Appendix to Atula Hsayadaw Shin Yasa: a Critical Biography of An

Appendix to Atula Hsayadaw Shin Yasa: a Critical Biography of an Eighteenth‐Century Burmese Monk: Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Alexey Kirichenko

This appendix contains documents that detail the progress of Atula’s trial in 1784 or that were, in my analysis, relevant to it. The original Burmese text of each document is reproduced followed by either a translation or a summary of a document. I also provide comments that explain the contents and the purpose of the document in question. All documents are in chronological order and numbered sequentially. The references in the biography follow these numbers. In reproducing Burmese texts, the original spelling of the manuscripts or the source publications was provisionally retained (with few corrections). In later versions of this appendix I plan to edit the documents in accordance with modern Burmese spelling conventions. The summaries detail the key messages of documents simplifying the style and omitting the quotes from Buddhist texts and some minor points. In future versions the summaries will be replaced by full translations.

Document no. 1 Royal order dated the eight day of the waning moon of Nayon 1144 (June 3, 1782)

Text: /bkefawmfBuD;jrwfawmfrlvSaom omoem'g,umawmf b0&Sifrifw&m;BuD; trdefUawmf&Sdonf? t&yf&yf q&mawmfoCFmawmftaygifwdkU/ avtoacsFESifh urÇmwodef; yg&rDq,fyg; tjym;oHk;q,fudk jznfhawmfrlí oyÜnKtjzpfodkU a&mufawmfrlaom bk&m;jrwfpGm y&dedAÁmef,lawmfrlonfaemuf ykxkZOf&[ef;wdkU toD;oD; t,l0g' uGJjym;usifhaqmifMuonf/ tZmwowf umvmaomu oD&d"r®maomurifwdkUudk trSDjyKí t&Sifr[muóy &Sifr[m,o &Sifr[mar*¾vdykwåwdóx&f trSL;&Sdaom &[EÅmoljrwfwdk0fhonf/ rdpämt,l uG,fí ormt,lü nDnGwfpGm jzpfapjcifiSg yxro*Fg,em 'kwd,o*Fg,em wwd,o*Fg,em wifawmfrlMuvQif cyfodrf;aom rdpämt,lwdk0hfonf/ uG,fajymufí ormt,lü wOfMuukefouJhodk0f/ jzpfapvdk0fí [Hom0wDa&mHrif; bdk;awmfcrnf;awmfwdkUvufxufuyif t½HktwifoCFmawmfwdk0f ESpfOD;uGJjym;í uv[0d0g'jzpfaomhaMumifh bk&m;a[m ygVd t|uxm usrf*ef&Sd&m jzpfap&rnf tBudrfBudrf qdkapaomfvnf;/ t,l0g'oabmrMu rNyD;rjywf 'kuk#fwif ouFef½Hk *gr0goD toD;oD; uGJjym;usifhaqmifí &SdMuukefonf/ crOfawmftavmifrifw&m;v¬uf wdkif;EdkifiH odrf;½HkwOfaxmifawmfrlonfumv crOf;awmfbk&m;wGif q&mtBuD;jyKí udk;uG,fawmfrlonfh tkyf&SpaMu;&Sif f,oyk*¾dKvfu ouFef½Hk 'kuk#fwif *gr0goD toD;toD; tuGJuGJ r&Sdapoifh 'kuk#fwif wcsufwnfom usifaqmifapoifhonf/ w&m;usrf*ef&SdaMumifESifh arwåmpmqufoGif;í 'kuk#fwifET,fwcsufwnf;om usifhaqmif&rnf&Sd&mwGif/ yvdkif;q&mawmf&SifokZmwyk*¾dKvfwdkYu 'kuk#fi,f &ifbGJUpnf;wifí usifhaqmiftyfonf? ESpfbuf½Hkí usifhaqmiftyfonfudk0f ygVd t|uxmvmwdkif; qdk0fvdkygonf arwåmpmqufoGif;&mwGif qdkap crnfawmfbk&m; trdefUawmf&Sdonfudk0f &Sif,oyk*¾Kvfwdk0fhu tqdk0f rcH/ [Hom0wDa&mHcrnfawmfv¬uf qdk0fMuonhfumv t½Hkq&mwdk0fhu tBudrfBudrf ½HIí jzwfwrf;jzwfpmESifh &Sdonf? qdkifNydKifí rqdk0fapoifhNyD/ 'kuk#fwif &ifbGJUpOf;wifí usifhtyfaMumif;udk0fom w&m;usrf*ef&Sdonf/ plV*E¨Dusrf;xGufudk bk&m;a[mtXuxmuJhodk0fh tcdkifjyKí arwåmZmoGif;jyefaomaMumifh t½Hkq&mwdkUu zufNydKifí rqdkifrqdkMu&&Sdonf/ q&mBuD;orm;BuD;wdk0fh ygVd tXuxm usrf*ef rxGufrvmonfudk0 f qdk0f&rnf r[kwf/ tavmifrifw&m;BuD; pGJ,lawmfrlí 'kuk#fwifET,f wcsufwnf;om jzpfap&rnf/ orkwfjyXmefawmfrl&onfhtcsufESifh crOfawmftavmifrif;w&m;BuD;vufxufuonf/ aemifawmfrifw&m;BuD; aemifawmfqifjzL&Sifv¬uf 'kuk#fwif wcsufwnf; usifhaqmif&onfudk0f pOfhul;pm;v¬uf ouú&mZf 1142 ckESpfuonf 43 ckESpfwdkif t½kHtwif oCFmawmfESpfODudk rmefatmif&wem ok"r®mp&yfwGif qdkifNydKifqdk0fMuapvQif twifq&mwdkUu 'kuk#fwif &ifbGJUpnfwifí usifhawmfrltyfaMumifudk0f ygVd t|uxmESifh nDatmif rjyrqdk0fEdIif t½Hkq&mwdkUuom okyÜ#dpäEéodu©myk'f yd@mpm&du paom cE¨u0wfESifhtnD ESpfbuf½Hk usifhaqmiftyfaMumifudk0f ygVd t|uxm jyqdk0fEdkifí t½Hk wcsufwnf; usifhaqmiftyfavNyD;oOfudk0f abmifum;pm;vufxufuyif twifq&mwdkUu wifNrJwifí usifhaqmifjyefMuaomaMumifh abmifum;pm;u 'kuk#fi,f &if;bGJUpnf;wifí usifhaqmifMu&rnf tmPmxm;í usifhaqmifMu&onfjzpfrnf/ 'kuk#fi,f &if;bGJUpnf;wifusifhtyfaMumif;udk0f ygVd t|uxm awGUjrifí usifhaqmifjyefMuoOfjzpfrnf/ twiftEG,f a&TapwD &Siftmob/ a&Gjrifrd &Sifo'¨r®&HoD

2 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 1 avxyfajrmufwdkuf &SifZedE´/ ausmxifocF,mausmif &Sifpuúm&mr/q&mwdkUrS pí t&yf&yfwdkufae oCFmq&mwdkUrSm a&Twdkuf0ef usD0efwdkUudk cefUxm;í tMuOftom avQmHar;ap&mwGif abmifum;pm;v¬ufvQif usifhaqmif&rnf qdkí usifhaqmifMuonf r[kwfay/ 'kuk#fi,f &if;bGJUpOf;wiftyfaMumif;udkvOf; ygVd tXuxm rxGufrvmay/ okyÜ#dpäEéodu©myk'f yd@mpm&du paom cEü0wfESifhtnD/ ESpfbuf½Hk usifhaqmiftyfaMumif;udkom ygVd tXuxm #DumusrfwdkUü rsm;pGm vmayonf/ 'kuk#fi,f &if;bGJUpOf;wifusifhaqmifoOfrSm q&mpnfya0PD rysuf usifhaqmifMuoOfom jzpfayonf xGufqdkaomaMumifh q&mpOfya0PDrysuf 'kuk#fwif &if;bGJUpOf;wifí usifhaqmifqkr®vdkrOf/ ygVd t|uxmvmwdkif; okyÜ#dpäEéodu©myk'f yd@mpm&du paom cEü0wfESifhtnD usifhaqmifvdkrOfudk0f ar;avQmufapjyef&mwGif 'kuk#fi,f &if;bGJUpOf;wifí q&mpnfya0PDtwdkif; rusifhvdkygNyD/ ygVd t|uxmvmwdkif; okyÜ#dpäEéodu©myk'f yd@mpm&du paom cEü0wfESifhtnD usifhaqmifygrnf nDnGwfpGm 0efcHí &SdMuavNyD;onf/ /a&TjynfawmfrS pí EdkifiHawmftwGif; oDwif;oHk;aeorQ *dkPf;tkyfyk*¾dKvf oCFm omraPwdkUwGif pD&ifcif;pD&ifbG,f &SdorQudk w&m;usrf;*efESifhtnD qkr®pD&ifawmfrl&rnf/ ouú&mZf 1144 ck e,kefvjynfhausmf &Spf&ufaeU &wema&TbHkausmif;ae ÓP0dvmoo'¨r® r[m&mZm"d&mZ*k½kq&mawmfudk &[ef;oCFmomraPwdkUusifh0wf yd@mpm&du0w f yd#uwfawmfa&;yd#uwfawmfrIESifhwuG omoemawmfa&;omoemawmfrI pD&ifcif;pD&ifbG,f&SdorQudk tyfESif;awmfrloOfhaeUrS pí ÓP0dvmoo'¨r® r[m&mZm"d&mZ*k½kq&mawmfvnf; yd#uwfawmfrIESifh a&TjynfawmfrS pí EdkifiHawmftwGif; oDwif;oHk;aeonfh *dkPftkyfyk*¾dKvf oCFm omraPwdkUwGif pD&ifcif;pD&ifbG,f&dSorQudk tuGJtjym; r&Sdap& ygVd tXuxm w&m;usrf;*efvmwdkif; r*Fvma&TbHkq&mawmf r[mr*Fvma&TbHkq&mawmf bHkausmfa0,Hq&mawmfBuD;wdkUESifh wdkifyifEdIif;&SOfawmfrlí w0wnf; nDnGwfpGm qkr®pD&ifawmfrl&rnf/ ÓP0dvmoo'¨r® r[m&mZm"d&mZ*k½kq&mawmfudk tyfoOfhtrdefUawmf/

r r (Sources: Palm-leaf ms. no. 3978 in UCL, folios pm – pd ; The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 235–7)

3 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 1

Summary: Royal teachers and monks from different quarters! When, after the parinibbāna of the Lord Buddha, putthujana monks1 started holding different views and practicing in different ways, exalted arahats led by Mahākassapa, Mahāyasa, and Mahāmoggaliputtatissa convened the three Councils with the support of kings Ajatasattu, Kalasoka, and Dhammasoka to eradicate wrong views and cause [the monks] to uniformly hold right views. When since the reigns of grandfather and father of the king who was deported to Hanthawady2 there was a division into the ayon and the atin, though the debates were held to establish what is in accordance with the scriptures, the matter was not settled and the division into the thingan-yon, dukot-tin, and gāmavāsī persisted. In the reign of [my] father Alaungmintayagyi when he was consolidating the country Shin Yasa from Okshitkye whom my father venerated as a senior teacher submitted mettasa arguing that according to the scriptures there should be no division into the thingan- yon, dukot-tin, and gāmavāsī and that it is proper to make [everybody] practice the dukot-tin. When arrangements were made to impose the uniform dukot-tin practice, Palaing Hsayadaw Shin Sujāta and other thingan-yon [teachers] submitted mettasa saying that they wanted to debate which practice—covering the shoulder with the undersized robe and binding the chest or covering both shoulders—is in accordance with the scriptures. When my father ordered a debate to be held, Shin Yasa and other [atin monks] using the Cūlagaṇṭhi as if it was Pāli [canon] and aṭṭhakathās preached by the Buddha submitted another mettasa [saying] that they would not participate in a debate, because there are decisions dating to the time of the father of a king who was deported to Hanthawady giving several defeats to the ayon teachers, that for that reason no debate should be held, and that the books of the Law say that only the covering of the shoulder with the undersized robe and chest-binding is correct. Thus the ayon teachers could not have a debate. My father Alaungmintaya thought that senior teachers would not say anything that doesn’t conform with the scriptures and so prescribed that only the lineage of the dukot-tin should remain. As a result, during the reigns of my father and my two elder brothers only the practice of the dukot-tin lineage was observed. When under the ruler of Nga Singu the monks of the ayon and atin [communities] were required to hold a debate in the Thudama-zayat of Manaungyadana stupa in the years 1142 and 11433, the atin side lost and the “two-shoulder” practice was prescribed. However, under the ruler of Hpaungka the atin abbots again resumed the practice of covering [the shoulder] with the undersized robe and chest-binding. When the minister of Shwetaik and the minister of granaries were appointed to ask the members of the atin lineage Shwezedi Shin Āsabha, Shwemyinmi Shin Saddhammaraṃsi, Shin Janinda [from] Lehtat-myauktaik, the abbot of Kyawhtin Thinkhaya-kyaung Shin Cakkārāma, and other abbots residing in different monastery complexes in various quarters if they were required to practice the covering of shoulder and chest-binding by the ruler of Hpaungka or, perhaps, they have found scriptural evidence for that practice, they responded that there was no prescription from the ruler of Hpaungka, that the practice of covering [the shoulder] with the undersized robe and chest- binding is not supported by the scriptures and only the covering of both shoulders in accordance with suppaṭicchana sikkhāpada and khandhakavattas starting with piṇḍācārika is widely supported by the Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās, that the covering with the dukot

1 Putthujana is a term denoting ordinary living beings that have not attained any of the four “noble” (ariya) states. 2 The king who was deported to Hanthawady is Mahādhammarājādhipati (1733–1752). His grandfather was king Sane-min (1698–1733) and his father was king Taninganwe-min (1714–1733). 3 1780–81.

4 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 1 and chest-binding is practiced merely as a tradition of the teachers (hsayazin-paweni). When asked if they wish to practice and instruct the covering with the dukot and chest-binding following the tradition of teachers or if they wish to practice in accordance with the suppaṭicchana sikkhāpada and khandhakavattas starting with piṇḍācārika prescribed by the Pāli [canon] and aṭṭhakathās, they replied that they do not want to practice in accordance with the tradition of the teachers and uniformly agreed to practice in accordance with the suppaṭicchana sikkhāpada and khandhakavattas beginning with piṇḍācārika. All cases and disputes involving the leaders of communities (gaing-ot), monks, and novices residing in my realm starting with the golden royal city should be tried in accordance with the scriptures. Starting from the 8th day of the waning moon of Nayon of the year 11444 when the settlement of all affairs of the sāsana beginning with the conduct of monks and novices and issues related to royal copies of the pitakat are entrusted to Yadanashwebon Hsayadaw Ñāṇavilāsasaddhamma Mahārājādhirājaguru, he must act after consultation and coming to agreement with Mingalashwebon Hsayadaw, Mahamingalashwebon Hsayadaw, and Bongyawweyan Hsayadaw so that all matters might go without dissension and in accordance with the Pāli [canon] and aṭṭhakathās. Royal order handed over to Ñāṇavilāsasaddhamma Mahārājādhirājaguru Hsayadaw.

Comments: The order entrusts the affairs of the sāsana to the care of Minywa Hsayadaw who must act in agreement with Min-o, Male, and Hsonda Hsayadaws. It prescribes the uniform observance of the “two-shoulder” manner claiming that all abbots had agreed to follow it instead of other traditional practices.5 The order also stresses that all disciplinary decisions should be based on the scriptures. Recapitulating the origins of the debate, the order identifies Atula as a key person who misled Alaungmintaya by his lobbying for the “one-shoulder” practice and inaugurated its uniform prescription during the first three Konbaung reigns.

4 June 3, 1782. 5 In fact, not all abbots questioned by Badon-min’s ministers agreed to follow the “two-shoulder” manner. The report on the questioning lists those monasteries the abbots of which refused to comply with this dressing mode. Palm-leaf ms. no. 3978 in UCL, folio p v.

