Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and Its Counterparts in Other Indian Buddhist Monastic Law Codes: A Comparative Survey

  • Published:
Journal of Indian Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper compares the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya with its counterparts in the other four Sthavira Vinayas, namely the Cīvarakkhandhaka/Cīvaradharma[ka] sections of the Vinayas of the Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas and Sarvāstivādins. It demonstrates that a significant number of stories and rules in the Cīvaravastu have no parallel in the other Sthavira Vinayas. Even those stories and rules that have parallels or partial parallels in the other Sthavira Vinayas can still offer us glimpses into the distinctive concerns of the Mūlasarvāstivādin jurists who wrote or redacted this text. Based on three comparative tables and two examples, this paper argues that the Mūlasarvāstivādin authors/redactors of the Cīvaravastu, contrasted with the jurists of other Sthavira sects or schools, displayed at least five characteristics. First, they shared some common narrative lore with the Śvetāmbara Jainas, which is not found in the other Sthavira Vinayas. Second, they showed a stronger predilection for including past-life stories. Third, they repeatedly used the learned-but-greedy monk Upananda to create comic effect. Fourth, they were strongly and explicitly concerned with a wider range of legal issues related to Buddhist monastic inheritance, and came up with detailed solutions to such issues. Fifth, they showed a more acute awareness of the connection between monastic clothing and public image, as well as the need for thoroughly differentiating the appearance of Buddhist monks from that of other religious groups in ancient India.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Schopen (2017) has compellingly shown that the Cīvaravastu is a highly valuable source not just for the study of Indian Buddhist monastic law, but for the study of the legal history of ancient India in general.

  2. The Cīvaravastu occupies approximately 36 double-sided folios in the Gilgit manuscript of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayavastu (GBM 6.791.8–863.10 [folios 239v8–275v10]; GM III.2, 3.1–148.21; Clarke 2014a, pp. 134–170). While most of those folios are well preserved, at least two folios (260r10, 271r1–3 and v8–10) are incomplete. There are also quite a few small Sanskrit fragments of the Cīvaravastu found in Central Asia and published in volumes 1–12 of the Sanskrithandschriften aus den Turfanfunden (SHT); for more detail, see Wille (1990, pp. 137–147; 2014, p. 193). Most recently Malyshev (2019) has shown that some fragments of the bilingual Sanskrit-Tocharian A manuscript A 452–456 appear to contain excerpts from the Cīvaravastu, though the Sanskrit words in this Tocharian manuscript do not always agree with those found in the Gilgit manuscript.

  3. For the Gilgit Sanskrit version, see GBM 6.791.8–831.6 [folios 239v8–259v6]; GM III.2, 3.1–87.18; Clarke (2014a, pp. 134–154). For the Tibetan translation, see D 1,’dul ba, Ga 50a7–87b7; P 1030,’dul ba, Ṅe 47b6–85a5; S 1,’dul ba, Ga 56b7–112a4.

  4. For the Gilgit Sanskrit version, see GBM 6.831.6–844.10 [folios 259v6–266r10]; GM III.2, 87.19–113.10; Clarke (2014a, pp. 154–161). For the Tibetan translation, see D 1, Ga 87b7–99b4; P 1030, Ṅe 85a5–96a4; S 1, Ga 112a4–129b3.

  5. For the Gilgit Sanskrit version, see GBM 6.844.10–863.10 [folios 266r10–275v10]; GM III.2, 113.11–148.21; Clarke (2014a, pp. 161–170). For the Tibetan translation, see D 1, Ga 99b4–115b5; P 1030, Ṅe 96a4–111a8; S 1, Ga 129b3–153a4.

  6. For a bibliographical survey of studies on the Cīvaravastu published before 2014, see Clarke (2014a, pp. 25–26). For studies on this vastu published during and after 2014, see Schopen (2014, pp. 34–35, 77–78, 83–84, and passim); Schopen (2017); Strauch (2014, pp. 809–811); Wu (2014a and 2017); de Simini (2016, pp. 150–156); Malyshev (2019).

