The Sangha and Monastic Life    Unit MBI

                                                        LESSON 8

Lesson 8   The Forest Dwellers, Wanderers and The First Monasteries

The Jetavan Monastery

Buddha spent the second and third rainy seasons after his enlightenment at the Venuvana. For these first three years, Buddha and his monks lived within the forests or in parks and small viharas built to accommodate any and all wanderers.

Just after the third rains retreat had ended and before Buddha had considered allowing women to form a Sangha, a wealthy merchant came to visit Buddha from the city of Rajagriha. When he  offered to build sixty huts specifically for the monks, Buddha accepted the offer. The merchant then invited Buddha and his monks for a meal to formally donate the shelter to the Sangha.

The merchant’s brother, Anathapindika, a Savatthi businessman, was visiting his brother at that time. When he saw the preparations that his brother was making to feed the monks, he became curious about the extensive planning of the meal. After asking about the Buddha Dharma followers, he set off for the Bamboo Grove, with some excitement at such a novelty, to meet Buddha in person.

There he met Buddha and listened to his teachings. He felt highly impressed and asked Buddha to accept him as a lay disciple, inviting Buddha to his own home in Savatthi. It was this event that led to the founding of the Jetavana monastery, one of the first of its kind.

Savatthi was the most advanced and cultured of all the cities in the Ganges basin at that time. It was the capital of Kovala and the center of commerce and home to many business men. Anathapindika enthusiastically searched all over the city for a suitable site that would fit the specifications of  Buddha and his group. It had to be beautiful and secluded, but sufficiently close to the city so that the monks could travel back and forth easily for alms.

One place met those requirements exactly. It was Prince Jeta’s personal pleasure park. Undismayed, Anathapindinka agreed to pay the price demanded by the prince, which was the number of gold coins, laid one against another, that covered the whole acreage. In addition, he would spend  540 million pieces of gold on the monastic buildings.

Finally, Prince Jeta realized that Anathapindika could only be going to such expense and trouble for great merit or for someone quite exceptional, so he threw in a final piece of land for free. In his honor, Anathapindika called the monastery Jetavana (Jeta’s Park).

When Buddha arrived at Jetavana, Anathapindika presented the monastery to him by pouring water over his hands from a golden pitcher, after which Buddha gave his blessings. The dedication ceremony for the monastery lasted a full nine months.

Jetavana would not be the only monastic dwelling of Buddha Dharma built in Savatthi, although it was the first, for Visakha, the female lay disciple, later built the Purvarama, and Buddha actually spent six rain retreats there.

However, it was Jetavana that was to become his preference and, during the last twenty years of his life, he spent all his rains retreats there. That period was coincidental with the institution of the first necessary rules and the ceasing of his presentation of new sutras. Whether or not there was a connection between these three events, we can only surmise.

The important Vihara donations were:

:

1. Jetavanarama near Savatthi donated by Anathapindika.

2. Veluvanarama at Rajagaha. It was the first gift to Buddha of an arama (a monk settlement in the city) by King Bimbisara. Buddha spent 6 rainy retreats there.

3. Pubbarama at Savatthi donated by Visakha.

4. Jivakarama at Rajagaha, donated by the renowned physician Jivaka, who erected it in his great Mango park.

5. Ambapali-vana at Vesali donated by Ambapali, city courtesan of Vesali.

6. Nigrodharama at Kapilavatthu.

7. Kukkutarama, Ghositarama (built after Buddha’s death), and Pavarikambavana at Kosambi.

8. Badarikarama.

By the time the Jetavana Park was completed, Buddha’s community numbered many thousands of bhikshus. Many joined the new movement as fully ordained monks or lay followers.

Slowly, for reasons of age or preference, many of these followers of Buddha ceased their lives of wandering and settled more or less permanently in monastic dwellings. It was this that led to the development of the “Discipline” (Vinaya), in which the rules and regulations for the governing of all aspects of life were set by Buddha, as and when the circumstances arose.

Further into the future, Buddha’s teachings would also be developed in a more elaborate and refined manner, giving rise to a vast amount of literature, at first oral, but then written, which would seek to preserve the Dharma.

Following the opening of this and other monasteries, three main forms of Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni life developed,-- the wandering life, the monastic community life, and the forest dwelling life.

The monastery dwellers and the wanderers who most frequently used parks and village viharas were termed village dwellers (graamavaasi) and the others forest dwellers (aranyavaasi).

Clearly less formal and more auto-discipline surrounded the wanders and forest dwellers. However, we must remember that the forest ascetic practice of the middle way had already been a longstanding Aryan tradition, and there actually existed forest dwelling tribes, called Kowi Anukasha.

The wanderers, which included Buddha, moved about in large bodies from one village or town to another, where their main activity was to discuss and teach with as little debate as possible. The forest sramana group of more or less solitary forest dwellers spent most of their time in meditation.

The Attaha-kavagga Sutta is very critical of the communal travelling group in general, regarding them as half-hearted ascetics. This is especially so because of their tendency, over time, without the direct leadership of Buddha and under the onslaught of Brahmin criticism, to degenerate into disputers of useless metaphysical doctrines. (Sutta Nipata 796-803, 824-834)

Clearly this was not Buddha’s objective and in the Attaha-kavagga there is a complete denial of the possibility of sagehood for cognitive directed learning and views. (Sutta Nipata 1057-58, 1062, 1077-1078, 1080, 1087)

The forest dwellers, in contrast, lived in the silence, which was an old Vedic tradition. So important was this idea of the folly of words, that Buddha discouraged speculation and idle words when it came to point that had no practical benefit. In the Cullavagga Vagga of the Vinaya, Gautama is quoted as saying that monks who learn metaphysics (lokayata), and presumably any form of materialist philosophical ideals, commit an offence.