Document no. 2 Royal order dated the eleventh day of the waning moon of Nayon 1144 (June 6, 1782)

Text: /a&TjynfawmfrS pí ppfudkif yef, ywfvnfaus;&Gmae twifET,f *dkPftkyfyk*¾dKvf oCFmwdkUu 'kuk#fi,f&ifbGJUpOfwifí usifhaqmifapjcifonf ygVd tXuxm rxGufay q&mpnfom jzpfayonf/ 4Ftusifhudk pGefUí ygVd tXuxmvmwdkif; okyÜ#dpäEéodu©myk'f/ yd@mpm&du paom cE¨u0wfESifhtnD ESpfbuf½Hkudkom usifhyg&rOftaMumifESifh arwåmpmqufoGifí 0HcHMuoOftwdkif; okyÜ#dpäEéodu©myk'f yd@mpm&du paom cE¨u0wfESifhtnD pmar;q&mawmfBuD;wdk qkr®Mo0g'cHí usifhaqmifap/ /ouú&mZf 1144 ck e,HkvjyOfausmf 8 &ufaeU rmefatmif&wemok"r®mp&yfwGifrSm trdefUawmfxkwfjyef emcHapí &SdNyD;/ ta0NrdKU&Gmae wdkuftkyfyk*¾dKvfoCFmwdkU rMum;rod&onfjzpfonf/ &[efoCFmwdk t,l0g'azmufNyHMuonft&mvnf &[efjcifom azmufjyefuGJjym;oOf r[kwf/ &mZ"r®avmu taMumifoHk;yg;udk0f rodrjrif raxmufraMumuf rvdr®mool vlwjynfwumjyKooluyif olq&mxuf iq&m rifarQmH avQmufxm;Muí ygVd tXuxmusrf*efrSef&m rjzpfap&aomhaMumif &[ef&Sifvl t,l0g' nDnGwf cJonf/trIyif jzpfonf/ &[efomraPwdk0hfrSm tvZÆD'koDv vZÆdokoDv yk*¾dKvfESpfyg; &Sdonf/ 0denfodu©myk'fawmfESifhrnD tvZÆDusifhaqmifaom &[efwdkudk wumOygwdk0fu ypönf;av;yg; axmufyefYvSL'gef;í vyvmbf aygrsm;vQif auR;arG;vSLolwdk0f tm;ay&m a&mufaomhaMumifh tvSLcHtvZÆdyk*¾dKvfwdk0hfom tyg,fvm;&monf r[kwf/ ypöOf;av;yg; axmufyefUoolwdk0hfvnf; tyg,fvm;&aMumifudk0f w&m;usrf;*ef xif&Sm;&Sdonf jzpfonf/ ygVd tXuxm usrf;*ef&SdonfESifhtnD/ tvZÆDusifhaqmifonf&[efwdkUudk0f rvSLrwef; rudk;uG,fMuapESifh ygVd t|uxmvmwdkif; w&m;usrf*efESifhtnD odu©myk'fawmfudk0f ½dkaousdK;EGHpGm usifhaqmifonf oDv0Pf*kP0efoCFmwdkudk0fom vSL'gef;udk;uG,fap&rnftaMumifESifh t&yf&yf apmfbGm; NrdKUpm; NrdKU0ef ppfuJ 0efpk0efUief&Sif NrdKUolBuD; &GmolBuD; 0eftBuD;wdkUodk0hf 0efwdkUu apESefUatmif jyefqdk&rnf/ /ouú&mZf 1144 ck e,Hkvjynfhausmf 11 &ufaeU a&TawmifeE´rdwfjyef trdefUawmf/

r r (Source: Palm-leaf ms. no. 3978 in UCL, folios pd – pD )

6 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 2

Translation: The leaders of communities (gaing-ot) and the monks of the atin lineage residing in the golden royal city [of Ava], Sagaing, Pinya, and surrounding villages have submitted mettasas [acknowledging] that the instruction to cover the right shoulder with the undersized dukot and to bind the chest has no origin in the Pāli [canon] and aṭṭhakathās, and is merely a tradition of the teachers (hsayazin). [They] agreed to observe the covering of both shoulders [with the upper robe] in accordance with the suppaṭicchana sikkhāpada and khandhakavattas starting with piṇḍācārika prescribed by the Pāli [canon] and aṭṭhakathās. On the 8th day of the waning moon of Nayon of the year 11446 it was ordered to announce and make known the royal order [stipulating that these leaders and monks] should practice in accordance with the suppaṭicchana sikkhāpada and khandhakavattas beginning with piṇḍācārika receiving the instructions from the great royal teachers supervising scriptural examinations. [However,] the abbots (taik-ot-pokgot) and the monks residing in distant settlements do not yet know [about this]. The inclination of the monks to beliefs (ayuwada) creates dissent not only among monks. Lay disciples and donors not versed in the three ways of lordly, moral, and worldly [behavior] (rāja, dhamma, loka) and having no understanding thereof [start to] speak thus: “My teacher is more esteemed by the king that the others’ teacher.” As [the practice] was not brought into conformity with the texts of the Pāli [canon] and aṭṭhakathās it is difficult to reconcile the views (ayuwada) of the monks and the laity. Among the monks and novices there are those who are immoral and undisciplined (alajjī dussīla) and those who are moral and disciplined (lajji sussīla). It is stated clearly in the scriptures that if donors offer four requisites to the monks who practice immorally, in contradiction to the rules of the Vinaya, and [such monks] get a lot of offerings and so it happens as if the donors support [such monastic indulgence], not only those immoral persons who receive donations would go to the woeful states. Those who donate the four requisites would also go to the woeful states. In accordance with what is stated in the texts of the Pāli [canon] and aṭṭhakathās, do not venerate and make donations to monks who behave immorally. Venerate and make donations only to those monks who are replete with morality and attributes and who respectfully observe the rules prescribed by the scriptures as stated in the Pāli [canon] and aṭṭhakathās. The ministers should thoroughly inform sawbwas, holders of appanges, and governors of cities (myowun), garrison commanders (sitke), leaders of platoons (wunsu wunngan-shin), heads of myos, heads of villages, and leaders (wun agyi) in various locales (ayat-yat) about these [points]. [Royal order] issued on the 11th day of the waning moon of Nayon of the year 11447 through Shwedaung Nandameit.

Comments: The order envisages spreading the reform against the “one-shoulder” practice and chest- binding to areas outside of the capital zone and requires lay sponsors there to discriminate between moral and immoral monks and support only moral monks.

6 June 3, 1782. 7 June 6, 1782.

Document no. 3 Royal order dated the first day of the waxing moon of the First Wazo 1145 (May 30, 1783)

Text: omoemxdef;q&mawmfBuD;av;yg;rSm txufomoemrSKudk pD&if&ef ydkif;jcm;cGJa0onhftwdkif; qHk;jzwfpD&ifMuap? wOD;pD&ifpku wOD;odkY rul;roef; vufrcHMuapESihf? ul;oef;ay;urf;rdonf pm&SdvQif pm&Sifu Ekwfodrf;apí qdkifoihf&mom xdef;odrf;Muap? wOD;wnf; pD&ifí rjyD;rajyvQif yd#uwfwdkufawmfrSm q&mawmfBuD;wdkY pnf;a0;í qHk;jzwfpD&ifMuap/ (ouú&mZf) 1145 ck yXr0gqdkvqef; 1 &ufaeY em;cH eE´rdwfpnfolwGif jyef/

(Source: The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 252)

Translation: Let the four senior royal teachers preserving the sāsana pass the decisions in accordance with a previously made division [of authority] in deciding on the matters of the sāsana. Let them not interfere into each others’ jurisdiction. If some messages were distributed interferring into [others’ jurisdiction], let the authors of messages recall them and look only after [those matters] that are their own concern. If decisions passed individually do not resolve a matter, let the great royal teachers meet at the royal pitakat-taik and pass a decision together. [Royal order] issued on the 1st day of the waxing moon of the First Wazo of the year 11458 through nakhan Nandameit Sithu.

Comments: The order was issued apparently because Minywa Hsayadaw, Min-o Hsayadaw, Male Hsayadaw, and Hsonda Hsayadaw has been sending instructions to monks who resided outside their jurisdiction and tended to encroach upon each other’s sphere of responsibility. The order hints that the decision-making process was not always smooth and a decision passed by an individual teacher sometimes failed to resolve the conflict situation in his jurisdiction. As the royal order suggested senior royal teachers to pass collegiate decisions in such cases, and did that after explicitly acknowledging that these teachers tended to interfere into their peers’ jurisdictions by communicating with their subordinates, I assume that insubordination resulted from unwillingness of certain monks (apparently belonging to the reform faction for otherwise the interference would not make any sense) to follow instructions of the teachers whom they did not regard as their own. In this case collegiate decision-making allowed maintaining existing monastic allegiances without undermining the formal authority of one’s peers. If that analysis is correct, we may assume that personal networks that were so central to the functioning of the saṃgha historically, hindered the establishment of unified monastic hierarchy even when all the monks involved belonged to the reform faction. The persistence of personal networks and difficulty with establishing a formal division of authority indicates that the reform faction was an alliance of several communities, not a single community with a well- defined subordination.

8 May 30, 1783.

Document no. 4 Royal order dated the seventh day of the waning moon of Dabaung 1145 (March 12, 1784)

Text: bk&m;ocifomoemawmfwGif;ü MuHKMudKufonfESihftnD edAÁmef r*f zdkvf tvdk&Sdí &[ef;jyKMuonf rSefvQif &[ef;oCFmwdkUusifh0wfudk 0denf;usrf;*efvmonftwdkif; usihfaqmifMu&rnf? rusihfraqmifonf usihfaqmifonfudk yd#uwfwdkufawmfwGif q&mawmfwdkUudk yifhbdwfpnf;a0; ar;jref;ap&mwGif odu©myk'fusihf0wfw&m;udk tifweftifavsmuf ar;jref;í &oolvnf; &Sdonf? ar;jref;í tvsif;yif r&oolvnf; &SdaMumif;udk q&mawmfwdkY arwÅmpmwGif ygí Mum;odawmrl&onf f? &[ef;wdkU usihf0wfw&m; rnfrQ &Sdonfudk ravhrvm roifrMum; rodrjrifonfudk w&m;usrf;*efESihftnD usihfaqmifMu&onf ,l&awmhrnf r[kwf? rusihfraqmif ouFef;0wfí aeolwdkYudkvnf; tudk;tuG,f tac:ta0: cJcufonf? q&mawmfwdkU ar;csufwGufcsuf r&onfudk wdkuftkyf oCFm omraPwdkYudk rnfoolu ausmif;uefaqmufí udk;uG,fvSL'gef;onfudk r[m'gef0efu pm&if;,lapí ausmif;aeq&m ausmif;wum rnfoljzpfonf *wdodkYrvkduf odawmfrlomatmif pm&if;oGif;? rppfraMum& usefao;onhf yk*d¾KvfoHCFmwdkYudkvnf; q&mawmfwdkUu ukefpiatmif f ppfaMumí ppfcsufudk oGif;jrJoGif;ap? &[ef;omraPwdkU odu©myk'fusifh0wfw&m;udk ar;jref;í r&onf yk*d¾Kvf oCFm omraPwdkUudkvnf; wdkufXmetoD;tjcm;ESihf aeapí q&mwumESpfOD;yif tusdK;&Sdrnf r[kwf? w&m;usrf;*ef odjrifusihfaqmifonfh q&mwdkUwdkufwGif;rSm qkr®Mo0g'udk cHí oifMum;usihfaqmifMu&aprnf? omoemjyKvTwf&ef ta0;jrdKU&Gm&Sd yk*d¾KvfoCFmawmfwdkUudk rvTwfroGm;rD a&TjynfawmfwGif; q&mawmfBuD;wkdUxH oGefoifjyoMo0g'cHap&OD;rS w&m;usrf;*efESihf nDnGwfEdkifrnfjzpfonf? ta0;jrdKU&Gm&Sd qufoGif;onhf pg&if;us oCFmawmfwdkYudk cefUxm;í a&Tjynfawmf a&mufyihfap? &[ef;oCFmwdkU owif;oHk;aeonfh jrdKU&Sif&Gm&Sif apmfbGm; jrdKUpm; olBuD; uvHwdkUuvnf; a&TjynfawmfodkU vm&rnfh oCFmawmfwdkU qGrf;ypönf; vHkavmufatmif vSLrsdK;&du©mcefYxm;í ydkUoap/ ouú&mZf 1145 ck waygif;vjynhfausmf 7 &ufaeY 12 n em;cH oD&deE´rdwfpnfolwGif jyef/

(Source: The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 316)

9 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 4

Summary: Those who became monks to achieve nibbāna should follow the code of conduct in accordance with the Vinaya. From the mettasa [submitted] by the royal teachers I came to know that when they were requested to invite [the monks] to the royal pitakat-taik and inquire if [the latter] would follow the code of conduct or not, some [persons] could be properly questioned about the code of conduct and some could not. I can not assume that those who have not studied what the code of conduct is and do not know [it] would practice in accordance with the scriptures. Those who wear the robe but do not follow the code of conduct are difficult to venerate and call [monks]. Сheck with the mahadan-wun who built the monasteries for abbots (taik-ot), monks, and novices whom the royal teachers could not question, and who supports [them] and submit a precise list of abbots and monastery donors without any manipulations so that [I] might know [it]. Let the royal teachers interrogate all abbots and monks whom they have not yet interrogated and submit reports. Allowing abbots, monks, and novices who failed to answer about the code of conduct to reside in separate monasteries complexes would be of no benefit either to these abbots or to their donors. [All such monks] should receive instructions and be trained in the monastery complexes of those teachers who know and practice the scriptures. If the royal abbots and monks who are to be sent to remote settlements to take care of the sāsana are first given the training by the senior royal teachers in the golden royal city, then they would be able to practice in accordance with the scriptures. Let the monks included in the submitted list of those residing in remote settlements be brought to the golden royal city by appointed [servicemen]. Let the lords of settlements, sawbwas, appanage-holders, and heads and leaders of [settlements] with resident monks provide such monks who would go to the golden royal city with sufficient food and requisites. [Royal order] issued on the 7th day of the waning moon of Dabaung of the year 11459 through nakhan Thiri Nanda Sithu.

Comments: According to the order, the royal teachers who inquired about disciplinary practices and observances in the monastery complexes in the capital area could not get answers from certain communities. It also seems that some monasteries were not checked at all. The order specified that sabotage would not be tolerated; it instructed that a list of monasteries that failed to provide answers together with their sponsors should be compiled, and stated that monks whose disciplinary status and approach was not clear would not be allowed to reside in their own kyaung-taiks. Instead, they were supposed to be transferred to complexes headed by royal teachers and subjected to their guidance. The order also envisaged giving new disciplinary training under the leading initiators of the reform to monks sent to propagate the court model of monasticism in places outside of the capital zone. Those monks who were already sent there were to be brought back to Amarapura to receive such training.

9 March 12, 1784.

Document no. 5 First message sent by Atula to Lawkatharahpu monastery complex in March 1784

Text: /aomifwdkuf&yfcGif/ ZrÁLjyif0,f? o'¨g&Tifvef;/ yGifhonfh0ef;odkY/ pdwfcsrf;csdKjr/ ajymfxdkufvSonf/ avmuo&zl wGif,lrOfac:/ q&mawmfudk/ oufawmf * q,f/ ausmfNyD&G,frS/ xkwfq,f,lxkwf/ ygwdrkwfudk/ jyEkwfav;wef/ ar;&efpum;/ iaxGjym;ykpäm/ t&m&mudk/ &mZmvljzm;/ rif;w&m;\ xHyg;&if;eD/ oCFmxD;wdkU/ xkHrSd&dyfcdk/ enf;cHvdkí/ aygufqdkaxmufxm; ay;onfwm[k/ pdwfxm;a'go/ rmeatmifvH/ rvQHrwuf/ qufqufb0/ iyknonf/ 'gersdK;aph/ &mra&GU[k/ csrf;ajrUpdwfoGm;/ ESpfvkH;xm;í/ cGJjym;pdwfa0/ ajymygavonf rSmvdkufoOf/ /bk&m;ocif edAÁmef0ifonfaemuf/ usa&mufomoem/ 400 ausmfxuf/ a&mufNyDvQufrS/ Ak'¨omoem/ a&mifogaxmuf&Gef;/ oD[VfuRef;ü/ ay:xGef;rnf&/ 0¥umrPd/ rif;bkH;&SdvQif/ avtifzdkvfr*f/ a&mufxuftzsm;/ okH;yg;yd#uwf/ av;rSwfvQifvQm;/ ax&fwdkYtm;udk/ 0yfxGmnGwfc/ OD;ESdrfcsí/ Ak'¨vlzsm;/ bk&m;a[mrSwf/ yd#uwfudk/ a&;rSwfayxuf/ wOfvQufruGm/ xm;wdkYygrS/ aemifvgodó/ rsdK;ouswdkY/ bk&m;omoem/ oGm;&mpnfwef;/ w&m;vrf;udk/ vGJurf;ruG/ rSef&mrcG/ pOf½dkusí/ &ygrOfaMumif;/ avQmufxm;ruGm/ jy&mwGifrS/ bk&m;ynwf/ yd#uwfudk/ a&;rSwfayxuf/ pOfvQufruGm/ xm;wdk&m0,f/ t*FgygXfteuf/ &mowfjyOfausmf/ okHabmfyd#uwf/ wGifvwfwefwef/ usHavorQ/ aemufrSpDtkyf/ *@dyk'f[k/ ac:xkwfrOfrSef;/ xdkonfusrf;ESifh/ vGJurf;,Gif;rSm/ &SdoOfvm[k/ pdwfxm;rcG/ &mZdpäESifh/ umvckvQif/ awmfrOfyif[k/ /NrJjcif;pdwfap pJygavvOf; rSmvdkufonf/10

r (Source: Palm-leaf ms. no. 119456 in UCL, folio *g; )

Translation: [In response] to questions on the Pāṭimokkha asked to a royal teacher who is more than eighty years old [by the monks of the monastery] called Lawkatharahpu, suitable to enjoy the serenity of mind and experience the joy of saddhā on the surface of Jambudipa,—[I] convey [to you the message] not to harbor ill-will and conceit for you reside near the overlord, the highest of men; and to focus your mind serenily on a thought “Let my merit, the seed of donations, be not diminished in future lives.” More than 400 years after the Lord Buddha had realized nibbāna, on the island of Sīhaḷa where the pleasant light of the sāsana of the Buddha shines there was a king named Vaṭṭagāmani. [This king], having paid respect to the theras replete with four maggas and phalas and transmitting the three piṭakas, supplicated [them saying] that if the piṭaka preached by the Buddha, the foremost of men, were recorded on palm leaves, the future disciples, [the sons] of the sakya clan, would be able to follow the way of the Law, the tradition of the sāsana of the Buddha, without deviation. When the piṭaka laid down by the Buddha was consistently inscribed on palm leaves, what remained [unexplained] in the three piṭakas was called the gaṇṭhipada. [The manuscript of this text containing] both Pāli text (pāṭha) and its translation

10 I’m indebted to Kazumasa Ishikawa for checking portions of texts quoted from ms. no. 119456 against the original ms. in UCL and to Christian Lammerts for sharing the microfilm of the ms. with me.

