chapter

INTRODUCTION

The present work is a Critical Study of Householders* D iscipline in ThervSda Buddhism. We sh all f i r s t explain the three important technical terms occurring in the title Which would clarify the significance and scope of the subject matter. These are (i) householder, (ii) discipline and (iii) TheraySda Buddhism.

(i) Householder :

The terms occurring in the Pfili canons for a householder are as follows : 1 2 3 k 1 . £3Mn; gihi (PI.); gahapatil or 5 gfthapflt^iKfl; ( gahjm M ni). 7 3 9 10 11 2 . igSEa; (agflrln; aggrika; agSriya; agSrinl; 12 asariKg etc.) 13 Ik 3. S E ia M (f. S5vik5). 15 16 k. UEggflk^ (f. HESflM).

The words included in item No. 1 above, are derived from gaha (tfk. firfaji) which means a house. Hence gahapati means a lord or a master of the house, that is, a householder. Similarly, gahattha also means »one ^ o stays in a house’, that is, a householder. Again the term ^agSra** or **ag5riva* - 2 -

(Item No. 2) la derived from^agSra* (»k. agfira)» Which means a house. Hence, agftra or aggriza means a householder. The term aSvaka (»k. sravaka^ (Item No. 3 ) is derived from VsnT''^, meaning to hear. Hence, aSvaka means a hearer or a disciple. And finally the term upgraka (Item No. k) is derived from the sk. word **upa Br** >hich means ’to attend to' or 'to serve*. Hence, uofiraka means a serving man.

In every Nikfiya, excepting the Dlgha, there is a 17 gahapati-vagga in Whidi the Buddha administered instructions to a particular gahapati or delivered discourses for the bene­ fit of gahapatia in general. In the brahmanical systems, a householder’s stage is one of the four Ssrams or orders of life. In our opinion, the term gahapati or gihl or gahattha is not an ancient one. The same may be said regarding agSra or agSriva. These terms are probably borrowed from brahma­ nical system. The NikSyas refer to three parisSs or classes of devout listeners to Buddha's discourses. They are Khattiva- 18 XiffiiaS., BrfthmaQa-Eftr.igS and GahapaU-parisS. The Juxtapo­ sition of the word gahapati to khattlva and brShmana suggests that it meant usually the setthis (bankers) or businessmen or who have taken to some vocations, sudi as agriculture, car- 19 pentary, smithy and so forth. The gahapatis were more or less devout listeners to moral or religious discotirses delivered by the Buddha or his monk disciples. After listening to the dis­ courses they would become urSsakas. and would actually follow- the moral code or duties prescribed for the upSaakas. At the most we may call gahapatis to be lay-supporters of the Buddha or the Buddhist safigha. 20 The term aSvaka meaning the hearer, was o rig in ally applied for Gotama’s disciples, both monks and laymen. Both of than were the ‘hearers* of the Buddha. I t seems, o rig i­ nally all those people who respected Buddha and gathered to­ gether, whether monks or lay people, had at first the same status, but as the community expanded, the distinetion was made between monks and Is^ people. The term sSraka is found in

In fine, vre may say that thou^ at present the terms itihapatl, sSvaka. upMSka, fijsSEa, etc., are treated as syno­ nyms meaning a Buddhist householder, every term has got its own history, and possesses its own shade of meaning.

(11) D iscipline :

The important Pali terms occurring In the sense of moral discipline or precept or conduct are dhamma. vinava and slla. Following the tradition of ?ail canons we may interpret dhamma as having the fourfold connotations as 23 Buddhaghosa has done :

1. Doctrine; 2. Righteousness; 3 . Condition, and Phenomenon.

In the compound word dhamma with vinava. the term dhamma means ’moral philosophy’, ’vfisdom’ , ’tru th ’ as pro­ pounded by Gotama Buddha in his discourses and conversations, collected by the compilers of the five NikSyas. Thus, here dhamma means ’doctrinal portions of Tipi taka’ in contradiction to the vlnaya. the portion expounding the rules of the Order. That is to say, ’dhamma* means here ’doctrine’. and ’vinava’ m e a n s ’discipline*. Even then as we have already noted, the term dhamma is used in the sense of ’righteousness*, 'mora­ lity* or ’discipline*. For example, there are passages in the Tipi^aka literature wherein we get the compound word gihldhamma for ’layman’s duty’ or ’discipline*.