Slowly, it seems, the male Sangha progressively abandoned the wandering and forest life for the more settled one and the woman’s Sangha, probably against the will of many, were more or less restricted to the monastic life  All the village dwellers were considered by those who stuck to the forests as lacking guts and stamina. It was this obvious tendency that gave rise to the idea of the coming of the dark days (pacchimakala), the decline of Buddha Dharma.

Because the rigorous set of rules and discipline were linked to intellectual rigidity, many Buddha Dharma forest monks kept their hair long (dirghakesha) and beards (shashru) uncut, probably as an unstated protest against the community of monastery monks, who were referred to as shaven-headed householders.

A logical conclusion, supported by many Buddhist scholars, is that proto-Mahayana and Tantric thought arose from these forest dwelling monks.

In any event, the sangha community, ever growing, eventually became more sutra oriented and less meditation oriented. It is probable that the Prajnaparamita texts, related to the experience of emptiness, arose from the profoundness of the forest meditation practices. It is a sad commentary on the scriptures that what arose from direct experience became turned into academic readings that were erroneously thought to be themselves method and not result.

The increasing number of adepts and the increasing attractiveness of the Buddhist ideal, together with the fact that Buddhism had become a social fad,-- it even became the custom for wealthy families to send at least one representative to join a sangha,-- caused an increase in followers of discriminative temperament who joined the path of Buddha Dharma. These thrived best on the group dynamics of a monastery and the less rigorous life.

The now lower proportion of anti-social sensitive adepts and the aversive temperament adepts had a tendency to choose forest dwelling, with its separation from formal discipline and group dynamics, in order to pursue a more rigorous but more liberated meditative focus.

The earliest members of the Buddhist movement, at least while it was predominantly a forest tradition, were mostly of the warrior class. Gradually, however, Brahmins began to enter. 

A later tally of the early (Pali) canon, showing the original life of those who entered the Sanghas, is interesting.

Of the Brahmins 39% were monks

Of the Brahmins 42% were lay supporters

Of the Warriors (khattiyas) 23% were monks

Of the Warriors  only 16% were lay supporters

Of the Merchants (vaishyas) 23% were monks

Of the Merchants 32% were lay  supporters

Of the Sudras 8% were monks

Of the Sudras  6% were of lay supporters.

Previous ascetics of unknown roots made up the remainder.

So although indeed Buddha Dharma was considered anti caste, few Sudras actually saw fit to join or support the order. Another interesting figure is that 74%  of the lay supporters were Brahmins and merchants, and it seems possible that it was the combined thrust of the ex Brahmin/merchant class within the monks that led Buddha Dharma to a monastic setting (62%).

We can see then that really two traditions had formed: a forest tradition of meditators and a monastery tradition that taught and studied the teachings. In part this was due to the internal dynamics that required communal teachings, and in part it was due to the rising doctrinal and intellectual understanding that was required to better compete with the Brahmin’s Vedic tradition.

Many Brahmins claimed that the way to salvation was through their sacred literature, while the minority slipped away into the true light of meditation. Matching this claim, the Sangha was forced to proclaim their own sacred leaning and later their sacred texts.

The Wanderers then, originally led by Buddha until about his 55th year, and then by skilled disciples, were really travelling missionaries who lived where they could, in either monasteries, parks, small viharas or the forest itself.

Now lest we build an incorrect image of what a monastery was like in those days, let us clarify what the idea is. Do not imagine buildings like the later great monasteries and universities, for we are talking about ancient India here. The network of caves in Ajanta, for example, was a monastery. So a Buddha Dharma monastery was, is, and should be really an idea of community for Dharma living, not a place.

Through Buddha’s example, Buddha Dharma forest dwellers had developed a paradigm for keeping the relationship of man in balance with all beings in the universe and indeed with all plant life. Today, this is difficult to practice, as a balanced relationship is being destroyed by the consumer and materialistic values and the globalisation of society.

The Buddhist concept was never to consider the environment as independent and separate one from another. From the beginning, and even more later when the concept of Non Duality arose, separation and an individual existence were rejected. This is a major premise upon which all concerns for the environment must begin, and must have been a natural development among Buddhist and indigenous forest dwellers.

We must remember that Buddhist philosophy is founded on the important concepts of phenomenal interdependence and interrelationship. Indeed the whole idea of mundane karma cannot be divorced from the relationship of the human creature to his full environment, although it is generally a tendency to think in terms of human interrelationships. You will see later that rules that were developed even prohibited monks from urinating on green forest life and it was forbidden to cut trees.

It is difficult to imagine the Indian forests in Buddha’s time, but you may have some idea if it is realized that the forests covered 80% of India. Thus dwelling in the forests was quite different that it may be today, with civilization a stone’s throw away.

Buddha, in speaking of the four great resources of a monk (Cattaro-nissaya), declared lodging at the root of a tree (Rukkhamula senasana) to be one. It is worth noting that in the Greater Discourse on Voidness (Mahasunyata Sutra, Majjhima Nikaya) the usual dwellings of monks (at least originally) were the following secluded resting places:

The forest

The root of a tree

A mountain

A ravine

A hillside cave

A charnel ground

A jungle thicket

An open space

A heap of straw.

Buddha remarked, “So lodged, it is good for the monk ‘to strive so long as life shall last’” and it is interesting to note that Buddha clearly declared, on noticing the multiple resting places prepared for the bhikkhus at a Sakyan’s dwelling, “a bhikkhu does not shine ‘by delighting in company’, or ‘by rejoicing in society’, and it will be difficult for him to obtain at will the ‘bliss of renunciation, the bliss of seclusion, the bliss of peace, the bliss of enlightenment. It can be expected that when a monk lives alone, withdrawn from society, he will obtain at will, without trouble or difficulty,’ that bliss.