11 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 5 has more than hundred aṅgās.11 Do not have doubts about such a text [thinking] if [it] might have mistakes. [I] convey [to you the message] to constantly recollect that it is proper [to practice] in accordance with the royal wish for this moment.

11 Aṅgā is a division of palm-leaf manuscript paginated with the same consonant that consists of twelve folios. The text in queston is the Cūlagaṇṭhi.

Document no. 6 Second message sent by Atula to Lawkatharahpu monastery complex in March 1784

Text: /pmwapmifwGif/ &SifESifhyOöif;/ rif;ESifhukHonf/ 0wf&efrcsm;/ wlaomvm;[k/ pdwfxm;ruGuf/ aESmifh&Sufa'go/ rmeatmifvH/ rqHraxmif/ bkef;acgifvlzsm; jrwfbk&m;vQif/ rdefYMum;a[mrSm/ 0g&dwåoD/ tnDwuG/ pm&dwå[k/ "r®usef;*ef/ 2 oG,fvrf;udk/ cGJcsrf;pdwfiif/ jyxefwGifü/ vGJcsifaygufjy/ pm&dwåESifh bk&m;ynwf/ rdefUawmfjrwfudk/ NrJMuyfpdwfap/ cGJukHav[k/ ESpfaxGrOfjym;/ &SifwdkYtm;udk/ w&m;atmifyef;/ ayvdkufurf;onf/ /csyfyef;qifusapukHaom/ /rSmpm/

r v (Source: Palm-leaf ms. no. 119456 in UCL, folios *g; – *g; )

Translation: [The following was written] in another message: [Thinking] if the dress worn by monks and novices, or by kings and merchants [should be] the same, without difference,12 do not entertain ill-will and arrogance. Differentiate between the two ways prescribed by the scriptures preached by the Exalted Buddha, the foremost of men, that is between the morality of performing [what is right] (cāritta-sīla) and the morality of avoiding [what is wrong] (vāritta-sīla), and transmit the victorious flower of the Law to novices by [instructing them] in two ways. [This is] the message.

Comments: The following phrase accompanies Dcouments nos. 5 and 6 in the manuscript: /ouú&mZf 1145 ck wefcl;vqef;ckESpf&ufaeU ykcrf;&Gmopfae/ iomaem/ iaz:&wdkY/ 2 a,mHudk twkvbkefBuD;u avmuo&zlwdkuf OD;ausmf*av;odkY ydkacsapvmonfpm/ qkef;xm;q&mawmfausmif;odkY a&mufonfudk yd#uwfwdkufq&mawmfwdkUu ¤Fxef;&Gufpm 2 apmifudk twGif;awmfodkY qufoGif;onf/ “Messages given by Atula Hpongyi on the seventh day of the waxing moon of Dagu of the year 114513 to Nga Tha Hnaw from the new village of Pakhan14 and Nga Hpaw Ya, [these] 2 persons, [so that they] deliver [these messages] to U Gyaw Gale from Lawkatharahpu-taik. When these 2 messages on toddy palm leaves arrived to Hsonda Hsayadaw’s monastery, the royal teachers from pitakat-taik submitted [them] to the court.” The Burmese syntax of the second sentence is a bit strange so the text might have been miscopied here.

12 The pairing of monks and novices along with kings and merchants implies the stark contrast in status and presupposes that their dress could not be the same. 13 March 27, 1784. 14 I’m not sure about the translation of the place name here. Equally possible translation (from linguistic point of view) would be “from Pakhan [and] Ywathit” or “Ywathit [in] Pakhan.”

Document no. 7 Royal order dated the twelve day of the waxing moon of Dagu 1146 (April 1, 1784)

Text: /twkvbkef;BuD;udk tvsiftjref a&mufatmif vTwfu yifac:ap/ /ouú&mZf 1146 ck wHcl;vqef; 12 &ufaeUn/ em;cH oD&deE´pnfolwGif jyef trdefUawmf/

v (Source: Palm-leaf ms. no. 119456 in UCL, folio *g; )

Translation: Let the Hluttaw invite Atula Hpongyi so that he might arrive as soon as possible. Royal order issued in the evening of the 12th day of the waxing moon of Dagu of the year 114615.

Comments: The order requires the summoning of Atula to Amarapura after the news about his messages sent to Lawkatharahpu monastery complex reach Badon-min.

15 April 1, 1784.

Document no. 8 Royal order apparently issued about April 6 or 7, 1784

Text: /twkvbkH;BuD;udk yifac:aponf jrif;awmfonfwdkY a&mufí ar;ap&mwGif rMurf;rrm rvdkufEdkif 0efwdkYodkY pmayvdkufaMumif;ESifh oHawmfOD;wiftrSkrSm/ omoemawmfa&; jzpfonf/ (...) rSef rrSefudk o'¨r®eE´D jrpfacspm; em&DrSL;wdkYudk ar;ap/ aponfrSH\/ xGufqdkvQif rnfonftaMumif;aMumifh aponfudk pmt&t"dyÜg,fudk odomatmif pmoGif;ap/ 1146 ck wefcl;vjyOfYausmf/ 12 &ufaeU eef;rpEkaqmifwGif jyef trdefUawmf/

v r (Source: Palm-leaf ms. no. 119456 in UCL, folios *g; – C )

Translation: Concerning the report [saying] that when the royal horsemen sent to deliver Atula Hpongyi arrived and were questioned [they] gave the ministers the message [from Atula claiming that the latter] could not go [because he] did not feel well; this is the matter of [great importance for] the sāsana ... … Let Saddhammanandī, Myitche-za, and nayi-hmu .... ask if indeed ... If he testifies that these are indeed messages sent by him, [inquire] for what purpose he sent them; submit a report with the summary of the messages so that I might know. Royal order issued in the passage-hall to the main palace building on the 12th day of the waning moon of Dagu of the year 114616.

Comments: There seems to be a scribal mistake in the manuscript as the royal order ends with the phrase from Document no. 7. I’ve added the dots to show where in my analysis the first order ends and the miscopied conclusion is appended to it. It might be presumed that the original order required sending another party of servicemen to deliver Atula to Amarapura.

16 April 16, 1784.

Document no. 9 Badon-min’s message to the First Maungdaung Hsayadaw and the latter’s reply dated the eight day of the waning moon of Dagu 1146 (April 12, 1784)

Text: omoemawmfjrwfudk t"r®0g'Ded*¾[ç "r®0g'Dy*¾[tm;jzifh csD;`rSifhjyKpkawmfrlonf? ,ckokwfoifoefY&Sif;onfht&m oifhçroifhudk avQmufacs/ 1146 ck wef;clvjynfhausmf (8) &ufaeY wvkyfNrdKUpm;udk apí avQmufvmonfwGif trdefY&Sdvdkufonfum; omoemawmfjrwfudk okwfoifjyKpkí aAm"dorÇm&ykn0daoo avmuw¬p&d, yg&rDudk jznfhaqmifawmfrlonfrSm e [d "ar®m t"ar®m p? Oabm or0dygudaem/ t"ar®m ed&,H aewd? "ar®m ygaywd ok*wð/17 [laom a'oemawmfjrwfESifhtnD "r® t"r®ESpfyg;wGif t"r®onf tyg,fqif;&JodkY? "r®onf ok*wdedAÁmefodkY aqmif,lwwfonfjzpfí t"r®udk y,fojzifh "r®udk jyí avmuw¬p&d,udk usifhjcif;onf bk&m;avmif;olawmfaumif;wdkY usifhxkH;jzpfonf/ xdkaMumifh quúedygwf aowauwkZmwfü Am&mPoD0,f rif;\ O,smOfwGif ig;&maom &aohtNcHt&HESifh aeaom aowauwkrnfaom &aohonf Am&mPoDrif; uyfvmaomcg o'¨gw&m; yGm;apvdkí rdrdwynfhwdkYudk ql;ü tdyfapjcif;ç tylig;yg;jzifh ylapvsuf usifhjcif; paom wdw¬dwdkYtusifhudk aqmufwnfaponfudk bk&m;avmif;yka&m[dw f jrifí aA'if0g'jzifh ESdyfeif;NyD;aomf tNcHt&Hig;&mESifhwuG aowauwk&aohudk vlxGufapí umç vTm; vufeuf pGJapvsuf trIxrf; xnfhí olwumwdkY rdpämt,lrS uif;apjcif;iSg rdpäm0g'udk zsufí avmuw¬p&d, usifhaMumif;udk vmonf/ yudPÖuedygwf O'´gvuZmwfüvnf; &aohig;&mESifhwuG O'´gvurnfaom &aohonf Am&mPoDodkY a&mufí rif;\ O,smOfrSm rif; zl;a`rSmfvmonfwGif ,cifenf; txl;xl;aom rdpämtusifhwdkYudk wynfhrsm;udk usifhapaomtm;jzifh yvTm;avonfudk bk&m;avmif;yka&m[dwfu txl;xl;aom 0g'jzifh ESdyfeif;í r[kwfaom rdpämwyjzifh ZrÁL'dyfuRef;ukd O'´gvu zsufqD;avawmhrnf[k t&Hig;&mESifhwuG O'´gvu&aohudk vljyKí t"r®udk y,fvsuf "r®udk csD;`rSifhojzifh avmuw¬p&d,usifhbl;onfudk vmonf/ ¤if;yudPÖuedygwf r[muPSZmwfüvnf; uóyjrwfpGmbk&m;omoem &Sdcg Am&mPoDjynf OoDeurif;vufxuf &[ef;a,musm;ç &[ef;rdef;r ponfolwdkY trltusifh ravsmfí omoemawmf qkwfepfonf&SdvQif aovGefukefwdkif;aom olwdkY tyg,fvm;Muonfjzpfí topfaom ewfom;wdkYudk rjrifojzifh bk&m;avmif;oMum;rif; qifjcifaomf xdktjcif;t&mudk odí rmwvdewfom;udk tmZmenfjrif;cefY &Sdaom acG;eufBuD; a,mifaqmifapvsuf rdrdvnf; av;pGJaom rlqdk;toGifudk ,lí vltaygif;wdkYtm; xdwfvefYapjcif;iSg xdktaMumif;udk ZrÁL'DyuRef;vkH; ESHYatmif toHBuD;udk jyKapojzifh toifhrusifhrlí vlwdkU ysufpD;tHhaomtcg r[muPSacG;BuD;udk vTwftHh[k Ncdrf;ajcmufí t"r®udk uG,fyapvsuf "r®udk jyownfxGef;apojzifh avmuw¬p&d, usifhbl;onfudk vmonf/

17 Na hi dhammo adhammo ca, ubho sammavipākino; adhammo nirayaṃ neti, dhammo pāpeti sugatiṃ (Th 35, 21–2).

16 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 9

igwdkYq&m jrwfpGmbk&m;omoemawmfwGif;üvnf; y&dedAÁmefjyKawmfrlonfaemuf tESpfESpf&mausmf &Sdaomtcg omoemawmf npfEGrf;avonfwGif rdpäm0g'&SdolwdkYudk vl0wfvJapí oD&d"r®maomurif;w&m; okwfoifjyKpkbl;avonfudk w&m;usrf;*ef xif&Sm;&Sdonf/ þodkYponfjzifh a&S;olawmfaumif;wdkY xkH;pH&SdonfESifhavsmfpGm ,ckumv jznfhbl;aom yknorÇm& r&SdonfholwdkY tdyfrufwGifrQ jrifbl;rnf cJvsuf tHhtJbG,f omoemawmfudk w&m;rif;jrwf jyKpkcsD;`rSifhawmfrlayonfrSm rcRwf or®moarÁm"dqkudk &tHhaomtaMumif; jzpfonf[k ESvkH;awmfydkufí 0rf;ajrmufawmfrloifhonf/ rif;jzpfvdkonf? wdkif;EdkifiHodkU oAÁñkbk&m;jrwfpGm ~uGvmapvdkonf? qnf;uyfvdkonf? w&m;awmfudk Mum;em;vdkonf? w&m;awmfudk odvdkonf? tmomig;yg;jzifh AdrÁdom&rif;BuD;tm; jynfhpkHbdouJhodkU onfrif;pnf;pdrfonf a&ay: pGufonfh a&`yGufyrm woufvsmom igum; rif;pnf;pdrfudk rvdk? odkYudkrlum; bk&m;ynyfonfhtwdkif; omoemawmfjrwfudk rjywf wnfatmif tmPmpuf "r®pufESpfcsufjzifh csD;`rSifhjyKpkawmfrlvdkon[líf &nfrSwfawmfrlonf? tvdktmom qifhumjynfhpkHí aAm"dorÇm&ykn0daoo yGm;rnfhtaMumif; jzpfonf/ ,if;odkY jynfhpkHaom tmomor®mqE´ &Sdonfjzpfí omoemawmfjrwfudk jyKpkokwfoifawmfrlonfrSm omoeypöw¬dujzpfbl;vsufyif a&ajr&Sif w&m;rif;jrwf bkef;awmfudk rSDí olawmfaumif; or®m0g' or®mqE´ &Sdjyefacsaomf omoemEk*¾[yk*¾dKvfyif rnfjyefonfjzpfonf? trsdK;aumif;om;wyg;udk rSDí olrsm;pGm o'´g oDv ponfjzifh yGm;rsm;&monf[lí [dr0EÅH bdu©a0 yAÁw&mZmeH edóm, r[momvm wD[d 0¹D[d 0¹EÅd/ ponfhjzifh oH,kwfa'oem vm&Sdonfrsm;udkvnf; a&TESvkH;awmfydkufí omoeaom"e avmuw¬p&d, yg&rDawmfudk jznfhaqmifawmfrloifhonf omoem'g,um w&m;rif;jrwf/

(Source: yXrarmif;axmifomoemydkifq&mawmf? tar;awmfajz (rEÅav;? ZrÁLUrdwfaqG? 1323)? pmrsufESm 65-7)

Summary: In response to the sending of the ruler of Talot on the 8th day of the waning moon of Dagu of the year 114618 with [the following] submission: “[I] take care of the exalted sāsana by rejecting adhammavādī and adhering to dhammavādī. Is the present purification proper or not?” [the First Maungdaung Hsayadaw] said: The donor of the sāsana, the exalted lord of the Law, on the basis of precedents given in various jātakas and Asoka’s example the purification of the sāsana is proper and would allow you to mature the perfection of caring for the benefit of the world and the attainment of wisdom as a prerequisite for obtaining awakening. Take into account that even the enemy of the sāsana (sāsanapaccatthika) would become its supporter (sāsanānuggaha) if [he] regains right views and right desires relying on you, that relying on a person of good family many others would develop faith and moral behavior, and that in the Saṃyutta-nikāya it is said “himavantaṃ bhikkhave pabbatarājānaṃ nissāya mahāsālā tīhi vaḍḍhīhi vaḍḍhanti” (“Monks,

18 April 12, 1784.

17 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 9 it is in dependence on the Himalayas, the king of mountains, that the great sāla trees achieve the three kinds of growth”).19

Comments: In my analysis, this message by the First Maungdaung played a key role in legitimizing the purge of the royal monastic establishment and convincing Badon-min that harsh measures would benefit everyone. Examples provided by the First Maungdaung invariably suggest the disrobing the recluses and false monks who hold wrong views as a proper course of action in dealing with them. Moreover, this message is the first document known to me that employes the term “the enemy of the sāsana,” a term that soon would become a stigma attached to Atula and other opponents of the reform faction. The document testifies that the purification of the sāsana was not initiated by Badon-min alone, but was either a joint royal-monastic project or its key instigators were monks.

19 The First Maundgdaung wrongly attributes the beginning of Pabbatarāja-sutta from Aṅguttara-nikāya (Himavantaṃ, bhikkhave, pabbatarājaṃ nissāya mahāsālā tīhi vaḍḍhīhi vaḍḍhanti, see AN I 152) to Himavanta- sutta of Saṃyutta-nikāya (SN V 63) which has “Monks, in dependence on the Himalayas, the king of mountains, the nāgas grow and accumulate strength” (Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, himavantaṃ pabbatarājānaṃ nissāya nāgā kāyaṃ vaḍḍhenti, balaṃ gāhenti). My identification of Himavanta-sutta as the implied source is based on the use of pabbatarājānaṃ instead of pabbatarājaṃ in the quotation. The form pabbatarājānaṃ appears only in Himavanta-sutta while several Nāgā-suttas from Saṃyutta-nikāya (SN V 47, etc.) that contain an identical phrase Seyyathāpi, bhikkhave, himavantaṃ pabbatarājaṃ nissāya nāgā kāyaṃ vaḍḍhenti balaṃ gāhenti all use pabbatarājaṃ, not pabbatarājānaṃ.

Document no. 10 Royal order dated the twelfth day of the waning moon of Dagu 1146 (April 16, 1784)

Text: /avmuo&zlwdkufodkY/ iomaem iaz:,wdkYudk twkvbkef;BuD;u aponf qdkí xef;&GufpmESpfapmif a&mufvmonf pmudk twkvbkH;BuD;rSm jyoí aponf rSefrrSefudk o'¨r®eE´D jrpfacspm; em&DrSL;wdkYudk ar;ap/ aponfpmrSef\/ xGufqdkvQif rOfonfhtaMumif;aMumifh aponfudk pmt& teuft"dyÜg,f oabmouHudk odomatmif pmoGif;ap/ 1146 ck wefcl;vjyOfYausmf/ 12 &ufaeU eef;rpEkaqmifwGif jyef trdefUawmf/

(Source: Palm-leaf ms. no. 119456 in UCL, folio C r)

Translation: Two messages on toddy palm leaves reportedly sent by Atula Hpongyi to Lawkatharahpu-taik through Nga Tha Naw and Nga Phaw Ya were obtained. Let Saddhammanandī, Myitche-za, and nayi-hmu20 show these messages to Atula Hpongyi and ask if he indeed has sent them. If he testifies that these are indeed messages sent by him, [inquire] for what purpose he had sent them; submit a report with the summary of the messages so that I might know. Royal order issued in the passage-hall to the main palace building on the 12th day of the waning moon of Dagu of the year 1146.

