Any evidence for monastic buildings in the early Suttas?

There are so many references to sangha buildings and huts… this is just a small selection:

Dhammacetiyasutta MN 82:

At that time several mendicants were walking meditation in the open air. King Pasenadi of Kosala went up to them and said, “Sirs, where is the Blessed One at present, the perfected one, the fully awakened Buddha? For I want to see him.”
“Great king, that’s his dwelling, with the door closed. Approach it quietly, without hurrying; go onto the porch, clear your throat, and knock with the latch. The Buddha will open the door.” The king right away presented his sword and turban to Dīgha Kārāyana, who thought, “Now the king seeks privacy. I should wait here.”
Then the king approached the Buddha’s dwelling and knocked, and the Buddha opened the door.

AN 5.121

At one time the Buddha was staying near Vesālī, at the Great Wood, in the hall with the peaked roof. Then in the late afternoon, the Buddha came out of retreat and went to the infirmary, where he saw a certain mendicant who was weak and sick.

AN 4.159

Then Ānanda robed up and went to the nuns’ quarters to visit that nun, taking his bowl and robe. That nun saw Ānanda coming off in the distance. She wrapped herself up from head to foot and laid down on her cot. Then Venerable Ānanda went up to her, and sat down on the seat spread out.

MN 128

“In this case, sir, whoever returns first from alms-round prepares the seats, and puts out the drinking water and the rubbish bin. If there’s anything left over, whoever returns last eats it if they like. Otherwise they throw it out where there is little that grows, or drop it into water that has no living creatures. Then they put away the seats, drinking water, and rubbish bin, and sweep the refectory.

MN 26

He went to the brahmin Rammaka’s hermitage. Now at that time several mendicants were sitting together in the hermitage talking about the teaching. The Buddha stood outside the door waiting for the talk to end. When he knew the talk had ended he cleared his throat and knocked with the latch. The mendicants opened the door for the Buddha, and he entered the hermitage, where he sat on the seat spread out and addressed the mendicants,

MN 119

Then after the meal, on return from alms-round, several senior mendicants sat together in the pavilion and this discussion came up among them.

10 Likes

Thanks Dhammanando. A platform is not really what I had in mind when I said ‘building’ - I had not thought of that actually, though if it is ‘built’ perhaps it can be classified as a ‘building’? I don’t know.

That dictionary entry makes me imagine a raised platform for sitting on. I’ve seen such platforms, in communal spaces, so people can sit somewhere clean while outside. Was it that type of thing? Or, do we have any evidence from any early suttas that is had walls and/or a roof? And if a roof, whether it was simply shade from the sun or also waterproof? And again, if a roof is mentioned, were walls also? Or a wall-less roof only, which may lie somewhere in between our concept of an indoor/outdoor space. Thanks!

Cool, thanks! I’ll check them.

Pavillion here is upaṭṭhānasālā.
Upaṭṭhāna seems to be ‘worship’, ‘ministering’.
Sālā seems to come from the Sanskrit śālā, of which I read:

house, space, covered pavilion or enclosure

This does sound like a building. So, I’m particularly interested in any details about walls or a roof. I wonder for example, was this the provision of a clean floor and roof cover from rain and sun, for the purpose of communal dhamma instruction? With no walls, and not for living in - just as a teaching space?

If so, again that would be somewhere in between what we might consider an indoor or outdoor space. Walls make quite a difference.

This is the hermitage of a brahmin, not a Buddhist monastic. No? It’s a nice example of Buddhist monastics discussing the dhamma in the house of a lay person. But it’s not an example of monastics actually living in a building, right?

Here, ‘refectory’ refers to bhattaggaṃ.
‘Bhatta’ seems to mean ‘feeding’, ‘meal’.

In the PED, under agga, I find:

bhattagge after a meal Vin ii.212.

Though the second meaning of agga does indeed seem to refer to a building. This again brings the question, was this a wall-less roof used for distributing food to the sangha, or the place they ate?