  7. The word 揵度, whose middle Chinese pronunciation may be reconstructed as *kjɐn/gjɐn-dâk (Schuessler 2009, p. 253 and p. 68), is most likely a rendition of Pkt. khandhaka rather than Skt. skandhaka. On Pkt. -kkh- < Skt. -sk-, see Pischel (1900, §306).

  8. Hirakawa (1960, p. 636) noted long ago that in referring to the vastu/khandhaka sections, the Dharmaguptakas and Theravādins used the term 揵度 (*khandhaka) or Khandhaka, whereas the Mahīśāsakas and Sarvāstivādins used the term 法 (*dharma[ka]). According to Clarke (2015, p. 66), the term 法 used by the Sarvāstivādins in this context could represent either *dharma[ka] or *vastu.

  9. See, for instance, Hirakawa (1960, pp. 644–669); Sasaki (1994); Clarke (2004).

  10. More precisely, Frauwallner (1956) aimed to restore the “old Skandhaka” that is ancestral not just to the five Sthavira Vinayas, but to all six extant Vinayas (including the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya), thus taking the “old Skandhaka” back to a pre-sectarian period. The Mahāsāṃghika component of Frauwallner’s Skandhaka thesis has been critically and soundly examined in Clarke (2004).

  11. For exemplary comparative studies that reveal some striking differences between the Pāli and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas in their prescriptions of rules for monks and nuns, see, for instance, Schopen (2007a, 2012, 2014, pp. 119–128). For an excellent study demonstrating a remarkable contrast between the Pāli and Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayas in their ways of storytelling, precisely in whether or not to use humour, see Clarke (2009).

  12. I thank Dr. Eviatar Shulman for bringing this point to my attention (email 7 May 2020).

  13. Jinananda (1953, pp. 63–142) made a detailed comparison between the Sanskrit Cīvaravastu and the Pāli Cīvarakkhandhaka. However, he only mentioned the Chinese counterparts briefly, without exploring them in detail.

  14. Some but not all of the thematic segments listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 have been summarized in Banerjee (1957, pp. 207–219) and Panglung (1981, pp. 63–70), both based on the Tibetan translation of the Cīvaravastu. See also Majumdar (1945) for a synopsis of the initial forty-six pages––not fifty-two pages as the author himself claimed––of Dutt’s edition (GM III.2, 3.16–48.20, namely folios 239v10–250v5).

  15. See Wu (2017, pp. 316–319).

  16. As Balbir (1993, p. 113) puts it, the ĀvC “représente un stade transitoire, non encore sevré de l’héritage ancien.” She observes that the ĀvC frequently cites, in a mechanical manner, narrative passages from the Jaina Āgamas and from earlier non-canonical sources such as the Vasudevahiṇḍi (ibid., pp. 82, 112–114).

  17. Gnoli (1977, p. XIX) places the compilation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya in the time of Kaniṣka during the second century CE. Schopen (2004, pp. 20–22) basically agrees with Gnoli’s dating and further suggests that at least parts of this Vinaya may be dated to pre-Kuṣāna or early Kuṣāṇa periods before Kaniṣka. Schopen (2017, p. 385) also acknowledges that “some of this enormous code must be later”, quoting Kieffer-Pülz’s statement that “the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya could not have been redactionally closed before the fourth and fifth century CE” (see Kieffer-Pülz 2014, p. 52 n. 45).

  18. Some other sections of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, for instance, the Bhaiṣajyavastu, the Saṃghabhedavastu and the Kṣudrakavastu, also contain stories that have Jaina parallels in the Āvaśyaka commentaries (see Wu 2017, pp. 317–319).