Comments: This order apparently was issued when Atula has been finally escorted to Amarapura. It specifies that the authorship of Atula should be established. If found to be the sender of the messages in question, Atula is required to explain his support for a practice contradicting the scriptural Vinaya. The order also requests a report on the contents of the messages. This last point (if I understand the order right) is interesting as it might mean that up to that moment Badon-min has not actually seen the messages. The requested report seems to be promptly submitted, for the next order included a summary of Atula’s messages. The identity of persons appointed to interrogate Atula, or at least one of them (Saddhammanandī), also deserves mention. Saddhammanandī’s affiliation with the ayon side supports my conclusion that all key people involved in staging and performing Atula’s trial (known to me by now) seem to be affiliated with the reform faction to a larger or lesser degree. Perhaps, this involvement of the ayon side man (or men) in reporting on Atula to Badon-min

20 Saddhammanandī (or U Htwa Byu, 1736–1793) was a monk and later an ex-monk known as Chaunggauk Hsayadaw. He belonged to the ayon-gaing and disrobed either in 1137 (1775/76) or in 1147 (1785/86). As his monastic title is used in the 1784 documents to refer to him, perhaps the later date is more probable. At the same time, in the description of Atula’s trial in The Views of King-Grandfather he is called “an ex-monk Saddhammanandī from Chaunggauk,” though that might reflect his subsequent status (see The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. VI, 390). Also, the appointment of a monk to perform a service for a king is highly improbable. After disrobing, the titles Yazabala and Yazabala Kyawhtin were conferred on Htwa Byu. He also commanded the Leze-hpo military unit, was appointed atwin-wun, and received the village of Thetpan as an appanage. A handwritten copy of a ms. no. 2030 in UCL, p. 9. According to The Views of King-Grandfather, nayi-hmu whose personal name was U Ngyein and who was a native of Kanthit village was also an ex-monk. I was not yet able to find any data on his background or affiliation. I have no data on Myitche-za as well.

19 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 10 was instrumental in the way Atula’s position was presented to the king in preparaton of the trial (see below).

Document no. 11 Royal order apparently issued between April 16 and 18, 1784

Text: /bkef;awmftvGefBuD;jrwfawmfrlvSaom tvQifb0&Sifrif;w&m;BuD; trdefYawmf&SdoOf/ twkvq&mu avmuo&zlwdkuf &Sif0d&d,m&rÇmausmif;odkY ydkYa&mufonfxef;&GufpmESpfapmif twGif;awmfodkY a&mufvSmaomaMumifh ¤if;pmwdk MuOfhvQif omraPwdkU usifh0wfw&m;onf/ plV*P²dusrf;xGufom rSefonf ¤if;usrf;udk ,kHrSm;r&SdESifh rifvdkodkU vdkufíom usifhMu&rnf/ pum;t"dyÜg,fygaomaMumifh twkvq&mudk yifac:í ar;jref;apvQif a&mufonfhpmtwdkif; plV*P²dusrf;udk tEk&m"jynfaxmif ayguúEÅd*gr&Gmü owif;okH;aeonfh &[EÅm&Siarmuúvmef fjyKonfhusrf; rSefonf/ om&w¬'DyPD#Dum 0drwd0daem'Pd#Dum/ 0de,mvuF&m#Dum/ 0dedpä,#Dum/ aw&ouPf#Dumrsm;wGifvOf; xGuf&Sdonfh #Dumusrf; rSm;onf/ igtabmfyif jzpfawmonf 'kuk#f&if;bGJUpnfoifh wifoifhaMumif;udk igyifqdkrnf igESifh t,lobm*rQolvOf; yk*¾dKvftrsm;yif &SdaMumif;ESifh pmoGif;í &Sdonf bk&m;ocifa[mawmfrlonfh w&m;usrf;*efqdkonfht&monf/ odjrifESHpyfEdkifcJonf/ twkvq&mrSm crnfawmfbk&m; udk,fuG,fawmfrl&if; t'Dur®d usrf;*eftodtjrifrsm;onfh yk*¾dKvfyif jzpfonf twkvq&mESifh t,l0g'rQonfh yk*¾dKvfwdkYudk yd#uwfwdkufawmfrSm ouú&mZf 1146 ck uqkHväef; 1 &ufaeY pmar;q&mawmfwpku aq;ar;awmfrlMu&rnftaMumif;ESifh r[m'gef0efu yifbdwfavQmHxm;apí bk&m;a[m ygVd t|uxm #Dum usrf;*efESifhtnD ar;jref;awmfrlMuap/ a&TjyOfawmfywfvnf; yk*¾dKvfwdkYudkvnf; apESHatmif yifzdwfí yd#uwfwdkufawmfodkY pOf;a0;ap/ jrif;rSL; rif;om; vTwfawmf ½kHawmf 0efBuD; 0efaxmuf ecef rsdKU0ef oHawmfODwifppf w&m;olBuD; pma&;BuD; t&m&SdwdkY em;axmifap/ twGiawmf fuvOf; twGif0ef oufawmf&SOfausmfxif oHawmfqifhwdkYESifh twGifNrJrSL;awmfrwfawmfwdkY vdkufí em;axmifMu&rnf/ q&mawmfwdkYu ar;jrefxGufqdkcsufrsm;udkvnf; o'¨r®eE´d jrpfacspm; em;&D;rSL;iNidrfwdkY apmifhMuyfrSwfom;ap/

r (Source: Palm-leaf ms. no. 119456 in UCL, folio a* )

Summary: Two messages on toddy palm leaves sent by Atula Hsaya to Shin Viriyārambha’s monastery of Lawkatharahpu-taik reached the court. There Atula instructs that proper practice for novices is given correctly only in the Cūlagaṇṭhi, that no doubt should be entertained concerning that text and that the will of the overlord should be followed. Because of that Atula Hsaya was summoned and questioned. There is [now] a submission that in accordance with the [initially] obtained messages [Atula claims] that “the Cūlagaṇṭhi is the text complied by arahat Moggalāna who resided in the village of Pokkantigāma of the royal city of Anurādha, it is correct and what is said in Sāratthadīpanī-ṭīkā, Vimativinodanī-ṭīkā, Vinayālaṅkarā-ṭīkā, Vinicchaya-ṭīkā, and Terasakaṇḍa-ṭīkā is wrong. I will demonastrate the appropriateness of placing the dukot and binding the chest and there are many abbots (pokgot) who share my opinion.” What is said in the scriptures is a very intricate matter. Atula Hsaya is a person knowledgeable in the scriptures who was venerated by my father. Let Atula Hsaya and those [abbots] who hold the same views as he does be invited by the mahadan-wun to be interrogated by the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams in the royal pitakat-taik on the 1st day of the

21 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 11 waxing moon of Kahson of the year 1146.21 Abbots from the golden royal city area together with court officials and ministers must assemble and listen to the discussion. The questions of royal teachers and testimonies must be recorded by Saddhammanandī, Myitche-za, nayi-hmu Nga Ngyein.

Comments: The order sets the stage for the trial of Atula concerning his advocacy of the Cūlagaṇṭhi. It designs the hearing as a major public occasion attended both by the heads of monasteries in the capital area and by all important court officials. Atula is charged with defending his opinion on the proper attire for novices. The report submitted to Badon-min manipulates the contents of Atula’s messages to Lawkatharahpu-taik to stress that the proper dress for novices is described only in the Cūlagaṇṭhi. This claim, though made by Atula earlier, is not found explicitly in the messages in question. The uncompromising attitude of Atula’s testimony supposedly given by him in response to the questioning by Saddhammanandī, Myitche-za, and nayi-hmu and reproduced in the order does not correspond to more cautious and evasive position voiced in the messages. Subsequent participation of only three disciples of Atula in the trial held on April 19, 1784 (see Document no. 12) also does not justify the claim that “there are many abbots who share my opinion.” Until firmer evidence becomes available, it makes sense to assume that the testimony perhaps might not be a very faithful transcript of Atula’s statements.

21 April 19, 1784.

Document no. 12 Account compiled by ex-monks Saddhammanandī and Nga Ngyein to summarize the interrogation of Atula Hsaya and his followers Shin Viriyārambha from Lawkatharahpu- taik, U Tot Hpyu, and Pindale Hsaya about scriptural matters on April 19, 1784

Text: /ouú&mZf 1146 ck uqkHväef;w&ufae bk&m;trdefUawmfjrwfudk OD;xdyfxuf aqmif&Guf&onftwdkif; yd#uwfwdkufawmf ok'¨r®mp&yfwGif q&mawmfwdkYu twkvq&mudk ar;csufbk&m;/ /crnf;awmftavmif;rif;w&m;MuD;vufxuf EdkifiHawmftvkH;udk ½kef;í &[ef;omraPwdkUudk wkHpm&dwåusifh&rnf/ tm'dur®du jyKí twkvq&m pD&ifqkr®onf[k xif&Sm;aom yk*¾dKvfjzpfonf/ rdrdudk,fudk "r®0g'Dxifoavmh/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /"r®0g'Dxifíyif qkr®ygonf/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /"r®0g'Dxifonf qdkNyD; ygVd tXuxm #Dum usrf*ef trSefqdkavh&Sdaom yk*¾dKvfonf/ "r®0g'Djzpfonf/ ygVd t|uxm #Dum usrf*ef rrSefcRwf,Gif;tjyif;qdkavh&Sdaom q&monf/ t"r®0g'Djzpfonf ygVdawmfonf bk&m;ocifudkawmfxif&Sm;&SdonfESifh wlaomhaMumifh ygVdESifh rnDaom t|uxmudk yg,f&rnf/ ygVd t|uxmESifh rnDaom #Dumudk y,f&rnf/ ygVdtXuxm#DumokH;&yf tnDvmaom pum;udk wpkHwa,mufaom olwdkYonf y,fqdkzsufjcif;iSg rwwfEdkifjzpfonf/ &[ef;wdkYESifh rwl txl;taxG omraPwdkYrSm &Gm0ifqGrf;cHoGm;onfumv wzufvufuawmh 'kuk#fi,fwif &if;pOf;í oGm;&rOf[k pD&ifqkr®jyKonft&mrSm ygVdawmfESifhtnDwnf; pD&ifqkr®onfavmh/ tXuxmESifhtnDwnf; pD&ifqkr®onfavmh/ #DumESifhtnDwnf; pD&ifqkr®onfavmh/ ygVd tXuxmESpfyg;ESifhtnDwOf; pD&ifqkr®onfavmh/ ygVd tXuxm #DumokH;yg;ESifhtnDwnf; pD&ifqkr®oavmh/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /bk&m;om;awmf&m[kvmudk omraPjyKpnfu {uHoH Owå&mo*ø um&maywGm[lí r[m0gygVdawmfwGif ygaomaMumifh omraPwdkUudk wzuf½kHpHyg,fwif0wfygaponf yOöif;wdkYvOf; &Gm0ifqGrf;pmoGm;cg yckef;ESpfbuf½kHí urÜwfoD; urÜwfuGif;pGyfí &Gm0ifqGrf;pm;oGm;ap ynwfaMumif;udk bdu©Kygpdwfü vmygaomaMumifh yOöif;wdkYudkvnf;tpnfyif &Gm0ifqGrf;pm;oGm;cg urÜwfoD; urÜwfuGifpGwf½kHygaponf/ omraPudk wzufvufuawmh0wapf ynwfawmfrlonfaemuf rnfonfomraPudkrQ ESpfbuf½kHap ynwfawmf ygVd tXuxm #DumwGif; rawGUbl;í wzuf½kHyif 0wfygapawmhonf yOöif;udkvnf; &Gm0ifqGrf;pm;oGm;pnf ESpfbuf½kHí urÜwfoD; urÜwfuGif;pGwfap[lí ynwfawmfrl&if; ygVdawmftwdkif; tpnfyif ½kHygaponf/ omraPwdkYrSm 'kuk#fwifí &if;zGJUqdkaponfrSmwOf; pD0& y#v Oy&DoHCm#ð uwGm O½kAE¨e0wåH AE¨dwAÁH[lí plV*@dusrf; jyygaomaMumifh vufuawmh0wfí 'kuk#fwifNyD;vQif &ifzGJUqDygapoSf/ /pmar;rnfq&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /&Sif&m[kvmudk &SifjyKonfumvom {uHoH Owå&mo*ø um&maywGm vmonfr[kwf/ wyg;olwdkY &SifjyKonfumvvnf; vmonf/ &[efjyKonfumvvnf; vmonf/ &[ewf dkYrSm Oyk'fy0g&Pm paom uHBuD;uHi,faqmifonfumvvnf;/ {uHoH Owå&mo*ø um&dwGm vmonf

23 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 12

&Sif&m[kvm &SifjyKonfumv {uHoH Owå&mo*ø um&maywGm vmonfudk yd@mpm&du0wfponfudk jzOfYoOfumv ynwfawmfrlonf ta&mifaqmifí wzufvufuawmhwifaponfqdk&mrSm &Sif&m[kvm&SifjyKonfumv {uHoH Owå&mo*ø um&maywGm[lí/ wGm 5 csufvnf; vmonf/ yxrH auorókH Mo[m&maywGm umom,med 0w¬med tpäm'gaywGm OuúK#duH edoD'gaywGm tOÆvð y*¾PSgaywGm bdu©KeH yga' 0E´maywGm[lí wGm 5 csufvOf; vmonfudk/ {uHoH Owå&mo*ø um&maywGm wcsufESifhom wbufvufuawmhwif tbJaMumifh qkr®oenf; &Gm0ifqGrf;pm;oGm;onfumv a&S;OD;pGm qHrkwfqdwfudk tbJhaMumifh rcsapoeOf;/ aqmifhaMumifhxdkifí tbJhaMumifh rcHapoenf; vuftkwfcsDí tbJhaMumifh qGrf;rcHapoenf;/ &[ef;wdkYacsudk &Sdcdk;í tbJhaMumifh qrf;rcHapoenf;/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /om;awmf&m[kvm omraPjyKpnf {uHoH Owå&mo*ø um&maywGm qdkonfygVdawmfESifhtnD omraPwdkYudk omraPjyKpnf wzuf½kHpHy,fwif0wfap ynwfawmfrlonfaemuf rnfonfomraPudkrQ &Gm0ifqGrf;pm;qGrf;cHoGm;cg yOöifuJhodkU ½kHap[lí rawGUbl;yg/ wzufvufuawmhwif0wfap[lí wifí ynwfawmfrlonfjyefonfudkvnf; rawGUbl;yg/ omraPjyKonfumv usHwGm 5 csufESifhtnDvnf; jyKygonf/ qGrf;cHoGm;onfumvrSm umvtcsm;jzpfí/ usef wGmig;csufudk r,laeayonf/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /pD0&H y#v Oy&doCFm#ð uwGm O½kAE¨e0wåH AE¨dwAÁH[laom ygXfoSf/ plV*P²dusrf;ü vmonfqdkonf/ plV*P²dusrf; rSmwyg;aom usrf;wdkUü onfuJhodkU vmonfudk awGUbl;onfavmh rawGUbl;onfavmh/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /bk&m;ygVd tXuxm #Dumr/ tEk #Dumvufoef; tusef;usrf;zGifhonfü ryg tzktqpfpdk;pnfusefonfudk vdkufí zGifhaom plV*P²dusrf;wGifom vmonf/ /pmar;q&mawmfu ar;csufbk&m;/ /xdkplV*P²dusrf;onf ygVdavmh tXuxmavmh #Dumavmh/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /plV*P²dusrf;onf ygVd tXuxm #Dumr tEk #Dumvufoef; tusrf;usrf;zGifhorQ ryg tzktqpfpdk;pnfusefonfudk vdkufí zGifhaomaMumifh xdkusrf;udk *P²dyyÜusrf;[lí trnforkwfonf/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /xdkplV*P²dusrf;udk bJumv b,fyk*¾dKvf tb,ft&yfü jyKoenf;/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /bk&m;&Sif y&dedAÁmef0ifonaemuf f tESpfav;&mausmfwGif oD[dkVfuRef;udk tpdk;&aom 0wåumrPdrif;v¬uf/ yd#uwfokH;bkH ygVd tXuxm/ tEk*P²dusrf;rsm;udk ayxuftu©&mwif\/ xdktcgu oD[dkVfuRef;ü tEk&m"jynfaxmif ayguúEÅd*grt&yfae &Sifarm*¾vmefjyK\/ &Sifarm*¾vmef jyKrjyKudk oD[dkVfygVdyd#uwfrSHrSm MuOfhygav/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /xdkyd#uwfrSHudk oD[dkVfuRef; tb,ft&yfü tb,fyk*¾dKvf tb,fumvwGif jyKoenf;/ ZrÁL'dyfodkU tbJol aqmifcJhoeOf;/ þEdkifiHawmfwGif;vnf; tb,ft&yf tb,fyk*¾dKvfxHrSm &oen;/f /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/