Also, this does not actually address the question: do we have any evidence for monastics residing in buildings of any form (aside from meditation in abandoned buildings), in the early suttas or āgamas? It is very interesting, but it doesn’t seem to imply that this is a place anyone is living in. Merely a place for eating.

You mentioned AN 4.159. Here’s the quote with the Pāli included and the next line also:

Then Ānanda robed up and went to the nuns’ quarters to visit that nun, taking his bowl and robe.
Atha kho āyasmā ānando nivāsetvā pattacīvaramādāya yena bhikkhunupassayo yena sā bhikkhunī tenupasaṅkami.

That nun saw Ānanda coming off in the distance.
Addasā kho sā bhikkhunī āyasmantaṃ ānandaṃ dūratova āgacchantaṃ.

I highlighted the part about seeing from a distance since that would be unlikely were the nun in a walled building.

I’m assuming ‘quarters’ translates bhikkhunupassayo?
For upassaya the PED gives:

abode, resting home, dwelling, asylum

Do we have any evidence that this is referring specifically to a building? For example, if a sramana lives not in a building, but has an area where they dwell, an ‘abode’, is it impossible to refer to that as an upassaya? If not, this seems not to be evidence of any building.

You mentioned AN 5.121. I notice that there are no parallels listed for this sutta, except one single Pāli text from the same nikāya. Does this bring into question whether it is an EBT? If so, we may be better to exclude this from the analysis. However, just in case, let’s take a look:

At one time the Buddha was staying near Vesālī, at the Great Wood, in the hall with the peaked roof.
Ekaṃ samayaṃ bhagavā vesāliyaṃ viharati mahāvane kūṭāgārasālāyaṃ.
Then in the late afternoon, the Buddha came out of retreat and went to the infirmary, where
Atha kho bhagavā sāyanhasamayaṃ paṭisallānā vuṭṭhito yena gilānasālā tenupasaṅkami.

Regarding the Buddha ‘staying’ (viharati) in that hall, I wonder if that may simply mean he was there for some period of that day, before leaving in the afternoon. And perhaps this was a roof providing shade etc., without walls, that was not used for living in. I don’t see anything there conclusively referring to a place where any monastic lived. Does anyone?

Then regarding the infirmary, we have ’ gilānasālā’. This does sound like a building where sick people may have been living while sick. Again, we have no indication of walls, here anyway. And I wonder if we have mention of any gilānasālā in any surely early sutta? But if we take this to be genuine, then this is indeed interesting. It could be in harmony with interpreting that the monastics did not live in buildings, unless they were sick, and therefore unable to bare the difficult sramana lifestyle of homelessness. That would make sense. And I think also sick people were allowed to break other sramana conventions also, right? Such as eating in the evening.

The final example is:

I believe that’s actually MN 89. This has an MĀ parallel, 213. I can’t locate a translation of that so it’s hard check if that also mentions the ‘door’ and what it says exactly about. From using google translate, it does look to me like this has the same part about the door, which is interesting for sure. Though I’d love to see a real translation to get the details.

Anyway here’s the passage in MN:

“Great king, that’s his dwelling, with the door closed. Approach it quietly, without hurrying; go onto the porch, clear your throat, and knock with the latch. The Buddha will open the door.”
“Eso, mahārāja, vihāro saṃvutadvāro. Tena appasaddo upasaṅkamitvā ataramāno āḷindaṃ pavisitvā ukkāsitvā aggaḷaṃ ākoṭehi. Vivarissati bhagavā te dvāran”ti.

For dvāro the PED gives:

an outer door, a gate, entrance

Āḷinda seems to mean ‘terrace’ or ‘a raised place or terrace for sleeping upon’. (Monier)

For aggaḷa, the PED gives ‘a bolt or cross’.

The most compelling of these words to me, is āḷinda. Aside from that word, I wonder if this Pāli may be able to refer to a buildingless dwelling place that may have a fence and a gate. A way for the Buddha, who was so famous and had so many students, to get some privacy. The one thing that challenges that that I can see, is the presence of a platform, if indeed that is what āḷinda is referring to. Though there may be alternative possibilities to explain that - such as it being a sitting place for people waiting at the gate after signalling by hitting the latch to signal the Buddha? Or, can anyone offer any other explanation for an āḷinda if this is not a building?

