"Reform of Vinaya"

The Buddhist Monk's Discipline: Some Points Explained for Laypeople, by Bhikkhu Khantipalo

If one appreciates that the Vinaya is indeed the mainstay, it will not be difficult for Buddhist laity, even in non-Buddhist countries, to realize that ideas of changing (sometimes called "reforming") the Vinaya, in order as it is said, "to suit modern conditions," find no favor with the Sangha as a whole. There are many objections to such a course of action, in which indeed there would be almost no advantages. In what follows, the writer wishes to examine these objections and to show plainly their dangers and disadvantages.

Firstly, if one reads through the Vinaya, while there are a number of points that apply specially to eastern countries, some even being limited to conditions peculiar to ancient India, none of these relate to the main principles of the bhikkhu-life. The workings of the Vinaya in the life of the bhikkhu of the present day is not made difficult by obsolete training rules. Those no longer having any application are very few and are really not of great importance.

All the main principles of the bhikkhu-discipline are as valid now as they were when instituted by Lord Buddha two and a half millennia past. This is indeed a marvelous proof of the wisdom of Lord Buddha who has so well formulated these rules. Nor is the structure of the Vinaya absolutely rigid and it does therefore permit necessary adaptations which are still within the spirit of the training. The use by bhikkhus of modern methods of transport might be taken as an example. This would not have been possible for them if Vinaya was taken as a completely rigid code.

Secondly, there are the words of Lord Buddha himself: "So long, O bhikkhus, as you appoint no new rules, and abolish not the existing ones, but proceed according to the training rules as laid down, so long will bhikkhus be expected to prosper, not to decline" (Discourse on the Seven Conditions for the Welfare of Bhikkhus, AN 7.21), This statement of the Teacher is always to the fore whenever there are gatherings of senior bhikkhus meeting to determine some Vinaya questions arising out of modern conditions. Or, there are such exhortations from sources outside the Pali canon as these words attributed to Lord Buddha: "O bhikkhus, after my Parinibbana you should revere and honor the precepts of the Patimokkha. Treat them as a light which you have discovered in the dark, or as a poor man would treat a treasure he had found. You should know that they are your chief guide and there should be no difference (in your observances of them) from when I yet remained in the world" (the opening words of the "Discourse of the Teaching Bequeathed by the Buddha").8

Then there is a consideration based upon the events of the First Sangayana (Council). In this great gathering of arahants, Venerable Mahakassapa, who was its president, put forward this motion: "If it seems right to the Sangha, the Sangha should not lay down what has not been laid down, nor should it abolish what has been laid down. It should proceed in conformity with and according to the training rules which have been laid down. This is the motion. Your reverences, let the Sangha listen to me. If it seems right to the Sangha, the Sangha should not... (thrice repeated). It is pleasing to the Sangha; therefore it is silent. Thus do I understand." All those who are accepted as (Theravada) bhikkhus in the present day follow this tradition as laid down in the First Sangayana. This is Theravada tradition; it is based upon the decision of those great elders who were ennobled with the highest nobility. Who are we indeed, to go astray from their way?

Although the Teacher before his Parinibbana spoke thus: "After my passing Ananda, let the Sangha if it so desires abolish the lesser and minor rules of training," no Sangha anywhere actually ventured to do this, partly because of the uncertainty in defining "the lesser and minor rules" and partly because they were constrained out of respect to preserve that which had been instituted by the great Teacher. Acariya Nagasena explains that "the Tathagata spoke thus testing the bhikkhus: 'Will my disciples on being left by me adhere to the passing, or will they repudiate them?'" (Milinda Pañha text, PTS p. 143). There is also the consideration that those of other sects might say, "While the Teacher (Gotama) was alive, his disciples respected and honored his precepts but now that he is no more, they throw off the training." But principally the reason was devotion arising from the successful practice of Dhamma Vinaya.

Supposing that someone proclaimed that he wished to "reform" the Vinaya. In doing this or in trying to do this, he would depart from Theravada tradition and place himself apart from others following Theravada and would in fact only start a new sect, and who is in honor of sectarianism? If he were a bhikkhu, by his departure from the training laid down in the Vinaya he would only bring upon himself offenses, being burdened with which and failing to confess them, he would be precluded from making much progress on the practice path of Dhamma.

Again, who will change the Vinaya? As the Vinaya is the province of bhikkhus, lay people obviously cannot do so. One bhikkhu cannot effect any changes since Vinaya-decisions are arrived at after the consultation of a sangha. A sangha of young bhikkhus is not qualified to do so since decisions arrived at by them might well be swayed by preferences, or be based upon both lack of learning and lack of purity of heart. A sangha of senior bhikkhus competent to decide upon Vinaya-questions will scarcely undertake such a task since their training has imbued them with a deep sense of respect for the Vinaya. Any decision arrived at by a meeting of less than all bhikkhus in the world (!) would be sectarian in character and be the cause of Sangha-schism (an offense of formal meeting and therefore very serious). Even if such a gathering could be contrived, not only would respect for the traditions of the arahant elders easily triumph, but also the dissident voices would be found to represent somewhat unbalanced individuals. Actually, no one at all can be found who would be competent to undertake "changing the Vinaya." (But there is, as pointed out above, provision for decisions on the Vinaya questions by a council of senior bhikkhus well versed in Vinaya and the Commentaries as found in Siam.)