  19. The text reads (GBM 6.833.5–7 [fol. 260v5–v7]; GM III.2, 91.10–14; Clarke 2014a, p. 155): āyuṣmān upālī buddhaṃ bhagavantaṃ pṛ(v6)cchati | labhyaṃ bhadanta sugatacīvaram atirekacīvarakalpena dhārayituṃ <|> na labhyam upāliṃ | labhyaṃ bhadanta kauśeyaṃ cīvaraṃ tṛcīvarādhiṣṭhānena atirekacīvarādhiṣṭhānena dhārayituṃ <|> labhyam upālin yatheṣṭataḥ evam ūrṇakaṃ śāṇakaṃ (v7) labhyaṃ || “The venerable Upāli asked the Buddha, the Blessed One, ‘Sir! Is it allowable to wear a sugata-robe in the form of an extra robe?’ [The Buddha said,] ‘Upāli! It is not allowable.’ [Upāli further asked,] ‘Sir! Is it allowable to wear a silk robe by putting it into use as one of the three robes [i.e., an upper, lower or outer robe], or by putting it into use as an extra robe?’ [The Buddha said,] ‘Upāli! It is allowed [either way] as one wishes. Wool and coarse hempen cloth are also allowable.” Dutt’s edition incorrectly reads udālī instead of upālī, and pūrṇakaṃ instead of ūrṇakaṃ. On the word tṛcīvarādhiṣṭhāna (“das In-Gebrauch-Nehmen der dreiteiligen Bekleidung”), see SWTF, vol. 14, p. 405, s.v. tricīvarādhiṣṭhāna. It is worth mentioning that the Prātimokṣasūtras of all six Buddhist schools contain a rule forbidding monks to wear a robe made of the dimensions of a sugata-robe or larger, namely Mahāsāṃghika *pāyattikā [Chin. 波夜提] 89 (T. 1426 [xxii] 554a4–5), Theravādin pācittiya 92 (Pruitt and Norman 2001, pp. 82–83), Dharmaguptaka *pācittika [Chin. 波逸提] 90 (T. 1430 [xxii] 1028a29–b2), Mahīśāsaka *pācittika [Chin. 波逸提] 90 (T. 1422 [xxii] 198b27–29), Sarvāstivādin pātayantika 90 (T. 1436 [xxiii] 476b21–23; Rosen 1959, p. 214 “Sugatacīvaragataṃ”), and Mūlasarvāstivādin pāyantikā 90 (T. 1454 [xxiv] 506b3–6; Vidyabhusana 1915, p. 61 [tr.] and 124 [text]). For a comparative study of different versions of this rule, see Hirakawa (1995, pp. 342–353).

  20. The text reads (GBM 6.836.2 [fol. 262r2–r5]; GM III.2, 97.6–11; Clarke 2014a, p. 157): uktaṃ bhagavatā bhikṣūṇāṃ cīvarapātro deya iti bhikṣavaḥ sadya<ḥ>pravārita eva janapade cā(r3)rikāṃ prakrāmanti <|> teṣāṃ na kaścil lābhaṃ gṛhṇāti | bhagavān āha | bhikṣum avalokayitvā gantavyaṃ yo ’sya lābhaṃ gṛhṇāti | apare ’pi bhikṣavaḥ anavalokitā evaṃ gṛhṇanti <|> bhikṣūṇāṃ parasparaṃ virodho bhavati | bhagavān āha <|> na bhikṣuṇā anava(r4)lok<it>ena lābho grahītavyaḥ <|> gṛhṇāti sātisāro bhavati <|> “The Blessed One said, ‘Bowl and robes are to be given to monks.’ The monks, immediately after the Pravāraṇā ceremony had been held, set out on a journey over the countryside. None of them obtained any acquisition. The Blessed One said, ‘One should depart after entrusting a monk who grasps [i.e., with the task of grasping] an acquisition for him.’ Other monks who had not been entrusted in this way [i.e., with the task of grasping an acquisition for another monk] grasped [another monk’s acquisition]. A conflict occurred mutually among the monks. The Blessed One said, ‘A monk who has not been entrusted should not grasp an acquisition [of another monk]. If he grasps [it], he becomes guilty.’” Dutt’s edition incorrectly reads saṃghapravārita instead of sadya<ḥ>pravārita. On the word pravārita (“die abgehaltene, zustande gekommene Pravāraṇā”), see SWTF, vol. 18, s.v. I thank an anonymous reviewer for insightful comments that improved my understanding of this passage.