In chapter II of the present work we have dealt with the doctrinal background of householders* discipline by in­ terpreting the term dhamma as ’doctrine’. In this context, however, we observe that just like in Jainism, in Early Buddhism also the term dhamma is used in the sense of d iscip lin e or ethical code of conduct.

The other important word occurring in the sense of discipline is vinaya. It is derived^ vi meaning’to lead away from*. It also means ’that which x-eparates*, or 25 ♦that which removes’. Thus, etymologically vinava means ’a code of ethics’ or ’a multitude of rules of morality* which leads us away from wrong conditions of mind, the con­ d itio n s of grasping, desiring and ignorance iJhich stem from the delusion of I-ness (aha&kSra). and leads us to NlBLSna. Thus, gihtvinava means ’householders’ ethical code of conduct or discipline’.

There is the third term *slla’ translated as moral precept, v^ich is one of the three constituents of the 6

■fco pathway leading to Nibblna. Accord!ng^the Buddhism the three co nstituents are : FannS. S lla and sssBdbiu* However, there i s a minute difference in the meanings of the term vinaya and stla. Slla is related primarily to spiritual attitudes and self-discipline rather than rigid rules and prescribed punish­ ments which are conreyed by the term yinaya, and which regu­ late the external aspects of the lives of ironks or laymen. Thus, s lla deals with moral nature, autonomous se lf-d isc ip lin e and inner spiritual development, whereas vinava is obligatory in nature and pertains mere to legalistic matters affecting the community. In Buddhist tradition the term vinava is prim arily employed in the context of monkish d iscip lin e and it is originated as a result of misconduct by monks in the Safigha, while t^ie origin of slla is routed in general dis- 2 b ciplinary rules for monks among o«ier sects of the time. However, i t is tr-ue th a t in the early w ritings of the Bud- hist tradition, discipline was usually referred to as both 27 and V i nava. In short, thou^ there i s a difference in the shades of meaning of the terms dhamma. slla and vinava. we have treated them synonymous, and translated or gihlvinsya or gihtslla as householders’ disci­ pline in general.

( iii) Thervfida Buddhism : The third and the last important tarru occurring in the t i t l e of our work is Therav5da Buddhism. By ThervSda it Buddhism vie mean early pure Hinayanic Buddhism th a t preserred o r i g i n a l teachings of Gotama Buddha in the P 5 1 i Pitakas or canonical books in Ceylon. Since we have alraadjr dealt with the short history of ThervSda Buddhism in tlie preface of the present work, we need not repeat it here.

The question as to what exactly was the layman’s position in the early Thervada Buddhist Safina, is highly delatable, and continued to be the subject of controversy. I t means, we are to decide f i r s t whether the Early Buddhist Community or SaAgha was wholly and solely a monkish community or the lay people were also included in it. XSx If the lay people included, the second question arises regarding thiir status in it. That is, we have to ilnd out if ti^e laity were equal participantsor secondary members of the Buddhist Saft^a. If the Buddha* s preaching of dhamma was meant for both monks and laymen, again a otiestion arises as to whether the householder could or could not become an arhat in this life. This controversy is mainly due to the fact that we get conflicting passages in the Pfili canonical literature relying on which the scholars support th is view or th at view. For us, the solution of this crucial problem is/vUt- most importance, because unless we decide the status of householdei 3 in relation to that of monks in the early 8

Buddhist Saft^a, we cannot do justice to the treatment of the lay discipline.

V/e shall first present the different Tie»s of scholars alongwith their arguments on this problem, and then would give our own observations in this context on the basis of original material at our disposal.

