Introduction to the Khandhakas, part I

[Brahmali]

Dear Venerables and friends,

So, the draft of another introduction to the Vinaya Piṭaka is ready, this time to volume 4. This essay, found below, introduces the Mahāvagga, which is the collective name for the first ten chapters of the Khandhakas. The previously published introduction to the monks’ rules can be found here, and the one to the nuns’ rules, here.

As I have mentioned on previous occasions, this introduction too needs to be read in conjunction with the general introduction to the Vinaya Piṭaka, which is available here. It gives the basic background that is necessary to properly understand the current essay.

As always, anyone interested is most welcome to comment. All constructive criticism is welcome, including the pointing out of spelling mistakes, unclear formulations, and outright mistakes. And anything else for that matter! Once again, I’d like to thank you in advance for your support and kind suggestions. Thank you!

Updated with corrections and suggestions included on 21 September 2024.

Updated with corrections and suggestions included on 23 September 2024.

Updated with corrections and suggestions included on 1 October 2024.

Introduction to the Khandhakas, “The Chapters”, part I, Kd 1–10

The present volume is the fourth of six, the total of which constitutes a complete translation of the Vinaya Piṭaka, the Monastic Law. This volume consists of the first part of the Khandhakas, also known as the Mahāvagga, “the Great Division”, comprising the first 10 of altogether 22 chapters. The remaining 12 chapters, which will make up volume 5, are collectively known as the Cullavagga, “the Small Division”. In the present introduction, I will survey the contents of volume 4 and make observations of points of particular interest. For a general introduction to the Monastic Law, see volume 1.

The word khandhaka is derived from the word khandha, “an aggregate” or “a collection”, which is a core doctrinal term familiar from the Suttas, as in the phrase “the five aggregates”. Khandhaka is thus “a collection”. To refer to these collections as a group, I either use the Pali term Khandhakas or I render it into English as “the Chapters”. Other schools of Buddhism sometimes use the terms vastu or pakiṇṇaka, “subject matter”/“account” or “miscellaneous matters”, instead of khandhaka.^[1]

The splitting of the Khandhakas into two divisions, the Mahāvagga and the Cullavagga, is peculiar to the Pali tradition and encountered mostly in the subcommentaries. It is not part of the common Buddhist heritage. As with the Sutta-vibhaṅga, this split is probably an artifact of the manuscript tradition, which needed to divide the text into chunks suitable for binding.

While the Sutta-vibhaṅga, contained in the first three volumes of this series, is divided into one part for monks and another for nuns, the Khandhakas are the same for both Sanghas, except for certain areas where the nuns have their own rules, especially as reflected in the Bhikkhunī-kkhandhaka.^[2] We will take a closer look at the Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka, Kd 20, in the introduction to the Cullavagga.

Before we discuss some general features of the Khandhakas, here is a brief overview of their main contents. Whereas the Sutta-vibhaṅga concerns the Pātimokkha rules and their analysis, at the core of the Khandhakas are the regulations that govern Sangha meetings and decision making. And while the Sutta-vibhaṅga is quite homogenous, with a regular and predictable structure, the Khandhakas are more diverse. Apart from the regulations that govern Sangha meetings, the Khandhakas include a large number of stories, many of them featuring some of the best-loved personalities of early Buddhism, and a great number of minor rules dealing with everything from building regulations to personal grooming. Another significant part of the Khandhakas is the extended Buddha biography and the related accounts of the first two communal recitations, often known as Councils. I shall return to this latter point shortly.

The ten chapters of the Mahāvagga are as follows:

1. The Great Chapter, Mahā-khandhaka, (Kd 1)
2. The Chapter on the Observance Day, Uposatha-kkhandhaka, (Kd 2)
3. The Chapter on Entering the Rainy-season Residence, Vassūpanāyika-kkhandhaka, (Kd 3)
4. The Chapter on the Invitation Ceremony, Pavāraṇā-kkhandhaka, (Kd 4)
5. The Chapter on Skins, Camma-kkhandhaka, (Kd 5)
6. The Chapter on Medicines, Bhesajja-kkhandhaka, (Kd 6)
7. The Chapter on the Robe-making Ceremony, Kathina-kkhandhaka, (Kd 7)
8. The Chapter on Robes, Cīvarakkhandhaka, (Kd 8)
9. The Chapter Connected with Campā, Campeyya-kkhandhaka, (Kd 9)
10. The Chapter Connected with Kosambī, Kosambaka-kkhandhaka, (Kd 10).

The Origin of the Khandhakas

The Khandhakas did not exist as a separate part of the Vinaya Piṭaka from the earliest period. I have argued in the introduction to volume 1 that initially there was only a Pātimokkha, whereas the Vinaya Piṭaka as a class of literature only arose later. This is evident from the fact that the Pātimokkha is mentioned with relative frequency in the Suttas, while the Khandhakas are not mentioned at all.^[3] Even the word vinaya seems, in the Suttas, mostly to refer to training in a general sense, not to a separate collection of scriptures, a piṭaka.

This suggestion is reinforced by the story of the first saṅgīti, “the first communal recitation”.^[4] According to the account at Kd 21, Mahākassapa, who presides over it, first asks Upāli about the Vinaya and then Ānanda about the Suttas. After asking Upāli about the four pārājika offences for monks, the rest of the recitation is abbreviated with the following phrase: “In this way he asked about the analyses of both Monastic Codes.”^[5] There is no mention of the Khandhakas.

Despite this absence of the Khandhakas as a collection, some of its content must have existed from the earliest period of Buddhism. The Pātimokkha rules themselves imply further rules and regulations. These include confession formulas for the pācittiya offenses, details about the process of emerging form saṅghādisesa offenses, false accusations (Bu Ss 8 and 9), dealing with monastics holding wrong views (Bu Pc 68–70), and resolving disagreements about the Dhamma. Beyond this are such important and fundamental rituals as the ordination ceremony and the observance day, the uposatha, which are mentioned throughout the Sutta Piṭaka. Much of this must have come into existence soon after the Buddha founded the monastic community. But if this is so, where were these laid down? Among which scriptures were these procedures that form the backbone of a functioning Sangha kept? I believe the answer, for the most part, is the Pātimokkha itself.

We have seen in the introduction to volume 2 that the Pātimokkha, both of the bhikkhus and the bhikkhunīs, includes a section of seven rules called the adhikaraṇasamathadhammas, “the principles for settling legal issues”. I pointed out that these seven principles were used by the community as a whole in resolving problems and dealing with business, rather than being rules to be followed by individual members of the Sangha. What is especially striking about them is that they are presented without any analysis or explanation. This is in contrast to all the other rules included in the Pātimokkha. In fact, the way they are now listed in the Pātimokkha, it is impossible to know what they refer to or how they should be applied. An analysis, a vibhaṅga, must have existed at some point. My proposal is that this missing analysis was removed from the Pātimokkha, either to be included in the Khandhakas or to form the kernel around which the Khandhakas grew.^[6]

If the core of the Khandhakas as we have them now originated as a vibhaṅga to the seven principles for settling legal issues, what might this original analysis have looked like? Fortunately, we have a Sutta, MN 104, that gives a brief description of the seven principles. It seems reasonable to assume that an early vibhaṅga would have looked much like this, with either the Sutta being a precursor to the vibhaṅga or the two being roughly contemporaneous. If so, what does this tell us?

The description at MN 104 focuses largely on how to deal with offenses, with five of the seven being concerned with this.^[7] They are thus closely tied to the Pātimokkha rules, and it makes sense that they would be found as an addition to them. The remaining two, however, concern disputes about the Dhamma and how these should be resolved harmoniously.^[8] It is not immediately obvious why these would be part of the Pātimokkha.

It is these latter two rules above all, in my opinion, that show that the Pātimokkha is more than a set of rules binding on individuals. We are now moving into the sphere of regulating the Sangha as a functioning community. Dealing with disagreements about the Dhamma is an obvious example of this.

As I have mentioned above, however, there is more. Other important functions of the Sangha include ordination and the observance-day ceremony. Where were the blueprints for these and other rituals kept? One possibility is that they were part of the first of the seven principles, “resolution face-to-face”. This principle is essentially about the Sangha coming together and doing whatever business is on the agenda. In other words, the most basic meaning of “face-to-face” is being in the presence of the Sangha.^[9] And so, the process for carrying out these important functions may have been set out under this principle.^[10] If so, then the Pātimokkha is beginning to look like much more than a simple set of rules.

Given such a development, it is easy to see how the first of the seven principles would have become bulky and unwieldy from early on.^[11] An ordination ceremony would have been required soon after the Sangha was formed, as can be seen from the exposition at Kd 1. Over time this ceremony developed into a long procedure. The same is true of other legal procedures, saṅghakamma, that are adumbrated in the Pātimokkha rules, such as the procedures related to the emergence from saṅghādisesa offenses. The observance-day ceremony required rules for its implementation, as did the invitation ceremony, the pavāraṇā, and much more. As all this was added to the Pātimokkha, specifically to the first of the seven principles, it would not be long before this section became overloaded and disjointed because of its varied content. It would then be natural to create a separate section for all the new and evolving Vinaya material. It is in this way that I envisage the creation of the Khandhakas.

What about the structure of the Khandhakas? It was no doubt natural to divide the diverse content into fairly homogenous topics. Moreover, as new material was added, it would either be an expansion of an existing topic, in which case it would go into the relevant section, usually at the end of it, or it would be added as a new chapter at the end of the Khandhakas. In this way, the material would have a rough chronological sequence.

If we consider the Khandhakas as we have them now, this is essentially what we find. They start with a chapter on ordination, which would have been required from the very beginning. Without ordination, there is no Sangha to which the rules in the Khandhakas can apply. Once there was a Sangha, there would be a need for occasional meetings and also a connection with the lay supporters. Such meetings were to be held on the observance day, the uposatha, an ancient Indian institution.^[12] These meetings were the seed from which the second Khandhaka developed. Then there was the need to remain in one place during the rainy season, a practice already undertaken by ascetics of other religions. There would have been pressure from society on the evolving Buddhist Sangha to follow such precedents. The rainy-season residence is the topic of the third Khandhaka. This is followed by a Khandhaka on the invitation ceremony, the pavāraṇā, which was to be performed at the end of the rainy season. The invitation ceremony fulfils the important function of opening oneself up for correction by one’s fellow monastics.

We could carry on this exercise for all the 22 Khandhakas. For some of them, it is not obvious that they have a particular temporal position, yet the idea of a chronological sequence does seem to form the overarching principle on which they were laid down. The last of the 22 concerns the second communal recitation, an event that is also historically the last.

The content of the individual Khandhakas suggests a similar temporal development. They often start with the laying down of a fundamental principle, followed by the most basic rules and regulations that relate to it. Then we have one or more stories, sometimes none, which usually serve as the background for further rules. The Chapters often end with a rather theoretical series of permutations, often of limited practical significance. We will consider each Khandhaka in more detail, including their temporal position in the series, as we discuss them individually below.

To complete the picture of the origin of the Khandhakas, there is one more issue that needs to be considered. As you start to read the Khandhakas, it is striking that they do not start with the laying down of rules, but with an extended biography of the Buddha’s post-awakening experiences. At the conclusion of the Khandhakas, in Kd 21 and 22, we find material of a similar sort, namely, aspects of the history of the Sangha after the Buddha had passed away. How can we explain the inclusion of this material?

We know that Buddha biographies started to appear in earnest after the Buddha passed away. All the schools of Buddhism whose scriptures we still possess had them.^[13] In the Pali tradition, the most developed and well-known of these stories is found in the introduction to the Jātaka stories, the so-called Jātaka-nidāna. As these stories started to form, the question would have arisen where to keep them. Being narratives created by an unknown person or community, they do not fit with the Suttas, which are generally the words of the Buddha. In fact, the biographical narrative in Kd 1 is not too different from the short narratives that introduce each Sutta, that is, narratives that give basic information about where the Buddha was staying and who he was speaking to. It might have been natural, then, to use the new biography in the same way. This is how I suppose it became the introduction to the entire Khandhaka literature.

There is another important reason this framing makes good sense. The early biography of the Buddha would have coincided with the early development of the Sangha. As the Buddha started teaching and getting a monastic following, rules and regulations for the Sangha would gradually be required. Throughout his life, the Buddha laid down such rules and regulations, which makes the Buddha biography a natural container for the entire Vinaya Piṭaka.

At an early point in the creation of the Khandhakas, it seems plausible that the Buddha’s biography would have formed a continuous narrative into which all the rules and regulations of the Sangha found their natural place. As the material expanded, however, this natural structure broke down. Still, even now we see glimpses of the Buddha’s life throughout the Khandhakas. Eventually the Buddha dies. The last two Khandhakas are therefore concerned with the preservation of the Vinaya in the period after his demise.

