Family Matters in Indian Buddhist Monasticisms

Notes

171 Notes Chapter 1: The Rhinoceros in the Room 1. T. 1421 (xxii) 189c19–190a1 (juan 29). 2. Solely for convenience, I use the terms “monk” and “nun” for Sanskrit bhikṣu­and bhikṣuṇī, respectively. The term “monk” in my usage excludes novices. I include novices, both male and female (śrāmaṇera/śrāmaṇerī), probationary nuns (śikṣamāṇā), and bhikṣu­and bhikṣuṇī­in the term “monastic.” I have used “mendicant ” for śramaṇa, a broad term encompassing both Buddhist and non-Buddhist religious wayfarers. Admittedly, the terms “monk” and “nun” are not without problems: they carry with them assumptions concerning stability of residence, poverty , and celibacy. See also Schopen 2007a. On problems with the use of the term “monasticism” to describe Indian Buddhist renunciation, see Schopen 2010d. 3. The extant monastic law codes have come down to us as buddhavacana, i.e., the word of the Buddha. Who wrote these texts and to what extent they were redacted, we cannot know. That the authors/redactors were monks (as opposed to nuns or laymen) is not controversial; beyond that, we know very little. 4. Note, however, Lingat 1937 on Southeast Asia. 5. Here I exclude discussion of references to Samaneans (i.e., śramaṇas) in early Greek literature such as Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata (late second century C.E.). 6. See, for instance, Horner [1930] 1999 for almsmen/almswomen. For bonzes, see Costelloe’s translation of The Letters and Instructions of Francis Xavier (1992, 299 and index, q.v.). For friars, see Hopkins 1906, 455, 457, 460; Barnett 1924, 281; 1930, 698, 699. See Kaempfer [1727] 1998, 69, and Bigandet [1879] 1979, 2:241, for talapoins/talapoi (also Phongyies and Rahans in the latter). See Coomaraswamy [1916] 1956, 147, for “Brother,” “Religious Mendicant ,” and “Wanderer.” 7. Hodgson [1828] 1972, 30: “The followers of Buddha are divided into regular and secular—a division exactly equivalent to the Grihastha Asrama and Vairágí or Sannyásí Asrama of the Hindoos—but not equivalent to Laics and Clerics. The regulars are all monastic....They are all monks, and constitute the congregation of the faithful, or only real Buddhists; the seculars having always 172 Notes to Pages 3–4 been regarded as little better than heretics” (emphasis in original). Hodgson’s “seculars” refer to the Vajrācāryas, on which see Gellner 1992. On the Āśrama­ system, see Olivelle 1993. On Hodgson, see, most recently, Lopez 2004. Of course, there are earlier references to “monks,” such as those found in the writings of Francis Buchanan on the Burmese (1799, 274). 8. Hodgson [1828] 1972, 71 n. 4. The degree to which the Buddhist bhikṣu­ has been compared to Western monks can be seen in subsequent studies. See, for instance, the following chapter titles in R. Spence Hardy’s ([1850] 1989) Eastern Monachism: Noviciate, Ordination, Celibacy, Poverty, Mendicancy, Diet, Sleep, Tonsure, Habit, Residence, Obedience. See also Oldenberg 1896, 104–105. 9. Elm 1994, 8. 10. Elm 1994. 11. Sukumar Dutt ([1924] 1996, 90) follows Benedict’s classification of monks into four classes (Cenobites, Anchorites, Sarabites, and Gyrovagi) and suggests that the Buddhist bhikṣu­originated in the wandering community of Gyrovagi . Note, however, that Benedict is very negative about both the Sarabites and the Gyrovagi, particularly the latter (see Rule of St. Benedict 1.6–.11 [Fry 1981, 169–171]). The origin, but not the etymology, of the term Gyrovagi is unknown (Caner 2002, 9 n. 27). On the Gyrovagi, see Dietz 2005, 78–81, 88– 90. For a comparative study of Buddhist and Benedictine monasticisms, see Don Peter 1990. For a Weberian study of medieval Catholic and Theravāda monasticism , see Silber 1995. 12. Rousseau ([1985] 1999, 153), for instance, suggests that “families were not entirely severed by the walls around the communities.” See also Talbot 1990; Krawiec 2002. 13. See the discussion immediately below. See also Chap. 2, p. 46. 14. On the age of the Sutta­nipāta, the Pāli collection containing the Rhi­ noceros Horn Sutta, see Fausböll 1881, xi–xii; Chalmers 1932, xiv–xvi; Norman [1992] 2001, xxxi–xxxiii; and Cousins 1985, 219. See also von Hinüber 1996, 48–50. 15. Salomon 2000, 23. Of course, this is only the date of the extant manuscript and not of its contents; on this distinction, see Sec. 3 below. 16. The message of the Rhinoceros­Horn­Sūtra­is known to us primarily from Pāli sources; see, for instance, Norman [1984] 1996...