Noble Or Evil: the Ṣaḍvārgika Monks Reconsidered*

Home , Assaji, Channa (Buddhist), Museum of Calligraphy, Nanda (Buddhist nun)

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 corrupted 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

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 occupy 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 precepts: 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 biqiu 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 inscription 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 apparently 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 religious 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 including 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 monastics 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 of certain monastic rules that will benefit the monastic community in the long term. This article presents the first systematical analysis of the emergence and growth of this previously overlooked positive interpretation of the ṣaḍvārgika monks and analyses how Vinaya commentators explain the contradiction between the negative and positive interpretation. To make this analysis, I will first outline the conventional representation of the ṣaḍvārgika monks as evil monks. Using the personal story of Udāyin and Chanda as an introduction, I will outline the development of a positive interpretation of the ṣaḍvārgika monks as noble, learned, and determined supporters of Buddhism in Sūtra, Vinaya, and commentaries of Vinaya. Next, I will show how two Chinese Vinaya commentaries resolve the contradiction between the negative representation in the Vinaya texts and the newly discovered positive discourse.

The Conventional Representation: The Evil Monks

In order to live a righteous religious life, fully ordained Buddhist monks and nuns take hundreds of precepts classified in eight categories.7 To explain these precepts, principal Vinaya texts use illustrious incidents where the ṣaḍvārgika monks occupy a central place as protagonists. The roles the ṣaḍvārgika monks have played in these incidents earned them the reputation as unscrupulous evil monastics, a view unanimously shared by nearly all Vinaya texts. For instance, in Pāli they are called papabhikkus or in Chinese as e biqiu 恶比丘, both of which literally means “evil monks”. The amount of misdeeds attributed to the ṣaḍvārgika monks in this literary tra- dition will immediately overwhelm anyone who opens a Vinaya text where their misdeeds range from sexual misbehaviour to obsession with food, clothes, money, and spacious living conditions. Among the eight categories of precepts, the ṣaḍvārgika monks commit over 50% of the misbehaviours that have led to the promulgation of the precepts in four major categories (70/137). In particular, they are held accountable for three of the four pārājika precepts that require permanent banishment from the Order as punishment.8 Furthermore, they are also responsible for eight of the thirteen saṃghāvaśeṣa precepts which allow the offenders to stay in the Order after spending a probationary period, and twenty-two of the thirty naiḥsargika pāyantika

7 The eight categories of precepts include four pārājika, thirteen saṃghāvaśeṣa, two aniya- tas, thirty naiḥsargika pāyantika, and ninety pāyantika, four pratideśanīya, around a hundred śaikṣa, and seven adhikaraṇa. For more details on these rules, see Prebish (2002). 8 This permanent banishment is the standard punishment for monks or nuns who have trans- gressed rules in this category. It is noteworthy that in his study on monks who have sex, Clarke (2009a; 2009b) convincingly shows that with the exception for the Pāli Vinaya, all the other extant Buddhist monastic law codes contain detailed provisions for monks and nuns who commit pārājika transgression but wish to remain within the saṃgha. These offenders would be able to remain with a special status known as the śikṣādattaka.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED 183 precepts and thirty-seven of the ninety pāyantika precepts that require expiation and forfeiture.9 The Vinaya texts also depict their misbehaviours so contagious that few of their contemporaries are willing to interact with them. According to Mūlasarvāstivāda- vinaya (T1442: 788b28–788c04), once, Upananda was looking for a travel compan- ion. He went to lobby some junior monks and promised them with attractive compen- sation. Yet remembered Upananda to be “evil in nature and unbearable to co-reside”, nobody showed any interest in his proposal. In another episode (T1442: 750b17– 750b18), Nanda’s disciple Dharma refused to travel with him. Previously, Dharma worn out his outer robe so Nanda gave one to him. Later, Nanda asked Dharma to travel with him but Dharma insisted he would prefer to follow the Buddha. Nanda became furious and threatened to reclaim the robe if Dharma refuses his request. Eventually, Dharma decided to return the robe to avoid travelling with the ṣaḍvār- gika monks who would easily misbehave. Having returned the robe, Dharma ended up wearing only inner robes while travelling. Not only junior monks, even senior monks such as Ānanda have tried to avoid confronting the ṣaḍvārgika monks. According Mahāsāṃghikavinaya (T1425: 287b02– 287b09), once, the ṣaḍvārgika monks were causing trouble in a lay community in kīṭagiri. The Buddha told Ānanda to banish the ṣaḍvārgika monks but Ānanda said he was unable to do this job and explained the following reasons. He said: Lord, the six monks are hot-tempered and aggressive. When a farmer drove a cart fully loaded with sugar cane, all the children in the village would rush out to rob his sugar cane and eat them. If I go there, the ṣaḍvārgika would behave like that. When they heard me coming, they would do unlawful deeds on the way. Maybe they would even banish me. For this reason, I am unable to go there.