This seems so far from the development of resident monasteries, that we must wonder about the utility of that change. However, this does not mean that Buddha believed in total individual isolation. In fact, his preference would seem to have been for small groups, isolated from the social world of the senses. In the Khaggavisana Sutta (The Rhinoceros Horn) of the Sutta Nipata, a monk is advised to avoid association of a sensory kind, declaring, ‘If one does not find a wise friend, a companion living according to good virtues, and prudent, then like a ruler who has abandoned his conquered country, let one lives alone like a rhinoceros horn.’ With no suitable companion, a monk should wander alone like a rhinoceros.

It is clear that originally monks were advised to live in solitude when practicing, and to come together to observe Uposatha. They lived together only during the rainy season, when wandering had to be suspended. For three months, from the middle of June, rains were torrential. Rivers in every part were normally flooded and there was widespread neighborhood flooding. The monks had to seek shelter to avoid damaging crops and insects. The Buddhist monks had their Vassa; the Jains had their Pajjusana; and Brahmins their Dhruvasila (fixed abode).

The monks took up Vassa residence on the day after the full moon of Asalha (mid June) or a month later and continued in it for three following months. They were allowed to go out of the settlement under certain specified conditions when their presence elsewhere was required for good reasons, but their recommended absence could not exceed a week.

Where and how did they live?

Do not imagine great buildings with meditation and dining halls. The rain retreats were held in a fixed abode, but the dwellings were just rain shelters. Up to sixty temporary rain huts could be constructed in a day and these avasas were dismantled after the rain season had finished. Later, there was a tendency for them to be more solid and many bhikkhus returned to the same avasa to pass a later rain retreat. These monks were known as Samana-samvasakas.

Slowly the customs changed, for there were no fixed rules, only traditions, so some monks decided to stay on in the avasas after the rain retreats and they became known as Avasikas (dwellers at the avasa).

Why did Buddha permit the Viharas?

He declared at one point that, “The viharas ward off heat and cold, beasts of prey, creeping things and gnats. They are for purpose of residence, ease, meditation and gaining insight. The gift of a vihara is the chief gift to the Sangha.”

But Buddha’s idea of a vihara consisted of groups of cells prepared for a single ascetic or a small group of monks. These allotted portions (parivenas), were not personal possessions, and there were limits in terms of size and procedure. For example, there had to be a quorum of monks to mark and approve of the site, which could be no larger than twelve hand spans by seven arm spans. It also had to be accessible to all,-- not crowded in the day, not noisy at night and airy and fit for privacy. It is interesting to note that a monk could accept a building on behalf of the Sangha, but not even the smallest cubicle for himself.

Great changes took place in little time and again we must reflect and wonder why.

The arama: Monk settlements in the cities

The monk settlements in the cities were known as arama, usually actually owned a wealthy merchant. It was generally given to the monks by the owner for permanent use and then was named a Sangharama. The donor of an arama would continue to look after the property and employ a special staff of servants (aramika) and superintendents (aramika-pesaka) to take care of them. Such was the extreme, that King Bimbisara employed so many servants, that they had to be accommodated in an entire village known as ‘Pilinda gama’.

Jetavanarama for example, built by Anathapindaka, had viharas, parivenas, kotthakas (chambers), upatthanasalas (meeting halls), kitchens, store-houses, privies, promenades, open wells, covered wells, bathing places, bath-rooms, ponds, and pillared halls with awnings (mandapas).

Naturally, administrative functions and ceremonies arose. Settlements required  demarcation and fixing of boundaries (sima) and the sangharama could only be established after the sima were fixed. The monks could then proceed with their collective congregational life and the rites and ceremonies that consequently arose from it--, Pavarana (Invitation for Moral evaluation) and Kathina (Distribution of robes) and the like.

As the gap between the lifestyles of the forest dwellers and the village dwellers grew, so did the derision of one group for the other, such a far cry from those first twenty years. As a consequence, Buddha was forced to take a clear position with regard to their principal criticisms of each other. This is echoed by the Ven Mahacunda:

Agutarra Nikaya V 4-6

Mahacundasuttaü- Venerable Mahacunda

04. I heard thus. At one time venerable Mahacunda was living in Ceti, in his native place and venerable Mahacunda addressed the bhikkhus:

Friends, the bhikkhus, who study the Teaching depreciate the bhikkhus who develop the mind to higher states. `These say, we raise the mind to a higher state. They concentrate, what do they concentrate and how do they concentrate?' By that the bhikkhus studying the Teaching are displeased and the bhikkhus raising the mind to a higher state are displeased. It is not for the good and pleasantness of many, not for the welfare and happiness of gods and men

Friends, the bhikkhus, who raise the mind to a higher state depreciate the bhikkhus who study the Teaching `These say, we study the Teaching, they are unbalanced, haughty, wavering, talkative, with loose talk, without mindful awareness, not concentrating scatter brained and with uncontrolled mental faculties. What Teaching do they study and how do they study?' By that the bhikkhus raising their minds to higher states are displeased and the bhikkhus studying the Teaching are displeased. It is not for the good and pleasantness of many, not for the welfare and happiness of gods and men

Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhus studying the Teaching praise the bhikkhus studying the Teaching and does not praise the bhikkhus raising the mind to a higher degree By that the bhikkhus studying the Teaching are displeased and the bhikkhus raising the mind to a higher state are displeased. It is not for the good and pleasantness of many, not for the welfare and happiness of gods and men

Here, bhikkhus, the bhikkhus raising the mind to a higher degree praise the bhikkhus raising the mind to a higher degree and does not praise the bhikkhus studying the Teaching. By that the bhikkhus raising the mind to a higher degree are displeased and the bhikkhus studying the Teaching are displeased. It is not for the good and pleasantness of many, not for the welfare and happiness of gods and men

Therefore, friends, you should train in this manner.:

We who study the Teaching will praise the bhikkhus that raise the mind to a higher degree. What is the reason?

