that when giving food to a non-Buddhist ascetic, a Buddhist monk can simply treat that ascetic as a caṇḍāla/cāṇḍāla, the most despised and excluded outcaste, who represents the lowest of the low in ancient Indian society.Footnote 85 According to the Vasiṣṭha-Dharmasūtra (XI.9) compiled in the beginning of the Common Era, a brahmin “should throw some food on the ground for dogs, Cāṇḍālas, outcastes, and crows” (Olivelle Reference Olivelle1999: 274).Footnote 86 Also, the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra (X.54), which has been dated to the second or third century ce, states that caṇḍālas “depend on others for their food, and it should be given in a broken vessel” (Olivelle Reference Olivelle2005: 210).Footnote 87 These statements bear striking resemblances to what I have quoted above from the Vinayas of the Mahāsāṃghikas, Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, and Mahīśāsakas. Given that caṇḍālas had long been deemed permanently impure and untouchable according to Brahmanical law codes, it is not hard to see the rationale behind the Buddha’s prescription of the rule banning monks from handing food over to any naked ascetic, or to any heretical wanderer in general. By treating a non-Buddhist ascetic who begs monks for food as an untouchable outcaste, and by applying the Brahmanical rhetoric of purity to a Buddhist legal context, the monastic jurists who introduced or transmitted the rule in question placed Buddhist monks in a position that is both socially superior to and more purified than non-Buddhist renunciants.
7. Concluding remarks
The present article has provided a detailed study of the rules that had been put into the mouth of the Buddha by canonical Indian Buddhist jurists for the purpose of differentiating monks from non-Buddhist (particularly Jaina and Ājīvika) renunciants. The rules examined above comprise five categories: first, rules against nudity in various situations, which are divided into two groups (rules preventing monks from voluntarily going naked in daily life, and rules saving monks from unwillingly becoming naked in dire circumstances); second, a rule regulating that monks should wear robes made of cloth strips sewn together; third, a rule prohibiting monks from hair-plucking; fourth, a rule prohibiting monks from accepting alms-food in their hands; and fifth, a rule forbidding monks from giving with their hands any food to any naked ascetic, or to any male or female heretical wanderer in general. The first two categories were intended to make the outward appearance or attire of Buddhist monks distinguishable from that of non-Buddhist renunciants (especially the Ājīvikas and naked Jainas). The third and fourth rules are Buddhist legislative reactions to (and indeed bans on emulating) Jaina ascetic practices, and essentially reflect a Buddhist rejection of the extreme asceticism advocated by the Jainas. The fifth rule not only distances Buddhist monks from non-Buddhist ascetics, but also places the Buddhist monastic order in a position superior to all other non-Buddhist śramaṇic groups, thus effectively differentiating the former from the latter in terms of their social status. Admittedly, these five categories of rules represent only a part, rather than the totality, of all rules or regulations intended to distinguish Buddhist monks from non-Buddhist ascetics contained in the extant Vinaya literature. Nevertheless, they suffice to demonstrate that Indian Buddhist jurists were fully aware of Jaina and Ājīvika modes of ascetic life, and that they consciously used legislation as a tool to construct Buddhist monastic identity, particularly through making rules to differentiate legally the physical appearance, attire, customs, practices, and even social status of Buddhist monks from their śramaṇic rivals.
In many (though not all) of the cases examined above, the Buddha’s prescription of a rule to make monks distinguishable from non-Buddhist renunciants takes place immediately after the laity ridicule certain monks for their behaviours, or derisively compare certain monks to tīrthikas/titthiyas or “adherents of other sects”, or misidentify certain monks as the Ājīvikas or Nirgranthas (Jainas). In such cases, the Buddha’s prescription of the rule in question represents a formal response to the laity’s attitude toward the Buddhist monastic community, and provides a practical strategy to prevent any future criticism, blame, misgivings, or misunderstandings from the laity’s side. The monastic jurists, who promulgated rules through the mouth of the Buddha, undoubtedly knew the causal connection between what a monk looked like, or what he did, and his public image as well as his religious identity. By placing the Buddha’s prescription of rules that serve to differentiate monks from non-Buddhist ascetics immediately after the laity’s criticism, ridicule, or misidentification, the monastic jurists made it clear that they were concerned not just with demarcating the boundaries between Buddhist and non-Buddhist renunciants, but much more with protecting the public image of the Buddhist monastic institution and, ultimately, with maintaining the laity’s trust and support.