(i) J.H. Kerw while pointing out the difficulty in characte­ rising the peculiarity of the Buddhist code of worldly mora­ lity , makes the following statement :-

"Buddhism properly being a monastic institution, and tbe laity but accessory, it is natural that social customs and obligations were total tiolerated, after some prunir^, if they were not in flagrant conflict with the dogma of the church”.

He has made this observation while evincing the in­ debtedness of the Buddhist morality to lihe brahmanical moral code.

(ii) H. *

•But if the Order (Buddhist) be regarded as the ideal unit of believing monks over the whole face of the earth ...... yet in actual life the order never appears in this universal sense. There is really not one order, but only orders, communitiea of the 29 monks sojourning in the same diocese**.

(iii) In opposition to Kgjg»s position, S. Dutt maintains :

•*There was the d ifference between monks and lay 30 people

(iv) H. Ngkgm]2£§ supports Du|jt, but adds q u alificatio n s. He states :

^he earliest Buddhist Community consisted both of monks and lay people, because everyone Wio gathered to admire Buddha had the same status, but when the community was developing, there was a division bet- 31 ween monks and lay people” .

He further adds : "As the Safigha developed and gained in importiance, monks were considered to be higher than lay people (or, lay people to be lower than monks). Soma time later, lay people were designated "serving men" 32 (upSsaka). vhich means that lay people served monks."

(v) ^^l^aksha Dutt also opines :

"The principles of Early Buddhism did not make any 10

special provision Ibr the laity. Its mission was to persuade householders to embrace the lif e of a recluse ard Buddha was so sQccessful in h is mission in Magadha that people of the country raised a hue and cry over i t , sayiig that Samawia Gotama was bent upon making the families sonless,women widowed and livif^e|^succession discontinued*. However, he adds : '*At the same time, it has to be admitted that the Buddhist Saft^a must have a lay-community for its very existence, some supporting families from \*iich the members could have the bare necessaries of their life**.

I t seems, N. accords primary position to monks, and secondary to laymen in garly Buddhist Community.

(vi) H. Saddhatissa also tackles the problan of the position of the la ity in Early Buddhism. He seems to be in favour of giving equal statu s to both the monks and the laymen in the Early Buddhist Coraniunity. While dealing with the relation between the three Refuges and Moral Precepts, he observes :

•♦It might be assumed th a t the laity would receive elementary instruction and the Bhikkhus more advanced instruction, but that was not always the case. There is no hard and fast line of demarcation between the practice of the Moralities and the understanding of 11

the paticcasamuppada, nor is there any barrier bet­ ween the Intellectual capacity of the Bhikkhus and that of the laymen. The point at issue was always the freeing of mind and freeing of i n s i s t , and tliough it was obviously more likely that the Bhik- khu would develop these more quickly than would the layman, still there was no holding back of the teach­ ing for those who could absorb it, whatever their 35 stratus. ^

From the above passage it is obvious that H. Sadd- hatissa does not hesitate in assignii^ enual status to the la ity in Early Buddhist Safigha. He attaches more importar^»^ to inner purity or t^e combination of wisdom and morality brou^t into actual practice.

(vii) Chai-shin Yu elaborately discusses the problem of lay- mmrmm 9ss« ss man's position in the Early Buddhist SaA^a, and gives his observation as follows :

•Historically, lay people were not full members of the Sahgha, alth o u ^ they were included in the concept of the Sahgha. In bliddha»s kingdom monks and lay people had different functions, the monks beii^g the inner group, the laymen the ruler group, but fundamentally they were a ll sons of the 5Skya kingdom through 12

unlYersal dharma. However, the SaJigha was prim arily a monkish community. The la ity were wer« secondary rather than equal participants, but they were not completely excluded from the SaAgha, the lay people individually belonged to the Safcgha in the fuller sense. They remained part of the Hindu Community as far as secular matters were concerned, but they be­ longed to Buddha*s ^ s p iritu a l” kingdom vhich centered 36 on him as the King of Dharma".

This passage being self evident doesn’t reauire further comments.