Yet there is a curious gap in this biography, especially as we have it in the Pali tradition. The important events surrounding the Buddha’s death, and the time leading up to it, are not mentioned. This is in spite of the fact that these events contain important guidelines for how the Vinaya should be regarded and practiced after the Buddha is gone.

It has been pointed out by the likes of Frauwallner that the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta (DN 16) fits quite naturally in with the biographical and historical material of the Khandhakas. A curious detail about Kd 21, which begins immediately after the death of the Buddha, is that it starts quite abruptly: “Then Venerable Mahākassapa addressed the monks …”, followed by Mahākassapa telling of the events that are narrated toward the end of DN 16. Nowhere else in the Suttas or Vinaya does a separate section or sutta begin with the words atha kho, “then”. The Pali atha kho functions in a similar way to “then” in English, in that it connects the narrative to some previous event. It is unnatural to start a new section in this way without any relation to a preceding narrative. The sense one gets is that this originally was part of DN 16, or vice versa, forming an extended narrative. In fact, this is exactly what we find in the Vinayas of the Mūlasarvāstivādins and the Mahāsaṅghikas.^[14]

DN 16 is, in fact, quite an anomalous Sutta. The Suttas are almost universally presented as the word of the Buddha with a short narrative framework. DN 16, by contrast, is essentially the opposite, that is, a narrative incorporating the word of the Buddha at various points, sometimes very briefly. Also, it is much longer than any other sutta in the four main Nikāyas, being almost twice the length of the next longest sutta.^[15] Finally, DN 16 includes material that was composed after the Buddha’s passing, making it approximately contemporaneous with Kd 21. These considerations, combined with its close affiliation with Kd 21, suggests it was originally not part of the Suttas, but existed separately as an evolving biography of the Buddha. In some schools of early Buddhism this biography was broken up, with parts of it becoming DN 16 or its equivalent, whereas the remainder became the framework for the Khandhakas.^[16] For other schools the story was kept entirely within the Khandhakas.

In sum, it seems the Khandhakas were created in the period soon after the Buddha’s passing away, incorporating various elements from an evolving tradition. These elements included the Vibhaṅga material from the seven principles for settling legal issues, the various Sangha procedures and ceremonies that had been established either as separate documents or as part the seven principles, and finally the evolving Buddha biography. This core would then have evolved as new material was added, culminating with the story of the second saṅgīti one hundred years after the Buddha’s death.

This brings us to the interesting question of when the Khandhakas, and also the Sutta-vibhaṅga, were closed to new material. One of the issues we have not explained satisfactorily is the considerable sectarian differences between the Vinayas of the various schools. The emergence of separate schools only started around the time of Ashoka, maybe 150–200 years after the Buddha. It would seem, then, that we need to assume that changes were made to the Vinaya as long as 200–300 years after the Buddha.

Perhaps, but not necessarily so. The Sangha was spreading out over significant parts of India already during the lifetime of the Buddha. By the time of the second saṅgīti, the Sangha had spread over a large geographical area. We know this from the geographical information given in Kd 22 and elsewhere.^[17] It would have been a difficult or even impossible task to efficiently disseminate new rules and regulations over such a large area. At the same time, it is likely that the Sangha was already splitting into groups. We see in Kd 22 that some monks were apparently following the Vinaya regulations closely, whereas others less so. We can surmise that differences in the interpretation of the Suttas would have created similar divisions. There were no doubt groups forming around charismatic teachers, an early example of which might be the monk Purāṇa of Kd 21 who refused to accept the authority of the Suttas and Vinaya as recited at the first saṅgīti. Finally, we have the brute fact of physical distances which would have further complicated the spreading of new material.

Given this state of affairs, it seems likely to me that proto-schools started to form long before Ashoka and probably soon after the Buddha’s passing. With the arising of different group identities, it would no longer be natural to uncritically receive updates to the Vinaya, or indeed to the Suttas, from a group with another identity. If a rule was regarded as coming from the Buddha, everyone would presumably embrace it, but not so if its origin lay elsewhere. The literature would have started to diverge. When independent schools arose properly in the post-Ashokan period, some would have inherited one version of this Vinaya, whereas others would have inherited other versions. It is in this way, I propose, that the differences we now observe between the different schools started to take shape soon after the Buddha had passed away. It is conceivable, yet by no means certain, that the various Vinayas as we have them today, including the Khandhakas, were in large part fixed by the time of the second saṅgīti.

The Mnemonic Verses of the Khandhakas

We have seen that the Khandhakas probably developed over a relatively long period of time, with the core of it being laid down by the Buddha and the final version coming into existence at the earliest at the second saṅgīti. The mnemonic verses at the end of each chapter point to a similar conclusion. Let us take a closer look at their content.

In the Sutta-vibhaṅga and the four main Nikāyas, the mnemonic verses at the end of chapters, called uddānas, serve merely as aids to memorization, giving a series of key words that relate to the content of the preceding material. With the Khandhakas, however, the uddānas take on a new function. Apart from being aids to memory, they here incorporate verses that extol the Buddha and the Vinaya, and even speak of the process of composing the Khandhakas.

The uddāna to Kd 1 starts with a series of seven verses in praise of the Vinaya. Especially notable is the inclusion here of the Parivāra, a text that is clearly sectarian and peculiar to the Pali tradition. The Abhidhamma, which is also sectarian, is mentioned too. Then there is the claim that Buddhism, the sāsana, remains as long as the Vinaya persists, even if the Suttas and the Abhidhamma are forgotten. These opening verses set the scene for the expounding of the mnemonic verses, whose purpose it is to preserve the Vinaya. It is also noteworthy that the text speaks of the Chapters and the Monastic Law, apparently viewing them as separate entities. It seems possible that the Khandhakas remained as a separate class of literature for long time before eventually being incorporated into the Vinaya Piṭaka.

The verses referred to above must have been added a long time after the second saṅgīti, and probably after the Canon had arrived in Sri Lanka. The idea that the Vinaya is what matters for the persistence of Buddhism echoes a similar saying in the Vinaya commentary, the Samantapāsādikā, that “the Vinaya is called the life of the Buddha’s dispensation; while the Vinaya persists, so does Buddhism.”^[18] This is pretty much the opposite of what we would expect. At MN 104 we see the Buddha not being concerned about a dispute about the Vinaya, whereas he considers a dispute about the Dhamma as potentially very destructive.^[19] The sentiment expressed in the uddāna aligns better with the commentaries than the Suttas, again suggesting a late composition.

We find similar issues in the summary verses of other Khandhakas. At Kd 15 it is said that “A well-trained expert in the Monastic Law … is a learned one worthy of homage.” At Kd 18, which is concerned with etiquette, we find the following: “If you do not fulfill the proper conduct … you are not released from suffering.” Whereas morality, sīla, is normally said to be the foundation of the path, this is here replaced by etiquette. Both of these examples show a similar bias toward the Vinaya as what we see in the commentaries, as referenced above.

The most obvious case of the uddānas being late, however, is found in Kd 13. Here we find the following verse:

“The teachers of analytical statements,
Who are the inspiration of Sri Lanka,
The residents of the Mahāvihāra Monastery—
These were their words for the longevity of the true Teachings.”^[20]

Here there is no doubt that we are deeply into the sectarian period. Not only were the summary verses composed in Sri Lanka, but so, apparently, was much of Kd 13.^[21]

Another point worthy of consideration is that the uddānas themselves seem to suggest a process of gradual accretion, with no definitive cut-off point. The summary verses at Kd 1 say that “It’s hard to complete without remainder—you should know it from the method.” And at Kd 3 we find that “Because of the gaps in the summary of topics, one should attend carefully to the way of the passages of the Canonical text.” It is not quite clear why this is stated, but a reasonable suggestion is that material was accumulating even as the verses were composed. It follows that the verses themselves soon became outdated and inadequate.

As it happens there are plenty of such “gaps” where the summary verses do not capture certain passages in the main text. Sometimes the summary verses are very detailed and capture every minor rule or regulation, as at the beginning of Kd 15 where every single rule is listed in the uddāna. At other times, as we shall see, whole passages are omitted.

I have not done a systematic survey of these omissions, but I have noted a few obvious examples. In Kd 1, section 3 on the story of Mucalinda is missing in the uddāna, whereas the other stories are mentioned. The long sections on the duties to preceptors, students, teachers, and pupils at Kd 1:25.8.1–26.11.11 and Kd 1:32.3.1–33.1.109 are not in the uddāna. Kd 1 has several Aṅguttara style lists that are not mentioned in the summary verses.^[22] Here is a more or less random list of a few more missing passages:

• Kd 2:
  • Section 32, 36, and 37 are not in the uddāna.
  • Except for the last three cases, the rest of section 38 is missing in the uddāna.
• Kd 3:
  • Uddāna says eight on schism, but the main text has 10.
  • The two subsections on “observance-day within monastery” at Kd 3:14.8.1–14.10.6 and Kd 3:14.11.31.1–14.11.49 are missing in the uddāna.
• Kd 4:
  • Although section 9 consists of 15 elements, it is only mentioned with three words in the uddāna, “greater, and equal, smaller”, which contrasts with the parallel section in Kd 2 where 12 out of 15 elements are mentioned.
  • Sections 10–13 are not in the uddāna.
  • In the uddāna, chandadāne occurs after section 20, whereas in the main text it occurs much earlier at the end of section 3 where it fits naturally.^[23]
• Kd 8:
  • Neither the appointment of “the receiver of robes” nor “the keeper of robe-cloth” is found in the uddāna.
• Kd 9:
  • In regard to section 5, the uddāna has 18 kinds of people, whereas the main text has 24. Of these, only 15 are in common.^[24]
• Kd 10:
  • The entire story of Dīghāvu is missing in the uddāna.
• Kd 13:
  • Sections 5 and 6 are not mentioned in the uddāna.

It seems likely that these passages are missing because they were added after the uddānas were considered complete. It may have been difficult, for reasons of style and meter, to alter the uddānas with every addition of a new passage to the main text. It may also be that the use of uddānas slowly went out of fashion as the texts were written down. Regardless, this supports our contention that the Khandhakas were added to for a long time into the sectarian period, even after they had arrived in Sri Lanka.

A final point from the uddānas is the interesting fact that there is none for Kd 14. It is tempting to conclude from this that this Khandhaka is particularly late. It happens to be the case, however, that Kd 14 has parallels in all other schools for which we have an extant Vinaya. This suggests that Kd 14 is not particularly late, especially since Kd 13, which we have shown as being late, does have summary verses. The absence of verses in Kd 14 requires a different explanation, a matter we shall return to when we discuss this chapter in the introduction to the Cullavagga.

In sum, the mnemonic verses suggest that the Khandhakas were finalized in the sectarian period proper. This does not mean that most of their content comes from this period. Rather, I think there are good grounds for believing, based on the overall correspondence between the early schools,^[25] that the main content of the Khandhakas was fixed already at the Second Saṅgīti.

Now let us look at the content of each of the first ten Khandhakas in turn.

The Great Chapter, Mahā-khandhaka, Kd 1

The Mahā-khandhaka, Kd 1, is the longest chapter of the Khandhakas. It is chiefly concerned with the ordination of monks. In other schools of Buddhism, it is called “the Account of Going Forth”, Pravrajyā-vastu, or its equivalent in Chinese and Tibetan.^[26] This chapter presumably comes first in the collection because ordination is the most basic of all Buddhist ceremonies in the sense that the Sangha could not exist without it.

Kd 1 begins with the biography of the Buddha, starting immediately after his awakening. After reflecting on his discovery, Kd 1 shows the Buddha meeting various beings, among them the two merchants Tapussa and Bhallika who become his first lay followers. The text turns to the famous request by Brahma Sahampati to teach the Dhamma and the Buddha’s response that “the doors to freedom from death are open”. We then have the same narrative sequence as found in MN 26, “the Noble Search”, followed by the full version of the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta,^[27] at the end of which Koṇḍañña becomes a stream-enterer. Then comes the ordination of the group of five monks through the earliest ordination procedure, the so-called “come, monk” formula, followed by the Anattalakkhaṇa Sutta,^[28] at the end of which all five monks achieve perfection, arahantship. We see that the narrative in Kd 1 is more complete and continuous than anything we find in the Suttas. We are dealing with a new sort of Buddha biography, which fills in gaps and adds details not found anywhere else.

The narrative continues with the story of the young man Yasa, whose going forth is partly modelled on that of the Buddha-to-be, but adding a number of supernormal events. Such additions deviate from the down-to-earth accounts found in the Suttas,^[29] and are akin to later Buddha biographies,^[30] which take this tendency even further. Examples from the current narrative include gates being opened by spirits and the Buddha making Yasa invisible to his own father. There is a sense that history is turning into myth.