Friends, it is surprising and rare to find persons in the world, who abide experiencing the deathless element with the body. Therefore you should train thus:

We who raise the mind to a higher degree should praise the bhikkhus studying the Teaching. What is the reason? It is surprising and rare to find persons who understand the deep meanings in the Teaching and penetratingly see it with wisdom.

But how could a meditator allow just a cognitive appreciation of the Dharma?

Wisdom had to be applied, and that was precisely the next point addressed in the sutra, the question focusing on the concept that the teachings must lead ”inwards and to be realized by the wise by themselves”.

05. Then the wandering ascetic Moliyasivaka approached The Blessed One, exchanged friendly greetings sat on a side and said: Venerable sir, it is said, the Teaching is here and now. How much is the Teaching here and now, not a matter of time, inviting to inspect, leading inwards and to be realized by the wise by themselves?

Sivaka, on this, I will cross question you, explain it as it pleases you.

Sivaka, when there is greed in your mind do you know there's greed in my mind and when there is no greed in your mind, do you know, there's no greed in my mind? Yes, venerable sir. Sivaka, when there is greed in your mind your knowing, there's greed in my mind and when there is no greed in your mind, your knowing, there's no greed in my mind. Sivaka, in this manner the teaching is here and now

Sivaka, when there is hate in your mind do you know there's hate in my mind and when there is no hate in your mind, do you know, there's no hate in my mind? Yes, venerable sir. Sivaka, when there is hate in your mind your knowing, there's hate in my mind and when there is no hate in your mind your knowing, there's no hate in my mind. Sivaka, in this manner the teaching is here and now

Sivaka, when there is delusion in your mind do you know there's delusion in my mind and when there is no delusion in your mind, do you know, there's no delusion in my mind? Yes, venerable sir. Sivaka, when there is delusion in your mind your knowing, there's delusion in your mind and when there is no delusion in your mind, your knowing, there's no delusion in my mind. Sivaka, in this manner the Teaching is here and now, not a matter of time, inviting to inspect, leading inwards and to be realized by the wise by themselves.

I understand venerable sir, bear me as a disciple who has taken refuge from today until life lasts.

Here it is clear that all academic learning and reading of the sutras is valid if it leads to the internalization of the truth of No-identity and the elimination of Greed, Hate and Delusion. But the sutra continues, making that point more evident. The key is not just that it must lead inward to the dissolution of Greed (lust of the mind), Hate (which is aversion) and Delusion (the harbinger of confusion), but it must be here and it must be now, not later, in a matter of time, and it must be clear and evident, not subconscious and unknown.

06. Then a certain Brahmin approached The Blessed One, exchanged friendly greetings sat on a side and said: Venerable sir, it is said, the Teaching is here and now. How much is the Teaching here and now, not a matter of time, inviting to inspect, leading inwards and to be realized by the wise by themselves?

Brahmin, on this, I will cross question you, explain it as it pleases you.

Brahmin, when there is lust in your mind do you know there's lust in my mind and when there is no lust in your mind, do you know, there's no lust in my mind? Yes, venerable sir. Brahmin, when there is lust in your mind your knowing, there's lust in my mind and when there is no lust in your mind your knowing, there's no lust in my mind, says the Teaching is here and now

Brahmin, when there is hate in your mind do you know there's hate in my mind and when there is no hate in your mind, do you know, there's no hate in my mind? Yes, venerable sir. Brahmin, when there is hate in your mind your knowing, there's hate in your mind and when there is no hate in your mind your knowing, there's no hate in my mind, says the Teaching is here and now

Brahmin, when there is delusion ........re.... bodily pollution....re.... verbal pollution, ...re... mental pollution, ...re... in your mind do you know there's mental pollution in my mind and when there is no mental pollution in your mind, do you know, there's no mental pollution in my mind? Yes, venerable sir. Brahmin, when there is mental pollution in your mind your knowing, there's mental pollution in my mind and when there is no mental pollution in your mind your knowing, there's no mental pollution in my mind, says the Teaching is here and now, not a matter of time, inviting to inspect, leading inwards and to be realized by the wise by themselves.

I understand venerable sir, bear me as a disciple who has taken refuge from today until life lasts.

It is then left for each one today, living as a forest monk, a wandering teacher of the Dharma, or a dweller in a monastery, to see if indeed the Dharma within himself as Buddha, Dharma and Sangha is really inwardly realized, here and now, and easily observed, or whether his Buddha Dharma is only like the gold that covers a stupa, brilliant but without substance.

Lay Followers

While the number of people who flocked to the Dharma were many, causing much consternation among parents and authorities, particularly Brahmins, the number of lay followers far outnumbered the monks. To put the true picture of the times in focus, we cannot neglect these lay Buddhists. We know that most were Brahmins and merchants and therefore well educated, cultured and generally, compared to the Indian masses, quite wealthy. They did not give up their wealth or position to become Buddhist bhikkus or bhikkhinis. They continued with their fine garments and houses, their cattle, their surfs and their slaves.

Tapussa and Bhallika

You will remember that we have mentioned the first two lay followers,-- the brothers Tapussa and Bhallika.

At the time of Buddha’s Awakening, they were passing close to that spot, when their bullocks unexplainably stopped and refused to go on. The two brothers inspected the bullocks, the carts, and all relevant conditions that made the carts immobile. They could find no reason and so sought a divine reason for the stoppage. Looking about the area, they came upon Buddha and seeing immediately his holy state, decided that that was the reason why the bullocks had stopped.

The two brothers were delighted at discovering the reason. At first they considered cooking alms food, but thought that this would take too long, so they took their choicest preserved food, put it in a gold dish and going to Buddha, said, "Venerable Sir, may you, out of compassion, accept this victual."

