UCLA UCLA Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Meditation in an Indian Buddhist Monastic Code Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8jh631zw Author Bass, Jeffrey Wayne Publication Date 2013 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Meditation in an Indian Buddhist Monastic Code A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Asian Languages and Cultures by Jeffrey Wayne Bass 2013 © Copyright by Jeffrey Wayne Bass 2013 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Meditation in an Indian Buddhist Monastic Code by Jeffrey Wayne Bass Doctor of Philosophy in Asian Languages and Cultures University of California, Los Angeles, 2013 Professor Gregory R. Schopen, Chair This dissertation centers on an attempt to bring questions of a sociological nature to the modern academic conversation on the place of meditation in Indian Buddhism. It also involves a shift away from sūtra and commentarial literature to vinaya literature. My primary source for examining the treatment of contemplative practice in the Indian tradition is the Kṣudrakavastu, the largest section of the monastic code (S. vinaya) of the Mūlasarvāstivādins. Narratives found in the Kṣudrakavastu can offer a new perspective on the practice of meditation in north Indian Buddhism from the beginning of the Common Era to the fifth century. Here we find that meditation was not as central to the religious tradition as we might expect, given the emphasis ii that meditation has received in modern discussions of the Indian tradition. To begin with, in Mūlasarvāstivādin hagiographical accounts that include instances of enlightenment—and a great many of them do—meditation is almost never mentioned as the immediate cause. In the overwhelming majority of instances in which enlightenment occurs, the followers are said to have been hearing the dharma preached by the Buddha, or by a senior monk or nun. We find no evidence that periods of meditation were built into the daily schedule of the monks, and meditation is never presented as an obligatory practice. Furthermore, meditation is most often discussed as occurring outside the monastery. And the meditation specialists who leave the monastery to practice are consistently depicted as a liability to the larger community. The picture that emerges from our source is one of a monastic community centered on the recitation of texts, rather than the practice of meditation. Finally, I argue that the meditation monks described in Mūlasarvāstivādin literature may have played a role in the development of Mahāyāna Buddhism in India. iii The dissertation of Jeffrey Wayne Bass is approved. Robert E. Buswell William M. Bodiford Robert L. Brown Gregory R. Schopen, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2013 iv FOR PROFESSOR SCHOPEN: IL MIGLIOR FABBRO v Table of Contents Acknowledgements viii Vita xii Introduction 0.1 Introduction: Meditation in Indian Buddhism 1 0.2 Previous Scholarship 4 0.3 My Source—the Kṣudrakavastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya 17 0.4 Questions and Method 32 0.5 The Word “Meditation” and What It Indicates 37 0.6 The Chapters and General Conclusions 51 Chapter I—Technical Terminology 1.0 Introduction 55 1.1 Dhyāna—As the General Practice of Meditation 59 1.2 Dhyāna—As Advanced Meditative Mind States 84 1.2 Aśubhabhāvana—Its Prominence in the Mūlasarvāstivādin Tradition 99 1.3 Pratisaṃlī—The Value of Rest and Privacy 131 1.4 Smṛtyupasthāna—Minding Your Manners in an Indian Monastery 142 vi Chapter II—The Vocation of a Monk 2.0 Introduction 158 2.1 Recitation and Meditation: A Closer Look at “the Two Activities of a Monk” 161 2.2 “Go and Wash Your Bowl”: Another Look at “Nandika the Meditator” 180 2.3 The Importance of Morality in Śamatha and Vipaśyanā 199 2.4 Meditation and Supernatural Powers 209 Chapter III—Monks Who Meditate 3.0 Introduction 222 3.1 Ambivalence towards the Forest 228 3.2 The “Meditation Monk” as a Model of Wrong Behavior 241 3.3 The Fate of the Prahāṇika 256 Conclusion 265 Bibliography 271 vii Acknowledgements It’s not easy to know where or how to begin the opportunity to acknowledge all those who have contributed to this project. It might be apropos to begin with the two individuals who got everything started: my mom and dad. Dad gave me a love of science, and mom gave me with a love of religious stories. I am very much a marriage of the two. They have always given their fullest support and enthusiasm for all of my endeavors, academic or otherwise. My graduate work started at the University of Tennessee, and I am deeply indebted to the professors I worked with in the UT Religious Studies department—particularly Professors Rachelle Scott, Miriam Levering, Johanna Stiebert, Gilya Schmidt, John Hodges, and