The Alternative Interpretation: The Noble Monks

In the widely received conventional representation surveyed above, the ṣaḍvārgika monks are ill natured and morally corrupted. This representation is so strong and pow- erful that few felt necessary to question it. Despite such an intensive negative representation of their “evilness” and “badness” in most of the Vinaya texts, my study dis- covers a positive discourse where the ṣaḍvārgika monks are “(re)interpreted” as noble descendants, highly educated in various secular and religious subjects, and great pro- tectors of Buddhism. This positive discourse began with the mythic trajectory of Udāyin’s personal history in Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya and Sarvāstivādavinaya.10 According to Dutt,

19 Kasuga (1971), Sarkar (1981), and Shi Changyi (1992) had summarised their misdeeds in detail and I will not repeat them here. 10 See Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya (T1442: 716a22–722b12); ’Dul ba’i rnam par ’byed pa (Bka’ ’gyur, Sde dge, vol. 6, 63b04–96b03). This is the most comprehensive account on the life

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

184 CUILAN LIU

Sarvāstivādavinaya was popular in the early part of the 5th century and the Mūla- sarvāstivādavinaya was probably its later version revised in Kashmir in the 5th to 6th centuries.11 In these two texts, Udāyin was a native from Koṣala where he served as a minister to King Śuddhodana.12 At that time, King Prasenajit and King Śuddhodana maintained some regular communications. King Prasenajit would send over his Minis- ter Gupta whenever he needed to contact King Śuddhodana. Having finished his du- ties, Minister Gupta would stay at Udāyin’s house. Likewise, when King Śuddho- dana sent Udāyin over to King Prasenajit, Udāyin would also stay at the house of Minister Gupta. During his stay at the minister’s house, Udāyin developed an affair with Gupta’s wife who was very pretty. Minister Gupta was aware of their affair but he eventually decided not to kill Udāyin because killing a foreign minister would un- avoidably start a war between the two countries. Later, when Udāyin learned that Gupta’s wife was about to be deprived of everything by law when she became a son- less widow, he acquired King Prasenajit’s permission to marry Gupta’s wife and protected her. Later, another unexpected event in Udāyin’s life occurred when King Śuddho- dana sent Udāyin to bring Prince Gautama back from the forest. Udāyin did not ful- fill his mission to bring Gautama back to the king; instead, he decided to follow the awakened one and joined the Order. Shortly after Udāyin’s ordination, his wife Gupta also joined the Order and became a Buddhist nun. Many of the sex-related incidents in the Vinaya root texts have as their protagonists the ex-couple who were now monk and nun. As represented in the Vinaya texts, Udāyin’s major obstacle was his desire for sex. This sexual desire brought him shame but also taught him the cruelest lesson from which he finally obtained arhatship. The turning point of Udāyin’s life occurred after he made a drastic mistake to flirt with a Brahman girl in his quarters (T1442: 860a1712–860c05). This Brahman girl, outraged from a few unsuccessful attempts to seduce Udāyin, took revenge by accusing Udāyin of trying to rape her. With all the shame and physical punishments from the girl’s father and the king, humiliated, Udā- yin felt so regretful that he abandoned all sexual desires at once and obtained arhat-

———— story of Udāyin. It is noteworthy that Mahāsāṃghikavinaya (T1425: 300c3–300c12) recorded an abbreviated version of this story and changed the names of protagonists to Sthūlananda and Ānanda. In his forthcoming book on Family Matters in Indian Buddhist Monasticism, Shayne Clarke offers a translation of this story followed by a lengthy discussion on the relationships between this ex- couple who had then both become monastic. 11 Dutt maintains that the Gilgit Mūlasarvāstivādavinayavastu was probably written in the 6th century AD. This is because when the Chinese monk Faxian went to search for Vinaya texts in India in the late fourth or early fifth century, he spoke of the Sarvāstivādavinaya but he was not aware of the existence of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya. For more discussion see Dutt (1942, pp. xiii–xiv). 12 In the 82nd pāyantika precept on going to the king’s palace, Queen Śrīmālā told King Jayaprabha that both she and the venerable Udāyī were born in Koṣala. See Mūlasarvāstivāda- vinaya (T1442: 872c16–872c17).

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED 185 ship. Having become an arhat, Udāyin helped a thousand and eight hundred million households in Śrāvasti to reach spiritual liberation.13 If Udāyin’s progress from an unscrupulous evil monk in the ṣaḍvārgika band to an arhat marked a glorious chapter in his life, the veneration he was going to re- ceive from the Buddha at his cremation ceremony will outshine even that chapter. Though spiritually accomplished, Udāyin was still unable to secure a decent death. A Brahman’s wife and her secret lover, terrified of the thought that Udāyin might have seen them together, murdered Udāyin in a pond of excrement. Nobody was aware of Udāyin’s death until the Buddha announced this tragedy. As soon as the Buddha announced it, he ordered the monks to perform purification ritual for Udāyin. Though it was at night, the Buddha hurriedly led the monks to where Udāyin was murdered, had his corpse cleansed and placed in a case decorated with jewels. In the accompany of music and burning incense, everyone in the city, man and woman, lay and monastic, including King Jayaprabha and his queen Śrīmālā, all came to escort Udāyin to his cremation. They also erected a stūpa to deposit Udāyin’s relics. The after-death recognition of Udāyin did not end with the high-profiled cremation ceremony lead by the Buddha in person. While announcing Udāyin’s death, the Buddha utterly praised Udāyin as the best dharma teacher. On his way to lead Udāyin’s cremation, the Buddha expressed this praise again to King Jayaprabha and Queen Śrīmālā. Having returned from the cremation ceremony, some confused monks asked the Buddha the following questions regarding Udāyin: why did Udāyin end up murdered in an excrement pond? Why was he able to obtain arhatship? Why did he become the best dharma preacher in this life? In brief, the Buddha told the monks that everything in Udāyin’s this life was resulted from his negative and positive karma accumulated in his previous lives (T1442: 864b15–864b21). In one of his previous lives, Udāyin was a hunter who had shot a Pratyeka-Buddha to death and for this reason, he was destined to be murdered in this life. In another previous life, when a sick Pratyeka-Buddha came to his house for alms, Udāyin, who was then a potter, pushed the Pratyeka-Buddha into an excrement pound where the weak sick beggar drowned. For this reason, Udāyin was also to die of murder in an excrement pond. The potter, however, soon realised his fault when many Pratyeka-Buddhas descended from the sky to venerate the dead Pratyeka-Buddha. Therefore, he made a golden vase to deposit the Pratyeka-Buddha’s relics. With the merits he had accumulated from this offering, Udāyin, the former potter, was able to obtain arhatship. His excellence in dharma teaching in this life, according to the Buddha, came from the merits he had accumulated while he was an ordained dharma teacher in the time of the Kāśyapa Buddha.