Another point to consider is that even if changes were agreed upon by all competent authorities, and the Sangha therefore unanimous, how far are such changes to go, and when will this changing ever stop? This question, among all other considerations here, has always deterred Theravada Elders from effecting any changes. Ven. Chao Khun Sasana Sobhana writing in Siam recently says: "The argument of the Theravada Buddhists against the revision of the Vinaya is that while it is true that towards the end of his life, the Buddha did give permission to his disciples to suspend the minor rules, the First Council was not able to reach an agreement as to what 'minor rules' signified." They have thus remained in the Patimokkha until the present time and have thus ensured that the standard of conduct and the direction of the training have remained the same (for those undertaking the training seriously) as they were in the Buddha time. Ven. Paññavaddho, in his review of the Bangkok edition of "The Patimokkha," has written: "It has been said by some people that in this modern day and age, some or many of the rules are archaic, restrictive, or otherwise undesirable in the greatly altered circumstances of modern civilization. But it must be remembered that the Vinaya, with the Patimokkha as its basis, has maintained stability in the Sangha since the time of Lord Buddha."

Finally, there is a consideration based upon the nature of the training and the end which it has in view. From the Buddha-time down to the present it has been found that a careful application of the Vinaya's principles by a bhikkhu in his life promotes his practice and understanding of Dhamma: "Vinaya leads to restraint; restraint to the absence of remorse; absence of remorse leads to joy; joy to delight; delight to tranquility; tranquility leads to happiness; happiness to collectedness; collectedness to knowledge and vision of the truly existent; knowledge and vision of the truly existent to revulsion;9 revulsion to dispassion; dispassion to freedom; freedom to knowledge-and-vision of freedom; and knowledge-of-vision to freedom leads to Nibbana free from (clinging to) substrata (for rebirth)" (Vinaya, Parivara, 169). When Vinaya has been so formulated as to guide a bhikkhu to the goal of Nibbana, who shall entertain thoughts altering it? It is we who have to change by our practice of Dhamma-Vinaya, to come up to its level and not to expect it to change for us. In this connection, there is a little fable:

At one time there was a great and flourishing tree standing as it had stood for many, many hundreds of years. It was so beautiful that men and women bringing their children would come from scores of miles about to gaze in wonder at its perfect and majestic shape. Under its mighty spread of branches multitudes could sit down enjoying its cool shade. Even animals would come and delight themselves according to their several habits, some upon the grass beneath and some sporting amid the profusion of leaves, flowers, and fruits. And such flowers of such fragrance — no one knew where else their like might be found. And such fruits as this tree bore and in such abundance! No wonder that they are called best, highest, foremost and supreme among all fruits produced by other trees. So the seasons and the years rolled by and still the mighty tree stood hardly changed, for where one branch died off, another grew to replace it. The delight of many beings, visible and invisible, was in the health and long life of this ancient tree. Then, in accordance with the change inherent in things, fashions changed and trees in their natural vigor were no longer praised but trimmed and artificially-shaped trees were thought more beautiful. Agitation began among some men for the tree to be shaped up according to modern taste. Eventually, due to debased ideas of people by that time, loppers and clippers tried their hands upon the millennial giant. Branch after branch fell loaded with flowers and bearing fruits. "Never mind," they said, "it will look much better when we have finished." Before long, the tree was pruned into the form of a perfect cube and this was regarded by almost everyone with satisfaction. Only a few ignorant people regretted the sawn-off limbs and bare branches with a few clusters of leaves left here and there. These ill-educated persons were heard regretting the lack of any shade. How stupid of them!

It is needless to say that the venerable tree flowered and bore fruit no more and due to shock, died shortly afterwards, leaving only its great, but dead framework which then became an object for the speculative theses of numerous men of books.

Thus it is that most bhikkhus generally would not talk of "changing" but of "tampering with" the Vinaya. After all, when closely examined many proposals to bring about changes in the body of Vinaya are found to be based upon the roots of unskill. A simple case will illustrate this, A bhikkhu experiences pangs of hunger in the evening (in spite of allowable drinks!), which cause him to announce that he does not believe in strictly following Vinaya in this respect, since this would be an extreme of self-torture (!); the climate is too cold; modern times demand a change; "I follow Mahayana" (!) — or one of a thousand such excuses. He accordingly proposes that the training rule regarding not taking food afternoon and before dawn, be abolished. "After all," he reasons, "it is only a pacittiya offense — nothing much." Meanwhile, he has a good supper every night; not only his belly but also his greed, that root of unskill, are thoroughly satisfied. If the former is a little distended, the latter is certainly greatly increased, while the spirit of renunciation has fled from his dwelling. And of course, where greed is increased, so automatically is aversion and dullness... and so on...

Anyone — whether bhikkhu or layman — who holds such a view or reasoning concerning his training rules as the imaginary bhikkhu above, actually makes for himself a real stumbling-block upon his own path. The mental attitude of thinking, "Oh, it does not matter; it's only a little thing!" is one to watch, since it appears at the gate of the wide and easy path leading downwards. Such slack ways of thinking, really urged on by some hidden craving, are just the reverse of the disciplined scrupulousness upon which so much stress is laid in the Vinaya.

Slackness and strictness in regard to the Vinaya are not to be associated in any wholesale fashion with this "yana" or that "vada" (vehicle or way). In Theravada, as in other Buddhist traditions, there are those bhikkhus who are strict as well as those who are slack. Wherever there is a good Teacher who is concerned with the practical application of the Dhamma, there the Vinaya will be carefully followed. But where neither such a Teacher nor a good Vinaya tradition are found, there undisciplined behavior will result, with a victory for not-Dhamma (adhamma).

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org