Tina Shepardson. They were all very patient and supportive towards this fledgling scholar. From UT, I moved to the University of California, Los Angeles for my PhD. work. It has been a tremendous honor for me to work and study at UCLA. The professors and the staff have been a constant source of guidance, inspiration, and encouragement. I would like to thank the staff of the Asian Languages and Cultures Department—especially Ronke Epps and Shan Shan Chi-Au. This office, and these ladies in particular, were instrumental in helping me secure two years of teaching-free funding—first with the Graduate Research Mentorship Fellowship in 2008-09 and then with the Distinguished Teaching Assistant Award in 2012-13. Neither of these two funding opportunities would have been possible without the help of the ALC office staff, and this project would not have been possible without such funding. Earning the Distinguished Teaching Assistant Award was a great honor for me and I am deeply indebted to others who supported me through the process. Greg Kendrick and Joseph Nagy, both from UCLA’s Freshman Cluster program, were two of my strongest supporters. They viii are both exemplary teachers and leaders in the academic community, and both were professional (and personal) advisors to me. My work with the Mythology course of the Freshman Cluster program also helped inform my analytical approach to Mūlasarvāstivādin narratives. I should thank my fellow graduate students at UCLA. They gave me a wealth of good advice and—perhaps more importantly—good humor. Jason McCombs, Caleb Carter, Tyler Cann, David Hull, Nathaniel Isaacson, Hanmo Zhang, and Matthew Cochran from the Asian Languages and Cultures department could always be counted on to distract me from my work. Karen Muldoon-Hules was an endless and invaluable source of advice and encouragement. Shayne Clarke, though he exited the stage just as I entered, was also a source of inspiration. I would like to thank Professor Robert Kritzer of Kyoto Notre Dame University for his help in understanding a few key passages of the Garbhāvakrānti section of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya. He is an expert on this section and was exceedingly helpful in its translation. His essays were also helpful in getting a handle on the content. In his introduction to The Crucible, Arthur Miller said of John Proctor—the play’s protagonist—that “In his presence a fool felt his foolishness.” The same can be said of all the professors I have worked with at UCLA. Professor Robert Buswell was generous with his guidance and with his sources of funding. He provided me and the other graduate students with a sense of security, knowing that if we did the work, he would find a way to keep us funded. Also, Professor Buswell’s book on Korean Zen was invaluable in helping me approach my own sources. This book has been and will continue to be required reading for many of my courses. For me and the other graduate students at UCLA, Professor William Bodiford serves as an untouchable model of scholarship. His course on modern religions in Japan was both humbling and enlightening. Professor Robert Brown introduced me to the world of ancient Indian art, and ix for this I am exceedingly grateful. Professor Jennifer Jung-Kim was also a source of guidance and encouragement for me. She and I have had many epic battles on the Scrabble board, and I’m sure there are many more to come. Professor Stephanie Jamison could always be counted on to enlighten and entertain. Her knowledge of Sanskrit and sense of humor are unmatched. In my graduate career, I have had the good fortune to find myself under the guidance of two very competent mentors. I do not know if this is the result of good luck or good karma. Either way, I am grateful to these two men above all. For the most part, my career as a scholar is indebted to them. They both exemplify the very best connotations of the word professor. First, while I was at the University of Tennessee, I found myself under the watchful (and unflinching) eyes of Professor James Fitzgerald. In a classroom fitted with 50 desks, he taught Sanskrit to me and one other student over the course of two years. I found out later that he never got paid for those classes. He taught us because he loved the material and we wanted to learn it. Professor Fitzgerald has a well-deserved reputation for being a very demanding teacher. His pedagogy dictates that positive feedback is, for the most part, useless; students only really learn when their mistakes are laid bare. Each time he returned one of my papers to me, it was drenched in red ink from top to bottom. Now, as I look back, I am so grateful to Professor Fitzgerald for taking the time to show me the mistakes I was making.