  21. The text reads (GBM 6.840.10–841.1 [fols. 264r10–v1]; GM III.2, 106.9–11; Clarke 2014a, p. 159): bhagavān āha | yaẖ kaścid ādīnavo bhikṣavaḥ animantritā<ḥ> parakī(264v1)ye{na} lābhe sannipatanti tasmān na bhikṣuṇā animantritena parakīye lābhe sannipatitavyaṃ sannipatati sātisāro bhavati || “The Blessed One said, ‘Any disaster whatever may occur [if] monks who have not been invited [by a lay donor] accumulate acquisitions belonging to others [i.e., other monks]. Therefore a monk who has not been invited should not accumulate acquisitions belonging to others. If he accumulates, he becomes guilty.’”

  22. The text reads (GBM 6.842.1–3 [fol. 265r1–3]; GM III.2, 108.8–11; Clarke 2014a, p. 160): āyuṣmān upālī buddhaṃ bhagavantaṃ pṛcchati antarvarṣe bhadanta saṃgho bhidyeta <|> deyo lābho na deyaḥ <|> bhagavān ā(265r2)ha | kasyacid upāliṃ deya kasyaci<n> na deyaḥ<kasya deyaḥ> dharmapākṣikasya<|> “The venerable Upāli asked the Buddha, the Blessed One, ‘Sir! If the monastic community were to split during the rainy season, is an acquisition to be given or not to be given?’ The Blessed One said, ‘Upāli! To some it is to be given. To some it is not to be given.’ [‘To whom is it to be given?’] ‘To one who belongs to the side of the Dharma.’”

  23. Salomon (2018, p. 229) has observed, “The genre labels avadāna and pūrvayoga are familiar in Buddhist literature […] These two terms are used more or less interchangeably to refer to stories, usually narrated by the Buddha, that illustrate the workings of karma by revealing the acts of a particular individual in a previous life and the results of those actions in his or her present life.”

  24. On this characteristic of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya, see Panglung (1981, pp. XXIII–XXXIII); Clarke (2015, p. 73).

  25. The text reads (GBM 6.838.3–4 [fol. 263r3–r4]; GM III.2, 101.7–11; Clarke 2014a, p. 158; edited in Silk 2008, p. 226): uktaṃ bhadanta bhagavatā paṃcānuśaṃsā saṃmārjane <|> katame paṃca <|> ātmanaś cittaṃ prasīdati  <|> parasya cittaṃ prasīdati | devatā āttamanaso bhavanti | prā(r4)sādikasaṃvarttanīyaṃ kuśalamūlam upacinoti <|> kāyasya bhedāt* sugatau svargaloke deveṣūpapadyata iti | “[Upananda said to one of the two old monks,] ‘Sir! The Blessed One has declared five benefits in sweeping. What are the five? One’s own mind becomes serene; the mind of others becomes serene; the gods become glad at heart; one accumulates a root of merit conducive to that which is [religiously] attractive; [and] after the dissolution of one’s body, one is reborn in a favourable existence among the gods in heaven.” Basically the same passage also appears in the Śayanāsanavastu (Gnoli 1978, pp. 37.27–38.3; tr. Schopen 1996, p. 94; 2004, p. 226) and in the Kṣudrakavastu (D 6,’dul ba, Tha 172b6–7; S 6,’dul ba, Ta 261a4–6; cited in Schopen (1999, p. 317 n. 40).

  26. The text reads (GBM 6.838.5–6 [fol. 263r5–6]; GM III.2, 101.15–16; Clarke 2014a, p. 158): sālohitāv ast<y> anya upāya jñaptiṃ kṛ(r6)tvā bhājayāmaḥ <|> jñaptikarmākopyam uktaṃ bhagavateti.

