Transitoriness and Transformations 97Vinaya rules eventually became extremely elaborate. They regulated
all aspects of the bhikkhus’ relationship to one another, to the
world they lived in, common habits of courtesy, how to eat, what
was allowed for shelter, beds, clothing, food, etc. All such rules
were justified by putting them into the mouth of the Buddha. Many
rules were established with an interesting formula: a group of
wicked (sometimes hilariously wicked) bhikkhus known as the
Chabbaggiya bhikkhus are depicted as grossly violating some
common forms of morality; the people at large murmur that the
‘Sakyaputtas’ are not following what is expected of a person
renouncing the world, upon which the Buddha forbids such behav-
iour. Then, to meet the needs of old or ill bhikkhus, or for some
common-sense reason, exceptions are made. Examples run
throughout the Vinaya texts. While bathing, the Chabbaggiya
bhikkhus rub their bodies against wood in various ways and massage
each other which is forbidden, but exceptions are made to allow
for a sick bhikkhu to rub a scab with a kind of back-scratcher, and
an old bhikkhu to have his body bathed by others. Or, the
Chabbaggiya bhikkhus burn down the forests; the Blessed One
forbids this. Then a fire strikes the vihara, and the bhikkhus are
afraid to set a counter-fire because it is banned, and the Blessed
One then expressly allows this. (Cullagavaga5, 10 and 5, 32). The
Chabbaggiya bhikkhus may have been a rhetorical device, but
they, and the opposite tendency to take the rules extremely literally,
illustrated the problems of monastic life.
Who joined the Sangha? Who gave support to Buddhism? These
are questions inherently hard to answer. We know that Buddhism
found a base in urban and commercially oriented groups in contrast
to the more rural focus of early Brahmanism. Many scholars have
tried to draw conclusions about the social composition of the
Sangha and lay supporters from lists of names given in Pali literature.
These show the largest number coming from Brahmans, next from
Khattiyas, and only a few from gahapatisand ‘low’-born groups
(Chakravarty 1996: 122–49). However, this does not justify a con-
clusion that the early Sangha drew members primarily from elites.
Lists drawn from names given in the literature cannot be statistically
representative of the entire population of the Sangha, since the
names would have been that of the more elite, educated, articulate,
prestigious, etc. (and occasionally the notoriously wicked, like
Devadatta) who would have been more likely to find mention.96 Buddhism in India
As noted in Chapter 2, the organisation of the Buddhist Sangha
was unique in India, perhaps in the world. It was certainly the first
monastic organisation of its type. It was governed by a written (or
orally recited and memorised) code, which gave it a democratic
constitution unlike any other religious organisation of its day or
later. The central and earliest part of this was the Patimokkha,
which was communally recited and consisted of the major rules,
with the most severe infringement leading to expulsion—a
punishment tellingly described as ‘defeat’. There were also formal
confession and collective decision about the offence and its
penance, with reference to the rules. The word ‘patimokkha’ itself,
according to Max Muller is derived from the term for ‘bond’, and
in fact the Patimokkhawas the main binding force of the collective
life. This established a collective democracy within the framework
of the authority of tradition; as for the tradition it has to be decided
democratically. No other religious institution had any similar formal
code. In Brahmanic maths and ashrams the head or guru, under
whatever name, simply exercised authority. The Jain monastic
organisation also had no established code. For the bhikkhu, in
contrast, a collective set of rules to which everyone could appeal
provided a framework for some kind of collective democracy in which
the elders were the crucial decision makers (Dutt 1988: 66–70).
There were also collective established ceremonies, for instance
the kapinaor distribution of robes, held at the end of the rainy
season.
Strikingly, the Buddhist monk took no vow of obedience, either to
the collective or to an individual. Where a single ‘authority’ came to
head a monastery, it seems to have been linked to political patron-
age. It was also explicitly said that seniority was the only factor that
needed to be considered to give precedence and particular respect in
the Sangha. This was meant to exclude not only social status of the
individual before entry, but also the privilege and precedence result-
ing from accomplishment in terms of the values of the Dhamma
itself. This is noteworthy, considering how in Communist parties
‘declassed’ members dominate on the basis of ability to articulate the
principles of Marxism and leadership qualities, abilities that may
illustrate individual ‘merit’ but also are related to the social status of
the individual before entering the organisation.
Though the Buddha himself was flexible regarding behaviour
and the life of the Sangha must have been simple to begin with, the