13 See Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya (T1442: 860c12–864a25). According to Sarvāstivādavinaya (T1435: 121c13–121c17), Udāyin was regretful for his wrong deeds that have corrupted the lay households in Śrāvasti so he decided to restore the purity of the community by teaching dharma to them. In this text, he has helped nine hundred and ninety-nine household before his death. The lengthy account of his personal history is not found in the corresponding sections in Sarvāstivādavinaya or Mahāsāṃghikavinaya.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

186 CUILAN LIU

A positive interpretation on Chanda, another member of the ṣaḍvārgika band, also emerged in Dapan niepan jing houfen 大般涅槃經後分 (T377), the Chinese version of Mahāparinirvāṇasūtra translated by Jñānabhadra 若那跋陀羅 in Song China. In the section on the Buddha’s transmitted teachings (yijiao pin 遗教品), Ānanda asked the Buddha that after his death, how the saṃgha could share residence with the ṣaḍvārgika monks, in particular the ill-natured monk Chanda. In reply, the Buddha assured that after his death, the ill-natured monk Chanda, through gradual discipline, will abandon his ill nature and adopt a tender nature.14 This positive interpretation of Chanda, however, remains a novel opinion produced along with the production of Dapan niepan jing houfen in Song China. It is dually challenged by its absence in Dharmakṣema’s 曇無讖 translation Dapan niepan jing 大般涅槃經 (T374) as well as its contradiction with Faxian’s 法顯 translation Dapan niepan jing 大般涅槃經 (T0007). In particular, Faxian’s translation recorded that the Buddha told Ānanda to maintain the saṃgha’s harmony after his death. He advised Ānanda to make sure that the monks do not commit severe transgression but forgive their minor faults; but monk Chanda must be severely punished. Confused, Ānanda asked how to punish Chanda. Regarding this, the Buddha instructed that all monks should avoid speaking to monk Chanda.15 Chanda’s possibility of becoming good and the mythic growth of Udāyin from an “evil monk” to an accomplished arhat whose success in dharma preaching and discipline received unreserved recognition from the Buddha, are to be read along with an increased positive interpretation of the ṣaḍvārgika monks explicitly expressed in two commentaries on the Sarvāstivādavinaya. The first text Abhidharmamahāvibhā- ṣāśāstra is a commentary on the Sarvāstivāda School’s foundational work entitled Jñānaprasthāna 發智論 which, according to the Chinese monk Xuanzang 玄奘 (602–604), was originally composed along with Upadeśaśāstra and Vinayavibhāśā- śāstra by five hundred arhats convened by King Kaniṣka and the honorable Pnrśva in Kaśmīra in the early 2nd century, four hundred years after the Buddha’s nirvaṇa.16

14 Dapan niepan jing houfen (T377: 901a27–901b02): 佛告阿難。如汝所問。佛涅槃後六群比丘惡性車匿行汚他家。云何共住而得示教。阿難。車匿比丘其性鄙惡。我涅槃後漸當調伏。其心柔和捨本惡性。Zhipan 志磐 adopted this instruction of the Buddha and reproduced it in Fozu tongji 佛祖統紀 (T2035: 166b07–166b10): 佛告阿難。如汝所問。六群比丘。惡性車匿。行汚他家。云何共住。我涅槃後車匿比丘。漸當調伏捨本惡性。 15 Dapan niepan jing (T0007: 204c001–204c07): 阿難。我般涅槃後。諸比丘等。各依次第。大小相敬。不得呼姓。皆喚名字。互相伺察。無令衆中有犯大戒。不應闚求覓他細過。車匿比丘。應與重罰。阿難問佛。與何重罰。佛言。阿難。與重罰者。一切比丘勿與共語。於是阿難。如教奉行 Witzel (1995) took this section as a departure point and studied what made the Buddha use his limited time before death to ensure that monk Channa must be punished severely. Given that Channa was a conjugation from the verbal root chad-, “to disguise”, Witzel argued, with other evidences, that monk Chanda was indeed a disguised spy and for this reason, the Buddha was determined to ensure his punishment before nirvāṇa. 16 Datang xiyu ji 大唐西域記 (T2087: 882a18–882a20): 近迦膩色迦王與脇尊者。招集五百賢聖。於迦濕彌羅國作毘婆沙論; Datang xiyu ji (T2087: 887a05–887a10): 是五百賢聖。先造十萬頌鄔波第鑠論(舊曰優波提舍論訛也)。釋素呾纜藏(舊曰修多羅藏訛也) 次造十萬頌毘柰耶毘婆沙論。釋毘奈耶藏。 (舊曰毘那耶藏訛也) 後造十萬頌阿毘達磨毘婆沙論釋阿毘