24 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 12

/bk&m;y&dedAÁmef0ifonfhaemuf tESpf 900 ausmfwGif oxkHjyOfom; &SifAk'äCmom oD[dkVfrSm oGm;í yd#uwfudk ul;cJhí oxkH;odkY a&muf\/ oxkHjyOfrSm yd#uwf&SdaMumif;udk yk*Htaemf&xmapm Mum;í wkwfacsonf r&í yd#uwfyg rEk[myg oxkHudk wdkufí ,lcJh\ onfwGifrS jrefrmjynfodkY yd#uwfa&muf\/ yd#uwfESifhtwl oD[dkVfygpm&if;udk rSwfcJhonfyd#uwfrSH yg\/ yd#uwfrSHqdkoOfpm&if;udkvOf; &SifAk'äCmomjyK\/ &SifAk'äCmomwGif ygvm\/ yd#uwfrSHudk ppfudkiftif;0 rnfonft&yfrSm &cJonfudk owdr& yd#uwfrSH igvufwGifyif &Sd\/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /&SifAk'äCmomq&m oxkHom;[lí tb,fusrf;ü vmoenf;/ yd#uwfrSHudkvOf; &SifAk'äCmomjyKonf[k tbJhusrf;ü vmoenf;/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /Ak'äCmokyÜwådusrf;22wGif &SifAk'äCmomudk oxkHom;[lí qdkonf/ rnfol jyKavonfudk ig rod/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /Ak'äCmokyÜwådwGif &SifAk'äCmom aCmou&GmykPm;om jzpfaMumif;udkom vmonf/ oxkHjyOfom;[lí rvm/ yd#uwfrSHudk &SifAk'äCmomjyKonfqdkNyDrS rnfoljyKaMumif;udk rodqdkjyefonfvnf; a&SUaemuf rnD/ ynm&SdwdkYpum; r[kwf plV*E¨Dusrf;udk tEk&m"jynfaxmif ayguúEÅd*gr&GmwGif &[EÅm&SifarmuúvmefjyKonf[k ajymqdkonf ,ck rdrdvufwGif;ygonf yd#uwfrSHpmwGifvnf; 0de,*P²dyk'fudk oD[dkVfy&uúrAm[kv¬uf armuúvmefjyKonfom &Sdonf/ tEk&m"jyOfaxmif ayguúEÅd*gr&Gmae &[ef;&Sifarm*¾vmefjyKonf plV*P²dusrf;[lí rygbJvQuf rodrvdr®mol t,lrSm;avatmif BuHaqmifí tbJhaMumifh b0&Sifomoe'g,umw&m;rif;jrwftm; vSOfYpm;oenf;/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /Ak'äCmomudk Ak'äCmokyÜwådwGif oxkHom;jzpfaMumif;udk ygonfqdkrdayonf/ Ak'äCmokyÜwådwGif qdkonf &mZ0ifwGif qdkonf/ oD[dkVfa&mufpmrSmwGif qdkoOfudk owdr&ay/ 0de,*P²dyk'fudk oD[dkVfy&uúrAm[kv¬uf armuúvmefjyKonf yd#uwfrSHwGif &Sdayonfudk plV*P²dusrf;udk tEk&m"jyOfaxmif ayguúEÅd*gr&Gmae &Sifarm*¾vmefjyKonf qdkí &Sdonfudk anmifOD yk*HjyK[lMuaomaMumifh anmifOD yk*H r[kwf tEk&m"jyOfaxmif ayguúEÅd*gr&Gm[k odomatmif ig a&vdkufayonf/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /wkHtEG,fwdkY\ rSDcdkp&m plV*P²dusrf;udk 0pD&Ak'¨d#Dum om&w¬'DyPD#Dum 0drwd0daem'Pd#Dumq&mwdkY tav;jyKí udkonfavm rudkonfavmh/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /wDaómomraPa&m/ v/ 0de,yd#uH |aywGm a'Gyd#umed 0gapwdwd wDok *P²dya'ok 0kwåH/ om&w¬'DyPD#Dumq&m *P²dokH;usrf;udk tav;jyKí jyaomaMumifh om&w¬'DyPD#Dumq&m tav;jyKvQifvnf; *P²dusrf;udk tav;jyK&macs\/ /'kuk#fwif *gr0godq&m oHCmtqufquf plV*P²dusrf;wGif vmonftwdkif; 'kuk#fwif &ifpnfusifhMuonf/ 0pd&Ak'¨d#Dum 0drwd0daem'Pd#DumrSmvnf; *P²dyk'fokH;usrf;udk tav;jyKusonfcsOf;jzpfonf/

22 The name of the text is spelt as Ak'¨aCmomokyÜwåd in the manuscript.

25 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 12

/pmar;q&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /wkHtEG,fyk*¾dKvfwdkY\ rSDcdkudk;pm;&m plV*P²dusrf;onf 0pD&Ak'¨d#Dum om&w¬'DyPD#Dum 0drwd0daem'Pd#Dum/q&mwdkY tav;jyKí udk;tyfaom *P²dyk'fyifavmh/ /twkvq&m ajzcsufbk&m;/ /,ck&Sdonf ygXf t*Fg 30 ausmf teuf ajcmufq,fausmf 0denf;plV*P²dusrf;onf/ oD[dkVfyg *P²dyk'fyif trSwf&Sdí rif;tqufquf q&mtqufquf jyKpkudk,fuG,fMuonf ¤F;*P²donf #DumokH;apmif tav;jyKonfh *P²dyif ,layonf/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY ar;csufbk&m;/ /0denf;#DumBuD;okH;apmifwGif 0pD&Ak'¨d#Dum a&S;OD;pGm jzponf f/ xdkaemuf om&w¬'DyPD#Dum jzpfonf/ xdkaemuf 0drwd0daem'Pd#Dum jzpfonf/ xdk#DumBuD;okH;apmifudk pD&ifaom q&mjrwfwdkYvOf;/ 0deOf;*P²dokH;yg; tav;jyKí/ wdok*P²dya'ok/ 'GDokyd*P²dya'ok/ r[m*P²dya'ok/ rZÑdr*P²dya'/ tEk*P²dya'[k udk;pm;ukefonf jzpfaomaMumifh *P²dyk'fokH;yg;onf #DumBuD;okH;apmiftvQif jzpfonf/ ,ck&Sdonfh wkHtEG,fyk*¾dKvfwdkY\ rSDcdkudk;pm;&m plV*P²dusrf;üum; wDok*P²dya'okwd/ r[m*P²d rZÑdr*P²d plV*P²dya'ok [lí¤if;/ 0pD&Ak'¨d#Dum,H [lí¤if;/ 0drwd0daem'Pd,H [lí¤if;/ udk;pm;onfhygXf ygonfjzpfí aemufqkH;jzpfvQuf ,ckplV*P²dudk #DumBuD;okH;&yf udkpm;tyfaom 0deOf;*P²dyk'f jzpfonf[lí/ qdkonfrSm ygVd tXuxm #Dum usrf;*ef rcsif;ESif;Edkifonfjzpfí/ rvdr®molwdkY t,lrSm;avatmif ta&mifaqmifí/ tb,faMumifh vSnfhpm;oenf; rdrdpum;&yfwGifvnf; ygVd tXuxm #Dumr tEk#Dum #Dumvufoef; tusrf;usrf;rS usHorQ tzktqpfudk *P²dyyÜzGifhonf[k usrf;wum aemufqkH;xm;í qdkNyD;rS a½SUaemufrnD #DumBuD;okH;&yf udkpm;tyfaom 0deOf;*P²dyk'fyif jzpfonf[lí usef*ef roifhbl;aom vlNydefvljyifwdkYtm; t,lrSm;avatmif ta&mifaqmifí tbJhaMumifh vSOfhpm;oenf;/ /twkvq&mu ¤F;ar;csufudk usrf;a&SUaemufjzpfpnfudk rnfonfusrf;aemuf/ rnfonfusrf;a&SU jzpfonfudk rajzEdkif/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY qdkcsufbk&m;/ /wkHtEG,fwdkY udkpm;tyfaom ,ck&Sdonfh plV*P²dqdkonfusrf;ü oH0aPÖwyÜ tajctjrpf r&Sdí "r®v'¨dt"r®v'¨dqdkí &ifzGJUudk wcsufqdkonf/ {uHoH Owå&mo*ø um&maywGm [laom ygVdawmfudk oH0aPÖwAÜjyKí/ vufuawmh 'kuk#fwif &ifpOfí oGm;&rnf[kudk omrnqdkonf omraP[lí txl;rqdk/ &Gm0ifqGrf;pm;oGm;onfhumv wbufvufuawmh 'kuk#fwif &if;pnfí oGm;&rnf[k txl;rqdk/ xdkplV*P²dusrf;üyif &Gm0ifqGrf;pm;oGm;onfum«v» ESpbuf f½kH urÜwfoDwyfí/ oGm;tyfonfudk ygVd tXuxm #Dum usrf;tapmifapmif aqmifí vmayvQuf/ xdkplV*P²dusrf;q&mudk zsufvdkpGyfpGJvdkvQuf/ tbJhaMumifh omraPwdkUtm; &Gm0ifqGrf;pm;oGm;oOfhumv wzufvufuawm 'kuk#fwif &if;pOf&rnf[k qkH;rbdoenf;/ /twkvq&mudk ar;aomf ajyatmif rajzEdkif/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkY rdefYawmfrlcsufbk&m;/ /&[EÅm&Sif'yÜtm; yg&mZdutmywfjzifh pGyfqGJaom arwåd, bkr®pu&[ef;wdkYuJodkUaom olonf twåypöwådu udk,f\ &efol jzpfonf/ EknHhaom bk&m;ocif cGifjyKawmfrltyfaom tcif;t½kHtawG; tyfouJodkU bk&m;ocif y,fawmfrltyfaom rmwk*gr paom tawG tyf\[k bk&m;&Sif pGyfqGJí ynwfawmfudk zsufqdaom t&d|&[ef; u@uomraPwdkuJodkUaom olonf/ omoeypöwådu omoemawmf\ &efol jzpfonf/ 0eOf;ESifh pyfonf ygVd t|uxm #Dum

26 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 12 usrf;t&yfwdkü yd@mpm&du0wf ponfü &[ef;omraPwdkY taxGtxl;r&Sd urÜwfoDwwfí ESpfbuf½kH okyÜ#dpäEéodu©yk'fudk jzOfhaqmif&rnf/ NrJjrefpGm vmonf xdkygVd t|uxm #Dum usrf;ESifh rnD wkHpm&dwå wzufvufuawmh 'ku#fi,fwif &ifpOf;&rnf[k bk&m;ocifudk pGyfqGJ omoeypöw¬dujyKí crOf;awmfrif;w&m;BuD;tm; vSOfhpm;í EdkifiHawmftvkHwGif &Sdonfh &[ef; omraPwdkYudk 'kuk#fi,fwif &ifpOf;ap[k tbJhaMumifh pD&ifqkr®oenf;/ /t"r®0g'Djzpfí q&mpOfwkHEG,fudkom tav;jyKonf/ bk&m;ocifudk tav;rjyK a0omvDjyOf 0ZÆDwkid f;om;&[ef;rsm;uJhodkU/ ynwfawmfudk zsufí omoemawmf a&Tavsmftm;eOf;atmif BuHaqmifvSOfYpm;ool jzpfí [kwfrSHatmif yd#uwfwdkufawmfü pmar;q&mawmf rSL;awmfrwfawmfwdkYtv,fwGif rajymrqdk0efUNyD;/ /twkvq&m xGufqdkcsufbk&m;/ /ig ,lrdonfh t,lonf usrf;*efESifh rnD jzpfí r[kwfrrSHacs 0efcsygawmhonf/ /pmar;q&mawmfwdkYu twkvq&mESifh t,lwl &Sif0d&d,m&rÇm/ ODwkwfjzL/ yifwvJq&mwdkYudk rdefUawmfrlcsufbk&m;/ /'kuk#fwifoifhaMumif;udk usrf;&Sdonfjzpfí 'kuk#fwifcsifvQuf rif;{u&mZfudk aMumufíom ½kHyg&onf/ xGufqdkMuonf/twkid f; omraPwdkY 'kuk#fwif &ifpnfí &Gm0ifqGrf;pm;oGm;oifaMumif;udk qdkMuap/ /avmuo&zlwdkuf &Sif0d&d,m&rÇm/ yifwvJq&m ODwkwfjzLwdkY xGufqdkcsufbk&m;/ /omraPwdkY 'kuk#fwifoifhaMumif; &ifpOfoifhaMumif;udk usrf;*eftoiftMum;eOf;MuaomaMumifh txl; rqdkEdkifrjyEdkifyg xGufqdkMuonf/

r (Source: Palm-leaf ms. no. 119456 in UCL, folios a* - a*: v)

27 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 12

Summary: The questioning of Atula Hsaya by the royal teachers held in the Thudama-zayat of the royal pitakat-taik on the first day of the waxing moon of Kahson of the year 114623 in pursuance of the royal order. Q: Do you consider yourself a dhammavādi? A: Yes. Q: The dhammavādi are those who speak in accordance with the scriptures; on what scriptural basis have you founded your instructions for separate attire for novices? A: On the basis of the account of Rahula’s initiation in Vinaya Mahāvagga. Q: If this practice is given in account of Rahula’s initiation as a novice, why have you ignored the same instruction elsewhere given to monks, and why did you choose only one action from the six requirements for piṇḍācārika-vatta and ignore all the rest? A: I have not seen [in the scriptures] that after [the Buddha] had prescribed Rahula to cover one shoulder [with the upper garment] during the initiation into novicehood, [he] had instructed any of the novices to clad his body in robes in the same way as the monks when going to collect alms-food or eat meals on invitation. Other actions were ignored for the collection of alms-food is an occasion very different from initiation. Q: Are there other texts requiring the practice of chest binding besides the Cūlagaṇṭhi? A: No. Q: Which class among the Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās or ṭīkās does the Cūlagaṇṭhi belong to? A: It’s an exposition on points left out in other texts. Q: Who is the author, and what is the time and place of compilation? A: It was compiled by Moggalāna from Sīhaḷa in the reign of Vaṭṭagāmani, for reference see Pitakat-hman in Pāli from Sīhaḷa.24 Q: By whom, when and where was this Pitakat-hman compiled on Sīhaḷa, who brought it to Jambudīpa, and from whom did you get it here? A: Buddhaghosa, a native of Thahton, copied the pitakat in Sīhaḷa and delivered it to Thahton; later it was brought to Bagan by Anawrahta. The Pitakat-hman is a list compiled and brought by Buddhaghosa himself. It was brought to the country of Myanma together with the pitakat [transported by Anawrahta]. I don’t remember where I got it from in Sagaing and Inwa but I have a copy. Q: What is the scriptural support for Buddhaghosa being a native of Thahton and for his compilation of the Pitakat-hman? A: Buddhaghosuppatti shows him as being a native of Thahton. I don’t know who compiled it.25 Q: Buddhaghosuppatti says only that Shin Buddhaghosa was the son of a brahman from Ghosaka village. It is not said [there] that he was the native of Thaton. There is a contradiction [in the testimony] as [the defendant] first said that the Pitakat-hman was compiled by Shin Buddhaghosa and then said that he doesn’t know who compiled it. These are not the words of a learned person. The text of the Pitakat-hman produced by you doesn’t mention the Cūlagaṇṭhi

23 April 19, 1784. 24 Pitakat-hman (Mirror of the Pitakat) is a name for a genre of texts detailing the corpus of literature transmitted in Pāli (this corpus was called in Burmese the pitakat). It is synonymous to the term pitakat-thamaing (history of the pitakat).

28 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 12 compiled by Moggalāna but only Vinayagaṇṭhipada compiled by Moggalāna during the reign of Parakkama Bāhu. Why have you deceived the Lord of Life? A: The reference to Buddhaghosuppatti was given in yazawin and I don’t remember what was said in the text brought from Sīhaḷa.26 It was said that the Cūlagaṇṭhi was compiled in Nyaung U, Bagan, that is not correct, I’ve written that it was compiled in Pokkantigama so that it might be known. Q: Is the Cūlagaṇṭhi referred to by the compilers of Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā, Sāratthadīpanī, and Vimativinodanī? A: Sāratthadīpanī refers to the three gaṇṭhipadas and so are Vajirabuddhi-ṭīkā and Vimativinodanī, thus the generations of the dukot-tin and the gāmavāsī teachers have practiced the covering of [one shoulder with] the dukot and chest-binding in accordance with the Cūlagaṇṭhi. Q: Is the Cūlagaṇṭhi one of gaṇṭhipadas referred to in the ṭīkās? A: Yes, and this Pāli text having 30 aṅgās and its translation having 60 aṅgās were used by generations of overlords and teachers. Q: Of the three great Vinaya subcommentaries Vajirabuddhi is the earliest, followed by Sāratthadīpanī and Vimativinodanī. Exalted authors who compiled these three great ṭīkās refer to three Vinaya gaṇṭhis, and so these three Vinaya gaṇṭhis precede the three great ṭīkās. The present Cūlagaṇṭhi on which the monks of the Ton lineage rely contains references to the three gaṇṭhis, Vajirabuddhi, and Vimativinodanī, so it is later [than they are]. Why have you deceived those who don’t know the scriptures causing them to hold wrong views by pretending that the present Cūlagaṇṭhi is the Vinaya gaṇṭhipada referred to by the three great ṭīkās? Having positioned [the Cūlagaṇṭhi] as the latest of all texts by saing that it explains the intricacies that were left unexplained by the Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās, primary ṭīkās, anuṭīkās, “the finger-width” ṭīkās, and other works, why have you contradicted [yourself] and deceived the ignorant people who have not studied the scriptures causing them to hold wrong views by pretending that the present Cūlagaṇṭhi is the Vinaya gaṇṭhipada referred to by the three great ṭīkās? A: Could not reply to the question about the sequence of texts, i.e. which text follows which text. The statement of the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams: In the present text called Cūlagaṇṭhi on which [the monks] of the Ton lineage rely there is a justification only for chest- binding. In explaining the Pāli [canonical expression] “having covered one shoulder with the upper robe” (ekaṃsaṃ uttarāsaṅgaṃ kārāpetvā) and in saying that one should go having covered one shoulder [with the upper robe], having covered [the other shoulder] with the undersized robe, and having one’s chest bound, [the Cūlagaṇṭhi] does not speak specifically of novices, but of recluses (sāmañña) [in general]. It does not say specifically that one should go to the villages on meal-invitations having covered one shoulder [with the upper robe], having covered [the other shoulder] with the undersized robe, and having one’s chest bound. In this very Cūlagaṇṭhi there are quotes from the Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās [stipulating] that one should go to the villages on meal-invitations having covered both shoulders [with the upper robe] and fastened the trims of the robe together. Why did you instruct the novices to go

25 The brevity of the record here does not make it clear if Atula replies to a second question on the authorship of Pitakat-hman or says that he does not know who compiled Buddhaghosuppatti. The present account assumes that it was a reply to the question (see below). 26 Perhaps, “the text brought from Sīhaḷa” is a reference to the original text of Buddhaghosuppatti.