The Sangha gradually grows until we reach a well-known passage where the Buddha tells his monks to go wandering to spread his teaching. This has sometimes been taken to mean that Buddhism is a missionary religion. Of course, the Buddha knew he had an important message for the world, a message that would benefit humanity. Yet proselytizing does not have the central role in the Dhamma that it has in other religions, such a Christianity. One reason for this is that Buddhism is not about conversion as such, but about sustained practice, which means that understanding the teaching and following up with study and reflection are fundamental to making it work. Buddhism is more about making the teaching available to anyone interested than it is about actively seeking converts. This is reflected in the way the Buddha teaches. People generally approach him to hear what he has to say, not the other way around.

A natural consequence of the monks spreading out over a larger geographical area was a dispersed demand for ordination. It became impractical for the Buddha to ordain all aspirants. The Buddha then lays down a new ordination formula, by way of taking the three refuges, and allows the monks to perform ordinations.

Although the threefold formula of going for refuge at some point becomes the standard way of declaring yourself a lay follower of the Buddha, it is found only rarely in the Tipiṭaka, and is entirely missing from the four main Nikāyas.^[31] It is possible, then, that since this formula was initially an ordination ceremony for monks, it was considered unsuitable for lay people. Only when the ordination ceremony evolved further, did the triple refuge become freed up for use by lay people. As it happens, we see that it becomes much more common in later Pali literature, especially the commentaries. In the Suttas and Vinaya the lay people use a related but simpler formula: “I go for refuge to the bhagavā (or “Sir Gotama”), and the Teaching, and the community of monks.”^[32]

Next, we find several conversion accounts, the longest of which tells the story of how the Buddha persuaded one thousand fire worshippers to become his followers. Again, we see the tendency of mythologizing the life of the Buddha. These stories are full of wonders, psychic powers, and improbable events, setting them apart from the more grounded autobiographical material of the four main Nikāyas.^[33] The story ends with the Buddha giving the well-known Fire Discourse, at the end of which all the one thousand ascetics reached full awakening.^[34]

Another of these conversion accounts concerns King Bimbisāra of Magadha, the kingdom that was the precursor to King Ashoka’s empire a couple of centuries later. According to the Pabbajjā Sutta of the Sutta Nipāta at Snp 3.1, Bimbisāra had met the Buddha before his awakening, which may explain the king’s eagerness to see him again. The Buddha gives the king a teaching, upon which he becomes a streamenterer together with 110,000 brahmin householders. The mythologizing tendency is once again on display.

Moreover, despite the prominence of King Bimbisāra in the consciousness of many Buddhists, he is a marginal figure in the four main Nikāyas, only mentioned in five separate Suttas, and he is never personally present in the narrated events. At DN 4:5.17 and DN 5:6.17 he is talked about in the third person as someone who respects certain brahmins, as a consequence of which he has granted them land. At DN 18:4.12 he has already passed away. At MN 14:20.2 and MN 86:9.4 he is again spoken of in the third person. Already in the Suttas Bimbisāra has a certain mythical quality to him. He becomes the legendary ideal king against whom other kings, especially his own son Ajātasattu, are measured. I believe there are good grounds to doubt whether the story of his meeting with the Buddha is authentic.

However this may be, the story continues with Bimbisāra giving his Bamboo Grove park, situated just outside of Rājagaha, to the Sangha. As part of the dedication, he pours water from a golden ceremonial vessel, a bhiṅkāra.^[35] This was presumably an ancient Indian custom,^[36] which you will see performed to the present day in Buddhist monasteries around the world. A remarkably large part of present-day Buddhist culture has its source in the Suttas and the Vinaya Piṭaka.

The account of King Bimbisāra is followed by a final and most consequential conversion story, namely that of Sāriputta and Moggallāna. One morning Sāriputta observes Assaji, one of the first five monks, walking for alms. He is inspired by his demeanor and asks him who his teacher is. Assaji replies that it is the Buddha and then gives Sāriputta the following brief teaching:

“Of causally arisen things,
the Buddha has declared their cause,
as well as their ending.
This is the teaching of the Great Ascetic.”^[37]

Sāriputta immediately becomes a stream-enterer, as does his friend Moggallāna when he is told soon afterwards. They go to the Buddha who gives them the full ordination, declaring that they will become his chief disciples. This concludes most of the biographical narrative of this chapter.

Kd 1 continues with a detailed discussion of the proper relationship between teachers and students.^[38] To ensure that newly ordained monks get proper training, the Buddha lays down the role of the preceptor, the upajjhāya, at Kd 1:25.6.2. The preceptor is named during the ordination ceremony (Kd 1:76.7.17). The newly ordained monk must then live supported by his preceptor or another teacher for five years.^[39] It is a relationship where compassion should be the focus, not severity of discipline. According to Kd 1:25.6.3, the teacher should look upon his students as his sons, and a student upon his teacher as his father. Many of the details of proper conduct given in this section are still normative for how good monastics behave in the present day.

The relationship between teacher and student is surprisingly two-sided. As one would expect, the preceptor should guide the student if the student loses his way. But the reverse is also true. According to Kd 1:25.10.3, if the preceptor speaks in a way that borders on an offense, the student should stop him. According to Kd 1:25.20.1–25.22.4, if the preceptor becomes discontent with the spiritual life, becomes anxious,^[40] has wrong view, or has committed a serious offense, the student should help him out of his predicament. Ideally the preceptor should be an inspiring role model for his students. Reality, unfortunately, does not always measure up to such ideals.

The discussion on teachers and students continues with the issue of wrong conduct, especially on the part of the student. The student should ask for forgiveness and the teacher should grant it, not doing either of which is an offense of wrong conduct (Kd 1:27.3.1–27.4.8). Kd 1:27.6.4 then lists five qualities a good student should have in regard to his teacher: affection, confidence, conscience, and respect, and his mind should develop under the guidance of their teacher.

Among the large number of origin stories for the various rules, Kd 1 tells the touching account of a brahmin who wishes to ordain, but who is rejected by the Sangha. The Buddha then asks if anyone can remember any good actions of that brahmin, in response to which Sāriputta says that he recalls him giving a ladleful of food. The Buddha tells Sāriputta to ordain him. When Sāriputta asks the Buddha how, the Buddha lays down a new ordination procedure, which constitutes the core of the one we still use in the present day. It is performed by the Sangha through a legal procedure of one motion and three announcements, a so-called saṅghakamma. I will look at saṅghakamma in more detail when I discuss Kd 9 below.

Many more rules concerned with ordination are laid down in the remainder of Kd 1. Many of these have the effect of expanding the ordination ceremony further,^[41] until the final form is laid down towards the end of the chapter at Kd 1:76.5.6–76.12.15. Other rules bar certain individuals from ordination (Kd 1:39.1.1–49.5.7 and Kd 1:61.1.1–71.1.1), most significantly those who are under the age of twenty, which is also a separate rule in the Pātimokkha at Bu Pc 65:1.53.1. There is a section at Kd 1:36.2.1–37.14.1 that lists the qualities required of one who wishes to give ordinations. Then there are rules for the ordination of novice monks at Kd 1:50.1.1–52.1.1 and Kd 1:54.1.1–60.1.1, and a discussion on the ordination of monastics of other religions at Kd 1:38.1.1–38.11.7. The latter need to be on probation for four months to show that their true faith lies with the Buddha. We see this requirement mentioned quite regularly in the Suttas.

At Kd 1:35.1.1–36.1.6, Kd 1:53.4.2.1–53.13.4, and Kd 1:72.1.1–73.4.1, we find rules on nissaya, often rendered as “dependence”, but here given as “formal support”. Nissaya concerns the relationship between teacher and student. The basic idea is that a newly ordained monk should stay with his teacher for a minimum of five years or until he is sufficiently knowledgeable to live independently, whichever is the longest. There are many more rules, mostly minor, that I will not discuss here.

The Chapter on the Observance Day, Uposatha-kkhandhaka, Kd 2

The chapter on the observance day, the uposatha, is a natural continuation of the chapter on ordination. Once the Sangha had come into existence, it would have required certain basic functions to make it a cohesive entity. The most fundamental of these functions is the half-monthly observance day when the Sangha meets to give Dhamma talks and recite the Pātimokkha.

The origin story to this chapter points to the uposatha being an ancient religious observance that goes back to the time before the Buddha. It was held on the full moon, the new moon, and the quarter moons. The monastics of the various religions would gather and give teachings, thus creating a following among householders.

The Buddha often adopted the customs of contemporary society. As we shall see in the next chapter, he accepted the practice of staying put during the rainy season. He took on practices such as putting one’s palms together as a sign of respect, known as añjali, and bowing. He had his monks wear robes that were hardly distinguishable from the robes of other monastics.^[42] Most important of all, he often adopted the religious vocabulary of the time, keeping much of the existing meaning while often adding a slant of his own.^[43] The Buddha was a pragmatist. Although the essence of his message was revolutionary, he only broke with convention when necessary.

When the Buddha lays down at Kd 2:3.2.4 that the Pātimokkha should be recited on the uposatha, he gives a preamble, a nidāna, to the recitation of the rules. At Kd 2:3.4.1–3.8.7 this is followed by a word commentary, the only such word commentary in the Khandhakas. Neither the nidāna nor the word commentary is found in the Sutta-vibhaṅga, where it would seem to belong, but the nidāna is part of the Pātimokkha as preserved in commentaries.^[44] It seems likely to me that the nidāna together with its commentary originally found its home in the Sutta-vibhaṅga, but was moved to the Khandhakas once these had been created. We see the same process at play that we have discussed above with reference to the seven principles for settling legal issues.

An important issue that comes up at Kd 2:6.1.1–7.2.6 is the concept of monastic zones, sīmās. Once the uposatha ceremony has been laid down, the Sangha needs to know who should attend. As the monks gradually disperse over a large area, it becomes impossible to assemble them all for the twice-monthly recitation of the Pātimokkha. The Buddha then lays down the creation of monastic zones, areas within which all the monks must come together to perform the observance-day ceremony or carry out other official Sangha business. The number of rules concerned with monastic zones in the Vinaya Piṭaka is relatively small, but in later Pali literature this becomes a major issue, with entire tracts dedicated to the analysis of a variety of mostly marginal circumstances.^[45]

At Kd 2:8.1.1–8.4.11, we see that it soon became necessary to build observance-day halls. It seems reasonable to infer that monasteries would have developed around such core infrastructure. In later Khandhakas, especially Kd 16, we will see how a variety of buildings are allowed by the Buddha, presumably leading to quite extensive monastic institutions. While the early ideal of the independent monastic no doubt still existed, a significant portion of the monastic community would largely have settled within highly developed monasteries. This is really to be expected. As Buddhism attracted an ever-greater number of monastics, only a decreasing proportion would have been able to cope with the solitude and simplicity of a more independent lifestyle.

Most of the remainder of Kd 2 concerns details of the uposatha ceremony. As part of this, at Kd 2:16.4.1–16.5.9 there is a brief discussion of saṅghakamma, the legal procedures of the Sangha. According to the Parivāra, the uposatha ceremony is a kind of saṅghakamma.^[46] In the rest of the Vinaya, however, it seems to be regarded as separate from saṅghakamma. At Bu Ss 8, Bu Ss 9, Bu Pc 69, Kd 2, Kd 10, and Kd 17, we find saṅghakamma and uposatha, and often pavāraṇā (“invitation”) as well, listed as separate items, indicating that they were not regarded as equivalent. I conclude from this that, in the earliest period, neither the uposatha ceremony nor the pavāraṇā ceremony were regarded as saṅghakamma proper. This is an interesting point which I will return to when I discuss saṅghakamma in greater detail in relation to Kd 9 below.

Nevertheless, it is clear from the exposition at Kd 2:23.1.1–24.3.14 and Kd 2:28.1.1–34.13.5 that many of the rules that govern saṅghakamma are binding on the uposatha ceremony, including the requirement that the assembly be complete. Because these rules are the same for the two circumstances, and because the uposatha ceremony is described in greater detail than the exposition of any specific saṅghakamma, it seems reasonable to take the rules for the uposatha ceremony as normative for saṅghakamma. This matters, as I will now show.

The validity of ordinations is a perennial issue, often discussed in monastic circles. In brief, the question is how we can know the validity of all ordinations going all the way back to the time of the Buddha. The straightforward answer is that this is impossible. There are many ways in which a saṅghakamma fails, any of which would invalidate an ordination.^[47] Given the history of the Sangha and its periodic corruption, one could then reasonably doubt whether the current crop of bhikkhus are real monastics.

It is in this context that a particular passage at Kd 2:28.7.15–28.7.21 is interesting. It reads as follows:

“On the observance day, four or more resident monks may have gathered together in a certain monastery. They don’t know there are other resident monks who haven’t arrived. Perceiving that they’re acting according to the Teaching and the Monastic Law, perceiving that the assembly is complete although it’s not, they do the observance-day ceremony and recite the Monastic Code. When they’ve just finished, and the entire gathering has left, a smaller number of resident monks arrive. In such a case, what has been recited is valid, and the late arrivals should announce their purity in the presence of the others. There’s no offense for the reciters.”