Since the Indian Buddhist jurists, who composed or redacted monastic law codes, had never lived in isolation from other religious communities in ancient India, it is therefore highly necessary for modern scholars to adopt a cross-religious perspective in exploring the meanings, underlying rationales, motives, and purposes of rules and stories presented in the Vinaya literature. This article has demonstrated the necessity and significant values of such a cross-religious perspective. It shows that in order to understand how and why the Buddhist jurists made rules to differentiate monks from their śramaṇic rivals – such as the Jainas and Ājīvikas – we need to familiarize ourselves with the beliefs, customs, and practices of both Buddhist and non-Buddhist traditions, and with the multi-religious background of ancient Indian society at large. In this sense, the present article has a methodological implication not only for studying the rules that serve to differentiate Buddhist monks from the Jainas and Ājīvikas, but also for studying any other inter-religious dialogues, communications, or conflicts embedded in the extant Vinaya literature.
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 2018VJX071), the Social Science Foundation of Beijing (No. 23WXA002), Tsinghua University Initiative Scientific Research Program (No. 2021THZWWH03), and Tsinghua University Essential Humanities Development Program (清华大学基础文科发展项目). Any remaining errors are mine alone.
Abbreviations
All references to Pali texts are to the Pali Text Society editions, using the standard abbreviation system set up in Helmer Smith’s “Epilegomena” of CPD, vol. I, 5*–15*.
ĀS Muni Jambūvijaya (ed.), Āyāraṅgasuttam (Ācārāṅgasūtram). Jaina-Āgama-Series 2. Bombay: Shri Mahāvīra Jaina Vidyālaya, 1976.
BHSD Franklin Edgerton, Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. Vol. II: Dictionary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953.
Chin. Chinese
CPD V. Trenckner et al. (eds), A Critical Pāli Dictionary. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy; Bristol: The Pali Text Society, 1924–2011.
D Bka’ ‘gyur (sde dge par phud). 103 vols. Buddhist Digital Resource Center, TBRC W22084. Delhi: karmapae chodhey gyalwae sungrab partun khang, 1976–79.
GBM Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra (eds), Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts (Facsimile Edition). Śata-Piṭaka Series 10 (1)–(10). New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1959–74.
GM Nalinaksha Dutt (ed.), Gilgit Manuscripts, 4 volumes in 9 parts. Srinagar and Calcutta: J.C. Sarkhel at the Calcutta Oriental Press, 1939–59.
KS Hermann Jacobi (ed.). Reference Jacobi1879. The Kalpasūtra of Bhadrabāhu, Edited with an Introduction, Notes and a Prākrit–Saṃskrit Glossary. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus.
Pkt. Prākrit
S Bka’ ‘gyur (stog pho brang bris ma). 109 vols. Buddhist Digital Research Center, TBRC W22083. Leh: Smanrtsis shesrig dpemzod, 1975–80.
Skt. Sanskrit
SWTF Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden und der kanonischen Literatur der Sarvāstivāda-Schule, begonnen von E. Waldschmidt, hg. von der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen unter der Leitung von Heinz Bechert, Lieferung 1–26, Göttingen 1973–2014.
T Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡辺海旭 (eds), Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大蔵経. 100 vols. Tokyo: Taishō issaikyō kankōkai 大正一切経刊行会, 1924–35.
Tib. Tibetan
TSD J.S. Negi (ed.), Tibetan–Sanskrit Dictionary. Bod skad dang legs sbyar gyi tshig mdzod chen mo. 16 vols. Sarnath, Varanasi: Dictionary Unit, Central Institute of Higher Tibetan Studies, 1993–2005.