29 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 12 to the villages on meal-invitations having covered one shoulder [with the upper robe], having covered [the other shoulder] with the undersized robe, and having one’s chest bound, thus contradicting the author of the Cūlagaṇṭhi? When asked [this question], Atula Hsaya could not reply. The statement of the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams: The person who is similar to monks Mettiya and Bhummajaka who accused arhat Shin Dabba of the pārājika offence is his own enemy. The person who like monk Ariṭṭha and novice Kaṇṭaka violates the [Buddha’s] prescriptions and defames the Lord Buddha by claiming that the things rejected by the Lord Buddha such as women, etc. are admissible in the way as the things allowed by the Lord Buddha are admissible is the enemy of the sāsana. The Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās related to the Vinaya do not differentiate monks and novices in the observance of piṇḍācārika- vatta, etc. but consistently say that [both monks and novices] should follow the suppaṭicchana sikkhāpada by covering both shoulders [with the upper robe] and fastening the trims [of the robe]. Why have you decieved the king’s father27 and made [all] the monks in the realm subject the novices to covering [the shoulder] with the undersized robe and chest-binding, [thus] making yourself the enemy of the sāsana and defaming the Lord Buddha with the Ton practice of covering one shoulder [with the upper robe], covering [the other shoulder] with the undersized robe, and binding the chest, which is against the Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās? You’re adhammavādi who respects only the tradition of [his] teachers, [that is] the Ton lineage, and does not respect the Lord Buddha. You’ve violated the prescriptions and have conspired to weaken the sāsana like the monks from Vesali, and you did not dare to speak the truth in the presence of royal teachers supervising scriptural exams and ministers in [this] royal pitakat-taik. The statement of Atula: From now on I admit that my views are wrong and contradict the scriptures. The instruction of the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams to Shin Viriyārambha from Lawkatharahpu-taik, U Tot Hpyu, and Pindale Hsaya who hold the same views as Atula Hsaya: You have testified that [you] want to practice the covering with the dukot because there is textual support for that practice and that you have covered [two shoulders] only because [you] were afraid of the overlord. Demonstrate that the novices should go to collect alms-food and eat meals on invitation having covered [one shoulder] with the dukot and having binded the chest. The statement of Shin Viriyārambha from Lawkatharahpu-taik, Pindale Hsaya, and U Tot Hpyu: [The latter] testify that they can’t demonstrate the appropriateness of the practice of covering and chest-binding due to a lack of scriptural training.

Comments: The hearing was orchestrated to demonstrate that, while Atula and his followers claimed to follow the discipline laid down by the Buddha, they in fact did not have systematical knowledge of neither the canon and its commentaries nor the later Vinaya literature they relied on. The verdict exposed them as adhammavādi and the enemies of the sāsana capable of destroying it by perverting the instructions of the Buddha.

27 A reference to Alaungmintaya.

Document no. 13 Royal order dated the third day of the waxing moon of Kahson 1146 (April 21, 1784)

Text: ouú&mZf 1146 ck uqkefvqef; 1 &ufaeY twkvq&mudk yd#uwfwdkufawmfwGif q&mawmfwpk pnf;a0;ar;jref;awmfrlMuonf? omoemawmfa&; usrf;*efrSKrSm odawmfrlomjyD; aemifawmfqufjzL&Sifvufxuf MuufoGefcif;q&mawmf? Z&mZfq&mawmf? tifMuif;yifq&mawmfwpku &[ef;w&m;ESihf ravsmf omoemawmfrSty jzpfxdkufonf arwåmpmoGif;Muí t0jrdKUausmif;wGifrS rae&? awmwGif;t&yfokdU xGufoGm;ae&avonf? ipnhful;pm;vufxuf pudkif;buf r*Fvma&TbHkausmif;udk aqmufvkyfjyD;ajyonhfumvvnf; ipnhful;pm;trdu wifvSLrnf&Sd&mwGif tifMuif;q&mawmf bHkausmausmif f;ae OD;ykHwdkYu rwifrvSLoihfaMumifhESihf arwÅmpmoGif;jyefítavQmuf aejrJaejyef&onf? aemufvnf; *dkPf;EG,foCFmwdkYESihf aq;abmfaMumbuf ruif; wjynhfoCFmrsm;ESihf &SdaMumif;udk a&Tem;awmfMum;awmfrljyef&onf? aemifawmfqifjzL&Sifvufxuf twkvq&m awmwGif;odkU oGm;&onhfumv rnfonhf odu©myk'f,dk,Gif;í oGm;&onfudk av;xyfajrmufwdkuf &SifZedE´? bHkausmfOD;yHkwdkYwpkESihf twkvq&mudk qdkifjydKifapí pmar;q&mawmfwpku w&m;usrf;*efESifhtnD aq;ar;awmfrlMujyD;vQif odawmfrlomatmif arwåmpmoGif;ap/ (ouú&mZf) 1146 ck uqkefvqef; 3 &ufaeY em;cH oD&eE´pnd folwGif jyef/

(Source: The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 323)

31 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 13

Translation: On the 1st day of the waxing moon of Kahson of the year 114628 the group of royal teachers questioned Atula Hsaya in the royal pitakat-taik. The matter of the sāsana, the scriptural issue is now clarified. In the reign of [my] elder brother Hsinbyushin, the group of Kyetthungin Hsayadaw, Zayit Hsayadaw, Ingyinbin Hsayadaw submitted mettasa [claiming] that [Atula Hsaya] is not commensurate with the law of the monks and should be outside of the sāsana. [As a result of this, Atula Hsaya] could not reside in a monastery in the city of Ava and had to go to a forest locale. Then in the reign of the ruler of Nga Singu when the king’s mother completed the Mingalashwebon monastery in Sagaing and was about to donate it, Ingyin Hsayadaw and U Pon residing in the Bongyaw monastery again submitted mettasa [arguing] that the donation is inappropriate, and so [Atula Hsaya] had to stay where he had been. After that I’ve learned that [Atula Hsaya] has many accomplices and disciple-monks. Let the group of Shin Janinda from Leihtat-myauk-taik and U Pon from Bongyaw- [taik] be brought to confront Atula Hsaya [to clarify] which sikkhāpada [Atula Hsaya] broke and thus had to go to the forest in the reign [my] elder brother Hsinbyushin. Let the group of royal teachers supervising scriptural exams ask them in accordance with the scriptures and, having done that, submit mettasa so that [I] might know [the reason of his banishment]. [Royal order] issued on the 3rd day of the waxing moon of Kahson of the year 114629 through nakhan Thiri Nanda Sithu.

Comments: The order closes the trial on scriptural issues and opens the floor for clarifying the issue whether or not Atula is eligible to remain in the saṃgha. It stipulates that Atula should meet his denunciators and that their arguments must be considered in the light of Vinaya requirements. Royal teachers supervising scriptural exams are asked to attend the confrontation and submit a report.

28 April 19, 1784. 29 April 21, 1784.

Document no. 14 Royal order issued in the evening of the third day of the waxing moon of Kahson 1146 (April 21, 1784)

Text: twkvq&mudk txufapm'uyk*d¾KvfwdkUESihf qdkifjydKifapí pmar;q&mawmfwpk aq;ar;awmfrlMuí jyefcsuftrdefYawmfpmonf pmar;q&mawmfwdkU Mum;od&if;trSK r[kwfavjzpfonf? &wempHvGwfq&mu w&m;usrf;*efESihftnD aq;ar;ppfaMumí qHk;jzwfcsufudk pmoGif;ap? pmar;q&mawmfwdkUrSm txuftrdefYawmfyg apm'u pk'dwuyk*d¾KvfwdkYudk &wempHvGwfq&m aq;ar;ppfaMumonfumv pnf;a0;í em;axmifawmfrlMu&rnftaMumif;ESihf r[m'gef0efudk yihfbdwfavQmufxm;ap? twkvq&mu aq;abmfaMumbuf t,l0g'rQol t0iftygrsm;&SdaMumif;ESihf pm&if;csonf? cifBuD;ckdif? cifBuD;arT;? &SifudwdÅ? &Sifqif? &SifZde? ciBuD;abmf f? cifBuD;ndK? cifBuD;

(Source: The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 324)

Summary: The submission [received] from the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams about the confrontation between Atula Hsaya and his denunciators is not about the original issue the royal teachers had inquired into. Yadanasanlut Hsaya must interrogate [both parties] in accordance with the scriptures and submit his decision. Mahadan-wun must invite the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams to attend when Yadanasanlut Hsaya interrogates the denunciators and the defendant mentioned in the earlier order. As Atula Hsaya has many accomplices who have the same views, the list [of such persons] was made. Let the [servicemen] appointed by the Hluttaw summon Khingyi Khaing, Khingyi Hmwe, Shin Keitti, Shin Hsin, Shin Zina, Khingyi Hpaw, Khingyi Nyo, Khingyi Kywin and their followers so that [they] might arrive as soon as possible. [Royal order] issued in the evening of the 3rd day of the waxing moon of Kahson of the year 114630 through nakhan Nandameit Sithu.

Comments: This order suggests that on April 21, 1784, Atula was confronted with his denunciators; however, their discussion seems to turn to issues other than the reasons of Atula’s banishment. Thus, the report on the confrontation did not clarify Atula’s eligibility to be considered a monk and so Badon-min refused to accept it. In the evening of the same day he required Yadanasanlut Hsayadaw Shin Kalyāṇa, a member of the dukot-tin faction, to interrogate Atula and his denunciators Shin Janinda and U Pon. The order also stipulated summoning eight disciples of Atula together with some other monks or novices dependent on them.

30 April 21, 1784.

Document no. 15 Royal order dated the fifth day of the waxing moon of Kahson 1146 (April 23, 1784)

Text: twkvq&mudk aemifawmfqifjzL&Sifvufxufuyif &[ef;w&m;ESihf qefYMuifonf tif;Muif;yifq&mawmfESihf q&mawmfwpku arwåmpmoGif;Muí ausmif;wGif;rSm rae& awmwGif;t&yfrSm ae&avaomaMumifh odawmfrlomatmif apm'u pk'dwuyk*d¾KvfESpfOD;wdkUudk &wempHvGwfq&mu aq;ar;qHk;jzwfcsufESihf pmoGif;ap trdefYawmfxkwfjyefí ppfaMumaq;ar;aponfudk edAÁmef r*f zdkvf tvdkYiSg 0denf;odu©myk'fawmfudk xdef;odrf;usihfaqmifMuonfh &[ef;rsm; r[kwfMuouJhokdY apm'u pk'dwuyk*d¾KvfwdkYvnf; Mum;odonftwdkif; [kwfrSefatmif rxGufrqdkMu? qHk;jzwfrnfholvnf; rqHk;rjzwfEdkifaMumif;ESihf arwåmpmoGif;onfht&monf oihfonfr[kwf? omoemawmfa&; 0denf;odu©myk'fawmfudk raxmufrcsifh&m a&mufMuonf? twkvq&m awmwGif;odkU oGm;&onfrSm trSwfrxiftavsmuf oGm;&onf r[kwf? ESifí txift&Sm;oGm;&jcif;jzpfonf? ipnhful;pm;vufxufvnf; trdu aqmufonfhausmif;udk wifvSLvdkí 4if;q&mawmfwpkudk avQmufar;ap&mwGif rwifrvSLoihfaMumif;udk avQmufar;csuf arwåmpmoGif;csuf txift&Sm;&Sond f? 4if;trSKudk &Gufaqmif&if;ol tifMuif;yifq&mawmf ra&mufao;aomfvnf; cifBuD;yHk? cifBuD;ZedE´wdkUom Mum;odonf r[kwf/ ,if;awmfq&m? &Gmeef;q&m? uyJhq&m? '0,fq&mwdkYvnf; tMum;todcsnf;yif jzpfonf? q&mwpkudk twkvq&mESifh qdkifjydKifapí 0denf;odu©myk'fawmf w&m;usrf;*ef&Sd&m &wempHvGwfq&mESihf armif;axmif&SifMobmo? ig;&Gm&SifuvsmPwdkUudk ppfaMumqHk;jzwfapí pmoGif;Muap? pmar;q&mawmfwpkudkvnf; em;axmifjrJ em;axmifMuap&rnfhtaMumif;ESihf r[m'gef0efudk avQmufxm;ap? tifMuif;yifq&mawmfudkvnf; omoemawmfa&;MuHKonf jzponf f? vTwfu vlcefYxm;í tvQifa&mufatmif yifhaqmifap/ (ouú&mZf) 1146 ck uqkefvqef; 5 &ufaeY em;cH oD&deE´pnfoludk ac:í jyef/

(Source: The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 325)

34 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 15

Summary: It was ordered to make Yadanasanlut Hsaya interrogate Atula Hsaya and his denunciators and submit his decision. The submission that both sides don’t testify on what they know and thus no decision could be passed is improper. It appears that the matter of the sāsana and the rules of the Vinaya are disregarded. Atula Hsaya did not go to the forest unnoted, he was banished publicly. When in the reign of the ruler of Nga Singu his mother wanted to donate [to Atula] a monastery [built by her] and these royal teachers were asked [about the appropriateness of donation], the mettasa submitted by them [claiming] that [Atula] is not worthy of donation was also quite conspicuous. Though Ingyinbin Hsayadaw who had first initiated that case has not yet arrived, Khingyi Pon and Khingyi Janinda are not the only ones who know about [the matter]. Yindaw Hsaya, Ywanan Hsaya, Kabe Hsaya, and Dawe Hsaya also know about it. Yadanasanlut Hsaya, Maungdaung Shin Obhāsa, and Nga-ywa Shin Kalyāṇa must confront Atula Hsaya with his denunciators and pass a decision in accordance with the scriptures. Mahadan-wun must invite the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams to attend. The Hluttaw must speedily arrange the invitation of Ingyinbin Hsayadaw. [Royal order] issued on the 5th day of the waxing moon of Kahson of the year 114631 by summoning nakhan Thiri Nanda Sithu.

Comments: As might be inferred, on April 22 or 23, 1784 another hearing of Atula’s case was held. However, Yadanasanlut Hsayadaw could not pass a decision on a pretext that both sides did not disclose necessary information thus making the judgment impossible. Accordingly, Badon- min ordered calling in other witnesses and appointed at least two other Vinaya judges besides Yadanasanlut to try the case, namely Maungdaung Shin Obhāsa and Nga-ywa Shin Kalyāṇa. As suggested by the next order, the third hearing must have occurred on April 24, 1784. Besides three judges appointed on April 23, the order mentions two more (Hsalingyi Shin Parama and Shin Dīpa), so it seems that five members of the Ton or dukot-tin-gaing interrogated Atula and his denunciators. At that point, the judges ruled Atula guilty.