(viii) John Clifford Holt includes mainly monks in the Community of Early Buddhism. He distinguishes between the paths of the monks and the laity so far as their discipline and the goal are concerned. Be says :

•Theoretically, it was possible for a lay-man to gain the hipest goal if he could fulfil all the require­ ments of discipline. However, the life of householder made this extremely difficult. The path of t^e layman was predominantly characterised as a path or merito- 37 rious actions and veneration for the Buddha**.

He quotes a passage from Ma.lihima NikSva* s Parable of 13

the water, in vihidi there is a descending scale measurli^g levels of achievement for members of the coBmunlty. In the first four paragraphs Lord Buddha refers respectively to these monksviio become arhat, once returner, non-returner and stream attainer and in the last paragraph, >ihich is common to tooth monks and laymen, he says ;

•All these who have enou^ faith in me, enou^ affe- 38 ction are bound as though for heaven*,

while commenting on this passage John Clifford Holt further Kscss aeSBSKSS bscs adds :

"Thus, as the last passage ft-om the Majjhima text indi cates (and i t is important to note th at here "monks’* has been replaced by ‘'those* so that this first grade of achievement refers to all members of the Buddhist community), those who espouse a fa ith and devotion to the Buddha will attain rebirth in heaven. Far from being a consolation prize for the laity, this last statement underscores a crucial difference between lay and monastic piety, the monastic spiritual c^uest was based upon the destruction of the •Cankers*, a process involving the purification of one»s mind throu^ discipline so as to ultimately eliminate Kammit consequences. On the other hand, the path IV

of the laity involved a continued participation in the wheel of life on the basis of Kammic conaeouences ac­ cruing from actions. We might say that the laity re­ mained '♦merit conscious". This crucial aspect of lay piety had prodigious consequences for the nature of 39 monastic lay-relationships*.

John Clifford Holt rather presumes an inter-relation­ ship between the monks and the laity. Monk provided the laity with a ’♦field of merit*, that is, it was thought a meritorious a c t on the p a rt of laymen to provide a m aterial support ?»eh- by offering them food, clothing, residence etc. while the monks in gratitude lec^ laymen on the path of sp iritu a l d is- 1*0 cipline by preaching or teaching.

(ix) Robert C. Lester while dealing with the TheravSda Buddhism in Southeast Asia lays emphasis on the reciprocal merit-inter- action existing between the monks and the laitjr who hold d if ­ ferent positions according to their self-discipline on the road to i^nli^tenment in the Buddhist Community. He terms the mutual relation of inter-dependence between the monks and the laity as the dynamic of the TheravSda way of life . According to th is principle each man’s fate whether he may be a monk or a layman is in his own hand, yet advancement towards the ideal depend^upon meritorious interaction with other beings. 15

He observes as follovis :

•The Buddhist speaks of self-dlsclpllne status as merlt-status. The monk is a "merlt-fleld** for the layman, the layman a "merit maker". The layman is a "merit field** fo r the monk, the monk a •m erit- maker". The monk, uncompromised by the world, most truly exemplifies the ideal - the layman recognising, honoring and serving the monk (and thus the ideal) eiAiances his merit-status; tiiat is, he cultivates and loanifests a certain self-discipline, a quality of life characterised by "giving*. But this is mutual, not one way-the monk in providing the layman with the opportunity to give enhances his own merit-status by cvdtivating and manifesting humility and compassion. Stated in practical terms from the t;wo different angles, the monk voluntarily gives up the Joy?of life in the world towards the development of h i^ character, wisdom, and compassion - the layman moved by sudi an example of purity responds by feeding, clothing and housing the monk, calling on his aid, and in every way honoring him; the layman grapples with the exigencies of lif e in the world in order to support the monk - the monk in grati­ tude responds by preadiing, teaching, counseling and blessing. M erit-interaction takes place in numerous 16 U1 different ways and at various lerela in the society."

(x) On the Question of the layman*s position In the SaAgha, hold the opinion that the Early Bud­ d h ist Theravada Community was prim arily a monkish community. This is obvious from his observation as given below. He says :

"He (the layman) was already bound to do so by the rules of Hindu caste and family-religion. The chief test of his Buddhism was his readiness to serve the monks. It was for this reason, I think, that lay- adherents were not called, as might have been ex­ pected, srfivakas, 'Hearers', but simply UpSsakas, *servers*, and in the case of women upSsikSs. They could not be called disciple of Buddha in the truest sense, unless they entered his monastic Order**.