And, do we have any input on dating of this sutta? Even with a Chinese parallel, it may have been composed after the time of the Buddha.

I would be interested in any other examples if they give a real case for any monastics other than the sick, living in any building. Especially any building with walls - so far we have no references to any walls!

1 Like

It’s a little different. There’s no porch or latch mentioned, but then the building is large and has open windows. And it’s a door (戶), not a gate (門).

[0795c08] 眾多比丘答曰:「大王!彼東向大屋,開窓閉戶,世尊今在彼中晝行。大王!欲見便往詣彼,到已住外,謦欬敲戶,世尊聞者,必為開戶。」
That group of monks replied, “Great king, to the east there’s that large dwelling with the windows open and the door closed. The Bhagavān is presently inside there for his afternoon practice. Great king, if you’d like to see him, then go over there and stand outside. Clear your throat and knock on the door. The Bhagavān will hear and surely open the door.”

6 Likes

Suttas mention the rains retreats.
I think it was unrealistic for the monastic community to survive the rainy season without buildings. Without a permanent resident building for the rainy season, the rate of sickness and death would be very high.

7 Likes

In SN41.4 we find:

Then Citta went up to Mahaka, bowed, sat down to one side, and said to him, “Sir, please show me a superhuman demonstration of psychic power.”

“Well, then, householder, place your upper robe on the porch and spread a handful of grass on it.”

“Yes, sir,” replied Citta, and did as he was asked.

Mahaka entered his dwelling and latched the door. Then he used his psychic power to will that a flame shoot out through the keyhole and the chink in the door, and it burned up the grass but not the upper robe. Then Citta shook out his upper robe and stood to one side, shocked and awestruck.

Atha kho āyasmā mahako vihāraṃ pavisitvā sūcighaṭikaṃ datvā tathārūpaṃ iddhābhisaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkhari yathā tālacchiggaḷena ca aggaḷantarikāya ca acci nikkhamitvā tiṇāni jhāpesi, uttarāsaṅgaṃ na jhāpesi.

Mahaka left his dwelling and said to Citta, “Is that sufficient, householder?”

3 Likes

I’m sure there needs to be a building of some sorts for this proper reflection to have some meaning MN2:

Reflecting properly, they make use of lodgings: ‘Only for the sake of warding off cold and heat; for warding off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles; to shelter from harsh weather and to enjoy retreat.’

10 Likes

Interesting point. Though, that supports the idea of roofs but not necessarily walls.

Thanks. I’m taking a look at this sutta. I notice this:

When they reached the monastery, Mahaka said to the senior venerable,
Atha kho āyasmā mahako ārāmaṁ sampāpuṇitvā āyasmantaṁ theraṁ etadavoca:

Am I right that here @sujato is translating ārāmaṁ as monastery? This English word implies a building - at least I feel fairly confident that is how English readers would interpret it. Yet, the Pāli lookup tool gives this for ārāma:

pleasure-grove, a garden, a park

But the part that you refer to, while not mentioning walls, does mention a door. So this gives a high implication of there being walls. However, I find this story highly suspect, for these reasons:

  1. The monk was magically shooting fire. I find this highly unlikely to be true.
  2. The monk used his magic powers to set fire to grass. Baring in mind monks were forbidden from killing, to such an extent that they were to filter water so as not to kill invisible creatures, and from throwing water on dry ground because creatures in the water may dry up and die (and were they even forbidden from damaging plants?), then the idea of setting fire to grass, which would have an extremely high chance of killing insects, seems to me to be totally against the ethics of the monastic community.
  3. The door, assuming the translation is accurate, had a key hole. So then, why would a monk have a lockable room? Locks are generally used to prevent theft. I have even lived in a village where I saw no locks at all! It was in the forest, and had no road. I didn’t see a lock until I went to a neighbouring village, which had a dirt road - there I saw some houses with locks, and also more wealth, as well as a far higher rate of suffering. And since monks were anyway forbidden from having almost any possessions, I find it… unlikely… that they were building homes with doors that had locks and keys.

