Noble Or Evil: the Ṣaḍvārgika Monks Reconsidered*
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hung. Volume 66 (2), 179–195 (2013) DOI: 10.1556/AOrient.66.2013.2.4 NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED* CUILAN LIU Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University 1 Bow Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA e-mail: [email protected] This article reconsiders how the ṣaḍvārgika monks, or monks in the band of six, are represented in Vinaya, the codified Buddhist law texts. Conventionally, these ṣaḍvārgika monks are portrayed as evil figures whose behaviours have subsequently become exemplary of monastic violations in Vina- ya literature. In this article, I discover a neglected alternative discourse in which the ṣaḍvārgika monks are perceived as supporters of Buddhism who were well educated in various secular and religious subjects. Specifically, this study reveals that the authors of two Chinese texts Lüjie benshu 律戒本疏 (T2788) and Guan wuliangshou jing yishu 觀無量壽經義疏 (T1749) argued that the ṣaḍvārgika monks are noble figures who had purposefully acted out various misdeeds to facilitate the promulgation of the Buddhist monastic law, which only becomes necessary when the situation requires it. Key words: Vinaya, ṣaḍvārgika, Band of Six, Monastic Law. Introduction Buddhism has established its monastic rules based on incidents that the Buddha has declared unlawful. Vinaya texts from various Buddhist traditions hold the ṣaḍvārgika monks accountable for most of these unlawful deeds and depict them as morally cor- rupted monastics. Likewise, they also accuse a band of six or twelve nuns of notorious deeds identical with those of the monks.1 Such negative interpretations have survived * I thank Leonard W. J. van der Kuijp, Michael Witzel, Shayne Clarke, and the anonymous reviewers for their feedback on earlier versions of this article. All errors are my own. I am also grateful for the generous research grant from the Konosuke Matsushita Memorial Foundation. 1 With the exception of the Chinese translation of Sarvāstivādavinaya (T1435), a band of six nuns also appears in nearly all the extant Vinaya texts: the Pāli Vinaya, the Chinese translations of 0001-6446 / $ 20.00 © 2013 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 180 CUILAN LIU in Vinaya texts now preserved in Sanskrit, Pāli, Chinese, and Tibetan to varying de- grees.2 Despite such negative representations, the ṣaḍvārgika monks nevertheless oc- cupy a central place in the construction of Vinaya where the number of promulgation that they were held accountable for clearly illustrates their importance. In Mūlasarvā- stivādavinaya (T1442), the ṣaḍvārgika monks and their counterparts in the nuns’ Order were involved in the promulgation of one hundred and eighty rules out of the total two hundred and thirty three rules in the first three principal categories of pre- cepts: pārājika, saṃghāvaśeṣa, and pāyantika. Specifically, the twelve nuns are held responsible for fifteen of the twenty saṃghāvaśeṣa precepts, fourteen of the thirty- three naiḥsargika-pāyantika precepts.3 It is even more striking that among the one hundred and eighty pāyantika precepts for the nuns, the twelve nuns and six monks are associated with one hundred and forty of them, of which eighty are attributed to nun Sthūlananda alone. A full list of the ṣaḍvārgika monks includes Nanda, Upananda, Aśvaka, Pu- narvasu, Udāyin/Kālōdayin, and Chanda.4 Udāyin and Kālōdayin are two names used to refer to the same person. Grammatically, Kālōdayin is a compound consisting of “Kāla” and “Udāyin”. “Kāla” literarily means “black” or “dawn”.5 For this reason, the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya (T1442: 664a5–664a6) occasionally translated Kālōdayin as “Black Kālōdayin”. It is also noteworthy that the most widely circulated Pāli list of ṣaḍvārgika monks includes Assaji, Punabbhasu, Paṇḍuka, Lohitaka, Mettiya, and Bhummajaka. Previous scholars had summarised the misdeeds attributed to the ṣaḍvārgika monks and discussed the historicity of the ṣaḍvārgika monks. In particular, the his- ———— Dharmaguptakavinaya, Mahīśāsakavinaya, and Mahāsāṃghikavinaya. It is noteworthy that in the Tibetan and Chinese translations of Mūlasarvāstivādabhikṣuṇīvinaya, members in the band of nuns have expanded from six to twelve. See Mūlasarvāstivādabhikṣuṇīvinaya (T1443) and Dge slong ma so sor thar ba’i mdo (Bka’ ’gyur, Sde dge, vol. 9). For discussions on the nuns, see Horner (1969, pp. xlii–xliv) and Talim (1972, p. 69). 2 The Sanskrit term ṣaḍvārgika is chabbaggiya in Pāli, drug sde in Tibetan, and liuqun bi- qiu or liuzhong biqiu in Chinese, the last of which is solely used in Yijing’s translations of Mūla- sarvāstivādavinaya. A number of Chinese catalogs also mention a one-fascicle text titled Liuzhong biqiu jing 六众比丘经, apparently non-extant. See Chu sanzang ji jilu 出三藏記集録 (T2145: 033b04), Dazhou kanding zhongjing mulu 大週刊定衆經目録 (T2153: 0445c22), Kaiyuan shijiao lu 開元釋教録 (T2154: 0646a19), and Zhenyuan xinding shijiao mulu 貞元新定釋教目録 (T2157: 830c24, 982a22). 