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED 187

Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣāśāstra has survived in three Chinese translations. In the year 383 during the Fu Qin period, the Kaśmīran monk Saṃghabhadra 僧伽跋澄 translated part of this text and his translation is now the fourteen-fascicle Piposha lun 鞞婆沙論 (T1547).17 About two decades later in 439, the Indian monk Buddhavarman 浮陀跋摩 produced the second Chinese translation now preserved as the sixty-fascicle Apitan piposha lun 阿毘曇毘婆沙論 (T1546). The most comprehensive translation is the two-hundred-fascicle Apidamo da piposha lun 阿毘達磨大毘婆沙論 (T1545) translated by Xuanzang at Ximing monastery 西明寺 in 659. The present study con- sults a section only available in Xuanzang’s translation.18 The second text, Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā, is a commentary on the Sarvāsti- vādavinaya. Little is known about its translator except that its Chinese translation was believed to be made during the Yao Qin period (384–417). This text has solely survived in a nine-fascicle Chinese translation titled Sapoduo pini piposha 薩婆多毘尼毘婆沙 (T1440). Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā interpreted all the ṣaḍvārgika monks as noble descendants who were learned in both secular and religious subjects. Except for Kālōda- yin who was a Brahman descendant, all the other five were descendants of the Śākya clan.19 Each of them have leraned various secular subjects well. In particular, Nanda and Upananda excelled in divination and were capable to change one’s back luck, Kālōdayin and Chanda had mastered archery, and Aśvaka and Punavasu were skillful musicians specialising in various musical performances.20 These monks were also learned and eloquent in religious subjects. Nanda and Upananda were skillful in debating. Kālōdayin and Chanda had truly understood Abhidharma. Aśvaka and Puna- vasu were experts of both Abhidharma and debating. Overall, these six monks had mastered all the twelve divisions of knowledge in the Tripiṭaka. On the inside level, they were considered as pillars of dharma teachings and on the outside level, they were guardians who protect dharma.21

———— 達磨藏。(或曰阿毘曇藏略也) 凡三十萬頌。九百六十萬言。For English translation of Dadang xiyu ji see Beal (1885); Watters (1905). 17 Gaoseng zhuan 高僧傳 (T2059: 328b02–328b10). 18 The Chinese Buddhist monk Fazun 法尊 (1902–1980) has translated this text to Tibetan but the manuscript that he gave the Dalai Lama in 1954 was lost so this translation was never pub- lished. 19 Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā (T1440: 526a17–a19): 五人是釋種子王種。難途跋難陀馬宿滿宿闡那。一是婆羅門種。迦留陀夷。六人倶是豪族。 The above passage appears in the section on the first of the thirty naiḥsargika pāyantika precepts on keeping excessive robes. How- ever, it is noteworthy that in Samantapāsādikā (T1462: 770a10–770a11), Assaji and Punabhasu are depicted as land-owners and they do labor work in the field. 20 Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā (T1440: 526a05–a08): 二人善解算數陰陽變運。一難途。二跋難陀。二人深通射道。一迦留陀夷。二闡那。二人善於音樂種種戲笑。一馬宿。二滿宿。 21 Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā (T1440: 526a08–526a13): 二人善於説法論議。一難途。二跋難陀。二人深解何毘曇。一迦留陀夷。二闡那。二人事事皆能。亦巧説法論議。亦解阿毘曇。一馬宿。二滿宿。又云。此六人無往不通通達三藏十二部經。内爲法之樑棟。外爲佛法大護。 In his article on the learned monks in Vinaya literature, Schopen (2007, p. 205, no. 12) has also observed that these six monks are “virtually the only bhikṣus who are presented as

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

188 CUILAN LIU

An account from Abhidharmamahāvibhāṣaśāstra (T1545: 627c01–c03) further resonated with the virtuous traits of these ṣaḍvārgika monks. In particular, Abhi- dharmamahāvibhaāsaśāstra says that the ṣaḍvārgika monks have announced their determination to protect the Buddha dharma. 佛世尊度諸釋種以護正法。由此乃至六群苾芻亦。若有外道來惱佛者。佛若不制我等亦能以力伏彼。 Bhagavat, the Buddha, had converted the descendants of the Śākya clan to protect the pure dharma. Therefore, even the ṣaḍvārgika monks said: “If non-Buddhists come to disturb the Buddha, we will subdue them if the Buddha does not act.” The fact that each of them had attained some spiritual accomplishments in Sar- vāstivādavinayavibhāṣā (T1440: 526a01–526a05) seems to suggest that the ṣaḍvār- gika monks have fulfilled their resolution to protect Buddha dharma.22 In particular, Kālōdayin and Chanda broke free of the cycle of rebirth and entered nirvāṇa.23 If Nanda and Upananda had not committed severe transgression, it was likely that they have taken rebirth in the heaven. Only Aśvaka and Punavasu fell to unfavourable des- tiny and were reborn as serpents.24 Dazhidu lun 大智度論 (T1509), the Chinese translation of an Indian text Ma- hāprajñāpāramitāśāstra attributed to Nāgarjuna (150–250 CE), also acknowledged the ṣaḍvārgika monks for their excellence in behaving through the mouth of a Buddhist nun. A hundred years after the Buddha’s death, an arhat monk Upagupta 優波鞠 was eager to know how the Buddha looked like so he visited a 120-year old nun who had in her youth seen the Buddha in person. Before Upagupta came, the nun placed a bowl of oil under her window. When Upagupta entered, she noticed a few oil drops on the floor. When Upagupta asked the nun how monks behaved at the time of the Bud- dha, the nun said: “At the time of the Buddha, the ṣaḍvārgika monks were the most