31 April 23, 1784.

Document no. 16 First version of the royal order dated the seventh day of the waxing moon of Kahson 1146 (April 25, 1784)

Text: bkef;awmftvTefMuDjrwfawmfrlvSaom toQifb0½Sifrif;w&m;MuD;bk&m; trdefUawmf½dSonf tkwf½Spfaus;ae&if; twkv,or[m"r®&mZ*k½k wHqdyfcH iyefaxG;onf/ crnf;awmftavmif;rif;w&m;MuD;bk&m;/ aemif;awmfrifw&m 2 yg;vufxuf/ &[ef;½Sifvljynfoljynfom;taygif;wdkUudk ewf&GmrS bDvgjzpfí/ tyg,f 4 yg;EdIuf epfrGefavatmif bk&m;ocif a[mawmfrlonf/ ygVd t|uxm #Dum usrf;*ef xGuf½dS&m rjzpfap&/ ygVd t|uxm #DumESifh qefUusifaom omoeypöwådu t"r®0g'Dyk*¾dKvfwdkU tvdk½dS&m pD&ifa&;om;xm;aom plV*@dusrfudk tcdkifjyKí a[majymjyoqkr®ay;onftwGif omoemawmfjrwfudk apmifhaom ewfwdkU raerom raumif;aom Munfhjcijzif fh MunfhMuí/ iyefaxG;udk,fwGif odu©mw&m; rem;aMumif;ESifh/ jynfolwdkU aMuG;aMumvQif/ aemifawmfqifjzL½Sifvufxuf *dkPfEG,fcsif; raygif;rbufvdk/ omoemrSty jzpfxdkufonf arwåmpm oGifMuí/ ausmifwGifrS rae&/ awmwGif aus;&Gm vGwf&m xGufajy;&onfudkrQ owd r&/ w&m;udk rapmifhjcif;aMumifh w&m; rapmifhacsonf rpGJr,l jidrf0yfpGm rae/ omraPwdkUusifh0wfw&m;onf/ plV*@dusrfxGufom rSefonf pdwfESvHkuGJjym;jcif r½dSMuESifh rifvdkodkU vdkufíom usifh&rnf/ omoeypöwådu t"r®0g'D ,lí ray;xdkuf ray;oifhonfpmudk *dkPf;EG,foCFmcsif; ayurf;Mum;jyef&aomhaMumifh 4if;usrfxGufonf ygVd t|uxmusrf;ESifh nD rnD yd#uwfwdkufawmfwGif pmarq&mawmfwdkUa½SU qkdifjydKifarjrefapvQif/ bk&m;a[mawmfrlonf ygVd t|uxm #Dum usrf;*efESifh nDatmif rjyrqdkEdIif t"r®0g'D omoemql;anmifh rSefaMumif;udk 0efcsí ½dSjyefonf/ aemifawmfqifjzL½Sifvufxuf omoemrSty jzpfxdkufonf ausmif;u qif;oGm&onfaemH *dkPfET,foCFmcsif;aq;abmfaMumbuf ruif; aygif;bufpnfa0;jyefMuí wynfhoCFmtrsm;ESifh ½dSjyefaomhaMumifh txuftrI&if;ukd oefvQifpifMu,fonf rpifMu,fonf yd#uwfwdkufawmfwGif/ &wempHvTwfq&m/ armif;axmif½SifMobmo/ 5 &Gm½SifuvsmP/ pvifMuD;½Sify&r/ ½Sif'Dywdkudk 0denfw&m;usrf;ESifhtnD ppfaMumapvQif/ iyef;axG;udk,fEdIuf/ 'kwd,yg&mZdurS rx/ omoemawmfrSty jzpfaMumifudk qkr®pD&ifcsufpm qufoGif;í ½dSonf/ tukodkvfw&m; tm;MuDí t"r®0g'D rdpäm paom olwdkUudk/ oAÁnKbk&m;ocifrS xkwfEkwfu,fwifjcif;iSg/ rwwfEdkifjzpfonf/ iyef;awGESifh t,l0g' oabmrQol omoeypöwådu/ iausmfuav;/ iwkwfjzL iyef;axG;udk ac:&if;umv t,lxl wcsufwcsufwnfyg vl ijrwfausmf iMumbu/f i&m/ iol/ iaomf/ ivGrf;wdkUudk a&Tjynfawmfywfvnf aejyefapvQif/ &[ef;½Sifvljynfoljynfom;wdkU t,lrSgMuí tyg,f 4 yg;EdIuf epfrGef;Murnfjzpfonf/ oifwdkUwpkudk vl0wfvJjyD;vQif armif;ausmfí tnmopfawmf 4 &yfodkU toD wa,mHpD ydkU/ ouú&mZf 1146 ck/ uqkefvjynfhausmf 7 &ufaeU/ em;cH pajrmifrSLwGif jyef

(Source: a parabaik in the collection of thugaungs of Salin photocopied by Toshikatsu Ito and uploaded at http://taweb.aichi-u.ac.jp/DMSEH/Vol_3/STG018-36.jpg and http://taweb.aichi- u.ac.jp/DMSEH/Vol_3/STG018-35.jpg)

36 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 16

Translation: The Lord of Life, the Great Righteous King, who is supreme in merit, issued an order. In the reigns of my father Lord Alaungmintayagyi and two of my elder brothers,32 Nga Pan Htwe, a native of Okshitkye bearing the title of Atulayasa Mahādhammarājaguru, had preached on the basis of the Cūlagaṇṭhi, [a text] which contradicts the Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās and was written in accordance with the wishes of the adhammavādī and the enemies of the sāsana, in order to destroy the stipulations of the Pāli [canon] preached by the Lord Buddha, aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās so that all monks, novices, and laity were obstructed from the abodes of deities and became immersed in the woeful states. When [Nga Pan Htwe did that,] deities taking care of the exalted sāsana could not tolerate it and looked badly upon [him]. [At that time] the inhabitants of the royal city [started] saying that Nga Pan Htwe possesses no monastic standing (sikkhā). In the reign of [my] elder brother Hsinbyushin the members of [Nga Pan Htwe’s] community submitted mettasas [arguing] that [they] did not want to associate [with Nga Pan Htwe and that] he should be outside of the sāsana, and so [Nga Pan Htwe] could not stay in [his] monastery and had to go to a village in the forest. Even at that point he did not show contrition, did not realize that since [he] had not protected the Dhamma, the Dhamma did not protect [him],33 and did not live peacefully. As he had entertained the views of the adhammavādī and the enemies of the sāsana and had sent inappropriate messages to his fellow monks, [claiming] that only the code of conduct for novices given in the Cūlagaṇṭhi is correct, that no doubts should be entertained and that it should be practiced as the king wishes, it was ordered to question him in the royal pitakat-taik in front of the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams if the contents of that text (i.e. the Cūlagaṇṭhi) are in accordance with the Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās[, and ṭīkās]. [There Nga Pan Htwe] could not demonstrate that [his point] is in accordance with the Pāli [canon] preached by the Buddha, aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās and admitted to be an adhammavādī and a thorn of the sāsana. After [Nga Pan Htwe] had to leave [his] monastery in the reign of [my] elder brother Hsinbyushin [when it was argued that he] should be outside of the sāsana, [he] again accumulated monastic accomplices and had many disciple monks, and thus Yadanasanlut Hsayadaw, Maungdaung Shin Obhāsa, Nga-ywa Shin Kalyāṇa, Hsalingyi Shin Parama, and Shin Dīpa were ordered to interrogate [Nga Pan Htwe] in the royal pitakat-taik to determine if [he] is innocent as regards this original disciplinary case. There is a decision passed by [these monks] that Nga Pan Htwe has committed the second pārājika [offence] and is outside of the sāsana. Even the omniscient Lord Buddha could not rescue [from saṃsāra] the adhammavādī and those who adhere to wrong views because of their strong demerit.

32 A reference to Dipeyin-min and Myedu-min. 33 I’m grateful to Christian Lammerts for helping me to understand this particular expression in the document. As suggested by Christian, it might be based on Pāli dhammo have rakkhati dhammacāriṃ “the dhamma protects the upholder of dhamma” found in Theragāthā (Th 35,17), Mahādhammapāla Jātaka (J IV 54-5), commentaries to Dhammapada and Buddhavaṃsa, Nettippakaraṇa, and elsewhere. If this phrase indeed derives from this verse in Theragāthā (no. 302), one might note that the First Maungdaung Hsayadaw in his message dated about April 12, 1784 (Document no. 9 above) quoted to Badon-min the very next verse of Theragāthā (no. 303) arguing that the purification of the sāsana should be performed because the rejection of unrighteous behavior (adhamma) helps to uphold the dhamma and direct the living beings towards good destinations. That might provide additional indirect evidence that the monks or ex-monks belonging to the reform faction were involved in the formulation of key royal orders on religious issues.

37 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 16

If the enemies of the sāsana Nga Gyaw Gale, Nga Tot Hpyu, [and Nga Pe Leit,]34 who share the opinion of Nga Pan Htwe, as well as laymen Nga Myat Gyaw, Nga Gya Hpet, Nga Ya, Nga Hpaw, Nga Thu, and Nga Lun, who were at one with Nga Pan Htwe when he was first summoned [to the royal city] are again permitted to reside in the vicinity of the golden royal city, the monks, novices, and laity, the inhabitants of the royal city, would hold wrong views and drown in woeful states. [Accordingly], they should be disrobed, taken round the city accompanied by the beating of gong and sent one by one to the 4 forest locales upriver. [Royal order] issued on the 7th day of the waning moon Kahson of the year 114635 through nakhan Samyaung-hmu.

Comments: The order is available in two versions. The first version found in a parabaik from Salin (reproduced above) applied only to Atula and his immediate disciples and sentenced them to disrobing and exile. The second extended version available in three copies (Document no. 17 below) envisaged a large scale purging of the dukot-tin and the gāmavāsī abbots in the capital area who were sentenced to disrobing and transferring to a low-status crown service group (they were to be assigned to procure fodder for elephants). It might be presumed that the second version appeared right after the first one, perhaps as a result of the lobbying for a more radical purge in the saṃgha. The existence of two versions of the order seems to be confirmed by a phrase in the next royal order issued on the evening of the same day (Document no. 18 below). That order granted pardon to the abbots included in the list and specified that the requirements of the “initial” (i.e. non-amended) royal order should be followed. The further evidence that Document no. 16 is a separate text and not a fragmentary copy of Document no. 17 is provided by the fact that it ends with a standard phrase specyfing the date of issuing of the order and the person responsible for issuing it.

34 The third monk is mentioned in the second version of this order (see Document no. 17 below) and I assume that his absence in this version is a result of scribal error. It seems less likely that he was added to the list in the second version. 35 April 25, 1784.

Document no. 17 Second version of the royal order dated the seventh day of the waxing moon of Kahson 1146 (April 25, 1784)

Text: /bkef;awmftvTefMuD;jrwfawmfrlvSaom toQifb0½Sifrif;w&m;MuD;bk&m; trdefUawmf½dSonf tkyf½Spfaus;ae&if; twkv,or[m"r®&mZ*k½k wHqdyfcH iyef;axG;onf crnf;awmftavmif;rif;w&m;MuD;bk&m; aemifawmfrif;w&m; 2 yg;v¬uf &[ef;½Sifvljynfoljynfom;taygif;wdkUudk ewf&GmedAÁmefrS bDvgjzpfí tyg,fav;yg;ü epfrGef;avatmif bk&m;ocif a[mawmfrlonfh ygVd tXuxm #Dum usrf;*efxGuf½dS&m rjzpfap& ygVd t|uxm #DumESifh qefUusifaom omoeyÜpöwådu t"r®0g'Dyk*¾dKvfwdkU tvdk½dS&m pD&ifa&;om;xm;aom plV*P²dusrf;udk tcdkifjyKí a[majymjyoqkr®ay;onfhtwGif; omoemawmfjrwfudk apmifhaom ewfwdkU raeomí raumif;aom Munfhjcif;jzifh MunfhvQif iyef;axG;udk,fwGif odu©mw&m;rem;aMumif;ESifh jynfolwdkU aMuGaMumfonfwGif aemifawmfqifjzL½Sifv¬uf *dkPfEG,fjcif; raygif;bufvdk omoemawmfrSty jzpfxdkufonf arwÅmpm oGifMuí ausmif;wGifrS rae& awmwGif;aus;&Gm vGwf&m xGufoGm;&onfudkrQ owdoHa0* r& w&m;udk rapmifhjcif;aMumifh w&m; rapmifacsonf/ rpGJ;r,l jidrf0yfpGm rae omraPwdkUusifh0wfw&m;onf plV*@dusrf;xGufom rSefonf/ pdwfESpfvHk;uGJ;jym;jcif; r½dSMuESifh rif;vdkodkU vdkufíom usifhMu&rnf/ omoemypöwÅdu t"r®0g'D,lí ray;xdkuf ray;oifhonfhpmudk *dkPf;ET,foCFmjcif; ay;urf;Mum;jyef&aomaMumifh ¤if;usrf;xGufonf ygVd txuxm #Dum usrf;*efESifh nD rnD yd#uwfwdkufawmfwGif pmar;q&mawmfwdkYa&SU wdkufqdkifar;jref;apvQif bk&m;a[mawmfrlonfh ygVd txuxm #Dum usrf;*efESifh nDatmif rjyrqdkEdkif t"r®0g'D omoemql;ajimifh rSefaMumif;udk 0efcsí ½dSjyefonf aemifawmfqifjzL½Sifv¬uf omoemrSty jzpfxdkufí ausmif;u qifhoGm;&onfaemH *dkPfEG,foCFmjcif; aq;abmfausmbuf ruif; pnf;a0;jyefMuí wynfhoCFmtrsm;ESifh ½dSjyefaomaMumifh txuftrI&if;udk oefU½Sif;pifMu,onf f rpifMu,fonf yd#uwfwdkufawmfwGif &wempHvTwfq&m armif;axmif;½SifaMombmo 5 &Gm½SifuvsmP qm;vif;MuD;½Sify&r ¤F½Sif'dywdkUudk 0denf;w&m;usrf;*efESifhtnD ppfaMumapvQif iyef;axG;udk,fwGif 'kwd,yg&mZdurS rx/ omoemawmfrSty jzpfaMumif;udk qHk;jzwfpD&ifcsufpm qufxGif;í ½dSonf tukodkvf tm;MuD;í t"r®0g'D rdpäm pGJaom olwdkUudk oAÁnKbk&m;ocifrS xkyfq,fu,fwifjcif;iSg rwwfEIdifjzpfonf/ iyef;axG;ESifh t,l0g' oabmrQol omoemypöwÅdu iausmfuav;/ iwkyfjzL/ iyvdyf/ iyef;axGudk ac:&if;umv t,lwlwcsufwnf;yg vl ijrwfausmf iMumbuf i&m iaz: iol ivGrf;wdkUudk a&Tjynfywfvnf aejyefapvQif &[ef;½Sifvljynfoljynfom;wdkU t,lrSm;Muí tyg,f 4 yg;ü epfrGef;Murnfjzpfonf/ oif;wdkUwpkudk vl0wfvJapNyD;vQif armif;ausmfí tnmopfawmav;&yfodkU toD;oD; wa,mHpD ydkU/ bHkausmfwdkufae iykH/ wkefarmif;wdkuf ,if;awm/ ysdK;uef;/ jrdKUopf/ "r®pm&D/ uyJh awmifbDvl;wdkuf ynm"Dwdrm/ iuif;/ okre/ vuFm'Dy/ MuOf; ausmHum/ tifMuif;yif;q&mESifh tmob/ ZedE´/ uaxmifoCFmMuD;wpk/ &efatmifjrifwdkuf/ a&Tpnf;cHkwdkuf/ cufoifwdkuf/ wwfawmfwdkuf/ cg;yef;eDwdkuf/ bmwarmwdkuf/ a&TMumyiBuD;wf dkuf/ ae&OÆ&m aygufawmwdkuf/ ajrmufeef;ausmif;wdkuf/ a&Tjrifrdwdkuf/ &SmuGJwdkuf/ ouú,feef;ausmif;wdkuf/ &Gmomwdkuf/

39 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 17 atmifajra&TbHkwdkuf/ pudkif;uvsmP/ vufyefvS/ xD;aygif;um;/tkwfausmif;wdkuf/ yvdkifq&m/&o/ earmwdkuf/ ,Gef;pk0efa[mif;q&m/ awmifjrifhwdkufa[mif;/ 0&oD&d/ rpdk;&defwdkuf/ iatmifausmf/ ausmfatmifpHxm;wdkufxGuf/ ijrwfol/ 4if;iae/ 4if;ivuFm/ pudkif;aZw0efwdkuf/ ½Sifcsnf;atmifwdkuf/ jyó'fausmif;wynfhpk/ a&0efa[mif;ausmif;ae&if;q&m ar"g0D/ '0,f0efa[mif;q&m/ cufoifwkduf/ [vif;r*Fvgwdkuf/ 0csufwdkuf/ iyef;axG;wynfh&if; icdkif/ iarT;/ iudwåd/ itif;/ iZde/ iabmf/ indK/ iMuGifwdkUrS pí omoeypöwådu t,lrSm;í tvg;wl &[ef;a&mifaqmiforQ vlwdkUudk rMuGif;rusefap& r[m'gef0efwdkUu pm&if; awmif;í vl0wfvJapjyD;vQif armif;ausmfí qifpm&dwfrSm xnfh/ ½Sifa&mifwdkU t0wfvJ;&ef ykqdk;udk 0efaxmHa[mif;iarT;u ay;ap/ /ouú&mZf 1146 ck uqkefväef; 7 &ufaeU em;cH pajr§mifrSL;wGif jyef trdefYawmf/

v v (Sources: Palm-leaf ms. no. 119456 in UCL, folios a*: – *H ; parabaik from the collection of U Maung Maung Tin photocopied by Toshikatsu Ito and uploaded at http://taweb.aichi- u.ac.jp/DMSEH/vol_2/vol2/UMMT-0974.jpg; The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 326–7)

