VINAYA: FROM INDIA TO CHINA
Ann Heirman (Ghent)- Introduction
On his death-bed, the Buddha advised his disciples to rely on the
monastic discipline he had expounded.^1 Consequently, the title dashi
, Great Master, originally reserved for the Buddha himself, was
transferred to the list of precepts (prtimoka) for monks (bhiku) and nuns
(bhiku). The prtimoka became their dashi.^2 Monastic discipline is thus
clearly one of the essential strongholds of Buddhism, the protectors
of which are in the rst place the monks and nuns.^3 This central posi-
tion of monastic discipline does not imply that all monasteries applied
exactly the same rules. From the beginning of the spread of monastic
Buddhism, different rules or different interpretations of the rules started
to emerge, and various schools (nikya) arose. These schools were de ned
on the basis of their disciplinary texts (vinaya).^4
When Buddhism entered China in the rst century AD, it was the
monks of the northern Buddhist schools who formed the rst Buddhist
(^1) Dgha II, p. 154; Chang ahan jing, T.1.1.26a27–28. See also Waldschmidt 1950–51,
Part 3, pp. 386–387, for Sanskrit, Tibetan, Pli, and Chinese (Mlasarvstivdavinaya)
sources. 2
Later, the term was also used for bodhisattvas and eminent monks (Forte 1994, pp.
1022–1023). 3
See, for instance, a recent study on the tasks and functions of the sagha according
to the early Buddhist texts: Freiberger 2000 (particularly pp. 33–48). 4
The core of monastic discipline is a list of precepts (prtimoka) and a set of for-
mal procedures (karmavcan). These precepts are introduced and commented upon
in the chapters for monks and nuns (bhiku- and bhikuvibhagas). The procedures
are explained in detail in the so-called skandhakas or vastus (chapters). The bhiku- and
bhikuvibhagas and the skandhakas or vastus together constitute the full vinayas. Besides
this, the term vinaya is also used for all texts related to monastic discipline. The vinayas
of the different schools coincide to a large extent, both regarding the number and
the topic of the precepts. This similarity undoubtedly points to a common basis. In
essence the various schools thus coincide. Many differences, however, appear in the
interpretation of the rules, the mitigating circumstances and the exceptions that were
allowed. When the vinayas, for instance, all equally say that ‘a wrong woman’ cannot
be ordained, the interpretation of ‘a wrong woman’ differs: depending on the vinaya,
it is either a woman thief, an adulteress, or a bad wife (see Heirman 2002a, part 1,
pp. 152–157). See also note 177.