For these reasons, unless anyone can give a counterargument, I find this source unreliable.

Thanks, this is interesting. I note the word for ‘lodgings’ is senāsana, which does not by itself inherently imply any building so far as I can see. It seems to come from sayana (lying down/sleeping) and āsana (sitting). Deer even make patches in the grass to sit and/or sleep, as do many other animals, for example.

Though we have this handy list. I’ll go through it.
"Only for the sake of

  • warding off cold and heat;

A roof can ward off heat. A platform and bedding can ward off cold. This by itself doesn’t seem to necessarily imply walls.

-for warding off the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and reptiles;

This seems a stronger case. Specifically, all those things aside from sun, which to me would be the roof’d job. That could be achieved by cloth, however. Thin cotton (muslin) or even discarded funeral cloths, for example. That can even work a fair bit better than the walls of some buildings I’ve stayed in in rural areas! (Such as the bamboo walls of tribal houses in Thailand). Though, I find actual substantial walls made of rigid material to be the more likely explanation here. Interesting.

-to shelter from harsh weather and to enjoy retreat

For this also, a roof would do but depending on how ‘harsh’, walls do make sense. Or, even a simple lean-to of 3 or so sticks and a bunch of leaves! Some tribes still live like that I have heard… one being in SE Asia? And that’s quite different from what most people nowadays think of a ‘building’, even being radically simpler than a ‘forest hut’ that some might stay in to meditate nowadays.

So is this the best we have of actual EBT references to monastics living in a potentially walled building? If so, I do still find it interesting if we have only this implication, and not any actual mentions of walls. If anyone does know of more references that give us any more details of the nature of the dwelling places, I would be interested to hear!

Regarding what I mentioned about lean-tos in SE Asia, I just googled to see if I could find a reference to that, and found this:

The Kubu of Jambi province (Sumatra), the Punan of Borneo, the Andamanese,3 the Negritos of the Thai/Malay Peninsula, the Mabri of north-ern Thailand, the Agta, the Dumagat, and the Batak, all of the Philippines, build leaf shields (lean-tos). Although Southeast Asian hunter-gatherers construct this simple dwelling, shifting cultivators and more sedentary peo-ple also build them for temporary accommodation. Malay farmers as well built leaf shields on high posts for temporary purposes

I could only see an extract for the article but if anyone’s interested in the source, it’s this:

And then, I also found this article which I will share in case anyone’s interested:

Here’s an interesting extract from that article which mentions Buddhism. I did try to chase up the reference it gives at the end but was unable to find the referenced article. I will highlight some parts I find interesting:

The circular and beehive type is also the predominant type of hut represented in the sculpture of Sānchi and Bārhut pillars. These basreliefs represent mainly two types of huts—(i) small domed huts used as residence by holy men and (ii) huts with semi-circular gable. In a bas-relief on the inner face of the left pillar of the eastern gateway of Sānchi are represented a fire chapel with a domed roof and simple leaf hut with a circular dome. In a bas-relief in a panel of a corner pillar of the ground railing of Bārhut stūpa, there is a building labeled “suddhamma devasabhā” which looks like a regular temple. This temple-like building has a two storied domed roof modelled on the dome of huts. Whereas the dome of the huts as a rule, is in four sections the spire of the building circular. These domed huts, says Chanda, may be the simplest type of kūṭ āgāra referred to in the Pali texts. The method of its construction appears to be a favourite simile with the authors of the Nikāyas. Thus in the Samyutta Nikāya it is said: “Just as in a peaked house, brethren, whatever rafters there are all converage to the roof peak, all go to junction there, even so whatever wrong states there are all have their roof in ignorance, all may be referred to ignorance, all are fixed together in ignorance, all go to junction there”. This kutagara or domed hut was also one of the five kinds of dwellings which Buddha allowed his monks to live in.104

Does anyone have any sources for these “five kinds of dwellings”? And… I find it interesting again that even in this, it seems to be implying again no walls, but rather, a domed roof, perhaps similar to the hunter gatherer type dwellings where the roof goes all the way to the ground? I also find it fascinating that the design of stupas might be derived from imitating the simple design of wall-less sramana huts! (Well, when I say ‘wall-less’, I mean in the sense of no specific walls, just a roof that goes to the ground).