40 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 17

Summary: The Lord of Life, the Great Righteous King, who is supreme in merit, issued an order. In the reigns of my father Lord Alaungmintayagyi and two of my elder brothers, Nga Pan Htwe, a native of Okshitkye bearing the title of Atulayasa Mahādhammarājaguru, had preached on the basis of the Cūlagaṇṭhi, [a text] which contradicts the Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās and was written in accordance with the wishes of the adhammavādī and the enemies of the sāsana (sāsanapaccatthika), in order to destroy the stipulations of the Pāli [canon] preached by the Lord Buddha, aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās so that all monks, novices, and laity were obstructed from the abodes of deities and nibbāna and became immersed in the woeful states. When [Nga Pan Htwe did that], deities taking care of the exalted sāsana could not tolerate it and looked badly upon [him]. [At that time] the inhabitants of the royal city [started] saying that Nga Pan Htwe possesses no monastic standing (sikkhā). In the reign of [my] elder brother Hsinbyushin the members of [Nga Pan Htwe’s] community submitted mettasas [arguing] that [they] did not want to associate [with Nga Pan Htwe and that] he should be outside of the sāsana, and so [Nga Pan Htwe] could not stay in [his] monastery and had to go to a village in the forest. Even at that point he did not show contrition, did not realize that since [he] had not protected the Dhamma, the Dhamma did not protect [him], and did not live peacefully. As he had entertained the views of the adhammavādī and the enemies of the sāsana and had sent inappropriate messages to his fellow monks, [claiming] that only the code of conduct for novices given in the Cūlagaṇṭhi is correct, that no doubts should be entertained and that it should be practiced as the king wishes, it was ordered to question him in the royal pitakat-taik in front of the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams if the contents of that text (i.e. the Cūlagaṇṭhi) are in accordance with the Pāli [canon], aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās. [There Nga Pan Htwe] could not demonstrate that [his point] is in accordance with the Pāli [canon] preached by the Buddha, aṭṭhakathās, and ṭīkās and admitted to be an adhammavādī and a thorn of the sāsana. After [Nga Pan Htwe] had to leave [his] monastery in the reign of [my] elder brother Hsinbyushin [when it was argued that he] should be outside of the sāsana, [he] again accumulated monastic following and had many disciple monks, and thus Yadanasanlut Hsayadaw, Maungdaung Shin Obhāsa, Nga-ywa Shin Kalyāṇa, Hsalingyi Shin Parama, and Shin Dīpa were ordered to interrogate [Nga Pan Htwe] in the royal pitakat-taik to determine if [he] is innocent or not as regards this original disciplinary case. There is a decision passed by [these monks] that Nga Pan Htwe has committed the second pārājika [offence] and is outside of the sāsana. Even the omniscient Lord Buddha could not rescue [from saṃsāra] the adhammavādī and those who adhere to wrong views because of their strong demerit. If the enemies of the sāsana Nga Gyaw Gale, Nga Tot Hpyu, and Nga Pe Leit, who share the opinion of Nga Pan Htwe, as well as laymen Nga Myat Gyaw, Nga Gya Hpet, Nga Ya, Nga Hpaw, Nga Thu, and Nga Lun, who were at one with Nga Pan Htwe when he was first summoned [to the royal city] are again permitted to reside in the vicinity of the golden royal city, the monks, novices, and laity, the inhabitants of the royal city, would hold wrong views and drown in woeful states. [Accordingly], they should be disrobed, taken round the city accompanied by beating of gong and sent one by one to the four forest locales upriver. Nga Pon residing in Bongyaw-taik, Tonmaung [Hsaya], Yindaw [Hsaya], Pyogan [Hsaya], Myothit [Hsaya], Damasari-[taik Hsaya], Kabe [Hsaya], [Shin] Paññādhītimā [? Paññābhīrama] from Taungbalu-taik, Nga-kin [Hsaya], [Shin] Sumana, [Shin] Laṅkādīpa,

41 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 17

Kyaukka [Hsaya], Ingyinbin Hsaya36 and [Shwezedi Hsaya Shin] Āsabha, [Shin] Janinda [from Lehtat-myauktaik], the group of Kataung Thangagyi, Yanaungmyin-taik [Hsaya], Shwezigon- taik [Hsaya], Hkettin-taik [Hsaya], Tattaw-taik [Hsaya], Gabanni-taik [Hsaya], Batamaw-taik [Hsaya], Shwegyabingyi-taik [Hsaya], Neyinzaya Pauktaw-taik [Hsaya], Myauknankyaung- taik [Hsaya], Shwemyinmi-taik [Hsaya], Shakwe-taik [Hsaya], Tetkenan-kyaungtaik [Hsaya], Ywa-tha-taik [Hsaya], Aungmyeshwebon-taik [Hsaya], Sinkaing [Hsaya Shin] Kalyāṇa, Letpanhla [Hsaya], Htibaungga Ot-kyaungtaik [Hsaya], Palaing Hsaya [Shin] Yasa, Namaw- taik [Hsaya], Yunzuwun-haung Hsaya, Taungmyin-taik-haung [Hsaya]37, [Shin] Varasīri, Masoyein-taik [Hsaya], Nga Aung Kyaw, Nga Myat Thu originating from Kyawaunghsanhta- taik, Nga Ne from the same, Nga Linga from the same, Sagaing Zeitawun-taik [Hsaya], Shingyeaung-taik [Hsaya]38, disciples of Pyatthat-kyaung [Hsaya], Medhāvī, an abbot who originally resided in the monastery of the former yewun, Dawewun-haung Hsaya, Hkettin-taik [Hsaya], Halin Mingala-taik [Hsaya], Wagyet-taik [Hsaya], close disciples of Nga Pan Htwe— Nga Khaing, Nga Hmwe, Nga Keitti, Nga In [or Hsin], Nga Zina, Nga Hpaw, Nga Nyo, and Nga Kywin —as well as other sāsanapaccatthikas who hold wrong views and pretend to be monks should not be left out. A list [of sāsanapaccatthikas] should be obtained from the mahadan-wun and after they are disrobed [they] should be taken round the city accompanied by the beating of gong and then added to [the ranks of those who provide] elephant fodder. Ex-wundauk Nga Hmwe should give pahsos so that false monks might disrobe. Royal order issued on the 7th day of the waning moon Kahson of the year 114639 through nakhan Samyaung-hmu.

Comments: As was noted above, this second version of the order envisaged a more radical purge of the court saṃgha. Yet, this radical scenario was not fully implemented. As follows from the next order, Atula, his disciples, and at least some of the dukot-tin and gāmavāsī abbots were disrobed on April 25. Note that in the next and subsequent orders they are referred to as “the laypeople” (vl), appellation never used in preceding documents. That means that the disrobing has occurred. Right after that, the supervisors of scriptural exams swiftly petitioned Badon-min to pardon the declared “enemies of the sāsana.” In fact, this suggested “pardon” implied a more moderate version of a purge which allowed some of the condemned monks (those who were not yet disrobed or were allowed to re-ordain) remain in the saṃgha, but only as dependents of supervisors of scriptural exams. The “pardoned” dukot-tin and gāmavāsī abbots had to relinquish their status and monastic property, relocate to the monasteries of the initiators of monastic reform and accept their guidance and discipline. In practice, this amounted to the execution of measures envisaged by the royal order dated March 12, 1784.

36 It is interesting to note that Ingyinbin Hsayadaw might have been sentenced to disrobing in absentia as on April 23 he had not yet arrived to Amarapura and it is not clear if that did happen the next day. It also seems that he was not disrobed in 1784 and might have escaped reordination and the imposition of dependence on the abbots from the reform faction as the royal order dated October 7, 1784 required that a suitable monastery is built for him. That means he was not deprived of the status of abbot or was reinstalled in this capacity. Moreover, the minister of granaries (kyi-wun) was appointed to provide Ingyinbin Hsayadaw with the food in the same way as was done for the First Maungdaung Hsayadaw. The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 384. 37 Variant spelling “Taungbyin.” 38 Variant spelling “Shingyebaung.” 39 April 25, 1784.

Document no. 18 Royal order issued in the evening of the (? seventh) day of the waxing moon of Kahson 1146 (? April 25, 1784)

Text: omoeypöwådu t,lrSm;aom vlwpkwdkUudk csrf;omay;awmfrlygrnftaMumif;ESifh pmar;q&mawmf arwåmpmoGif;csuftwdkif;/ iyef;axG;ESifh tydkvlwpkudk csrf;omap/ usefqifpm&dwfvlrsm;rSmvnf; qifpm&dwfudk csrf;omap/ trdefUawmf&if;twdkif; usatmif pd&if/ 4if;aeUn eE´rdwfpnfolwGif jyef/

(Sources: parabaik from the collection of U Maung Maung Tin photocopied by Toshikatsu Ito and uploaded at http://taweb.aichi-u.ac.jp/DMSEH/vol_2/vol2/UMMT-0974.jpg; The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 328)

Translation: In accordance with the petition from the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams [who asked] to pardon the group of sāsanapaccatthika laypeople holding wrong-views, let Nga Pan Htwe and the group of laypeople [sentenced] to exile be pardoned. As for the remaining laypeople [sentenced to serve in the ranks of those who provide] elephant fodder, let them be pardoned from providing fodder. Act in accordance with the initial order. [Royal order] issued in the evening of the same day through Nandameit Sithu.

Comments: The document doesn’t specify a date. However, as it follows Document no. 17 in U Maung Maung Tin’s parabaik and in the manuscripts used by Prof. Than Tun, it might be presumed that it was issued on April 25, 1784. That means that shortly after the issue of the second version of the order which sanctioned the purge of “the enemies of the sāsana” and the disrobing of Atula and some other monks, the initiators of reform submitted a petition asking for a “pardon.” The present order grants a pardon in principle and calls for the execution of some “initial order” that apparently envisaged a less radical purge. I take this to be a reference to the first version of the previous order (Document no. 16).

Document no. 19 Royal order dated the eight day of the waxing moon of Kahson 1146 (April 26, 1784)

Text: iyef;axG;ESifh armif;ausmfjyD; opfawmydkU csrf;omay;awmfrlonf vlpkudk wef;aqmif;wGif raeapESifh r[m'gefudk tyfí xdef;odrf;ap/ &wemodCFjrdKUausmif;wGif iyef;axG;ae&mae iatmifxifESifh wynfhoCFmjyKolwdkUudk vTwfawmfu ac:ap/ iyef;axG;wGif vlwynfhjyKol rdausmif;tdkif/ rl;urf;/ awmifydkU uGsef;ausmif;/ [oFm vdefvS&Gmrsm;wGif aeol/ ijrwfausmf/ iyg&rD/ izsdK;/ ipHyGifh/ ieD/ ia&TxD;wdkUudkvnf; a&TbGm;awmfatmH tvQifa&mHatmif pma&;&Jausmfa'0udk cef;xm;í ac:ap/ 1146 ck uqHkefväef; 8 &ufaeU em;cH oD&deE´pnfoludk ac:í jyef/ /

Translation: Nga Pan Htwe and the group of laypeople pardoned from being taken round the city accompanied by the beathing of gong and then sent to the woods should not be kept in the dazaung. Let them be handed over to the mahadan-wun and kept by him. Let the Hluttaw summon Nga Aung Din who stays instead of Nga Pan Htwe in [the latter’s] monastery in the city of Yadanatheinga together with his disciple monks. Clerk Yegyaw Dewa must bring to the royal presence Nga Myat Kyaw, Nga Parami, Nga Hpyo, Nga San Pwin, Nga Ni, and Nga Shwe Ti, lay disciples of Nga Pan Htwe who reside in Migyaung-aing40, Mugan,41 Taungbo,42 Kyungyaung,43 Hintha,44 and Leinhla villages. [Royal order] issued on the 8th day of the waxing moon of kahson of the year 114645 by summoning nakhan Thiri Nanda Sithu.

Comments: The order instructs that Atula and other pardoned laypeople be released from confinement and that a number of Atula’s disciples who resided in the vicinity of Okshitkye be summoned. It indicates that the disrobing and the granting of pardon must have occurred by April 26 (quite likely, even on April 25). It also shows that a targeted campaign against Atula was not fully cancelled as more of his disciples (this time the saṃgha of Atula’s monastery in Yadanatheinga) were subjected to inspection. In this sense the present order looks more or less aligned with Document no. 16 where the purge of the saṃgha focused mainly on Atula (in contrast to Document no. 17 which envisaged a much more sweeping purge).

40 Village northeast of Okshitkye. 41 Village east of Okshitkye. 42 Village northwest of Okshitkye. 43 Village south of Okshitkye. 44 Village southeast of Okshitkye. 45 April 26, 1784.

Document no. 20 Royal order likely issued on the ninth day of the waxing moon of Kahson 1146 (April 27, 1784)

Text: /ogoem&efolt,l rBuH&SdMuaogaMumifh vl0wfvJaponf/vJpk vJ&ef usHao;onfvlpkwkdYrSm vl0wfvJrSdonfjyifh usefoOfolwkdYukd vl0wf rvJogNyD/ txuf vJrSdonfvlpkwdkUrSm &[ef;jyKvdkao;onf qdkvQif &[ef;jyKxdkufjyKoihfoludk a&G;cs,fpDppfí &[ef;jyKoifhrnf/ vl0wf rvJBuHolwkdYrSmvnf;/ 0deOf;w&m;usrf;*efESifhtnd§ pDppfaq;ausmí Mo0g'qkr®cHapoifrnf/ /ouú&mZf 1146 ck uqkHvqef; 8 &ufaeY pm;arq&mawmfwpku arwågpmoGif;onftwkdif; 0denf;w&m;usrf;*efESifhtnD/ q&mawmfwkdYu qkHjzwfpD&ifap/ &[ef;oCFmwkdYukdvnf; ausmif;wkduftoD;tjcm; raeapESifh pmar;q&mawmfwkdYausmif;wkduwGif f q&mawmfwkdY qkr®Mo0g'ukd cHí aeap/ ausmif;wugjyKolwkdYrSmvOf; txufukduG,f&if;twkdif; ukd;uG,fvSL'gefMuap/ r[m'gef0efwGif tyfxm;xdef;odef;aponf/iyefaxG iausmf*av;wkdYESifh tygt0ifpkrSm/ iyefaxGukd taqGtog;csif;&Sd&m t&yf&GmokdY oGm;í aevkdvQif aeap/ iausmf*av;rSmvOf; taemuf0if;rSL;ukd tyf/ iyvdyfrSm a&Twkduf0efukd tyf/ iausmf*av; iyvdyfwkdYausmif;wGif &Sdonf*&kbef v[kbefypönf;OpömrSm pm&if;oGif;ap/ qkdif&m tyfap&rnf/ iyefaxGausmif;wGif &Sdonfypönf;OpömrSm apikatmif ppfausmí qkdif&m oGif;ap/

v r (Source: Palm-leaf ms. no. 119456 in UCL, folios *H - *g; )

45 Documents related to Atula’s trial in 1784 (version 1.1) Document no. 20

Translation: On the 8th day of the waxing Kahson46 the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams have submitted mettasa [saying] that the group of people who were disrobed or remain to be disrobed among those sentenced to disrobing did not entertain the views of being the enemies of the sāsana and so it's not good to continue disrobing those who haven't yet been disrobed. [The mettasa also suggests that] if [any of] those who have been already disrobed says that [he] still wants to be a monk, it’s proper to select those of them who are worthy of being monks and ordain them. [It also suggests that] those who do not want to disrobe should be interrogated in accordance with the Vinaya and subjected to receiving instructions. As [suggested,] let the royal teachers decide and handle [this matter] in accordance with the Vinaya. Let these monks not reside in separate kyaung-taiks but stay in the kyaung-taiks of royal teachers supervising scriptural exams and receive their instruction. Let the donors of [these monks’] monasteries venerate them and make donations to them as before. As regards Nga Pan Htwe, Nga Gyaw Gale and their followers who were transferred to the mahadan-wun, if Nga Pan Htwe wants to go and live in a place where his relatives stay, let him reside there. Hand over Nga Gyaw Gale to the Commander of the Western Compound. Hand over Nga Pa Leit to the Minister of Shwetaik. Let the lists of garuban and lahuban property in Nga Gyaw Gale and Nga Pa Leit monasteries be made. [These lists] must be submitted to those concerned. Let the property in Nga Pan Htwe’s monastery be thoroughly checked and reported to those concerned.

Comments: The present order bears no date but it clearly postdates the previous one as it mentions that Atula and his followers were released from confinement and handed over to the mahadan-wun, a measure contemplated in the previous order. As follows from the order, on April 26 the royal teachers supervising scriptural exams again petitioned Badon-min, providing a Vinaya-based procedure to deal with the sentenced monks and Atula’s followers. I think that the order was issued on April 27 as it mentions the eighth day of the waxing moon (April 26), which to me signifies that this day was already over. Had the order been issued on the same day the petition was received, the date most likely would not be specified. The reference to the petition dated April 26 shows that the reform against the dukot-tin and gāmavāsī abbots was still underway despite their being pardoned from summary disrobing and transfer to a low-status service occupation. The order clarifies the status of sentenced monks who were allowed to remain in the saṃgha and stipulates the release of Atula and the transfer of two of his disciples to courtiers who might have been their patrons or who agreed to be their guarantors (Nga Pa Leit is perhaps the lay name of the disrobed Pindale Hsaya). The order also provided for a property check in the monasteries owned by the three disrobed abbots.

46 April 26, 1784.

Document no. 21 Royal order dated the ninth day of the waxing moon of Kahson 1146 (April 27, 1784)

Text: 0efaxmufawmfa[mif; iarT;rSm 0ifrdorQ ykqdk;ESifh csrf;omap/ ykqdk;0wf&ef vdkonfudk wdkufawmfu rdk;umxnfudk xkwfí csKyfvkyfap/ (ouú&mZf) 1146 ck (uqkef)vqef; 9 &ufaeU pma&;BuD; &mZmoD&dudk ac:í jyef/

(Source: The Royal Orders of Burma, vol. IV, 330)

Translation: Let all [ex-monks] who approached the former assistant minister [of the Hluttaw] Nga Hmwe be pardoned [and given] pahso [to wear]. Let [new pahsos] be sewn for those who need a pahso to wear [using] the tent-cloth issued by the Treasury (taik-taw). [Royal order] issued on the 9th day of the waxing moon [of Kahson] of the year 114647 by summoning the senior clerk Yaza Thiri.

Comments: This order apparently concerns the disrobed monks who were earlier required to obtain lay clothes from the former assistant minister Nga Hmwe. The order stipulates that the needs of disrobed monks (who seem to be quite numerous) should be satisfied at the expense of the crown. It is not clear if the order covered those who were allowed to seek re-ordination, those who were considered guilty of pārājika offense or all recently disrobed ex-monks.

47 April 27, 1784.