Having presented above views of d iffe re n t scholars on the position of the laity in Early Buddhist Community or Safigha, we shall now put forth our observations in this respect, In our opinion the solution of the issue depends on two factors,

(a) The concept of Safigha. (b) The efflccuy of householders* discipline in leading the householder to NibbSna or arhatshlp in this very lif e . 17

(a) The concw t of Sa&gha :

Let us f i r s t discuss the Buddhist concept of Safigha. The vford "Sahgha’’ derives from Sam + ]ir, literally "compris­ ing*. It means any "multitude* or '♦assemblage*, but in Bud­ dhist terminolo^ the Saftgha is one assembly and one only, namely, tiie Order of Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunls, this without distinction of race, nationality, caste or age. Within the Safxgha the only distinction is that of the arlvasafiAa and the sammutisangha. Ariyasafigha consists of four pairs of persons and eight classes of individuals vsho realize the 44 patliS-' (Magga) and fruitions (Fhala) of the following stages :

(i) Stream-winning (sotSpatti) (ii) Once-retum (aakadgggml) (Hi) Never-return (anaggml) (iv) Perfection (Arhatta)

It is possible -ttiat layman would be included in this Safigha, while the sammutisafigha consists exclusively of bhik- 45 khus and Ehikkhu^s; it does not include upSsakas and upSsikSs. It is important to note that there is a distinction in the meaning of the term "Bhikkhu* and the Monk", though both of them liv e on alms. A Bhikkhu ms&' not be bound by any vows as a monk does. If we take a term parisS meaning company, assembly, association, it covers all four types of disciples. Id namely( monks, nuns» laymen and laywomen, but the terms ParlaS anHare not interchangeable. It is true th a t the works lik e Vinaya are mainly concerned with the rules of discipline governiiig the Order of Buddhist monks U7 and nuns. Again out of the ten ru le s se t forth by Buddha ^ • <2- for His disciples only/:applied equally to the monks and lay­ men and the remaining fire were meant for monks only. And it is also true that there is no record in the Suttas of any lay people»s having participated with the monks in the compilation of Buddha’s dhammavinava. even though some of them might have heard Buddha’s dhamma. Again, it is also a fact that the Buddha did not frame rules for the ordinary events of life, such as birth, marriage, funeral etc., of the lay people, but it does not mean that the Buddha preached dhammavinava specifically to the monks and nuns only, and not to the lay people as Chai-giin Yu thinks. It amounts to sayiiTg as many Western writers do that the original Buddhism consisted entirely of a reformatory movement amongst recluses and that the laity were considered only in so far as they were necessary to the physical maintenance of the Bhikkhus. That is why, scholars like H. Oldenberg under the influence of Christian tradition wrongly use a term **Church" for Buddhist SaAgha, and make the following statement : 19

•Buddha*s chiifcch is a church of monks and nuns...... He W^io cannot or will not gain this freedom (i.e., leaving the home) is not a member of the church. But while there was|framed from the beginning for the monastic Church an organization clothed with strict forms of spiritual procedure, there was no attempt made at creations of a similar kind for the 49 quasi-church of lay brothers and lay sisters*.

The main cause of misunderstanding of the Vfestern scholars like H. Oldenberg is that they draw such quotations adduced in support of their statements almost exclusively from Yinava texts which, of course, deal essentially with the ru le s of the monkish community. Again we get conflicting passages in Tipi^ka which sometimes show the superiority of monks* discipline to householders’ discipline, and sometimes i t is said that the terms "bhikkhu*, ’♦brahman’*, •samana*, and 'Tiouseholderheld in truth no differentiation other than that of state of mental develot)ment. Let us take for examples such two conflicting statements from the early Bud­ d h ist canonical works. On the one hand i t is stated :