3 This text ascribed fourteens precepts to the nuns and the examples for eight more precepts are the same as what the monks in the band of six had done. 4 In the section on the first naiḥsargika pāyantika precept on obtaining excessive robes in Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā (T1440: 525c29–526a01), the names of the six monks are given as Nanda, Upananda, Kālōdayin, Chanda, Aśvaka, and Punarvasu. Jibian 基辯 quoted this list when explaining the entry of liuqun biqiu in Dacheng fayuan yilin zhang shizihou chao 大乘法苑義 林章師子吼鈔 (T2323: 846a16–a19). 5 Both Hirakawa (1997, pp. 1144, 1174) and Malalasekera (1937) had attempted to establish a connection between Kālōdayin and Udāyin, yet none of them had pointed out this grammatical connection. In his Buddhist dictionary, Hirakawa proposed to reconstruct the Sanskrit equivalent of wutuoyi 烏陀夷 as Udāyī, Udāyin, or Kālōdayin. Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013 NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED 181 toricity discussion began with Barua (1934) and Sarkar (1981) both of who inclined to view the ṣaḍvārgika monks as historical figures. In his study on the Brāhmī in- scription excavated from Mahāsthān, Barua identified the chabbaggiya monks – the Pāli equivalent of ṣaḍvārgika – with savagiynaṃ, a term appeared at the beginning of this inscription. In 1981, Sarkar continued this discussion and accorded with Barua’s identification on the chabbaggiya monks. Over two decades later, this view received challenge from Keown (2003) and Schopen (2004b, p. 176). In particular, Keown questioned the historicity of the ṣaḍvārgika monks and Schopen viewed the ṣaḍvārgi- ka monks as literary devices used in the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya “when an appar- ently old text or established position needs to be clarified or re-interpreted”. Yet the ṣaḍvārgika monks, as Schopen had noticed, have been “thoroughly studied in none” of the scholarly papers.6 One fundamental issue that requires immediate attention concerns a previously overlooked positive interpretation on the ṣaḍvārgika monks. The most widely received perception interprets them to be ill natured and morally corrupted. This conventional representation, however, fails to acknowledge a previously overlooked discourse in which the ṣaḍvārgika monks are represented as well educated noble descendants who are supportive of Buddhism. This positive discourse is firstly underlined in the story of Udāyin in Sarvāstivādavinaya and Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya where he, having over- come his sexual desire, attained arhatship and assisted a thousand and eight hundred million households in Śrāvasti to reach spiritual liberation. This is a rare positive por- trait of the ṣaḍvārgika monks in the root Vinaya texts. In addition to this underlined rare positive representation of Udāyin, two Chinese commentaries – Abhidharma- mahāvibhāsaśāstra 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 (T1545) and Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā 薩婆多毘尼毘婆沙 (T1440) – explicitly interpret all the six ṣaḍvārgika monks as descendants of noble families, and each of them learned in various secular and reli- gious subjects. If the proponents of the positive interpretation claim the ṣaḍvārgika monks as learned and decent individuals, how do they reconcile the claim’s contradiction with the overwhelmingly negative representation so visible in all the Vinaya texts includ- ing Sarvāstivādavinaya and Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya? Is the positive interpretation merely Buddhist insiders’ apologetics? Two Chinese texts Lüjie benshu and Guan wuliangshou jing yishu have artfully addressed this issue. None of the two texts de- nies the authority of the conventional representation in the Vinaya texts. Rather, they acknowledge the negative representation but urge deeper contemplation on the ṣaḍ- 6 Dhirasekera (1970, p. 87) cited the chabbaggiya monks as example of rebellious monas- tics who were head of a move to get rid of some of the monastic regulations. Horner (1942, pp. xiii– xiv), Talim (1972), and Sarkar (1981) share their interests on why they have six members in the band. For additional discussion on the six monks, see Kasuga (1971), Tanaka (1975), Dhirasekera (1982), Pio (1988, pp. 144–147), Gokhale (1989), Shi Changyi (1992), Hirakawa (1993, pp. 538– 559), Hecker (2003, p. 86), Schopen (2004a, p. 351, n. 11; 2007, p. 205, n. 12; 2010), and Clarke (2009a, p. 315). Rego (2009) has completed a thesis on the monks in the group of six in McMaster University but access to his work has not yet become available. Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013 182 CUILAN LIU vārgika monks’ motivation for so doing. In their interpretations, the ṣaḍvārgika monks had intentionally acted out various misdeeds to facilitate the promulgation