Here the uposatha ceremony has been performed with an incomplete assembly. Had they known that the assembly was incomplete, the ceremony would have been invalid and the monks would have committed an offense, as the subsequent section makes clear. But because they perceive the assembly as complete, the ceremony is valid and there is no offense for monks taking part. The important point here is that it is their perception that matters. That is, if they perceive the assembly as complete, then for all practical purposes it is complete.

This is different from how saṅghakamma is generally understood. Most monastics will assume that an ordination is invalid if any monk happens to pass through the monastic zone while the ordination is being performed.^[48] This passage proves the opposite. Yet one of the drivers of the tradition of creating small monastic zones known as khaṇḍa-sīmās, often within the walls of a building, is precisely to avoid anyone entering the zone while a saṅghakamma is carried out. But given this passage in Kd 2, this seems unnecessary. Worse, the whole tradition of small monastic zones voids the purpose of such zones, which is to ensure that the whole monastic community is present when important decisions are made. With a proper monastic zone that extends over an entire monastery, all the residents must be present for the decision to be valid. With a small monastic zone, any group of four monks can make whatever decision they wish without any need for consultation. The democratic system of saṅghakamma effectively breaks down.

If, however, as suggested in Kd 2, perception is a factor in determining the validity of saṅghakamma, there are two important benefits. First, so long as you are not aware of any specific ordinations in the past that was invalid, you can conclude that bhikkhus today are monks in the true sense of the word. Second, there is no longer any good reason to create small monastic zones. In fact, to ensure that monastic zones fulfil their original purpose, it would make sense to return to the ancient practice of creating monastic zones that cover meaningful areas, such as complete monasteries.

The Chapter on Entering the Rainy-season Residence, Vassūpanāyika-kkhandhaka, Kd 3

Kd 3 concerns the annual three-month rainy-season residence, which is compulsory for all monastics. During this period, which coincides with the Indian monsoon season, monastics must stay put in one place. The reason given in Kd 3 for this rule is that travel would result in the destruction of life, but presumably it was also because travel was difficult and even hazardous at this time. Interestingly, according to AN 11.13:2.1, it seems householders too would sometimes stay put for the rainy season.

As with the uposatha, the Buddha adopted this tradition from the preexisting norms for monastics. As such, it is reasonable to think that this was instituted soon after the Sangha reached a certain size, probably quite early in the Buddha’s teaching career. The placement of this chapter immediately after the chapter on the uposatha is thus natural and may reflect the chronological sequence in which these things were laid down. The sequence of the first four chapters of the Khandhakas is in fact the same for all early schools except the Mahāsaṅghikas, who reorganized their Khandhakas, or Pakiṇṇakas, in a different way from all the other schools.

Most rules in this chapter are directly related to the rainy-season residence. To begin with, monastics are allowed to travel for seven days if there is important business to be conducted, such as looking after a sick monastic or a family member (At Kd 3:5.1.1–8.1.6). Then follows a section (Kd 3:12.1.1–12.9.5) which lays down that the place of residence must be properly covered—and have a door, says the commentary^[49]—of which a simple hut, a kuṭi, would presumably be the most obvious choice. Again, we see that a settled form of Buddhism must have existed virtually from the beginning.

This chapter appears to allow a monastic to spend the rainy season in more than one place, a fact that is rarely commented on. At Kd 3:14.1.1 Upananda spends the rainy season in two different monasteries but is neither penalized nor criticized for this. At Kd 8:25.4.5 we even find the Buddha laying down a rule on the appropriate distribution of cloth for monks who spend the rains in two different monasteries. This makes it clear that such an arrangement was considered acceptable.

Tangentially to the main content, monastics are required to comply with “the wishes of kings”.^[50] This would seem to imply that laws laid down by kings must be adhered to. In the modern setting, this would mean that monastics are bound by the law of the land.

The Chapter on the Invitation Ceremony, Pavāraṇā-kkhandhaka, Kd 4

The invitation ceremony concerns monastics opening themselves up to admonition. This is done at the end of the rainy-season residence, at which point most monastics will have just spent three months living together with co-monastics, who should then be in a good position to give constructive feedback on their conduct. According to Dhp 76–89, constructive feedback that reveals real flaws in one’s character is equivalent to the revealing of a treasure. Again, with the invitation ceremony coming straight after the chapter on the rainy-season residence, we see a natural chronological evolution of these rules and regulations.

Kd 4 begins with a story of monastics spending the three months of the rainy-season residence without talking to each other. Perhaps surprisingly, at Kd 4:1.12.2 the Buddha admonishes them for this practice, calling it a living in discomfort, aphāsuṁ vuṭṭhā. Right speech in the Dhamma is about saying what is necessary in the right way at the right time, with an emphasis on being quiet, but taking a vow of silence is going too far.

As with the observance-day ceremony, the invitation ceremony does not seem to have been regarded as a saṅghakamma in the earliest period of Buddhism, for which see the discussion in Kd 2 above. Still, as with the uposatha ceremony, the rules for saṅghakamma, especially those concerning incomplete assemblies, are applicable here too. A large part of this chapter is taken up with such rules.

The Chapter on the Skins, Camma-kkhandhaka, Kd 5

An important part of Kd 5 is its treatment of allowable and unallowable leather goods, hence its name. It also contains two interesting stories and a host of minor rules, many of which concern footwear.

Kd 5 begins with the story of Soṇa Koḷivisa who had been raised in such comfort that he had hairs growing on the soles of his feet.^[51] King Bimbisāra of Magadha demands to see this, and Soṇa is sent to meet the king. When the king has been duly satisfied, Soṇa joins a group of 80,000 village chiefs to see the Buddha. The Buddha’s attendant, Ven. Sāgata, displays numerous psychic powers, after which the Buddha teaches the Dhamma, leading all 80,000 to streamentry. Soṇa, however, asks for the going forth.

After going forth, Soṇa exerts himself to such an extent that, according to the list of the Buddha’s most prominent disciples at AN 1.205, he was foremost in putting forth energy. Due to his protected upbringing, however, his feet were unable to cope with his long hours on the walking path. He shed so much blood that the path looked “like a slaughterhouse”! When he thinks of returning to lay life, the Buddha visits him and teaches him the well-known simile of the lute: just as a lute is melodious only when the strings have the right tension, so the practice only ripens in good results when the energy is rightly balanced. Soṇa follows the Buddha’s instructions, eventually becoming an arahant. He declares his achievement to the Buddha in a beautiful set of verses. Then, as a rather abrupt anticlimax to a remarkable story, the Buddha lays down an allowance for monks to use sandals.

At Kd 5:10.5.1–10.5.3 we find a prohibition against monastics using luxurious furniture, including beds. Perusing the rules of the Pātimokkha, one might conclude that fully ordained monks do not need to keep all the precepts of a novice. Yet this would not be correct. Those of the ten precepts that are not found among the Pātimokkha rules are all covered in the Khandhakas. High and luxurious beds are prohibited here, whereas entertainment and personal beautification are banned at Kd 15:2.6.6 and Kd 15:2.1.1–2.5.11.

Kd 5 ends with the story of Soṇa Kuṭikaṇṇa,^[52] at the end of which the Buddha loosens some of the Vinaya rules for areas beyond the Ganges plain. The story begins with Soṇa, who lives in a distant country, seeking ordination. But he is unable to obtain it because of the difficulty in assembling ten monks to perform the ceremony. He eventually gets ordained after waiting for three years. Soon, he decides to visit the Buddha. When he arrives, he is put up in the Buddha’s dwelling, a sign that he is regarded as special.

The following morning the Buddha asks him to recite Dhamma, upon which he chants the Chapter of Eights, the Aṭṭhakavagga, from the Sutta Nipāta. The Buddha praises him and then asks why it took him so long to get ordained. Seeing that there is a problem, the Buddha agrees to relax some of the rules for distant countries. Most importantly, he reduces the number of monks required to perform an ordination ceremony from ten to five.

It is possible that the position of Kd 5 after the chapter on the Invitation Ceremony is a result of this charming story. As the Sangha grew, it would have gradually spread out over a large area. The need to reform certain rules to accommodate this spread would no doubt have been felt from early on.

The Chapter on Medicines, Bhesajja-kkhandhaka, Kd 6

The core concerns of Kd 6 are medicines and almsfood. These are two of the four requisites of a monastic, the other two being robes and dwellings. Robes are dealt with in Kd 8, whereas dwellings and other buildings feature in Kd 16. As we shall see, Kd 6 also contains many interesting and entertaining stories, featuring some of the most beloved characters from the Suttas.

The idea of medicines is quite broad in early Buddhism. It includes certain foodstuffs that can provide a boost of energy without being classed as substantial foods. Kd 6 opens with the Buddha allowing such “tonics” for sick monastics outside the regular meal time from dawn to noon. The discussion moves on to medicines proper, medical equipment, and medical treatment and procedures.

After an entertaining story with Ven. Pilindavaccha, which I will return to shortly, we find a series of rules on food. Noteworthy regulations include the prohibition against cooking at Kd 6:17.3.9; the relaxation of certain rules at times when food is scarce at Kd 6:17.7.1–20.4.4; and, further on, the prohibition against human meat and the meat of animals considered noble, disgusting, or dangerous at Kd 6:23.1.1–23.15.9.

Now let us turn to the stories, starting with the extraordinary Pilindavaccha at Kd 6:15.1.1–15.10.8. Pilindavaccha is building a shelter when King Bimbisāra offers to support him with monastery workers. Eventually there is a whole village of such workers, all closely affiliated with Pilindavaccha. One day when Pilindavaccha arrives at the house of a poor family, the daughter is crying because her parents cannot afford ornaments for her. Pilindavaccha uses his psychic powers to create a golden garland, upon which the whole family is arrested and charged with theft. Pilindavaccha goes to the king, turns his house into gold, and asks where he has gotten so much gold from. The king realizes that Pilindavaccha was using special powers all along, and he releases the family. The downside for Pilindavaccha is that he now becomes famous. He is given large amounts of tonics, to the point where the Buddha has to lays down a rule against storing tonics for more than seven days.

Pilindavaccha is also encountered at Bu Pj 2:7.47.1 where he saves two young boys from kidnappers, perhaps the earliest kidnapping story in the history of literature. Again, he uses psychic powers. Yet despite his special abilities, Pilindavaccha was also sickly, as can be seen from the early parts of Kd 6. Perhaps this combination of strength and vulnerability made him especially beloved. At AN 1.215 he is said to be the Buddha’s foremost disciple in being dear to the gods.

Then there is the striking story of Suppiyā at Kd 6:23.1.4–23.9.10 who has so much faith in the Sangha that she cuts a piece of meat from her own thigh to support a sick monk. The Buddha uses his special powers to instantly heal her thigh. He then criticizes the monks for not being more circumspect in their dealings with the lay supporters. The theme of the importance of sensitivity to lay supporters is continued in the story of the government minister with weak faith at Kd 6:25.1.1–25.7.9. The minister invites a large sangha for a meal, but is hurt when the monks only eat a little. It turns out they have eaten elsewhere beforehand. The Buddha criticizes them and lays down a rule prohibiting such behavior.

The story of the General Sīha at Kd 6:31.1.1–31.14.6, also found at AN 8.12, tells of how he converted from Jainism after a meeting with the Buddha. The story ends with Sīha inviting the Buddha and the Sangha for a meal that includes meat, showing that the Buddha ate meat. Still, the Buddha lays down a rule that a monastic may only eat meat when they have no reason to believe that the animal was killed especially for them.

Another story at Kd 6:34.1.1–34.16.3 concerns the remarkable layman Meṇḍaka. He and many of his family members have supernormal powers, as does his slave. After a long story in which Meṇḍaka and his family show their powers to a government minister, Meṇḍaka becomes a follower of the Buddha. The Buddha grants Meṇḍaka his wish of supplying provisions for monks who are traveling in the wilderness. He then lays down a rule that one may look for provisions before traveling in such places. He also lays down a rule that an attendant may keep money on behalf of a monastic. This allowance, known as the Meṇḍaka allowance, becomes the basis for Bu Np 10, which explains the procedure for making use of such funds.

In most of these stories we see the prominent use of psychic powers. Again, this suggests that these stories are slightly later than the four main Nikāyas and the core material of the Vinaya Piṭaka. There are many more stories in this chapter, including the account of the Magadhan ministers Sunidha and Vassakāra and the account of Ambapālī offering her mango grove. These are essentially the same as the parallels found in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta at DN 16:1.19.1–2.3.10 and DN 16:2.14.1–2.19.9. These remnants of DN 16 could be a further indication that the whole Sutta originally was part of the Vinaya, as discussed earlier.