And just for interest, here’s a picture of a recently made hut, I wonder if perhaps similar to what they’re talking about:

1 Like

There are sutras that describe Ananda being the keyholder for an entire monastery and going around telling the monks to assemble for this or that teaching. So, yes, apparently Buddhists had lockable doors at some point in history and believed it was the case during the Buddha’s time. Hmm, at the moment, I’m thinking of the Sarvastivada account of the first council found in the Commentary on the Prajnaparamita (which presents the Sarvastivada version of basic Buddhist teachings and history).

In that story, Ananda was sent away by Mahakasyapa until he was an arhat. When he came back after his awakening, he proves he’s an arhat by entering through the keyhole of the door. So, yeah, keys and locks were apparently a thing at some point early on.

1 Like

10 posts were split to a new topic: Criteria for deciding if a text is an EBT

May be of interest …

The initial monastery was formed of two long parallel and oblong halls, large dormitories where the monks could eat and sleep, in conformity with the original regulations of the samgha, without any private cells.[2] Other halls were then constructed, mostly long, oblong building as well, which remind of the oblong construction of several of the Barabar caves.[2][7]

The archaeological evidence point to a very early construction for this vihara, probably circa 530-400 BCE.[2][3] This vihara is very different from the later quadrangular vihara built from the 1st century CE in Gandhara.[2] The absence of stupa is also noticeable, contrary to the viharas built with stupas at a later date.[2] The construction method (rubble foundation) and artifacts discovered on the spot, such as iron nails, terracotta balls or coarse red pottery all point to a date no later than the 5th century BCE.[2]

3 Likes

Thank you @Ficus , interesting! So, that Wiki page says:

The Jivakarama vihara , also Jivaka Amravana vihara (Amra-vana means “mango garden”),[1] Jivakamravana , Jivakamrabana or Jivakavanarama , is an ancient Buddhistmonastery, or vihara, established at the time of the Buddha.[2][3][4]

For the claim of it being from the Buddha’s time, I could check the first reference online. It’s a 2010 book but instead of referencing the suttas, it’s referencing another book from the 60’s!

Regarding:

It’s the same 2 pages of the same book that this is sourced from, which in turn relies on a different book from the 60’s. The reasoning seems quite conjectural:
Screenshot 2021-03-19 at 22.18.20
Screenshot 2021-03-19 at 22.19.18

While the bibliography is unviewble, Imanaged to deduce that his source is ‘Buddhist monks and monasteries of India’ by Sukumar Dutt. Unfortunately, the relevant chapter is unviewable on google books, so the trail ends there for me.

So, I decided to check what ‘Schopen had to say about this supposed Jivakarama vihara’ in his more recent classic (1996 as opposed to this 2010 booke relying on work from the 60’s) ‘Bones, Stones and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India’. This extract is also referencing the ‘phases of development’ that the above book detailed on those same two pages, and, in general refutes the information given above:

So it seems the information in this Wikipedia page cannot be relied upon as a claim for evidence of a building during the time of the Buddha.

@Senryu, @cdpatton

Bhante @sujato discusses archeology, Schopen and similar academics, and EBTs here.

His arguments may be of value for this topic as well

Thanks. Though, I do not see how this relates to the discussion. Sujato is criticising Schopen’s view of the texts. But I don’t see him criticising his work on archaeology. Let alone supporting the Wikipedia article over Schopen’s discrediting the 1960’s source for the claims in the Wikipedia article.

So it seems on this point, all we have is a claim from Wikipedia, and Schopen, a great authority on Buddhist archaeology, refuting it. No-one else had added to the argument either way, so, as it stands, it would seem most logical to adopt Schopen’s position and dismiss this source. But then, I don’t think we should be surprised as it’s only a Wikipedia article after all!