Now we come to an important spiritual question for Buddha. Would it indeed be correct for him to accept this lavish food? If you put yourself in this position you can see that it would not be an easy decision. Could you be sure that it was not Mara setting up a desire for that food that prompted your acceptance?

So Buddha considered carefully. He remembered that in a previous situation a Buddha of another time had been approached by Four Great Deva Kings. Each had offered an alms bowl of precious granite the color of  green gram. The Buddha of the other time had considered the great benefit that would accrue to the four devas, and so accepted all four bowls. With expedient means, he had converted the four bowls into one by placing them one on top of another. Legend naturally claims that they then actually became one bowl.

This was sufficient precedent, so Buddha took the food. After he had finished eating, as was the tradition, the brothers offered water for drinking and washing. Then they made obeisance to Buddha and seated themselves as Buddha gave them a discourse. 

Now we might think that this was merely a traditional way of barter,-- food for Dharma,-- but we must look beyond the custom to the roots and see the karmic connection between the two gifts. The key lies in the free giving without expectation. It is clear that the brothers would have given without receiving, as would Buddha. Thus their intentions were correct and honorable, being devoid of Identity.

This offering to Buddha was essentially a sacrifice of their Identity and this sacrifice made them ready and receptive. Thus they became established in the Dharma, becoming the first lay Buddhists.

Before departing, the two brothers said to Buddha, "Venerable Sir, may the Bhagava, out of compassion, bestow on us something which we may revere every day." Buddha, possessing nothing tangible to give except the Dharma, plucked eight hairs from his head. The brothers, with complete wonder and awe, placed the hairs in a gold casket as relics to return to their home.

When Buddha was residing much later in Jetavana monastery and speaking of the distinction of lay disciples accordingly to their merit, he declared, "Bhikkhus, among my lay disciples who have taken refuge earliest in Buddha and the Dhamma, the merchant brothers Tapussa and Bhallika are the foremost."

Actually, much later after that first incident, when Buddha was residing in Rajagaha, the two brothers returned on a trading trip and once more visited him. Buddha gave another discourse before them, whereupon the elder brother, Tapussa, was established in Stream-Entry Knowledge and its Fruition, while the younger brother, Bhallika, became a bikkhu and, after a while, was established as a full arahat.

Anathapindika (from the Anguttara Nikaya)

Let us now then examine the story of Anathapindika, who, you will remember, gave generously to the Dharma. He was the son of a rich man from Savatthi and his given name was Sudattha. As the head of his own family, he had earned a reputation for being an honorable and generous man, giving rice to the destitute. He was therefore given the name Anathapindika, “giver of rice to the destitute” (Anatha –destitute, pindika -rice-giver).

You will remember Anathapindika from the account given above about the establishment of the Jetavan Monastery. Well, after asking about the Buddha Dharma followers, he set off for the Bamboo Grove, with some excitement, to meet Buddha in person.

As the gates of all great cities were closed during the night, he had to wait until daylight. When the gates were opened, he entered Rajagaha, heard one of Buddha’s discourses, and was established in the Fruition of Stream Entry Knowledge.

After Buddha agreed to visit him, Anathapindika returned home giving instructions to have forty-five temporary residences built along the way to Savatthi where Buddha and his disciples could stop and rest. He bought the Jeta park, as we have mentioned, and constructed there the great and elaborate Jeta monastery.

He spent a fortune on the monastery, but that was little, for in addition, he made regular donations of:

1.      Alms-food every day by the drawing of lots (Salaka bhatta), for 500 bhikkhus,

2.      Rice gruel every day by the ticket system for a further 500 bhikkhus,

3.      Daily offerings of alms-food to up to 500 new bhikkhus who had arrived and who had not acquainted themselves with the daily route for collecting alms-food,

4.      Almsfood for up to 500 bhikkhus who were about to go on a journey,

5.      Almsfood for up to five hundred bhikkhus who were sick.

6.      Almsfood for up to five hundred bhikkhus who tended the sick bhikkhus,

7.      Seating place for five hundred bhikkhus at any time at his own residence.

Buddha, when speaking of lay disciples declared, "Bhikkhus, among my lay disciples who delight in giving, Sudattha the Householder, known as Anathapindika, is the foremost."

The Anathapindikovada sutra (Uparipannasa)

The Jetavana monastery was a large complex consisting of  Buddha's private (scented) chamber, the square pinnacled monastery, a number of monastic dwellings with exquisite ornate designs, and a garden with fruit trees, flowering trees and shrubbery, and restful seats.

Once during Buddha's later residence at the Jetavana monastery, Anathapindika the Householder was in pain, and gravely ill and was unable to visit Buddha, which he was accustomed to do daily. He sent an attendant to the Venerable Sariputta to respectfully ask him to come to his residence.

The Venerable Sariputta, accompanied by the Venerable Ananda as his attendant, went to Anathapindika, and asked how he was. Anathapindika the Householder replied that he was unwell and that his pain was increasing and not decreasing.

The Venerable Sariputta, knowing that Anathapindika was dying, gave him a comprehensive discourse in the form of an exercise on craving, conceit and wrong view, using correct mindfulness upon the sense doors and upon the Identity. The base of the discourse was to aid this generous man in the elimination of expectations about a next life in terms of its benefits and to train him to be free of attachment.

This theme he impressed upon the sick householder concerning nine different factors: Sense-doors, Sense-objects, Consciousness, Contact, Sensation, Dhatu Elements, Khandha aggregates, Jhana of the Non-material Sphere, and all things knowable, (sabba dhamma).

When the discourse had ended, Anathapindika the Householder wept bitterly. Then the Venerable Ananda asked Anathapindika if he felt attached to his possessions or if he was wondering about the benefits of his past meritorious giving.