Kd 6 ends with an important set of rules sometimes called “the four great standards”, the catumahāpadesa at Kd 6:40.1.4, which essentially state that new circumstances are to be compared to existing ones and adjudicated according to the ones they resemble the most. These rules are a response to the reality that it is impossible to cover all conceivable situations with a fixed set of rules. Moreover, such standards become particularly important after the Buddha’s passing and as society evolves in unpredictable ways. The Buddha makes it clear in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta at DN 16:1.6.13 that the monks should not create new rules after he is gone. This regulation, then, is a way of creating the necessary flexibility in the Vinaya so that it can deal with new and unforeseen circumstances.

The Chapter on the Robe-making Ceremony, Kathina-kkhandhaka, Kd 7

The robe-making ceremony was laid down to help monastics obtain new robes before they set out wandering at the end of the rainy-season residence. Having spent three months in one place, the monastics would have built up a relationship with the local lay Buddhists. The robe-making ceremony was an opportunity for the lay followers to express their gratitude by offering robe-cloth to the monastics.

In brief, this is how it works. The lay supporters designate a special cloth, which they give for the purpose of performing the kathina ceremony. The Sangha decides on an individual monastic to receive the kathina robe, which they then proceed to sew. When the robe is finished, it is given to the designated recipient, with everyone expressing their approval. All the monastics who take part in this process gain so-called kathina privileges. The most important of these is that one can keep on collecting robe-cloth until the end of the cold season, four months after the end of the rainy season. This is a significant extension on the normal ten-day limit for storing robe-cloth at Bu Np 1, giving the monastics involved a reasonable chance of collecting enough cloth to make a robe. The remaining four privileges, which are set out at Kd 7:1.3.2–1.3.4, are concerned with making it easier for monastics to acquire robe-cloth.

The description of the kathina ceremony in Kd 7 is short and lacking in certain detail. According to Frauwallner, p. 185, “… the description of the Kathina procedure itself is so mutilated, that without comparing the other Vinaya it is impossible to get a clear idea of it.” To gain a full understanding of the process, it is necessary to consult “the subdivision on the robe-making ceremony”, the kathinabheda, in the Parivāra at Pvr 16. This is one of the few occasions where the Parivāra contains critical information for a proper understanding of the Vinaya.

The remainder of Kd 7 sets out a long permutation series on when the kathina privileges come to an end. This, in turn, is summarized at Kd 7:13.1.1–13.2.7 as the coming together of two factors: (1) one leaves the monastery at which one stayed for the rains residence with no intention to return; and (2) one either has made a robe or gives up one’s intention to make one.

The kathina ceremony is the last of the main Sangha procedures that all or most monastics are expected to take part in. There are further legal procedures laid down in the remaining Khandhakas, but they concern special circumstances.

The Chapter on the Robes, Cīvara-kkhandhaka, Kd 8

As we have seen, in Kd 6 the focus is on medicines and almsfood, whereas here the focus is on robes, the third of the four traditional requisites of a monastic. The fourth requisite, dwellings, is the subject of Kd 16. Apart from rules relating to robes, this chapter has three interesting and inspiring stories that enliven an otherwise dry exposition.

Monastic robes are heavily regulated. Allowable materials and colors are specified at Kd 8:3.1.5 and Kd 8:29.1.18, while the pattern into which the robe must be sewn is given at Kd 8:12.1.1–12.2.4. The number of robes is restricted to three at Kd 8:13.5.8. The common practice of keeping extra robes is only possible by exploiting loopholes in the rules. The maximum size of the robes is not specified here but at Bu Pc 92. The correct procedure for the distribution of robe-cloth is laid down at Kd 8:9.1.1–9.4.4.

As robe-cloth accrued to monasteries, the cloth needed to be received, stored, and distributed. This required Sangha officials to perform these functions. An important new regulation established at Kd 8:5.1.1.–6.2.12 allows for the appointment of Sangha officials through a legal procedure, a saṅghakamma, of one motion and one announcement. This is important for at least two reasons. First, it shows that saṅghakamma is the primary tool of the Sangha for making all sorts of internal decisions. We shall see at Kd 21 that saṅghakamma is the appropriate mechanism whenever a decision is made that concerns the whole community. This contrasts with the modern tendency of decisions being made by abbots or sometimes groups of senior monastics. Second, it shows the importance of delegation in Sangha affairs. Instead of the whole Sangha being involved in minor decision making, any office or job can be delegated to individual monastics. This makes the running of a monastic community more efficient.

Apart from robes, there are many other cloth requisites mentioned in this chapter. One of these is the nisīdana (Kd 8:16.1.1–16.4.1), “the sitting mat”, often rendered as “sitting cloth”. The latter rendering, however, seems to be a result of the current practice of using the nisīdana indoors as opposed to outdoors, which is how we see it used in the Suttas. I discuss the nisīdana further in the Appendix of Technical Terms.

The first of the three significant stories, found at Kd 8:1.4.1–1.34.12, is that of Jīvaka, who became the Buddha’s personal physician. Jīvaka was the unwanted child of a high-class sex worker. Soon after he was born, she puts him in a basket and has him thrown on a trash heap, where he was found by King Bimbisāra’s son Prince Abhaya, who brings him up. Not being satisfied with the life of a royal, Jīvaka secretly departs for Takkasilā to become a physician. He studies for seven years. His final exam consists of traveling all around Takkasilā to a distance of a yojana—approximately 13 kilometers^[53]—and bringing back any plant that is not medicinal. Jīvaka comes back empty handed, upon which he is declared fully educated. I say we have much to learn from the ancients on how to conduct exams!

On his way back to Rājagaha, Jīvaka cures an apparently incurable wealthy lady and earns a fortune. Upon his return to Rājagaha, he cures King Bimbisāra of hemorrhoids. Next, he performs what may be the world’s first recorded brain surgery, during which he removes two insects from the brain of a wealthy merchant. Next up is the son of a wealthy merchant. Jīvaka ties him to a pillar, cuts open his belly, and then unravels his twisted gut. The most daring of Jīvaka’s medical adventures, however, was his cure of King Pajjota who was infamous for his hot temper. Jīvaka treats him with a medicine that does not agree with him, upon which the king unleashes his fearsome temper. When the king discovers that Jīvaka has already fled, he sends his best man after him, but Jīvaka cleverly escapes. Soon King Pajjota realizes he is cured. He sends two exquisite cloths to Jīvaka in gratitude, which Jīvaka gives to the Buddha. The Buddha uses the occasion to allow the monks to accept robes from householders. It is noteworthy that the Buddha does not grant himself any special exemptions from the rules. Jīvaka becomes the Buddha’s doctor, and he also looks after the Sangha.

Where the story of Jīvaka is entertaining, the story of Visākhā at Kd 8:15.1.1–15.14.13 is inspiring. When Visākhā invites the Sangha headed by the Buddha for a meal, she learns that the monks are bathing naked in the rain. After serving the meal, she asks the Buddha to grant her a favor. The Buddha initially refuses, but she persists. She tells him that she wishes to give rainy-season bathing cloths to the monks. She also wants to give meals to newly arrived and departing monastics, to sick monastics and those who look after the sick, and more. The Buddha asks why he should grant her such a special privilege. She responds that she will get so much joy and happiness from this that she will gain samādhi as a result. The Buddha is so impressed with her understanding of the Dhamma that he assents to what he normally would not.

In the final story, at Kd 8:26.1.1–26.4.14, the Buddha himself is the focus. While the Buddha is walking around the monastery, he comes across a monk who is suffering from dysentery, but who has no nurse. The Buddha, together with Ānanda, cleans him up and lifts him onto a bed. The Buddha then admonishes the monks for not looking after the sick. He points out that there is no-one else to look after them. He then says that whoever would look after him, that is, the Buddha, should look after the sick.

It is easy to think of the Buddha as a rather distant and mystical figure who is above the fray. The reality, however, as we see here and elsewhere, is that the Buddha was very human in his interactions with the monks. By forgetting this side of the Buddha, we risk losing our connection to him. It is precisely because the Buddha was a human being that his teachings and example are so relevant. By noticing the little details in the Suttas and the Vinaya, we can get a more realistic and down-to-earth appreciation of the Buddha as a historical personality.

This may be the right place to comment briefly on the occasional use of later vocabulary in the Khandhakas. In Kd 8 we find the word matthaluṅga, “brain”, which is not encountered in the four main Nikāyas or the remainder of the Vinaya Piṭaka. In fact, in the four main Nikāyas, this word is conspicuously absent from the standard list of body parts used in asubha, “ugliness”, contemplation, whereas it is included in the same list in later literature, such as the Khuddaka-pāṭha. As a rule, the presence or prevalence of certain vocabulary is a good way to establish the relative age of Pali literature. Much good research is waiting to be done in this area.

The Chapter Connected with Campā, Campeyya-kkhandhaka, Kd 9

Kd 9 is about saṅghakamma, “the legal procedures of the Sangha”. We have seen how saṅghakamma is used for Sangha decision making to make the process democratic and transparent. For such decisions to have proper authority, however, saṅghakamma needs to be clearly defined. The main purpose of this chapter, then, is to set out what constitutes valid and invalid saṅghakamma. As such, it is quite technical in nature.

The chapter begins with the story of the monk Kassapagotta who is wrongly ejected from the Sangha by a group of visiting monks. This spurs the Buddha to lay down rules for the proper execution of saṅghakamma.

A saṅghakamma is valid only when:

1. The assembly is complete (Kd 9:3.6.2–3.6.3). This means that the saṅghakamma is valid only if:
   • All monks/nuns within the monastic zone (sīmā) are present at the meeting
   • Anyone who is not present, for whatever reason, has sent their consent
   • No-one present objects to the decision.
2. The quorum requirement is met. Most saṅghakammas require a quorum of four monastics. Some important saṅghakammas require a quorum of five, ten or twenty monastics (Kd 9:4.1.1–4.1.9).
3. The object is valid, which means that:
   • A saṅghakamma must be done against a maximum of three monastics at a time (Kd 9:2.3.18)
   • The object toward which the saṅghakamma is directed must meet the requirements laid down in the Vinaya Piṭaka. For instance, a man receiving ordination must be twenty years old. If he is less, the ordination is invalid (Bu Pc 65:1.53.1).
4. The proclamation is performed correctly. This means that:
   • There must be one motion and either one or three announcements (Kd 9:3.3.3–3.4.9)^[54]
   • The motion and the announcements must be in the right order (Kd 9:3.9.2–3.9.3)
   • The Parivāra adds that the wording must include certain critical elements (Pvr 21:3.1–4.3).

I have not yet discussed the four kinds of saṅghakamma occasionally mentioned in the Vinaya Piṭaka. Remarkably, the current chapter only mentions two of the four, that is, legal procedures consisting of one motion and one announcement and legal procedures consisting of one motion and three announcements. Kd 9 does not mention legal procedures consisting of one motion or legal procedures consisting of getting permission. Given that Kd 9 is the main exposition of saṅghakamma in the Vinaya Piṭaka, how can this be?

It turns out that the two legal procedures not mentioned in Kd 9 are only rarely encountered anywhere in the Vinaya Piṭaka. They are found in the word commentary to Bu Pc 79, and five times in the Samatha-kkhandhaka, “The chapter on the settling of legal issues”, at Kd 14:14.2.15, Kd 14:14.11.5–14.11.13, and Kd 14:14.15.4. All these instances can reasonably be considered late in the evolution of the Tipiṭaka.^[55]

As we have seen above in the discussion to Kd 2, neither the uposatha ceremony nor the pavāraṇā ceremony were regarded as saṅghakamma proper in the earliest period. This makes sense if saṅghakamma was restricted to those legal procedures that had either one or three announcements. Neither the uposatha ceremony nor the pavāraṇā ceremony has this structure, being limited to the equivalent of a motion. At some point it was decided that both the uposatha ceremony and the pavāraṇā ceremony were so similar to saṅghakamma that they needed to be included in this category. This necessitated the creation of legal procedures with a single motion. The legal procedure consisting of getting permission would have come into being in a similar way. We are left with the impression that both these latter procedures did not exist in the earliest period and are late additions to the Vinaya Piṭaka.

This matters because it is illuminating of how saṅghakamma should ideally be performed in the modern era. The question arises of what form a saṅghakamma should take if the Sangha is making a decision for which there is no prescription in the Vinaya Piṭaka. At Kd 21:1.4.1–1.4.14 we find an example of such a legal procedure that is external to the Vinaya. Soon after the Buddha’s passing, the Sangha needed to appoint 500 monks to take part in the communal recitation at Rājagaha. This was done through a procedure consisting of one motion and one announcement. This, arguably, sets a precedent for how saṅghakamma should be performed in the absence of a prescribed formula. One motion and one announcement is the proper structure. A single motion or getting permission should not be used since they are unlikely to stem from the Buddha.