———— knowing the doctrine and they are, for example, almost always technically correct in their shenani- gans”. As an example, he analyses various accounts in which the Venerable Upananda is depicted as a “learned monk” who knows the doctrine and is capable of quoting it when necessary. 22 Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā (T1440: 526a01–526a05): 云二人得漏盡入無餘涅槃。一迦留陀夷。二闡那。二人生天上。又云。二人犯重戒。又云不犯。若犯重者不得生天也。一難途。二跋難陀。二人墮惡道生龍中。一馬宿。二滿宿。 Lüjie benshu (T2788: 619a05– 619a07) records their after-death destinies likewise. 23 Witzel (1995) has identified three Channas: (1) the wandering ascetic Channa who had asked Ānanda a particular question relating to the Middle Path Philosophy; (2) the reverend Channa who was sick and eventually cut his throat with a knife; and (3) the quarrelsome Channa who was punished by the Buddha before his nirvaṇa. According to Witzel, the last Channa, who is identical with the Chanda among the ṣaḍvārgika monks, is indeed a disguised spy intended to cause internal turbulence in the saṃgha. For the story of the Channa who committed suicide, see Za ahan jing 雜阿含經 (T0099: 374b14–348b01). For English translation of this section, see Anālayo (2010). 24 Note that there are two serpent kings by the name of Nanda and Upananda in the Mūlasar- vāstivādavinaya (T1442, 869a21–869b24). In their past lives, these two serpent kings were brothers and served as ministers to a king. Their non-virtuous deeds as the king’s assistants led them to be reborn as serpents.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED 189 shameless and evil; but compared with you, they are better. How do I know? When the ṣaḍvārgika monks entered the house, they did not cause a single oil drop on the floor. Though ill natured, these monks knew the manners to sit or lie down as a monk. You are an arhat with magical power but your behaviours are not as good as theirs.”25 Due to many restraints, a study on the social and religious implications of this new discourse requires further research beyond this article. Yet it is important to avoid speculating that the positive interpretation of Udāyin’s spiritual attainment in Sarvā- stivādavinaya and Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya is merely a reflection of the increased size and the enhanced elaboration of Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya. The identical account of Udāyin’s obtainment of arhapship as well as his successful career in helping nine hundred and ninety-nine households of Śrāvasti in Sarvāstivādavinaya is suffice to end such speculation.26 The emergence of this positive interpretation from underlined suggestive de- scriptions to utterly explicit statements marked its growth as a new discourse on the ṣaḍvārgika monks. Yet the proponents of this positive discourse will soon face an un- avoidable challenge posed by the conventional negative representation established in Vinaya texts. The ṣaḍvārgika monks are conventionally represented as evil monks in the majority of the Vinaya texts – including Sarvāstivādavinaya and Mūlasarvāsti- vādavinaya – which were supposedly transmitted directly from the mouth of the Bud- dha, how could proponents of the newly discovered positive discourse reconcile their interpretations with the conventional one without denying the Buddha’s authority? In the next section, I will show how two Chinese texts Lüjie benshu and Guan wuliangshou jing yishu deal with this problem.

The Evil or the Noble

The positive discourse revealed from Sarvāstivādavinaya, Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya, Abhidharmamahāvibhāsaśāstra, and Sarvāstivādavinayavibhāṣā continues its growth in Lüjie benshu and Guan wuliangshou jing yishu. In the latter two texts, the discourse’s attention has shifted to resolve the dilemma of how to reconcile its own position without challenging the authority of the codified canon law. In another word, if they acknowledge the misdeeds attributed to the ṣaḍvārgika monks in the Vinaya texts, how do they convince others that the ṣaḍvārgika monks are good noble monks? In Guan wuliangshou jing yishu (T1752: 0240a15–0240a24), the prolific Chi- nese commentator Jizang 吉藏 (549–623) artfully addressed this question. He first

25 Dazhidu lun (T1509: 129c15–129c18): 佛在時六群比丘無羞無恥最是弊惡。威儀法則勝汝。今日何以知之。六群比丘入戸不令油棄。此雖弊惡知比丘儀法。行住坐臥不失法則。汝雖是六神通阿羅漢不如彼也。 A fuller version of this story is reproduced in Fu fazang yinyuan zhuan 付法藏因縁傳 (T2058: 306a17–306a26). 26 In Sarvāstivādavinaya (T1435: 121c02–123c25), Udāyin’s name is translated as Kālōda- yin 迦留陀夷.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

190 CUILAN LIU affirmed the canonical view that the Buddha dharma needs protection through the saṃ- gha’s observance of Buddhist monastic precepts. From there, he pointed out that these precepts have benefited all the sentient beings in the past, present, and future; and their establishment own its debt to the ṣaḍvārgika monks without whom there would be no precepts. The following is a translation of his elaboration. 説經多爲在家人。説律爲出家人。説經則勸説律則誡。即誡勸二門也。説律者則由六群比丘及十七群比丘。由此人從初犯戒至後。所以如來得制二百五十戒。廣利現在未來一切衆生。若無此人犯戒如來不得制戒。則無戒。何由得利益現在未來一切衆生及令佛法久住耶。而佛法久住二千年乃至萬年良由戒。故所以得至今。此是六群比丘作出家人利益利益出家人。 Śātras are preached to lay Buddhists and Vinayas are explained to the ordained Buddhists. To teach Sūtra, one exhorts (the audience); to teach Vinaya, one admonishes (the audience). Tathāgatha promulgated the two hundred and fifty precepts in Vinaya based on the initial and later misdeeds of the monks in the band of six as well the monks in the band of seventeen. These precepts benefit all the present and future sentient beings. Had they not committed those misdeeds, Tathāgatha would not have promulgated the precepts. Therefore, there would be no precepts. In that case, how will the present and future sentient beings benefit from it and how will the Buddha dharma sustain? With these precepts, the Buddha dharma was able to survive for over two thousand years and continue to survive for tens of thousands of years. The ṣaḍvārgika monks had done this to benefit Buddhism and Buddhists. However, how did the ṣaḍvārgika monks contribute to the establishment of the Buddhist precepts and why were they so important? Another Chinese text Lüjie benshu addresses exactly these questions. Lüjie benshu is likely a text circulated in Tang China in Dun huang, where thousands of manuscripts dating from 5th to early 11th century were excavated in the early 20th century. Its colophon states that a monk Tanyuan 曇遠 offered it in the seventh year of Datong 大統 (535–551) in Zhaoti Chan monastery 招提禪寺 located to the west of the city of Guazhou 瓜州 in Dun- huang.27 On the same day at the same site, this monk Tanyuan also offered another

