THE DEVELOPMENT OF EARLY INDIAN BUDDHISM 73on a year-round basis. Although some monks continued their dry-season wan-
Jierings, others settled down more or less permanently. This resulted in the
Oistinction between town-dwelling monks and forest-dwelling monks that has
'continued to the present in modern Theravada countries.
Town-dwelling monks were involved in the daily routine of the monastery
::and its service to the people, functioning as scholars, teachers, preachers, ad-
flninistrators, doctors, and even politicians (see Section 6.2). Although they
\:were exhorted to keep their personal possessions to a minimum, none of the
!monks-contrary to a misperception persistent in the West-took a vow of
iPoverty. The list of possessions forbidden to them was much shorter than the
(jlist of possessions allowed. In many cases, gifts that monks were forbidden to
~ccept for their personal use, such as servants, vehicles, and land, were given
Ito monasteries on an institutional basis. Thus some town and city monasteries
~pecame lavishly endowed, and the life of their monks quite luxurious. Monas-
lteries also developed along caravan routes, reflecting the symbiotic relation-
t~hip between the Sangha and the merchant classes, in which the merchants
fgave financial support to the monasteries, and the monasteries provided a
(ltaven for traveling merchants. When merchants established trading enclaves in
~.'.~o···reign cities, they would then invite monks to set up monasteries there so
~~at they would not be without the opportunity to make merit (see Section
IA.4). This relationship helped provide a mechanism for the spread ofBud-
llbism not only throughout India but also to other areas where Indian mer-
m}lants took their business over land or sea: Southeast Asia, central Asia, and
t~hina. Forest-dwelling monks, by contrast, practiced their meditation and
l~icter asceticism less encumbered with possessions and social entanglements,
ln.: d were thus freer in th~ir pursuit of their spiritual goals (Strong EB, sec.
~~3.3). However, if they developed a reputation for meditative or psychic pow-
lh, t~eir hermitages, like the town monasteries, might become laden with
lib.nauons as well.
As this specialization into two groups developed, a certain tension arose
een the two. Although it is easy to paint the town-dwelling monks as the
ains of the piece, in actual practice each group acted as a counterweight
inst the abuses of the other. On the one hand, communal life offered an
ellent opportunity for study and memorization of texts, but was a less-
n-ideal setting for meditation, as factions split over minor differences in
ine and practice, and monks in general became less strict in their obser-
e of the rules. For instance, if we can believe the texts, the Second Conn-
as essentially an instance of forest-dwelling monks settling an issue that
city-dwelling monks had caused. Another incident, reported in both the
and the Vinaya, contrasts the quarrelsome city monks ofKausambi with
rmony of a small-forest hermitage. On the other hand, the life of forest-
'ng monks lent itself to abuses as well. Later legends that grew up around
charismatic figures as Upagupta (Strong EB, sec. 1.2) and Pi:r:u;lola
advaja suggest that forest meditators might use their psychic powers to at-
personal followings, ignoring the strictures of the Vinaya and in effect se-
'ng from the order. In such cases, scholarly monks from the towns might