The Chapter Connected with Kosambī, Kosambaka-kkhandhaka, Kd 10

Kd 10, the last chapter of the Mahāvagga, is concerned with disputes in the Sangha and their resolution. Disputes can potentially lead to schism, which the Buddha regarded as a very serious matter. But even if a dispute does not lead to schism, it can potentially have negative consequences. This is what the Buddha has to say at MN 104:5.8:

“Ānanda, a dispute about livelihood or the monastic code is a minor matter. But should a dispute arise in the Sangha concerning the path or the practice, that would be for the detriment, suffering, and harm of the people, for the detriment and suffering of gods and humans.”

Kd 10 begins with the well-known story of the dispute at Kosambī. Part of this story is also told in MN 128 and in the Kosambiya Jātaka, Ja 428, and MN 48, the Kosambiya Sutta, is based on the same incident. In addition, many of the verses spoken by the Buddha in connection with it are found in the Dhammapada at Dhp 3–6. One gets the impression that this event had a major impact on the Sangha.

The story begins with the Sangha disputing whether a certain monk has committed an offense. The Sangha decides to eject the monk concerned, but he still refuses to acknowledge any fault. Both sides of the conflict build up a group of supporters, causing the Sangha to split into factions. Eventually someone asks the Buddha to intervene, but to no avail. At this point the Buddha tells the story of Dīghāvu, bits of which are found at Ja 371 and Ja 428. After this long and beautiful tale on the power of forgiveness and gentleness, the Buddha asks his monks to act accordingly, but again they will not listen. At this point the Buddha realizes he can do no more. He recites a series of powerful verses in the midst of the Sangha, and then departs. These verses, found at (Kd 10:3.1.3–3.1.43), are among the most famous and beloved in Buddhism.

The Buddha walks to the village Bālakaloṇaka where he visits the monk Bhagu, before proceeding to the Eastern Bamboo Park where he meets the three monks Anuruddha, Nandiya, and Kimila. They are shining examples of how to live in harmony, and are clearly meant to provide an edifying contrast to the monks in Kosambī.^[56] The Buddha carries on to Pālileyyaka, where he stays in solitude, only looked after by an elephant. This is another famous story, much told in the Buddhist world. Versions of it are found at Ud 4.5 and in the commentary to the Dhammapada. In the latter version a monkey offers honey to the Buddha, because of which he gets so excited that he falls out of the tree, dies, and is reborn straight in the heaven of the thirty-three. The Buddha eventually leaves and goes to Sāvatthī. The entire story is narrated at Kd 10:4.1.1–5.1.3.

In the meantime, after pressure from the lay people, the monks at Kosambī have come to their senses. It is interesting to note in passing the power lay Buddhists have over monastics who misbehave. Given the number of scandals involving monastics in the Buddhist world, it is a power they probably should exercise more often.

In any case, the monks set out for Sāvatthī. The monk who was at the center of the dispute has realized he did actually commit an offense. He asks to be readmitted, which he is. The Sangha then does a saṅghakamma to unify the community, a so-called sāmaggiuposatha, followed by the recitation of the Monastic Code.

This long story forms the main content of this chapter. There are only a few mentions of rules and regulations. One of these is a list of eighteen grounds, all connected with the Dhamma and Vinaya, that form the basis of disputes. This ties this chapter to Kd 17, where schism in the Sangha is discussed in much more detail. I will return to this theme in the introduction to the Cullavagga in volume 5.

---

1. Especially the Mūlasarvāstivādins. See Frauwallner, p. 3. ↩︎

2. For instance, the bhikkhunīs have their own ordination ceremony. Then there is the fact that some of the rules in the Khandhakas are pācittiya rules for the bhikkhunīs. By and large, however, it would seem that the Khandhakas are binding on both Sanghas. ↩︎

3. The earliest reference to the Khandhakas, or an early version of them, is probably found at Kd 22:2.8.45, where it is called the Uposatha-saṁyutta. ↩︎

4. Saṅgīti is often rendered as “Council”, a word that does not capture the essence of the Pali. Saṅgīti refers to the Sangha coming together to recite scriptures, whether the Suttas or the Vinaya. ↩︎

5. Eteneva upāyena ubhatovibhaṅge pucchi. ↩︎

6. I will consider this proposal in greater detail in the introduction to the Cullavagga in connection with my discussion of Kd 14. ↩︎

7. Sativinaya, “resolution through recollection”, concerns pure monastics being accused of an offense; amūḷhavinaya, “resolution because of past insanity”, is about offenses committed while insane; paṭiññātakaraṇa, “acting according to what has been admitted”, sets out the formulas of confession; tassapāpiyasikā, “further penalty”, discusses the further penalty for someone trying in various ways to wriggle out of an offense; and tiṇavatthāraka, “covering over as if with grass”, concerns the cumulative confession of offenses after a large number have been committed during the course of an argument. ↩︎

8. Sammukhāvinaya, “resolution face-to-face”, requires all parties concerned with an issue to be present when it is decided; and yebhuyyasikā, “majority decision”, is a democratic way of deciding, but only when the majority is line with the Dhamma. In fact, it is interesting that in MN 104 these two principles are grouped together at the top of the list, whereas in the Pātimokkha they are separated. It seems possible that the order in MN 104 is earlier than what is found in the Vinaya. ↩︎

9. Cf. Kd 14:14.16.13. ↩︎

10. Alternatively, it may be that these processes were kept as separate “documents”, which then became the kernel around which the Khandhakas were formed. There is, in fact, a tradition in Theravada Buddhism of keeping formal procedures of the Sangha, so-called kammavācas, as separate manuscripts. (See, for instance, the Journal of the Pali Text Society, 1993, pp. 1–41.) It is conceivable that this tradition goes back to the earliest period. ↩︎

11. It is possible that the connection between “resolution face-to-face” and “majority decision” was lost as a consequence of this expansion. It might then have been natural to move “majority decision” down the list of principles as an aid to memorization, in this case, keeping all the principles ending in vinaya together. This may have been the origin for the difference in sequence found in the Vinaya compared to that of MN 104. ↩︎

12. The pre-Buddhist uposatha is described in the Satapatha-brahmana, see Satapatha Brahmana, Kanda I, adhyaya 1, brahmana 1. ↩︎

13. See Frauwallner, p. 50. ↩︎

14. Frauwallner, p. 44. He then concludes as follows: “We can now sum up our results thus: The story of the death of the Buddha and the account of the two earliest councils formed originally one single narrative. This narrative, according to the evidence of the great majority of the sources, was a fixed component of the Vinaya. It belonged to the Vinaya already in its earliest form recognizable to us, and had its place at the end of the Skandhaka.” (p. 46) ↩︎

15. The Pali word count of DN 16 is in excess of 15,200, whereas the Mahāpadāna Sutta, DN 14, which is the second longest, has about 8,700 words. There are several other suttas with over 7,000 words, including DN 1, DN 2, DN 3, and DN 33, which means that DN 16 stands out as anomalous. ↩︎

16. For the Sarvāstivādins, the part of the Buddha biography that is equivalent to the story found in Kd 1, became a separate sutta in their Dīrghāgama, known as the Catuṣpariṣatsūtra. See Frauwallner pp. 48–49. ↩︎

17. In the introduction to the Suttavibhaṅga we find a number of place names that are geographically west of where the Buddha had stayed, in particular Payāgapatiṭṭhāna, Soreyya, Saṅkassa, and Kaṇṇakujja. Ven. Dhammika of Australia tells me (private communication) that he believes he has located most of these places, see Bu Pj 1:4.18. The introduction to the Pārāyanavagga at Snp 5.1:36.1, likewise, mentions names to the south, which may mean that Buddhism was spreading to this area. ↩︎

18. Sp 1.0: vinayo nāma buddhasāsanassa āyu, vinaye ṭhite sāsanaṃ ṭhitaṃ hoti. ↩︎

19. MN 104:5.8: “Ānanda, a dispute about livelihood or the monastic code is a minor matter. But should a dispute arise in the Sangha concerning the path or the practice, that would be for the detriment, suffering, and harm of the people, for the detriment and suffering of gods and humans.” ↩︎

20. At Kd13:36.4.65. ↩︎

21. I say “much of” because, according to Frauwallner, pp. 109–110, Kd 13 does have parallels in the other schools. ↩︎

22. Kd 1:27.6.1–27.8.4 and Kd 1:34.1.33–34.1.48, which concern the kind of student/pupil who deserves to be dismissed. ↩︎

23. It may be that all the sections in between, 4–20, were copied over from Kd 2 where they occur in same way, with the only difference being that the word uposatha had been replaced by pavāraṇā, thus interrupting the natural order of the uddāna in Kd 4. ↩︎

24. It may be that the main text has copied the list of people from the previous section (section 4), whereas the uddāna may have preserved an older version. ↩︎

25. Frauwallner, pp. 68–129. ↩︎

26. Frauwallner, p. 70. ↩︎

27. Also found at SN 56.11. ↩︎

28. Also found at SN 22.59. ↩︎

29. There are occasional descriptions in the Suttas of the Buddha performing supernormal feats, but these tend to be later additions. For instance, at DN 24:2.13.1 we find an example of the Buddha supposedly levitating, of which Analayo (2016), p. 12, concludes: “In sum, the departure by levitation reported in the Pāṭika-sutta and its Dīrgha-āgama parallel seems to be a later addition to the discourse.” In relation to fire “miracles” Analayo (2015), p. 33, has this to say: “The selected examples of fire miracles performed by the Buddha surveyed above seem to be for the most part identifiable as later developments, probably the result of literal interpretations of metaphorical usages of the fire motif attested in text and art.” ↩︎

30. As mentioned above, for the Pali tradition this means especially the Jātaka-nidāna, which forms the beginning of the commentary on the Jātaka verses. ↩︎

31. The closest to this formula is found in DN 5, where the going for refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha is stated once. ↩︎

32. Bhagavantaṃ (or bhavantaṃ gotamaṃ) saraṇaṃ gacchāmi dhammañca bhikkhusaṅghañca. ↩︎

33. Such as MN 4, MN 12, MN 14, MN 19, MN 26, MN 36, MN 85, MN 128, and AN 3.39. An exception to this general tendency is MN 49. DN 16 is another exception. Yet, as I have argued, this not a sutta in the ordinary sense and it better fits with the Khandhaka material. Bhante Sujato, comments as follows on the wonders found in the Vinaya: “On one level, it’s obviously a co-opting of Brahmanical prestige. But at the same time, it doesn’t just dismiss the miracles, it tells us that the rules to follow should be taken seriously because they were laid down by this person. It is a mode of establishing authority and meaning.” (Private message.) ↩︎

34. Also found at SN 35.28. ↩︎

35. In the Suttas, we find the bhiṅkāra used by the wheel-turning monarch to sprinkle the wheel gem, e.g. at DN 17. ↩︎

36. See, for instance, the description of purification by water in the Satapatha-brahmana at Satapatha Brahmana, Kanda I, adhyaya 1, brahmana 1. ↩︎

37. At Kd 1:23.5.2. ↩︎

38. Kd 1:25.8.1–26.11.11 and Kd 1:32.3.1–33.1.109. This section is not mentioned in the uddāna, the summary verses at the end of the chapter. Moreover, it is repeated verbatim at Kd 18. This suggests that this section did not originally belong to this chapter. ↩︎

39. Kd 1:53.4.7. From here on I will use the word teacher as a reference to both the preceptor and any other teacher who may take the place of the preceptor. ↩︎

40. Presumably because he thinks he may have committed an offense. ↩︎

41. These are the main additions: “should be asked” and four supports at Kd 1:29.1.1–30.3.6; illnesses at Kd 1:39.6.3; those employed by the king at Kd 1:40.4.1; debt and slavery at Kd 1:46.1.1–47.1.7; 20 years minimum age at Kd 1:49.5.7; parental permission at Kd 1:54.6.1; must be human at Kd 1:63.5.2; must have preceptor at Kd 1:69.1.1; and must have bowl and robe at Kd 1:70.1.1–70.3.1. ↩︎

42. See Bu Np 20:1.4. ↩︎

43. Examples include words such as kamma, samādhi, jhāna, brahmaṇa, and many more. ↩︎

44. In the subcommentary known as the Dvemātikāpāḷi. ↩︎

45. CPD lists altogether eight such sīmā tracts. ↩︎

46. A so-called ñattikamma, “a legal procedure consisting of one motion”. See Pvr 21:15.5. ↩︎

47. Examples include the quorum not being met, for instance because one or more monks in the assembly have committed a pārājika or are otherwise non-bhikkhus. Another example is a monk entering the monastic zone while the ordination is being performed, thus making the assembly incomplete. ↩︎

48. See for instance BMC II, p. 174: “However, large territories create their own difficulties. To begin with, there is the difficulty in ensuring that, during a meeting, no unknown bhikkhus have wandered into the territory, invalidating any transaction carried out at the meeting.” ↩︎

49. Sp 3.204. ↩︎

50. Rājūnaṁ anuvattituṁ, literally, “(You should) behave according to the kings,” at Kd 3:4.3.1. ↩︎

51. The full story is at Kd 5:1.1.1–1.27.20. The latter part of this story has a parallel at AN 6.55. ↩︎

52. The full story is at Kd 5:13.1.1–13.11.4. It has a parallel at Ud 5.6. ↩︎

53. See Appendix of Technical Terms for an estimate of the length of the yojana. ↩︎

54. That is, the saṅghakamma of one motion and one announcement, or the saṅghakamma of one motion and three announcements. For reasons I give immediately below, I have not included the saṅghakamma of one motion or the saṅghakamma that consist of getting permission. ↩︎

55. Word commentaries are often late, and certainly later than the rules they comment on. The section of Kd 14 that mentions these two legal procedures uses Abhidhamma terminology, which again suggests lateness. ↩︎

56. The three monks are also met with at MN 128 and MN 31. ↩︎

[vimalanyani]

Hi Ajahn,

Thanks for sharing this essay! I enjoyed reading it.