Anathapindika replied,

“Venerable sir, I am not attached to my possessions. Nor am I wavering. I have indeed for a long time attended upon the Bhagava. I have also attended upon the bhikkhus who are worthy of respect. But, I have never heard such words of the Dhamma before”.

 Sariputta answered and gave the following reason,

"Householder, the laity who wear white cloths cannot understand clearly this word of the Dhamma. Householder, only bhikkhus can appreciate such admonition."

Anathapindika then made this important request,

"Venerable Sariputta, I beg of you. Let this word of the Dhamma be made clear to the laity who wear white cloths. Venerable Sir, there are many worthy men whose understanding is not clouded by the dust of defilements. For them it is a great loss in not being able to see the Supramundane for not having heard the Dhamma. There are likely to be people who will be able to fully understand the Dhamma and win Arahatship only if you expound the Dhamma to them."

The Venerable Sariputta and Ananda then departed and shortly after, Anathapindika died.

Citta (from the Citta Samyutta)

Citta was the son of a rich man in the town of Macchikasanda, in the Province of Magadha. Legend declares that at the time of his birth, flowers of five hues rained down over the whole town up to knee-deep. His parents said, "Our son has brought his own name. For he has delighted the mind of the whole town by being blessed with the wondrous floral tribute of five colours. Let us call him 'Citta'."

Citta became a householder and at the death of his father, he succeeded to his wealth and position. At that time, the Venerable Mahanama, one of the Group of Five Ascetics, came to Macchikasanda. Citta the Householder was fascinated by Mahanama for his remarkable tranquility, so he invited him to his home to take alms food. When they had finished his meal, Citta the Householder took him to his orchard, had a vihara built for him and requested him to reside there, as well as to accept daily alms-food from his house.

Out of compassion, the Venerable Mahanama consented, and seeing that the householder was destined to acquire great merit, gave him a discourse on the six sense-bases and the objects of the senses. Mahanama taught this to Citta because he was seen to be a person of middling intelligence (majjhumpuggala).

Citta had cultivated Insight into the impermanence, woefulness (dukkha) and insubstantiality of mind and matter as conditioned phenomena, and his current efforts at Insight-meditation had led him to the Enlightenment stage of Never-Returner (Anagami).

You will note that he attained the stage of Never Returner, yet he was still a layman. In this and other cases, we see that the actual possession of wealth accompanied by selfless giving is no impediment. The problem is the possession of Identity, and clearly many fall into the trap of self deception, believing themselves free from Identity through an act of apparently selfless giving, but which really is a motivated social giving, well hidden by the mind.

The following account is taken from the Commentary on the Dhammapada:

Citta the Householder one day reflected upon his condition of  Never-Returner and saw that this had been attained without even a direct meeting with Buddha. He thus had five hundred carts fully laden with provisions such as sesamum, rice, ghee, molasses, honey, clothing, and much more. Then he made an announcement that anyone, bhikkhu, bhikkhuni, lay male disciple or lay female disciple, might, if they wished, join him on a pilgrimage to Buddha and that he would see to every need of the pilgrims.

It is stated that in response to his invitation, there were five hundred (many) bhikkhus, five hundred bhikkhunis, five hundred lay disciples and five hundred lay female disciples who joined him on the pilgrimage.

In addition to the two thousand pilgrims, another one thousand of his entourage joined the group, all well prepared and provisioned for the thirty-day journey. Legend says that at every stopping place where they camped, devas welcomed them with temporary shelter and celestial food such as gruel, eatables, cooked rice and beverages, and that every one of the three thousand was attended to.

People passed on the exciting news of Citta's arrival, saying, "A person of great merit by the name of Citta, a householder, is coming to town," and they awaited on both sides of the road for the visitor and his friends to come by, ready with presents. The provisions, therefore, remained intact, and they even had extra provisions accumulated from the gifts received from the people along the way.

When the pilgrim party got near the Jetavana monastery, the five hundred bhikkhus of the party arrived first. Citta then told the five hundred lay female disciples to stay behind and to follow on later. Then he went to the Bhagava accompanied by the five hundred male lay disciples. It is interesting to note that Citta held such power that he was able to command the female lay disciples.

Citta the Householder, enjoying a lauded reputation, spent a month in close attendance on Buddha. During that time, he made a special request to Buddha and the Sangha not to go out for alms-food, but to accept his offerings at the monastery. All the pilgrims who had accompanied him were also taken care of in every aspect. In his month-long stay at the Jetavana monastery, none of his original provisions needed to be used to feed anyone, for devas and men made all sorts of gifts to Citta the Householder.

Now really we must wonder at this apparent unfair treatment here, for among all the devotees of Buddha, how is it that Citta the Householder was permitted to be an attendant? We may claim a karmic connection, but that event bears close looking into in the light of the customs and social conditions of the times. Citta was admired and revered and was constantly given gifts, the same as Buddha received gifts. Thus when he spoke to Buddha at the end of his month’s stay, he declared:

"Venerable Sir, I came with the intention of making offerings of my own property to the Bhagava. I spent one month on the way and another month here in the Jetavana monastery. Still I have had no opportunity to offer my own property, for I have been blessed with all sorts of gifts from devas and men.

It would seem that even if I were to stay here a year, I still may not have the chance to make offerings of my own property. It is my wish to deposit all my property I have brought here in this monastery for the benefit of the Sangha. May the Bhagava be pleased to show me the place to do so.”

Then Citta the Householder returned to Macchikasanda with the five hundred empty carts, without even provisions for the journey. The people along the way chided him with humor and loaded his empty carts, which catered to the needs of the pilgrims till they reached Macchikasanda.

Then the Venerable Ananda paid his obeisance to Buddha and said,

"Venerable Sir, may I be allowed to ask a question? Does Citta meet with such abundance of honour and tribute only because he was on a pilgrimage to Buddha? Would he meet the same kind of honour and tribute if he were to go elsewhere?"