27 Lüjie benshu (T2788: 644c11–644c12): 大統七年歳次辛酉七月一日。於瓜州城西大法師倚勸化告招提禪比丘曇遠所供養. There is another text titled Lüjie benshu 律戒本疏 (T2789) whose content differs from T2788 significantly. In this article, Lüjie benshu refers to T2788 unless otherwise specified. In T2789, there is no discussion on the ṣaḍvārgika monks. The colophon of T2789 states that a monk Xuanjue 玄覺 copied it in the first year of Baoding 保定 (561–565). Chi- nese sources have recorded several monks by the name Xuanjue. Song gaoseng zhuan 宋高僧傳 records a monk Xuanjue from Gaochang 高昌 whose latter part of life remained a myth. As a Mahā- yāna Buddhist, he studied with Xuanzang (602–664) and worked as a translator in Yuhua palace 玉华宫. Mochizuki (1954–1958, pp. 929–930) also identified a Chinese monk Xuanjue from Yongjia 永嘉 county in Wenzhou 温州, whose surname was Dai 戴. At age eight, he was ordained

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED 191 text entitled Foshuo xishi zuibao qingzhong jing 佛說習時罪報輕重經. According to Zheng Acai’s study of Buddhist monasteries in Dunhuang, Tokyo’s Nakamura Shodo Museum of Calligraphy now curates the latter text whose colophon is identical with that of Lüjie benshu.28 Unlike the above-mentioned texts where the ṣaḍvārgika monks are interpreted positively, Lüjie benshu did not directly defend them. Rather, it acknowledges that from saṃghāvaśeṣa to śaikṣā, all these precepts are promulgated as responses to the misdeeds of the ṣaḍvārgika monks and affirms their destinies described in Sarvāsti- vādavinayavibhāṣā. It then goes on to stress the importance of these misdeeds as well as their function in the promulgation of the Buddhists precepts. The passage reads: Most of the precepts from saṃghāvaśeṣa up to śaikṣā are promulgated due to the ṣaḍvārgika monks. Chanda and Kālōdayin were desirous and they obtained arhatship eventually. Aśvaka and Punavasu were suspi- cious and they too rebirth among the serpents. Nanda and Upananda were crazy and they gained rebirth in the heaven. A precept promulgated without a cause will likely arouse resentment or anger; but a precept promulgated with a cause will convince everyone of its necessity. For this reason, the promulgation of precepts waits until they committed misdeeds. From the first (precept) on emitting semen to the fourth, they were promulgated due to the misdeeds of Kālōdayin.29 In this short paragraph, Lüjie benshu (T2788) pushed the ṣaḍvārgika discussion to a profounder level by provoking a more fundamental question of how to suc- cessfully establish and enact Buddhist monastic law. What Dhammananda (2002, p. 205) said in What Buddhists Believe argues that human beings are imperfect by nature so Buddhists need disciplinary rules to train themselves and to purify their ways of living to reach enlightenment. For Buddhists, this human nature also determines their intuitive reactions to resist rules imposed upon them. Like the establishment of secular law, the promulgation of religious law is most likely to succeed when the community for which it serves has seen the consequences of not observing them. Without such consequences demonstrated with illustrious examples, imposed rules will not effec- tively regulate the monastic community. Rather, they would more likely arouse resentment and anger. In this connection, the ṣaḍvārgika monks have served the monastic community well by showing them the consequences of inadequate behaviours.

———— and stayed at Longxing monastery 龙兴寺 in Wenzhou. In the second year of Kaiyuan 开元 (712– 713) or the first year of Xiantian 先天 (713–741), he died at age forty-nine. 28 According to Zheng (2007, p. 10), the colophon of Foshuo xishi zuibao qingzhong jing reads: 大統七年歳次辛酉七月一日。於瓜州城西大法師倚勸化告招提禪比丘曇遠所供養. I have not gained access to the original manuscript in Tokyo at this point. 29 Lüjie benshu (T2788: 619a04–0619a10): 從僧殘至衆學。多因六群比丘制。闡怒加留陀夷多欲。後得羅漢。象師兩宿多癡。後生龍中。難陀婆難陀多顛。後生天上。夫無因而制物或怨怒。有由而起莫不信悦。故待其先犯。然後結戒也第一出不淨從初至四。因加留陀夷犯惡故結戒也。