  27. The text reads (GBM 6.838.9–10 [fol. 263r9–r10]; GM III.2, 102.9–11; Clarke 2014a, p. 158): yaḥ kaścid ādīnavo bhikṣavaḥ parakīye(r10){na} lābhe sannipatanti <|> tasmān na bhikṣuṇā parakīye lābhe sannipatitavyaṃ <|> sannipatati sātisāro bhavati |.

  28. The text reads (GBM 6.838.10–839.1 [fol. 263r10–v1]; GM III.2, 102.12–13; Clarke 2014a, p. 158): paśya bhadanta āyuṣmatā upanandena (263v1) tan mahalladvayaṃ dharmamukhikayā vyaṃsitā |. Here vyaṃsitā is a scribal error for vyaṃsitam. Dutt’s edition reads vyaṃsitam, but without indicating that this is his correction of the manuscript reading.

  29. The Cīvarakkhandhaka/Cīvaradharma[ka] sections of the Vinayas of the Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas and Sarvāstivādins do not contain Upananda’s quotation of the Buddha’s teaching on the five benefits of sweeping a monastery. The *Cīvaradharma[ka] of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya, like the Cīvaravastu, describes Upananda’s pretentious act of initiating an ecclesiastical procedure to divide cloths together with two old monks (T. 1435 [xxiii] 199b14–b20).

  30. At the end of the story of the monk Mūlaphalguna, we are told (GBM 6.862.5–6 [fol. 275r5–r6]; GM III.2, 145.10–12; Clarke 2014a, p. 170): āyuṣmān upālī buddhaṃ bhagavantaṃ pṛcchati anyatra bhadanta bhikṣuẖ kālaṃ kuryād anyatrāsya pātracīvaraṃ sānyatra prativastukaḥ tat pā(r6)tracīvaraṃ kasya prāpadyate || yo’tropāliṃ prativastuko bhikṣur gṛhī vā || “The venerable Upāli asked the Buddha, the Blessed One, ‘Sir! If a monk were to die elsewhere, his bowl and robes were in another place, [and] the recipient of the fiduciary deposit were in yet another place, to whom should his bowl and robes be allotted?’ [The Buddha said,] ‘Upāli! In that case [his bowl and robes should be allotted to] the recipient of the fiduciary deposit, [who is] either a monk or a householder.’”

  31. For instance, in discussing the story of the shaven-headed householder told in the Cīvaravastu, Schopen (1995b) has aptly pointed out that “there is nothing like this explicit discussion of the problem of the relationship of lay and monastic law in the Pāli, or Mahāvihārin, Vinaya, nor does this Vinaya show much concern with problems of inheritance” (p. 120).

  32. The text reads (GBM 6.814.2–3 [fol. 251r2–3]; GM III.2, 50.8–13; Clarke 2014a, p. 146): tena khalu samayena māgadhakānāṃ manuṣyāṇāṃ kṣetrāṇi samāni samopavicārāṇi ā<va>līnivi{bhi}baddhāni bhaktiracanāviśeṣavicitrāṇi dṛṣṭvā (r3) ca punar āyuṣmantam ānandam āmaṃtrayate · dṛṣṭāni te ānanda etāni kṣetrāṇi samāni samopavicārāṇy ā<va>{vi}līvinibaddhāni bhaktiracanāviśeṣa<vi>citrāṇi<|> dṛṣṭāni bhadanta <|> tasmād ānanda anenākāreṇa bhikṣubhiś cīvarāṇi chitvā setavyāni (“On one occasion, having seen the fields and environs of the Magadhan people adorned with rows, particularly lovely in their divisions in arrangement, [the Buddha] then said to Ānanda, ‘Ānanda! Have you seen these fields and environs adorned with rows, particularly lovely in their divisions in arrangement?’ [Ānanda said,] ‘Sir! I have seen.’ [The Buddha said,] ‘Therefore, Ānanda, monks should cut robes [into strips] and sew them together in this manner’”). The reading ālīnivibhibaddhāni in the manuscript is a scribal error for āvalīvinibaddhāni. See also a discussion on this episode in Schopen (2006b, pp. 502–503; 2014, p. 240).