The Bhagava said to the Venerable Ananda: "Ananda, Citta the Householder will receive the same kind of honour and tributes whether he comes to me or goes elsewhere. This is indeed so, Ananda because Citta the Householder had been one who had firm conviction about Kamma and its consequences both in the mundane aspect and the Supramundane aspect.

Further, he had been fully convinced about the Supramundane benefits that the Triple Gem are capable of. For a person of such nature, honour and tribute lines his path wherever he goes.''

Buddha further uttered this verse presented in the Dhamapada V 303:

“The Ariya disciple who is endowed with the conviction of his own actions and morality, and is possessed of following and wealth, is held in reverence wherever he goes." (Dh, V 303)

From that time onwards, Citta went about accompanied many lay disciples whom he taught. When Buddha spoke of the merits of the lay disciples in the Cula vagga of the Salayatana samyutta, with respect to Citta he said,

"Bhikkhus, among my lay disciples who are exponents of the Dhamma, Citta the Householder is the foremost."

We can see here then that not only can a lay disciple attain a Non Returner state, but can also teach the Dharma to others.

The Gilanadassana Sutta

Buddha considered Citta to be the most learned and lucid of all the lay Dharma teachers. The Gilanadassana Sutta is an example of Citta the Householder's discourse, given even on his deathbed. This discourse can give us an idea at what level a layman who has attained arahatship can actually teach other lay disciples.

Once Citta the Householder was terminally ill. Then many devas who were guardians of the Householder's premises, guardians of the forest, guardians of certain trees and guardians who had power over herbs and deified trees (because of their huge proportions), assembled before him and said to him,

"Householder, now make a wish saying, 'May I be reborn as the Universal Monarch when I die’".

Citta the Householder replied to them, "Being a universal Monarch is impermanent in nature, unstable in nature. It is something that one must leave behind at last."

His relatives and friends by his bedside thought he was uttering those strange words in a fit of delirium and said to him, "Lord, be careful. Do not talk absent-mindedly."

Citta the Householder said to them, "You say, 'Lord be careful. Do not talk absent-mindedly.’ With respect to what words of mine do you say so?

And the relatives and friends said, "Lord, you were saying, ‘Being a Universal Monarch is impermanent in nature, unstable in nature. It is something that one must leave behind at last."'

We can see here that Citta had learned well the lesson of impermanence and, although believing in rebirth, saw clearly that at least all material things and thoughts dissolve with the material mind and body (upon the ceasing of last consciousness). Citta, then being asked to give his friends and relatives a last discourse, did so.

"In that case, friends and relatives, you should practise with the resolve,

'We will have perfect confidence in Buddha’, reflecting that:

Buddha is called Araham because he is worthy of homage by the greatest of men, devas and brahmas;

Buddha is called Sammasambuddha because he knows all things fundamentally and truly by his own perfect wisdom;

Buddha is called Vijjacaranasampanna because he is endowed with supreme Knowledge and perfect practice of morality;

Buddha is called Sugata because he speaks only what is beneficial and true;

Buddha is called Lokavidu because he knows all the three worlds;

Buddha is called Annuttropurisa dammasarathi because he is incomparable in taming those who deserve to be tamed;

Buddha is called Satthadeva manussana because he is the Teacher of devas and men;

Buddha is called Buddha because he makes known the Four Ariya Truths;

Buddha is called Bhagava because he is endowed with the six great qualities of glory.

Furthermore, Citta the Householder continued,

'We will have perfect confidence in the Dhamma reflecting that:

The Teaching of the Bhagavi, the Dhamma, is well expounded;

Its Truths are personally appreciable;

It is not delayed in its results;

It can stand investigation;

It is worthy of being perpetually borne in mind;

Its Truths can be realized by the Ariyas individually by their own effort and practice.

Then he declared,

We will have perfect confidence in the Sangha reflecting that:

The eight categories of Ariya disciples of the Bhagava, the Sangha, are endowed with the noble practice,

They are endowed with straightforward uprightness;

They are endowed with right conduct;

They are endowed with the correctness in practice deserving reverence;

(Being thus endowed with these four attributes-)

The eight categories of ariya disciples of the Bhagava consisting of four pairs are worthy of receiving offerings brought even from afar,

They are worthy of receiving offerings specially set aside for guests.

They are worthy of receiving offerings made for the sake of acquiring great merit for the hereafter;

They are worthy of receiving obeisance;

They are the incomparable fertile field for all to sow the seed of merit;

And also you should practice with the resolve, "We shall always lay everything we have to be at the disposal of donees who have morality and who conduct themselves well.'

Citta the Householder then established his friends and relatives in the routine of paying reverence to Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha and in benevolence. With those last words he expired.

Here we can see that although the profound level of Sariputta’s discourse to Anathapindika on his deathbed was not within Citta’s reach as a layman, Citta’s deathbed discourse was meritorious because it established the base for the Dharma. This base, a true understanding of the three jewels, brings the confidence that allows life to be lived with true happiness, and benevolent love.

On another occasion, a group of monks were sitting and discussing the Dharma in the pavilion of the monastery built by him as a gift. Some were saying that it is the sense objects that fetter the mind, while others suggested that it is the sense organs that cause the problem. Citta joined them and taught them in this way:

"Sirs, these two things, sense objects and sense organs, are different. I will use a simile so that you can understand what I mean. Suppose a black ox and a white ox were tied together with a yoke or rope. Now would it be right to say that the black ox was the fetter of the white ox or that the white ox was the fetter of the black ox?"

"Certainly not," answered the monks. "The black ox is not the fetter of the white ox nor is the white ox the fetter of the black ox. They are both fettered by the yoke or rope."