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

192 CUILAN LIU

Conclusion

As we have seen over the course of this article, despite the overwhelming negative representation of the ṣaḍvārgika monks as evil monks in most of the Vinaya texts, a positive interpretation emerged in texts covering Sūtra, commentaries of Vinaya, and two root Vinaya texts. This positive interpretation’s emergence in texts older (sūtra) and younger (Vinaya commentary) than the root Vinaya texts, suggests its co-existence and co-growth with its counterpart; the negative interpretation principally survives in root Vinaya texts. In another word, interpretations of the ṣaḍvārgika monks were never unanimously negative or positive. Rather, they reflect an interwoven discourse in which negative and positive voices alternate. A future study of the precise chronology of all these texts will undeniably advance our understanding of this complex process. The discovery of the new positive interpretation will clarify the confusion on the morality of the ṣaḍvārgika monks in the field of Buddhist studies. Barua, Sarkar, and Shengyen had doubted the negative representation in Vinaya but they did not elaborate further to justify the negative interpretation long established and widely circulated. As a result, few Buddhists scholars heard their doubts and continued to accept the negative representation at its face value.30 Early in 1934, Barua expressed his reluctance to accept these monks as whole-heartedly bad men and women. Accord- ingly, Sarkar (1981, pp. 115, 118) believed it is more appropriate to address them as “thoughtless and whimsical monks” rather than “recklessly wicked”.31 In addition to these speculations, Schopen (2007, pp. 206–207) presented a few instances where the ṣaḍvārgika monks appeared as learned monks who were capable of quoting sūtras to defend their positions. The Buddhist practitioner and scholar Shengyen fully accorded with the position of Guan wuliangshou jing yishu that the ṣaḍvārgika monks noble individuals who chose to act out various misdeeds to facilitate the promulgation of the Buddhist monastic precepts. The discovery of this new discourse also provokes further contemplation on the historicity of the ṣaḍvārgika monks. One feature shared by proponents of the negative and positive interpretations is that they did not attempt to question the historicity of the ṣaḍvārgika monks. Among modern scholars, Barua (1934), Sarkar (1981), and Shengyen (2010) inclined to take them as historical figures but Schopen denied their historicity, at least the kind of historicity as represented in Vinaya. In his study of the six cities that frequently appear in early Buddhist texts, Schopen (2004a) showed that the Buddha had instructed that those who had forgotten where the Bud- dha had taught what should supply names from certain given lists. In a conversation with Upāli who raised the question, the Buddha instructed Upāli to declare that it was

30 For instance, Strong (1992, p. 69) described them as “low-mined” monks. 31 Sarkar (1981, p. 114) also argues that the chabbaggiya monks only involved in two types of lighter penalties “Dukkata and Nissaggiya Pacittiya” and none of them “are found to have committed severe types of offences”. This might be true with the Pāli list of the chabbaggiya monks but with the list compiled from the Chinese and Tibetan translation, Udāyin and Chanda are found to be responsible for the promulgation of ten out of the thirteen saṃghāvaśeṣa rules in the Mūlasarvā- stivādavinaya.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED 193 one or another of the six great cities or where the Tathāgatha stayed many times when he forgot a place name. If he forgot the name of a king, he must supply it with King Prasenajit, Anāthapiṇḍada of a householder, Mṛgāṛamātā of a laywoman, Vārāṇasī of the place in a past story and so forth (see Schopen 2004a, p. 398).32 Along with this observation, Schopen (2004b) argued that the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya introduced the ṣaḍvārgika monks as a literary device when “an apparently old text or established position needs to be clarified or re-interpreted”.33 Due to lack of further elaboration on the word “clarified”, it is unclear whether Schopen used it in terms of clarification after the promulgation of the Vinaya or illustrations used first to promulgate and later to teach the Vinaya. Nevertheless, further research on this “literary device” theory in the second context will certainly benefit from the following two observations. First, Upāli was the same person who asked the Buddha what to do with future forgetfulness and the one who later recited the Vinaya collection at the first council. In another word, by the time he was about to recite the Vinaya in front of five hundred monks, Upāli had received clear instruction from the Buddha that he must supply a name whenever the situation requires it. Second, the ṣaḍvārgika monks had constantly bullied a band of seventeen junior monks of which Upāli was the eldest member (T1442: 665b29–665c03). In this connection, the ṣaḍ- vārgika monks were the most illustrious example of monastic offenders among Upā- li’s acquaintances. For this reason, while Upāli was reciting the Vinaya, it would have been most convenient and most reasonable to supply the names of the ṣaḍvārgika monks whenever he forgot the protagonists of a misdeed.

Abbreviation

T Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大藏經. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe 渡邊海旭. 100 vols. Tokyo, Taishō issaikyō kankōkai 大正一切經刊行會, 1924–1935.

References

Anālayo (2010): Channa’s Suicide in the Saṃyukta-āgama. Buddhist Studies Review vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 125–137. Barua, Beni Madhab (1934): The Old Brāhmī inscription of Mahāsthāth. The Indian Historical Quarterly vol. 10, pp. 57–66.

32 For the Tibetan, see ’Dul ba phran tshegs (Bka’ ’gyur, Sde dge, vol. 11, 39b03–40a1). See also Mūlasarvāstivādavinayakṣudrakavastu (T1451: 328c15–328c25). Fewer details are given in the Chinese version but both texts share the idea that forgotten names can be supplied from a given list. 33 Due to lack of further elaboration, for the word “clarified”, it is unclear whether Schopen meant clarification after the promulgation of the Vinaya or the illustrations to be applied to first promulgate and late teach the Vinaya. It is also important to note that rather than using the ṣaḍvār- gika monks, the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya (T1442) and Mūlasarvāstivādabhikṣūṇīvinaya (T1443) more often amend its previously established rules by introducing an open remark “The previous (rule) was the foundation and this (amendment) is its exception (前是创制今是随开)”.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