  33. I thank Dr. Eviatar Shulman for reminding me of the first level of meaning (email 19 May 2020).

  34. In the Pāli Vinaya, the story of the Buddha’s visit to the Magadhan field is preceded by a story describing the public’s criticism over monks wearing ivory-coloured robes that are not cut up and the Buddha’s subsequent ban on monks wearing robes that are not cut up (Vin I 287,1–5). In the Mahīśāsaka Vinaya, the story of the Buddha’s visit to the Magadhan field follows a story describing the public’s criticism over monks wearing robes made of cotton cloth (Chin. 劫貝衣, Skt. *kārpāsaka) and the Buddha’s subsequent ban on monks wearing such robes (T. 1421 [xxii] 137a17–20). In the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, the story of the Buddha’s visit to the Magadhan field follows the Buddha’s prescription of rules allowing monks to keep washing implements, washboards and knives for cleaning uncleaned robes (T. 1428 [xxii] 855a17–19).

  35. T. 1435 (xxiii) 194c12–21: 佛在王舍城。是時洴沙王乘象輿, 清旦出王舍城,欲見佛。王信佛恭敬。時有外道梵志從道而來。王遙見, 謂是沙門。便勅御者住象, 欲下禮拜。大臣問王: “欲作何等?”王言:“欲禮來比丘。”大臣言:“大王!是非佛弟子, 外道梵志耳。”王羞愧。王問御者: “今往見佛。去此幾許可乘?何處可下?”御者具答。到已, 頭面禮佛足。一面坐, 白佛言: “世尊!願令僧衣與外道衣異, 使可分別。”佛告大王: “何以故欲令衣異?”王以是事具白佛。佛爲王説法, 示教利喜。禮佛而去. The Chinese term 外道, literally “[a follower of] another path”, was likely translated from something like anyatīrthika or tīrthika (“an adherent of another [i.e., non-Buddhist] religious tradition”). The term 梵志 is a usual translation of brāhmaṇa (or its Prākrit forms, on which see Karashima 2016, pp. 107–108). The combination 外道梵志, literally “brāhmaṇa [following] another path,” does not refer here to a brahmin, but rather to a non-Buddhist ascetic. Therefore I render 外道梵志 relatively freely as “heretical [i.e., non-Buddhist] ascetic.” Here and throughout the paper, I use the words “heretic” and “heretical” to refer to a member of non-Buddhist religious groups in ancient India.

  36. The text reads (GBM 6.813.5–814.1 [fols. 250v5–251r1]; GM III.2, 49.1–50.2; Clarke 2014a, pp. 145–146): (250v5…) ācaritaṃ rājño bimbisārasya bhikṣuṃ vā bhikṣuṇī<ṃ> vā dṛṣṭvā hastiskandhā<d> avatīrya pādābhivandanaṃ karoti <|> so’pareṇa samayena hastinam abhiruhya bhagavataḥ pādābhi-(v6)vandakaḥ saṃprasthitaḥ<|> yāvat paśyaty antarmārge ājīvikaṃ sa tasya jātasaṃ◯bhramo hastiskandhād avatīrya pādayor nipatitaḥ || tatra ye aśrāddhās te saṃlakṣayanti · na kevalaṃ devo bhikṣuṣv evābhiprasannaḥ ājīvakeṣv apy abhiprasanna iti · ye tu śrāddhās te saṃ(v7)lakṣayanti nūnaṃ devo bhikṣur iti kṛtvā sasaṃbhramo’sya hastiskandhād ava◯tīrya pādayor nipatita iti te saṃdigdhamanaso rājānam ūcuḥ kasya devena vandanā kṛtā <|> bhagavataḥ śrāvakasya <|> deva ājīvaka eṣa na bhagavata śrāvaka <|> atha rājño biṃbisā(v8)rasyaitad abhavat* etad eva me karaṇīyaṃ bhavatv iti · sa yena bhagavāṃs tenopasaṃkrānta upasaṃkramya bhagavataḥ pādau śirasā vanditvā ekānte niṣaṇṇa <|> ekāntaniṣaṇṇo rājā māgadhaḥ śreṇyo bimbisāraḥ bhagavantam idam avocat* ācaritaṃ mama bhadanta bhikṣuṃ (v9) vā bhikṣuṇīṃ vā dṛṣṭvā hastiskandhād avatīrya tasya pādābhivandanāṃ kartuṃ <|> tad aham{a} sa<ṃ>jātasaṃbhramo hastiskandhād avatīrya bhikṣur iti kṛtvā ājīvikasya pādayor nipatitaḥ <|> aho vata bhagavān āryakāṇāṃ cīvarakeṣu kiṃcic cihnaṃ prajñāpayed anukampām upādāyety adhivāsa(v10)yati bhagavān rājño biṃbisārasya tūṣṇīṃbhāvena <|> atha rājā biṃbisāro bhagavatas tūṣṇīṃbhāvenādhivāsanāṃ viditvā bhagavataḥ pādau śirasā vanditvā prakrānta · tatra bhagavān bhikṣūn āmantrayate sma · kṣato bhikṣavas sa ājīva<ka> upahataś ca yena dṛṣṭasatyasyāntikā{ṃ}d vandanā svīkṛ(251r1)teti <|> The manuscript uses the forms ājīvaka and ājīvika interchangeably. My transliteration and translation follow the reading found in the manuscript.