@Brahmali

The Sanskrit equivalent to khandhaka is vastu, “subject matter” or “account”, which is the basis for the translations into Chinese and Tibetan.

Isn’t the Sanskrit equivalent Skandhaka?
In the Chinese vinayas, the Dharmaguptakas and the Sarvastivadins use 揵度 (qian-du), 犍度 (jian-du), or similar expressions, which are transliterations of khanda(ka).
The Mahisasakas use dharmaka, and I believe only the Mulasarvastivadins use vastu.

@Brahmali

While the Sutta-vibhaṅga, contained in the first three volumes of this series, is divided into one part for monks and another for nuns, the Khandhakas are the same for both Sanghas, except for the Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka, which is peculiar to the nuns.

Many nuns (and some monks) believe that the khandhakas are meant for monks only, since they duplicate many of the pacittiya rules that were added to the bhikkhuni patimokkha at a later time. Additional rules that emerged after the Buddha’s parinibbana were collected in the khandhakas for monks, and in the pacittiyas for nuns. Eventually, the nun’s patimokkha grew too large, and the bhikkhuni khandhaka was created. So many nuns consider only the bhikkhuni khandhaka binding for them, not the rules in the other chapters.

@Brahmali

My suggestion, then, is that the core of the material we now have in the Khandhakas originated as a vibhaṅga to the adhikaraṇasamathas.

That makes so much sense!

[WayChuang]

@Brahmali

if t’s origin

if its origin

@Brahmali

after Buddha passed away

after the Buddha passed away

@Brahmali

which Koṇḍañña becomes a streamenterer

which Koṇḍañña becomes a stream enterer

I’m not sure if this is the intended spelling because the same streamenterer is repeated for King Bimbisara and Moggallana. If it is intentional, then please ignore this.

@Brahmali

The narrative continues with the story of the young man Yasa, whose going forth is partly modelled on that of the Buddha-to-be, but adding a number of supernormal events.

There is a parallel in t212.34

昔佛在波羅奈國仙人鹿野苑中。爾時世尊度五比丘未經數日。爾時波羅奈國有一長者，名曰夜輸，種姓豪族饒財多寶，顏貌端正世之無雙。

I suppose 夜輸 (ye shu in pinyin) here is Yasa and the story is quite similar in that the event happened after the first 5 bhikkhus, but it seems to lack some of the supernatural elements found in the Pali canon. Similar to the Pali version, the Buddha made Yasa invisible to his own dad. Unfortunately, my mastery of Chinese is half-baked. It will be great if someone who masters Classical Chinese can verify my understanding.

[sabbamitta]

Dear Ajahn, thank you again for another essay on the vinaya. This particular one reminds me the time when I was working on the segmentation of your initial translation to incorporate it into SuttaCentral’s translation software (which wasn’t Bilara yet at the time). I still appreciate this unique opportunity to gain a deeper access to this corpus of scripture!

Let me again point to a few smaller typos that just catch my eye.

@Brahmali

while the Vinaya persists, so the does Buddhism

The “the” is out of place here.

@Brahmali

In other schools of Buddhism, it is called the “the Account of Going Forth”

It seems an abundance of "the"s is taking over …

@Brahmali

Another of these conversion accounts concerns King Bimbisāra of Magadha, the kingdom that was the precursor to King Ashoka empire a couple of centuries later

King Ashoka’s empire (genitive).

@Brahmali

We see this requirement applied in the suttas on a number of occasions.

Actually I can’t remember any case where it is in fact applied. Usually the Buddha explains that this is the rule, and then makes an exception.

@Brahmali

The Chapter on the Observation Day

Should be observance day, I think.

@Brahmali

According to the Parivāra, the uposatha ceremony is a kind sanghakamma.

Oh good it’s not a fierce sanghakamma! A kind of sanghakamma perhaps?

@Brahmali

Nevertheless, it is clear from the exposition at Kd 2:23.1.1–24.3.14 and Kd 2:28.1.1–34.13.5 that many of rules that govern sanghakamma are binding on the uposatha ceremony

Many of the rules.

@Brahmali

First, so long as you is not aware of any specific ordinations in the past that were invalid, you can conclude that bhikkhus today are monks in the true sense of the word

So long as you are not aware; or so long as one is not aware.

@Brahmali

The Buddha walks to the village Bālakaloṇaka where he visits the monks Bhagu

Bagu is just one monk.

@Brahmali

It is interesting to note in passing the power lay Buddhist have over monastics who misbehave

Lay Buddhists, plural.

[Brahmali]

@vimalanyani

Isn’t the Sanskrit equivalent Skandhaka?
In the Chinese vinayas, the Dharmaguptakas and the Sarvastivadins use 揵度 (qian-du), 犍度 (jian-du), or similar expressions, which are transliterations of khanda(ka).
The Mahisasakas use dharmaka, and I believe only the Mulasarvastivadins use vastu.

Thanks! It was actually on my to do list to ask you about this. I based my assessment on Frauwallner’s book. He says, as you do, that the Mūlasarvāstivādins use vastu. Looking at his transcription of the Chinese characters into the Latin alphabet, I get the impression that the same it true for the Mahāsaṅghikas. Is this right? We know from the Mahāvastu that they used the term vastu, at least in part.

As for the other schools, I made a guess based on Frauwallner’s Latin transcription. I obviously got it wrong, and so I shall rephrase what I said.

@vimalanyani

Many nuns (and some monks) believe that the khandhakas are meant for monks only, since they duplicate many of the pacittiya rules that were added to the bhikkhuni patimokkha at a later time.

Yes, this is certainly partly true, and perhaps I need to be clearer about this. It’s not just about the nuns’ pācittiyas that are found as lesser rules in the Khandhakas, but also about such important things as the ordination ceremony, which is obviously different for the two Sanghas.

Nevertheless, without the Khandhakas the Bhikkhunī-sangha would cease to function. This is where you find the rules for sanghakamma, for the uposatha ceremony, for the pavāraṇā, for the rains retreat, and heaps of lesser rules on the four requisites and much more. So perhaps it would be better to say that the Khandhakas apply to the bhikkhunīs unless they have specific rules of their own that deal with the same matter. Or to something to that effect.

@WayChuang

There is a parallel in t212.34

Interesting. There is still a lot of work to be done in the area of comparative study. I am not surprised at all that the story of Yasa is found also in other schools. Thanks for your support!

@sabbamitta

I still appreciate this unique opportunity to gain a deeper access to this corpus of scripture!

Great, I am glad to hear this! To be honest, I am concerned that my writing is not clear enough, and may be difficult for others to follow. I am very open to be given feedback in this area, especially if it points to specific places that are obscure and need rewriting or further clarification.

@sabbamitta

Actually I can’t remember any case where it is in fact applied. Usually the Buddha explains that this is the rule, and then makes an exception.

Good point! Changed to “mentioned”.

@sabbamitta

Should be observance day, I think.

Because it is the title of a chapter, I prefer the capitals.

@sabbamitta

Oh good it’s not a fierce sanghakamma! A kind of sanghakamma perhaps?

LOL! Thanks !

@sabbamitta

Bagu is just one monk.

You are probably right!

Thanks so much, everyone!

[calvin]

@Brahmali

@sabbamitta

Should be observance day, I think.

Because it is the title of a chapter, I prefer the capitals.

Vandāmi, Ajahn Brahmali . I think what Ayyā Sabbamitta was referring to was the misspelling, rather than the capitalization?

[sabbamitta]

@Brahmali

Because it is the title of a chapter, I prefer the capitals.

Oh sorry, I was unclear. I didn’t mean the capitals (actually just was too lazy to type capitals); but what I meant was “observance day” versus “observation day”.

[vimalanyani]

@Brahmali

Thanks! It was actually on my to do list to ask you about this. I based my assessment on Frauwallner’s book. He says, as you do, that the Mūlasarvāstivādins use vastu. Looking at his transcription of the Chinese characters into the Latin alphabet, I get the impression that the same it true for the Mahāsaṅghikas. Is this right? We know from the Mahāvastu that they used the term vastu, at least in part.

I believe the Mahasanghikas just use the term Pakinnaka, which is then divided into vaggas. This seems to be the case both for the Sanskrit texts of the Lokuttaravada school, and the Chinese texts of the Mahasanghikas.
On which page does Frauwallner talk about this? I can have a look at what he says.

@Brahmali

Nevertheless, without the Khandhakas the Bhikkhunī-sangha would cease to function. This is where you find the rules for sanghakamma, for the uposatha ceremony, for the pavāraṇā, for the rains retreat, and heaps of lesser rules on the four requisites and much more. So perhaps it would be better to say that the Khandhakas apply to the bhikkhunīs unless they have specific rules of their own that deal with the same matter. Or to something to that effect.

Actually, that’s not what I was trying to say. Yes, bhikkhunis occasionally need to refer to the khandhakas for the texts of sanghakammas and certain sangha procedures. But my point was that many bhikkhunis believe that the countless minor rules of the khandhakas are for monks and do not apply to us. Those that are meant for us are already in our patimokkha. We may study the others and choose to keep them because they can be helpful and do occasionally clarify gray areas, but they’re not binding for us.
I’m aware that this is a controversial area, and different communities may have different views about how khandhakas should be applied to bhikkhunis.

[Brahmali]

@vimalanyani

On which page does Frauwallner talk about this? I can have a look at what he says.

On page 70, for instance, you find the various names for the equivalents of the Mahākhandhaka.

@vimalanyani

Yes, bhikkhunis occasionally need to refer to the khandhakas for the texts of sanghakammas and certain sangha procedures. But my point was that many bhikkhunis believe that the countless minor rules of the khandhakas are for monks and do not apply to us.

I don’t think it is possible to make a clear distinction between sanghakamma and minor rules. The chapters on the various sanghakammas - which, by the way, make up close to half the Khandhakas - are themselves full of minor rules that relate to sanghakamma. It would not make any sense to say that the bhikkhunīs should follow the sanghakamma prescriptions, but not those minor rules. Sanghakamma only works properly when those minor rules are included.

Then there are the Khandhakas that deal with the basic requisites of a monastic, specifically Kd 6, Kd 8, and Kd 16. Kd 6 concerns medicines, medical equipment, medical treatment, and even medical procedures. Again, it would be strange, in my opinion, if this does not apply to bhikkhunīs. How, otherwise, would they be able to define medicines? How would they relate to medical equipment? Kd 16 is all about buildings. Again, it is hard to think of any reason why these regulations would be applicable only to bhikkhus and not to bhikkhunīs. In both these chapters there is a large number of rules woven into the discussion of the broader topic. The two cannot be properly separated from each other.

My overall sense is that it is not really practical to say that only the sanghakammas apply, but not the large number of minor rules. The only exceptions, again, is where the bhikkhunīs have clear rules of their own. These rules must obviously take precedent.

Anyway, that’s how it seems to me. Thanks!

[vimalanyani]

@Brahmali

On page 70, for instance, you find the various names for the equivalents of the Mahākhandhaka.

I’m a bit confused by his notation.
But Hirakawa also writes about this, and has good summaries in the introduction to “Monastic discipline for the Buddhist Nuns”.
So to summarize: We have khandhaka in Pali, skandha(ka) in the Dharmaguptaka school, dharma(ka) in the Mahisasaka and Sarvastivada texts*, and vastu in the Mulasarvastivada texts. The Mahasanghikas have vargas in their prakirnaka.

*I said above that the Sarvastivadins call it khandhaka but I misremembered and it’s incorrect. I looked it up in the actual text on CBETA, and it’s dharma(ka).

[WayChuang]

@Brahmali

The common practice of keeping extra robes is only possible by exploiting loopholes in the rules.