194 CUILAN LIU

Beal, Samuel (1885): The Buddhist Records of the Western World: Translated From the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang. Boston, J.R.OSGOOD & CO. Clarke, Shayne (2009a): Locating Humour in Indian Buddhist Monastic Law Codes: A Compara- tive Approach. Journal of Indian Philosophy vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 311–330. Clarke, Shayne (2009b): Monks Who Have Sex: Posojika Penance in Indian Buddhist Monasti- cisms. Journal of Indian Philosophy vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 1–43. Clarke, Shayne (forthcoming): Family Matters in Indian Buddhist Monasticisms. Honolulu, Univer- sity of Hawai’i Press. Dhammananda, K. Sri (2002): What Buddhists Believe. Kuala Lumpur, Buddhist Missionary Soci- ety. Dhirasekera, Jotiya (1970): The Rebels against the Codified Law in Buddhist Monastic Discipline. Bukkyōu Kenkyū 仏教研究 vol. 1, pp. 90–77. Dhirasekera, Jotiya (1982): Buddhist Monastic Discipline: A Study of Its Origin and Development in Relation to the Sutta and Vinaya Pitakas. PhD thesis. Ceylon, University of Ceylon. Dutt, Nalinaksha (1942): Gilgit Manuscripts, vol. III, part 2. Calcutta, Calcutta Oriental Press. Gokhale, Balkrishna Govind (1989): Revolt within the Pale: Challenges to the Buddha’s Authority. Journal of Buddhist Studies vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 11–21. Hecker, Hellmuth (2003): Mahāmoggallāna: Master of Psychic Power. In: Thera Nyanaponika (ed.): Great Disciples of the Buddha: Their Lives, Their Works, Their Legacy. Someville, Wisdom Publications, pp. 67–106. Hirakawa, Akira 平川彰 (1993): Nihyaku-gojikkai no kenkyūe 二百五十戒の研究. Tōkyō, Shun- jūsha. Hirakawa, Akira 平川彰 (1997): Bukkyōukanbon daijiten 佛教漢梵大辭典. Tokyo, The Reiyukai. Horner, Isaline Blew (1942): Book of the Discipline, Part 3. Oxford, The Pali Text Society. Horner, Isaline Blew (1969): The Book of the Discipline, Suttavibhaṅga, vol. III. Oxford, The Pāli Text Society. Kasuga, Reichi 春日礼智 (1971): Rokugun biku to jushichigun biku 六群比丘と十七群比丘. In- dogaku Bukkyōgaku kenkyū 印度學佛教學研究 vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 342–347. Keown, Damien (2003): A Dictionary of Buddhism. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Malalasekera, George Peiris (1937): Dictionary of Pāli Proper Names. New Delhi, J. Jetley. Mochizuki, Shinkō 望月信亨 (1954–1958): Mochizuki Bukkyō daijiten 望月佛教大辞典. Tōkyō, Sekai Seiten Kankō Kyōkai. Pio, Edwina (1988): Buddhist Psychology: A Modern Perspective. New Delhi, Abhinav Publica- tions. Prebish, Charles (2002): Buddhist Monastic Discipline: The Sanskrit Prātimokṣa Sūtras of the Ma- hāsāṃghikas and Mūlasarvāstivādins. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. Rego, Aurelius (2009): A Study of the Role and Function of the Monks and Nuns of the Groups-of- Six in Vinaya Literature. Master Thesis. Ontario, McMaster University. Sarkar, Susobhan Chandra (1981): Some Critical Observations on the Chabbaggiya Bhikkhus. In: Silver Jubilee Celebration Committee of the Sikkim Research Institute of Tibetology and Other Buddhist Studies (eds): Aspects of Buddhism. New Delhi, Vision Books, pp. 107–119. Schopen, Gregory (2003): The Suppression of Nuns and the Ritual Murder of Their Special Dead in Two Buddhist Monastic Texts. In: Wilson, Liz (ed.): The Living and the Dead: Social Di- mensions of Death in South Asia Religions. Albany, State University of New York Press, pp. 127–158. Schopen, Gregory (2004a): Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India. Honolulu, University of Hawai’i Press.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013

NOBLE OR EVIL: THE ṢAḌVĀRGIKA MONKS RECONSIDERED 195

Schopen, Gregory (2004b): On Buddhist Monks and Dreadful Deities: Some Monastic Devices for Updating the Dharma. In: Bodewitz, Henk W. – Minoru Hara (eds): Gedenkschrift J. W. de Jong. Tokyo, The International Institute for Buddhist Studies, pp. 161–184. Schopen, Gregory (2007): The Learned Monks as a Comic Figure: On Reading a Buddhist Vinaya as Indian literature. Journal of Indian Philosophy vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 201–226. Schopen, Gregory (2010): On Incompetent Monks and Able Urbane Nuns in a Buddhist Monastic Code. Journal of Indian Philosophy vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 107–131. Shengyen 圣严 (2010): Shengzhe de gushi 圣者的故事. Beijing, Huaxia chubanshe. Shi Changyi 釋常憶 (1992): You liu qun bi qiu zhi fan jie guang qi ren qi shi 由六群比丘之犯戒觀其人其事. Shizi hou 狮子吼 vol. 31, No. 7, pp. 10–18. Strong, John (1992): Sanskrit Buddhism in North India and Southeast Asia. New Jersey, Princeton University Press. Talim, Meena (1972): Woman in Early Buddhist Literature. Bombay, University of Bombay. Tanaka, K. 田中敬信 (1975): Ningen no honshitsu to hakai shisō 人間の本質と破戒思想. Shūga- ku kenkyū 宗学研究 vol. 17, pp. 163–168. Watters, Thomas (1905): On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India. London, Royal Asiatic Society. Witzel, Michael (1995): Who is Channa? Manuscript of a lecture delivered at Academia Sinica in Taiwan. Zheng, Acai 郑阿财 (2007): Dun huang fo jiao si yuan gong neng zhi kao cha yu yanjiu: Yi Dun huang yu shi ku wei zhong xin 敦煌佛教寺院功能之考察与研究:以敦煌与石窟为中心. Jiayi, Nanhua University.

Acta Orient. Hung. 66, 2013