Maybe you’re interested in this (p. 16-17)

Thanks. It doesn’t give dates but does give periods I’m unfortunately unfamiliar of the dates of. But… it seems to me Schopen’s exhaustive work 40 years later should be more authoritative. No? he does deal with this specific case, as I quoted from him above.

I just randomly came back to this topic, which raises a range of interesting questions.

He most certainly is not. So far as I know, Schopen has literally never been to India or set foot on an archeological dig[*], nor has he any qualifications in the field. He’s interested in archeology to the extent that he can use it to discredit experts on early Buddhism with whom he disagrees.

Having said which, I don’t believe that the Jivakambaravana, nor at any other site, dates back to the Buddha. Maybe it’s an early pre-Ashokan complex, but even that is tenuous.

Oh well, let me oblige!

In the passage you helpfully provide, we find a typical Schopenism. He addresses the fact that one of the reasons the Jivakambavana is regarded as early is that there are no stupas, which are almost always found in later monasteries. But Schopen argues:

There are, in fact, a number of other “Elliptical Structures” similar to the Jivamabavana, and … at least two of them “are identified as stupas”!

For Schopen, it’s quite exciting that he can prove someone else wrong. The problem, though, is that a glance at the “elliptical structures” of the Jivakambavana shows that they are nothing like stupas at all. If he had seen them he would know this.


(Just to be clear, what you are seeing here is a modern reconstruction of the old remains. When excavating, archeologists will uncover the remains, then use the old stones or bricks around to cover the old work so that it doesn’t erode or get destroyed by tourists. I was recently at an ongoing archeological dig in northern Sri Lanka, where they were studying and protecting a nearly 2000 year-old monastic complex in this way.)

And I wanted to circle back to this quote from Wynne in the OP, after the (non-exhaustive) range of evidence provided by subsequent posters:

Ārāma in this kind of context describes a regular residence for monastics, supporting a large, established community with a prominent public presence, on valuable land donated by wealthy supporters, belonging to the private institution of the Sangha, upon which regular formal religious procedures were carried out, and, yes, supporting a range of buildings for residences, gatherings, and the like. In English, we don’t use the word “park” for this, we use the word “monastery”.

The idea that in the 45 years of the Buddha’s life, mendicants lived entirely or primarily in the open air is utterly unrealistic. They would have begun building huts as soon as it started raining. I’ve stayed in “parks”, and they’re great … until the rain falls. Then they’re miserable. Anyone who has lived as a monk would know this. There’s a reason why “dwelling in the open air” is a special and limited ascetic practice.

And for Wynne’s:

Buildings are hardly mentioned in the Suttas, but the Vinaya has more material on it - although this probably only indicates that the Vinaya is generally later than the Suttas.

Yes, the Vinaya is generally later than the Suttas, and represents a somewhat more settled and developed time. But it’s excessive to say this is the “only” reason for the difference.

The Vinaya explicitly deals with the material side of monastic life. In most cases in the Suttas, the kinds of building people lived in don’t really matter. When I’m teaching Dhamma, how often do I mention my dwelling place? I dunno, sometimes? But if I’m writing monastery regulations, I have to get a whole lot more detailed. That’s the point of the Vinaya.

So it’s not “only” lateness, it’s also the purpose of the text.


[*] I read an interview with him years ago where he said this. Maybe he’s been to India since, but he certainly hadn’t when he wrote his influential essays in the 80s.

11 Likes

This may be of interest?

1 Like

Sorry to keep on banging on this point, but I realized I had overlooked something.

True, but also, the Vinaya is highly stratified, and the early portions are easily recognizable.

The main early portion, which is probably as early as the main suttas, is the patimokkha. And there we find several quite detailed rules that regulate monastic buildings. In particular, the sizes and types of building are limited, which indicates that there had already been a tendency to build over-luxurious residences. We also find a concern for the environmental consequences of building, the means of funding them, decision making procedures, as well as safety regulations. All this indicates that by the time of the patimokkha, there was already a long history of monastic residences. This backdates it, in all probability, to the Buddha’s lifetime.