Citta agreed and then said: "Well, sirs, in the same way, the eye is not the fetter of visual objects nor are visual objects the fetter of the eye. But rather, the desire that arises from the meeting of the two, that is the fetter. And it is the same with the other sense organs and their objects."

On still another occasion, the monk Kamabhu, perplexed by the complexity of one of Buddha’s teachings, asked Citta if he could explain what it meant.

The following teaching of Buddha sounds more like a Chan poem than the traditional teaching that we normally hear ascribed to him.

Pure-limbed, white-canopied, one-wheeled,

The chariot rolls on.

Look at he who is coming,

He is a faultless stream-cutter, he is boundless.

In any event, Citta understood and explained the verse. He said,

"'Pure-limbed' means virtue, 'white-canopied' means freedom, 'onewheeled' means mindfulness, 'rolls on' means coming and going. 'Chariot' means the body, 'he who is coming' means the enlightened one, 'stream' means craving, 'faultless', 'stream-cutter' and 'boundless' all mean one who has destroyed the defilements."

His clear comprehension makes one wonder how well he might have taught if indeed he had taken up the homeless life, for Citta was not just able to teach the Dharma, he was also able to demonstrate its superiority over other doctrines.

Once he debated with Mahavira, the Jainist, who arrived in Macchikasanda with a large number of his disciples. Citta went to meet Mahavira who, knowing he was a disciple of Buddha, asked him, "Do you believe, as Buddha teaches, that it is possible to attain a meditative state where all thought stops?"

Clearly, and this is important, Mahavira genuinely himself doubted that state that Buddha Dharma brings. Citta’s response was surprising.

"No," answered Citta, "Buddha teaches this but I do not believe it."

 Mahavira remarked to his disciples, "See what a straightforward and clever person Citta is. Anyone who could believe in a meditative state where all thought stops might just as well believe that the mind can be caught in a net or that the Ganges can be stopped flowing by using the hand."

When he had finished, Citta asked: "What is better, venerable sir, to know or to believe?"

Mahavira fell into Citta’s trap. "Knowledge is far better than belief," he replied.

 "Well, I can attain that meditative state where all thought ceases. So why should I believe what Buddha says is true? I know it is true."

Here he knew and presented exactly Buddha’s point in the Kalama sutra: direct experience is the only truth.

Hatthakalavak: Prince Alavaka

During the time of Gotama Buddha, Prince Alavaka was born, son of King Alavaka in the city of Alavi. He was established in Uposatha precepts and attained the state of arahatship, and had a following of many lay disciples also established in the Uposatha precept.

One day, Hatthakalavaka the Uposatha-habituate visited Buddha accompanied by five hundred lay disciples. After making obeisance to Buddha, he sat with his disciples in a dignified and quiet manner. When Buddha saw the large following of excellent comportment that came with Hatthakalavaka, he said, "Alavaka, you have a big following; what sort of kind treatment do you extend to them?"

Hatthakalavak the lay disciple replied,

"Venerable Sir,

I practise charity towards those persons who would be delighted by my act of charity.

I use pleasant words to those who would be delighted by pleasant words,

I give necessary assistance to those who are in need of such assistance and who would be delighted by my assistance,

And I treat those as my equals in respect of those who would be delighted by such treatment.

Remembering that reply and seeing that it was no idle remark, when he was speaking of outstanding lay disciples, Buddha declared:

"Bhikkhus, among my lay disciples who kindly treat their followers in four ways, Hatthakalavaka is the foremost."

Today, many laymen want to teach and are generally reigned in, for they are not well enough trained to undertake that difficult task. In fact, one can even say that teaching by laymen is discouraged. However, it is an error to believe that it is the task of monks and nuns to practise and teach the Dharma, and that it is the task of lay persons to merely practise the Five Precepts and support the monks and nuns by providing them with their needs.

Buddha’s idea was to develop a Buddha Dharma community of ordained arahats, novices, lay men and women, who well understood the Dharma, who practiced fully, taught the Dharma and learned from each others’ successes and failures.

While Buddha praised Anathapindika for his great generosity, he reserved his highest praise for Citta of Macchikasanda and Hatthaka of Alavi because they were both skilful and diligent in giving something infinitely more precious than material things - the Dharma.

Hatthaka was renowned and respected not only for his generosity or his knowledge, but also for his ability to attract people to the Dharma. They came, were attracted by their reception, stayed and learned well.

Buddha saw this and once remarked,

"Consider it true that Hatthaka of Alavi is possessed of these eight marvellous and wonderful qualities. He has faith, virtue, conscientiousness and fear of blame, he is learned, generous, wise and modest.”

While many may have been arrogant and proud of their ability, Hatthaka was not. He was always quiet and unassuming. When the monks told Hatthaka that Buddha had praised his many good qualities, he said,

"I hope there were no lay people present when the Lord did this."

Of these two great laymen who showed generosity and great qualities that shone above every attribute, Buddha said to the monks:

"Should a devoted mother wish to encourage her beloved only son in a proper way, she should say to him: 'Try to become like the disciple Citta and the disciple Hatthaka of Alavi.'"

Exercise 8

There exist people, however few, who take on the burden of trying to improve the world spiritually, and others who genuinely apply themselves to better social and political conditions. They generate within themselves a desire for improvement; they live with an attachment to this improvement, and so take stress and suffering upon themselves. They choose to live with concern and responsibility for the

welfare of others. And naturally they suffer as a result.

There are also forest dwelling bhikkus and bhikkunis, wanderers, monastery dwellers, and lay practitioners. They live aloof from worldly affairs, unconcerned, detached. They do not stress about them. They do not take part in them.

What do you think about this?

Is there a moral justification for this? They work indeed for the benefit of all sentient creatures, but is this enough? What if everyone took this stance, would that be correct?

Not an easy question.