Bhante, can you please explain the loopholes if it isn’t sensitive? Thank you in advance.

@Brahmali

It is precisely because the Buddha was a human being that his teachings and example are so relevant

Many examples, me think

What an excellent piece of introduction!

[Snowbird]

@Brahmali

exploiting loopholes

Just my $.02… I don’t think we find the concept of “loophole” in the texts. By using that English term compounded with “exploit” it imposes a clear value judgement that I don’t think we find in the text. Is there a difference between “exploiting a loophole” and “making use of an exception”?

Thanks for all your hard work and dedication. It’s a great gift to the Sasana.

Also a huge anumodana to Ven. @vimalanyani for all your hard work engaging with this topic and taking the time to share your insights.

[Viveka]

@sabbamitta

@Brahmali

According to the Parivāra, the uposatha ceremony is a kind sanghakamma.

Oh good it’s not a fierce sanghakamma! A kind of sanghakamma perhaps?

Beautiful… I do like a ‘kind sanghakamma’

@Brahmali

Great, I am glad to hear this! To be honest, I am concerned that my writing is not clear enough, and may be difficult for others to follow. I am very open to be given feedback in this area, especially if it points to specific places that are obscure and need rewriting or further clarification.

In general from my perspective, I find your writing is very clear and easy to follow. Of course specific instances may need some clarification etc, but that is the same for everyone, even the best writers. So no need to keep hold of this worry

[Brahmali]

@vimalanyani

So to summarize: We have khandhaka in Pali, skandha(ka) in the Dharmaguptaka school, dharma(ka) in the Mahisasaka and Sarvastivada texts*, and vastu in the Mulasarvastivada texts. The Mahasanghikas have vargas in their prakirnaka.

Thank you! I have plenty enough information now to rephrase my original statement. Once again, I really appreciate your support!

@WayChuang

Bhante, can you please explain the loopholes if it isn’t sensitive?

Sometimes it is quite clear what the Buddha intended in laying down a rule. Yet no rule is watertight and so the defilement will sometimes find ways of avoiding them.

@Snowbird

Just my $.02… I don’t think we find the concept of “loophole” in the texts.

It isn’t there as a concept, but it is there in how various monastics react to the rules, forcing the Buddha to amend them. A good example is bhikkhu pārājika 2, where the group of six monks argue that stealing from the forest has not been mentioned and so it’s okay. The Buddha then expands the rule.

@Snowbird

By using that English term compounded with “exploit” it imposes a clear value judgement that I don’t think we find in the text.

Well, take the rule on not keeping money. Most monastics today do so, but clearly it is against bhikkhu nissaggiya pācittiya 18. They will sometimes argue that the rule is about gold and silver, and so money is fine. To me this is exploiting a loophole. I would say you are willfully reading the text in a way that suits your defilements. And so yes, I do think

there a difference between “exploiting a loophole” and “making use of an exception”

I would agree that the situation with robes is less clear cut than it is with money. Speaking for myself, I only have three of the standard robes, but I have all sorts of extras, such as a jacket, socks, and even long underwear to use when it gets cold. I just can’t live without it. So arguably I am exploiting the same loophole myself.

Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that the Buddha set a limit at three. It is easy enough to find ways around this limit, but I think it is useful to acknowledge that this is what we are doing.

I do accept, of course, that many people practice in line with what they have learnt from their teachers or from the commentaries or from society at large or whatever. I don’t judge people for what they do. But at root, especially if you look at the commentarial interpretation, it is a kind of exploitation of loopholes.

Still, thanks for the comment. I shall keep it in mind and see if there is more felicitous way of expressing this.

@Snowbird

Thanks for all your hard work and dedication. It’s a great gift to the Sasana.

Thank you!

@Viveka

In general from my perspective, I find your writing is very clear and easy to follow.

Thanks so much for this feedback! You are not a Vinaya specialist and so your point of view is valuable.

[Brahmali]

The essay has now been updated with the feedback included. Thanks everyone!

[calvin]

Thank you Ajahn Brahmali for all your hardwork! I enjoy reading your Vinaya translations as I, too, find them clear and don’t leave me with even more questions than I already had. Above all, how it helps me navigate and observe vinaya in the modern age in a scrupulous way but also sensically.

[Brahmali]

I am glad to hear this!

[nadi]

Yay! And also, so much cool! And of course:

Bhikkhuni-kkhandhaka here, Bhikkhunī-kkhandhaka in edit and vol 3 intro

“Khandakas”

“Cīvarakkhandhaka” -?

More a comment on the previous essay…“Ven.” here for some monastics but I don’t remember seeing that in vol 3 intro.

“offences”

“amūlhavinaya” ḷ?

uncomment: Great! - one part in The Origin… section that didn’t read bowling-alley-lane-smooth, but that I couldn’t put a finger on, already got rewritten!

“the last in time” while not incorrect, and mirroring the start of the sentence, nevertheless read mildly, slightly funny. Like it needs qualification somehow e.g. last event in time? the last chronologically?

“The content of the indiviual Khandhakas suggest” → suggests ? Very on the fence.

Unsolicited opinion - “demise” to me carries too much negative connotation for how I’ve come to think of the time up to and including his final extinguishment.

Um…it was “is” previously in “One of the issues … are”

Footnote on places (16): Suttavibhaṅga → Sutta-vibhaṅga ? Or given vol 1 intro, hyphenated instances in this intro going the other way?
Same footnote: Ven → Ven.

“post-Ashkan”

Erm…my apologies…“The above verses” makes me look for actual verses.

“The long sections on the duties”: the kd1 segment ranges, the last segments are 26.11.11 and 33.1.109, though I guess you wouldn’t see that in the print version. Oh hey - that’s what’s in Footnote 33! Generally for segment ranges, going with last segment or segment-starting-last-paragraph-of-range or the mix throughout is fine?

Footnote on uddāna (22):
kd2: “missing in uddāna” +the
bottom: “gaps in the uddāna” → uddānas ?

---

Kd1:

“super-normal” unhyphenated elsewhere

Footnote on Jātaka-nidāna (28) already mentioned in Origin of Khandhakas section…juuust checking intentional almost-duplication

“fundamental to make it work” - I’m more used to “fundamental to making…”

Pabbajjā Sutta - No pointing to Snp 3.1? Or even perhaps :5.1

DN 4:3.17 → DN 4:5.17

I think I’m missing something, or reading something wrong - on the custom of pouring water - if it’s possibly an ancient Indian custom, doesn’t that make it the source rather than the Sutta or Vinaya Piṭakas?

Mix of “his” and “their” around “in regard to their teacher”

“sanghakamma” comments use ṅ

Footnote on ordination ceremony bits (36) um…isn’t a complete sentence? I suspect work in progress. I’m a bit lost with the segment vs range vs what is taken to be the end of the ranges.
Also, parent → parental?

---

The rest:

“this chapter at Kd2” just checking redundancy’s intentional

Footnote on adapting words (38) “brahmaṇa_, and much more” → many ?

uncomment - Kd3, householders staying put…what came to mind some time ago was the stock phrase about wealthy folks who, albeit certainly for reasons on the complete other end of the spectrum, didn’t leave a purpose-built rainy season stilt house. It just sounds perhaps like an unpleasant time to be outside if that’s how the rich dealt with it.

uncomment - on spending rains in more than one place, I was surprised there are actual reasons one ought to leave. Or do they rarely come up in practice? Though I see how this isn’t the same as merely choosing to be in multiple locations.

Kd 3:1.12.2 → Kd 4:1.12.2

headmen here, chiefs in translation, mumblesomethingreadsfinemumble

“suitably tight” …I’d say tensioned, but I’m now going to step back within my bounds.

Okay, only sort of. On entertainment and jewelry etc…so, earlier in the essay I wondered whether “monks” could be “monastics” but here now it’s “monastic” yet I’d say this paragraph is only technically (apologies hairsplitting) fully true of the Bhikkhu-pātimokkha.

“has to lays”

“travelling”

uncomment - “Parivāra contains critical information” - well then ain’t it handy it’s readably translated!

“outdoor”

“a favor” 8 == 1?!! Also, “a number of other things” - brainwashed by high skool English teachers, “things” - they’re more specifically gifts/supports/…

“see it here” → “see here”?

“sometimes very human”…only sometimes? Late tales and supernormal powers aside, my impression from reading is a very human human throughout, very grounded, down-to-earth (already put to use!), and practical, albeit a magnificently extraordinary one of course.

Kd9, but possibly throughout all three intros: I’m confused with how sanghakamma is used, assumed plural or singular or a mass noun…compared with the comments, here it just reads like it’s missing an article sometimes or the subject-verb number agreement is wonky. Oh - later it does get angli-pluralized!

I’m not sure about however this gets published, but here, three spaces before the asterisk hopefully nests a list, so:

1. foo
   * bar

turns into:

1. foo
   • bar

“have sent” → has

Samathakkhandhaka -? It’s also unhyphenated in vol 2 intro

“one motion is found on a single occasion in the entire Sutta Piṭaka” but are the usual two sanghakammas mentioned lots elsewhere in the suttas? If not, the wording of this sentence read to me as if they were.

“had this structure” have?

MN 104:5.8 “dispute about livelihood” quote appears both under kd10 and in footnote 18. And they’re slightly different.

Kimbila here (and in sutta translation), Kimila in translation…I don’t envy ye.

Whoa that’s long, but it’s all interesting (so there’s nothing that I can say is superfluous) and reads yet again very very nicely. Grateful for a number of things that had me breathing a sigh of relief like strange things pointed out as strange (e.g. later additions, MN104 vs what it’s vs’ed against), things in the uddānas, and things where what I’m seeing and hearing don’t jive with what I read (e.g. simas), and putting the spotlight on the stories. The Vinaya’s way more interesting than most would think! Altogether very helpful and valuable, particularly since I think I have far more resources on the Pātimokkha rules than the Khandhakas. Very much gratitude for your offering observations, research, contemporary commentary, all of it!, oh and there’s the translation itself of course , from the vantage point of having so much lived experience and textual study.

[Brahmali]

@nadi

More a comment on the previous essay…“Ven.” here for some monastics but I don’t remember seeing that in vol 3 intro.

The convention seems to be not to use “Ven.” when dealing with monastics of the past. Sometimes, however, especially if the context is ambiguous, “Ven.” may help clarify that the person in question is a monastic. I have edited the text to reflect this distinction.

@nadi

Unsolicited opinion - “demise” to me carries too much negative connotation for how I’ve come to think of the time up to and including his final extinguishment.

“Demise” seems okay to me. I’ve kept it for now. If anyone else think “demise” is not quite right - please let me know! - I will probably change it.

@nadi

Footnote on places (16): Suttavibhaṅga → Sutta-vibhaṅga ? Or given vol 1 intro, hyphenated instances in this intro going the other way?

Hyphenation everywhere is the way to go. The other intro is now fixed.

@nadi

I think I’m missing something, or reading something wrong - on the custom of pouring water - if it’s possibly an ancient Indian custom, doesn’t that make it the source rather than the Sutta or Vinaya Piṭakas?

The ancient tradition is the presumed source, but the source for Buddhists are the scriptures. I’ve left it for now, but if others too find it baffling, I shall make changes.

@nadi

Mix of “his” and “their” around “in regard to their teacher”

I prefer gender neutral, but in many instances it makes things complicated. I’ve reverted to the masculine. Also, the section speaks of monks and so it is probably fair enough.

@nadi

uncomment - on spending rains in more than one place, I was surprised there are actual reasons one ought to leave. Or do they rarely come up in practice?

So far as I know, it’s very rare. But with climate change …

@nadi

Kd9, but possibly throughout all three intros: I’m confused with how sanghakamma is used, assumed plural or singular or a mass noun

I see what you mean. It’s not obvious which way to go, but I’ve made it all into the singular for now. (There are a few remaining cases where the singular just sounded too odd to me.)

@nadi

“one motion is found on a single occasion in the entire Sutta Piṭaka” but are the usual two sanghakammas mentioned lots elsewhere in the suttas? If not, the wording of this sentence read to me as if they were.

Good point!

@nadi

Whoa that’s long, but it’s all interesting (so there’s nothing that I can say is superfluous) and reads yet again very very nicely.

Thanks so much for all these little details! Once again, I feel very fortunate to get this level of support!

[nadi]

Helpful, thank you!

@Brahmali

It’s not obvious which way to go, but I’ve made it all into the singular for now. (There are a few remaining cases where the singular just sounded too odd to me.)

While I obviously can’t help with that, in “Some important saṅghakammas” it seems close enough to the instance right before it could lose the ‘s’. And there are a couple instances in the Sutta-vibhaṅga intro.

“of the Tipiṭaka” - after the edit in text and footnote, juuust double checking Tipiṭaka is still appropriate rather than just vinaya.

artefact → artifact

“Ānanda, dispute” and “Ānanda, a dispute”