Also, it probably shouldn’t need saying, but the examples that Wynne gives of the Buddha being “homeless” are in fact episodes when he was traveling.

Actually a great book, so long as you remember that Fogelin was influenced by Schopen, so his grasp of Buddhist history is shaky. Unlike Schopen, Fogelin is actually an archeologist, so his archeology is good. But for example, he refers to references to Ashoka in the Pali canon, but of course, there is no such thing.

6 Likes

Cool! And, sorry that I am so behind in responding to notifications, it seems to take me hours each time I come back to this wonderful site, and I never seem to catch up sufficiently!

Ok, interesting!

I’m not sure never going to India would invalidate all of his work. But you do go on to show a very relevant downfall of this regarding the ‘elliptical structure’ - thanks! I do also think that it’s great that he tries to discredit views via archaeology. Even if it would lead to wrong conclusions, hopefully the debate improves the overall understanding. I would love to see a well reasoned response to his ‘Bones, Stone…’ book! Some of the issues he raised seemed quite interesting, including for example the monastics offering large sums of money.

So it would seem at least that his work that I brought into this topic was valid, so far as it was discounting the claim raised about that site with regard to evidence of buildings at the time of the Buddha. So that seems useful at least.

Nice! Yes it looks as if he didn’t even check any photos or diagrams for that one, if indeed there were no other elliptical structures that come close to looking like stupas! (I even thin that any ellipse might be unlikely to be a stupa - I have myself at least never heard of a blatant ellipse shaped stupa!)

Oh thanks, that’s useful info. I will bear that in mind if I go to more sites! I tend to visit people more than archaeological sites, but I have ended up at a few.

Thanks for the explanation. However I suppose that still leaves open the question as to what the nature of the buildings was. In English we might easily assume a ‘monastery’ to be a large building. Whereas what you have written there leaves room for a broad range of possibilities, including a collection of individual huts, with or without walls, possibly with rather temporary leaf roofs. Possibly more akin to some hunter gatherer encampments.

So I’m not really arguing about the word choice, but more that that leaves open the possibility of something quite different from the image of what the word ‘monastery’ may conjure in the mind of an English language reader.

That’s interesting. Especially for the context of another discussion on the recent post I made about meat eating. What is your sense for a rough dating of… let’s say the bulk of the Vinaya?

Fair enough.

Yes, indeed. Although if we go by the earliest evidence, we still must be careful of seeing what the evidence tells us in the absence of our preconceptions, so I still find this topic interesting, and still have the sense that perhaps the buildings were… more rudimentary than we might sometimes assume? And I also wonder what kind of proportion we might have found amongst the Sangha outside of monsoon time, in terms of building-living vs. more open living.

Thanks! I will try to find the time to read that!

Cool. Do we have anywhere any kind of map (visual would be great!) of the Vinayapitaka (and Suttapitaka) showing which parts are the earliest? Also is there any chance of labels on the texts on this website to indicate if they’re from the earliest layer or not (or maybe even a more extensive categorisation into historical layers?) Could be very helpful for research!

Do you mean luxurious monastic residences, or secular ones? If the former, do we have any details from that earliest layer on the details of such buildings?

That’s fascinating! I guess I am particularly interested in any details about walls, if we have any? :slight_smile:

I find his research often lacking in thoroughness, to be honest.

Oh really? I tend not to read later texts but there are many late texts in the Pāli canon, right? I found this from this source: Asoka

Asoka.-King of Magadha. He was the son of Bindusāra. Bindusāra had sixteen wives who bore him 101 sons.

The chief Pāli sources of information regarding Asoka are Dīpavamsa (chaps. i., v., vi., vii., xi., etc.), Mahāvamsa (v., xi., xx., etc.), Samantapāsādikā (pp. 35 ff. ). Other sources are the Divyāvadāna passim, and the Avadānasataka ii.200ff. For an exhaustive discussion of the sources and their contents see Prszlyski, La Legende de l’Empereur Asoka.

Are none of those sources regarded as part of ‘the Pāli’? And, if not, then is his mistake perhaps just in the accepted breadth of the term ‘Pāli Canon’?