(a) •The or fehikkhunl, upSsaka or upgsikS. who lives in conformity with the dhamma. who has entered on and who walks in the proper course conforming to 20

the dhanuma. he is th e one vjho pays the h i p e s t and 5o most excellent honoiir and reverence to the TathSgata.**

(b) "Vihoever had learned Buddha’s scriptiures and tru th , 51 a ll were Buddha’s d isc ip le s’*.

livhere this scripture mentions tiie holy disciples (T^rvaaflvaka), i t includes not only monks but also lay people in this category. Also lay people of exceptionally h i^ duality could learn not only Buddha’s teachings as it applied to lay people but could also study the Theory of Causation 52 and the Fo\ar Noble Truths, ju s t lik e the monks. On the other hand, there are such passages vfiich make distinction or gradation in discipline, and treat householders’ discipline on a lower lev el than th at of the monks. For example, viiile dealing with householders’ discipline in .Jutta NjpSia. it is stated :

*A householdei^ work I will also tell you, how a sSvaka is to act to be a good one; for that complete BhikkhU"-dhamma cannot be carried out by one vho is 53 taken up by (worldly) occupations'*.

In this respect we contend that unless the context of a particular passage is considered, one may not interpret it correctly. These apparent inconsistencies in the teachings 21 of the Buddha are not real inconsistenciea at all. If vro study the account of the iiinll^tenment of Vipassi Buddha as given by Gotama Buddha, and which is also applicable to Gotama Buddha himself, it is obvious that as long as the prospect lay in teaching a few people in comparatively ad­ vanced states the Buddha refused to teadi, but when he con­ sidered the whole heterogeneous mass of mankind and i t s sufferings,he decided without hesitation that he would teach his dhamma. Therefore, any statement to the effect that the Buddlia-Dhamma was intended for a select few only, of vliatever nature that few might be assumed to be, is not in accord with the statement made by Gotama.

In our opinion Buddhism is essentially a mind-culture. Instead of taking householders' discipline and monks* disci­ pline as two independent'ways’, if we take them to be differ­ ent stages of mental development, there remains no room for the controversy. Inner purity is more important for Gotama Buddha. \Vhether one follows householders’ discipline or monks* discipline, is immaterial for him. As we have already seen, for both the monks and the laymen, what was most import­ ant appears to have been the correct and sincere following of Buddha’s teachings. Whether one was a monk or a layman, i f one practised Buddha’s teachings correctly, one would reach Nibbana. It is true that the Buddha has established separate 22 rules for monks* au;id laymen’s lives, because the differ­ ences in their modes of living, but the foundation of the rules for both the monks and the laymen was the same ultimate good, namely, NibbSna. thou^ in accordance to one's less cr more purity or development of mind, one may reach either heaven or NibbBna. et For us it is not important to probe into^.the histo­ rical position of the formation of the SaAgha or the restrict- ed meaning of the term ’Safigha*^^ t>e only order of monks and nuns. We take rather the broader concept of parisg of the Buddhist Community in which monks and laymen are equal p a r ti­ cipants. Buddha’s dhamrna-vinaya was one and ought to be equally meant for both the monks and laymen irresp ectiv e of their external status. There is no hard-and-fast line of demarcation between the practice of the morality and the under standi ngof the PaticcasamuppSda. nor is there any barrier between the intellectual capacity of the bhikkhus and th a t of the laymen. The point a t issue was always the freeing of mind and freeing of in sist, and thou|^ it was obviously more likely that the bhikkhu would develop these more quickly than would the layman, still there was no hold­ ing back of the teaching for those who could absorb it, what- 5t) ever their status. 23

And last but not the least vre contend that we cannot overlook the Buddhist doctrine of the Middle Viay as an essence of Gotama Buddha's teachings in which there is no room for onesided extremist view. It follows that the Buddha cannot categorically say th a t only monks' discip line is capable of leading to NibbS^, and householders' discipline at the most may take one upto heaven only.