  37. A number of Buddhist sources tell the story of Bimbisāra’s attaining of the Dharma-eye (dharmacakṣus) or the status of stream-enterer (srotāpanna) after hearing a sermon preached by the Buddha (see Wu 2014b, pp. 151–154).

  38. The Tibetan translation of the two passages agrees closely with the Gilgit Sanskrit version. See D 1,’dul ba, Ga 89b5–91b2; P 1030,’dul ba, Ṅe 87a2–88b4; S 1,’dul ba, Ga 114b7–117b1.

  39. GBM 6.833.7–834.2 [fols. 260v7–261r2]; GM III.2, 91.18–92.16; Clarke 2014a, pp. 155–156: (260v7…) śrāvastyāṃ nidānam* || athānyatamo bhikṣur yena bhagavāṃs tenopasaṃkrāntaḥ upasaṃkramya bhagavataḥ (v8) pādau śirasā vanditvaikānte ’sthād ekāntasthita sa bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat* icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta bhāṃgeyaṃ cīvaraṃ dhārayituṃ bhagavān āha | tīrthikadhvaja eṣa mohapuruṣa yaduta bhāṃgeyaṃ cīvaraṃ tasmān na bhikṣuṇā bhāṃgeyaṃ cīvaraṃ dhārayitavyam* (v9) dhārayati sātisāro bhavati | aparo bhikṣur gatvā bhagavantam idam avocat* icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta keśacīvaraṃ dhārayituṃ bhagavān āha | tīrthikadhvaja eṣa mohapuruṣa pūrvavad yāvat* sātisāro bhavati aparo bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat* (v10) icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta nāgnyaṃ samādātuṃ bhagavān āha | tīrthikadhvaja eṣa mohapuruṣa{ḥ} yaduta nāgnyam api tu tṛcīvaraṃ mayānujñātaṃ kimarthaṃ nāgnyaṃ samādadāsi tasmān na bhikṣuṇā nāgnyaṃ samādātavyaṃ samādadāty āpadyate sthūlātyayaḥ atha sa (261r1) bhikṣur nāgnyam alabhamāna śikṣāṃ pratyākhyāya sa hānāyāvṛtta · || || bhikṣavaḥ saṃśayajātā sarvasaṃśayacchettāraṃ buddhaṃ bhagavantaṃ papracchuḥ paśya bhadantāsau bhikṣur nāgnyam alabhamāna śikṣāṃ pratyākhyāya hānāyāvṛttam* bhagavān āha | na bhikṣava eta(r2)rhi yathā atīte’py adhvany {an}āhrīkyadoṣā<d> dārikāṃ na labdhavāṃs tac chrūyatāṃ.