C'=’3 The efficacy of householders' discipline ^ leading the householder to NibbSna or arhatship in th is v r y l i f e ; This brings us to the problem of the efficacy of householders' discipline in leading the householder to NibbSna or arhat­ ship in this very life. It is one of the important factors deciding the position of the la ity in Early Buddhism, In this respect we maintain that the householder cannot attain to arhathood. It is, however, not supported by the early s»]Pi>e scrip tu res. Hence, i t may be a postulated view which crept into the Buddhist scholarship. Arhatship is a trans­ cendental state beyond the states of bhikkhu. bhlkkhunt-. upgsaka or upSsikS. According to the scriptures, many house- 57 holders have attained to NibbSM. Since we are going to deal with this delatable problem in details in the ,^*fxth chapter of the present work, namely, NjbbSna (nirvSna) - the ultim ate goal, we would not d ila te upon i t here. •23 A

The Sources : (1) ygiamrz :

As we have already explained in the Preface,out of the entire PSli literature of the Hinayanic TheravSda Buddhism, generally Sutta Pi taka is the most important work as the Primary Source for studying the householders’ -discipline. Out of its five MkSyas, the Qahapati- jf- vaggas of the Ma.1.1hima« the Sai^tta and the Aftguttara plus some portion from the Khuddaka such as the Dhamma- pada and Sutta nipata form the Chief Primary Sources of the present study.

oyy 2K

For example, there are two Gahapati in the Sam/^utta Nikgva. In the f i r s t , the gahapatis are admonished to observe the fire moral precepts, to develop faith in t’ne Three Ratanas and to comprehend trfie law of Causation includ­ ing the Four Noble Truths. As regards the duties of a gaha­ p a ti. i t is stated in th is NikSya th a t a gahapati should :

i) maintain his parents; ii) revere elders of the family; iii) use gentle words; iv) avoid malicious talks; v) discard miserliness; vi) be open-handed; v ii) be tru th fu l; and 58 viii) never be angry.

Again in the G^aP^t^i, Vggga of the 4ftgut

«»In th is Sutta, he (Buddhaghosa) w rites, nothing in the duties of housemen ia left unmentioned. This Suttanta is called the Vinaya of the Housemen further, And truely we may say even now of this vinava. or code of discipline, so fundamental are the human- 60 interests involved...... •

There are some discourses devoted to the duties of gahapatlnl also, that it is obvious that in spiritual attainments, the female lay-devotees vded equally well with 61 the B aale-devotees. We have culled different items of householder’s morality from this vast literature and tried to present them precisely and systematically by arranging them into different groups. Since there are many varities of names and ideas in moralities, we find the task of systematical classification very difficult. We are aware th a t ju s t lik e Pfili tex t of TheravSda Buddhism, there are recently found Sanskrit canons also. However, since too little information is available concerning the Sanskrit works, we have taken only the FSli canon of Thervgda Bud­ dhism as referred to above for our present study. 26

(ii) Secondary :

Nearly every work w ritten on Buddhism from R. Spence Hardy’s Manual of Buddhism vhich was published over 120 years ago, to Ghai-Shin Yu’s Early Buddhism and Christianity. which appeared in 19S1, contains something about householders* dis­ cip line in Theravada or Early Buddhism. But as fa r as we knov, no work is specially devoted to the study of this single subject. This is one reason why we took this subject for our doctoral dissertation. Even the scholarly works of H. Oldenberg, Rhys Davids, H, Kern, S. Dutt, E.J. Thomas, S, Tachibana etc., do not give much information specifically regarding householders* d isc ip lin e . Most of them th o ro u ^ ly deal with Buddhist monachism or Monks* d iscip lin e and passr some casual remarks on householders* discipline. Even then there are some books whidu have proved valuable to us thou^ they do not especially deal with householders* discipline as we have done in the present work. Thus, for example, NaliMllsha D|^tt in his Earlv Monastic Buddhism (Vol.II, Chapter XII, PP. 20?-23^) deals with the place of laity in Early Buddhism in scholarly, lucid but cursory manner. He gives the themes of discourses addressed by Buddha to Gaha- Patis and Gahapatfinls. the relation between lay-devotees and monks, the teachings imparted to lay-devotees, their spiritual attainments, and lastly the controversial problem as to whether 27 a gahapati could attain Nlfabgna or not. As we have already pointed out he is of the opinion that the principles of the Early Buddhism did not make any provision for the la ity . The Buddhist discipline was» according to him, primarily meant fo r monks. I t w ill be evident ffom our work th a t in this respect we do not agree with him, Chai-Shin Xu in his work ^ a e c s B S mmmm ar * Early Buddhiam and Christianity has tackled the topic of householders' discipline. He has first elaborately discussed the problem whether lay people were included in the Early Bud- dtfist Safigha or i t was merely a monkish community. He is also of the opinion that the Buddhist-discipline was primarily for monks. Thus, after fixing the layman’s position in the Safigha while dealing with monks' discipline, side by side he gives some items of the Code of Conduct fcr householders on the basis of the Si]|alo»ada Suttanta. Thou^ his treatment is balanced, it is abrupt, H. Saddhatissa in his work Buddhist at snssKBSBsraKs Ethics has elaborately but not independently discussed the position of the laity and his discipline in the Early Buddhism. He has devoted two chapters (i.e., chapters VI and VII) to layman’s duties. He has also based his discussion on mainly SigRlovada Suttanta. In addition to that he has referred to inlbbg^ Suttanta and some suttas of Aheuttara NikSva. It is true that he has recognized significant role of a house­ holder in the Early Buddhist Saftgha. But since the subject 2$ matter of his work la Buddhist Ethics in general, there Is not much scope for householders’ discipline in it. There at!Q two more good books dealing with the ethics of the Early Therwvfida Buddhism :

1. Theravada Buddhism in Southeast. AsiA by Robert C. Lester, c 0 B B s s i V 2. Talas and Teitchlnja._Qf the Buddha by John Garrett Jones.

The former is viritten with the intention to connnuni- cate the major features of the present-day practice of Thera- vSda Biiddhism in Southeast Asia in the perspective of scri- ptiure and history. He has devoted a small space (chapter VII) to the way of the laity. Since the author’s emphasis is more on the present-day householders’ discipline existing in South­ east Asia, it is not of much help to us. However, we appre­ ciate author’s assignment of proper position to householders’ discipline in fiarly Buddhist Saftgha which is expressed in the following words. He observes :

"Western historical textual studies consistently present TheravSda Buddhism as a rigorously monastic, asce;f*tic, and meditative discipline pursuant of lib e ratio n from the sorrov? and sufferir?g of human existence. This view not only excludes the non-monk, 29

but also distorts the way of the monk by examining 62 it apart from the way of the layman’*.

work entitled *Talea and TflflchingB of the Buddha* investigates the relationship between the stricter minority (i.e. '♦monks*) and the laxer majority (i.e., "layman") within the Therav5da Community. He does so, however, not by comparing scriptural precept with customary lay-practice, but by comparing the core scriptural teaching, contained in the four NikSvas of the Sutta-Pitoka. with the teaching implied or expounded in the most popular religious literature known to the average lay-Buddhist, the Jgtaka 63 stories. In Chapters IV, V and VI of his work he has compared the four Nikfivag with the J8takas in matter of the five ethical precepts such as non-violence, truth etc. Rh^ Devids in Buddhism (Chapter V), gives the English 1a*ans- lations of some passages from Pali Tipitoka such as SigSlovada S uttanta. Dhammika Sutta. Nidhikahda Sutta. Dhaimnapada. Rmagandha Sutta etc.. There is no attempt of the critical evaluation and systematic presentation of his material. His purpose is to introduce the readers with some original literature on lay-morality .

Though g. £achibana*s hithics of Buddhism* is very valuable work for understanding the moral tenets of Buddhism, 30 there is no separate treatment dealing with householders* discipline. l6 This/about a few important books pertaining partly to householders* discipline. Since, so far as we know, no work is specially devoted to the study of hous^olders* discipline wa have undertaken this task for doctral disser­ tation. The other secondary sources utilized in this work are duly acknowledged in the Bibliography as well as in the footnotes.