  40. The phrase pūrvavad yāvat (literally “as before until”) indicates that the following expression is omitted here: yaduta keśacīvaraṃ tasmān na bhikṣuṇā keśacīvaraṃ dhārayitavyaṃ dhārayati (“namely a robe of hair. Therefore a monk should not wear a robe of hair. If he wears [it]”).

  41. The phrase śikṣāṃ pratyākhyāya hānāyāvṛtta/-ºttā (“having renounced the training, [one] turned to abandonment [of the monastic life]”) is a formula, which also occurs in some other texts, for instance, in the Upasaṃpadāvastu (“Section on Ordination”) of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya (see Chung 2004, p. 36, III 9.1d) and in the Pārivāsikavastu (“Section on the Parivāsa Probation”) of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya (GM III.3, 94.10–11). The expression hānāyāvṛtta/-ºttā (“turned to abandonment [of the monastic life]”) seems to mean that one returned to secular life. It is noteworthy that the phrase śikṣāṃ pratyākhāya hānāyāvṛttaḥ corresponds to 捨戒還俗 (“having renounced precepts, [one] returned to secular life”) in the Upasaṃpadāvastu section of the Chinese translation of the Sarvāstivāda Vinaya (T. 1435 [xxiii] 149a20; tr. in Chung 2004, p. 36). On this Sanskrit phrase, see also SWTF, vol. 26, pp. 464–465, s.v. hāna. Filliozat and Kuno (1938, pp. 56–57 n. 6) translate hānāyāvṛttaḥ as “fut tourné en arrière pour abandonner”, “retourna vers l’abandon (des pratiques bouddhiques)”, and “rétrograder vers la déchéance.”.

  42. GBM 6.834.7–835.5 [fol. 261r7–v5]; GM III.2, 93.16–95.14; Clarke 2014a, pp. 156: (261r7)aparo’pi bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat* icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta ke◯śāṃ luṃcituṃ | bhagavān āha | muṇḍanaṃ mayā samanujñātaṃ kasmāt tvaṃ keśāṃ luṃcasi | tīrthikavrata eṣa mohapuruṣa yaduta keśa-{ḥ}luṃcanaṃ tasmān na hi bhikṣuṇā keśā luṃcitavyā (r8) luṃcati sātisāro bhavati || aparo’pi bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat* icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta parṇaśāṭikāṃ dhārayituṃ | bhagavān āha | tīrthikavratam etan mohapuruṣa{ḥ} pūrvavad yāvat sātisāro bhavati | aparo’pi bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat* (r9) icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta ajinaṃ dhārayituṃ <|> bhagavān āha | tīrthikavratam etan mohapuruṣa yaduta ajinaṃ dhārayati pūrvavad yāvat sātisāro bhavati | aparo’pi bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat* icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta sāntarottareṇa cīvareṇa {|} yāpa(r10)yituṃ tṛcīvaraṃ mayā mohapuruṣa samanujñātaṃ kasmāt tvaṃ sāntarottareṇa yāpayasi | tasmān na bhikṣuṇā sāntarottareṇa cīvareṇa yāpayitavyaṃ yāpayati sātisāro bhavati || || aparo’pi bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat* icchāmy ahaṃ (261v1) bhadanta tirīṭiṃ dhārayituṃ tirīṭi iti valkala bhagavān āha | tīrthikadhvaja eṣa pūrvavad yāvat* sātisāro bhavati | aparo’pi bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat* icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta aṃganāḍikā<ṃ> <dhā>rayituṃ | bhagavān āha | āgārikadharma tarhy eṣāsau (v2) mohapuruṣa yadutāṃgalāḍiḥ pūrvavad yāvat* sātisāro bhavati | aparo’pi bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta sarvanīlaṃ cīvaraṃ dhārayituṃ | bhagavān āha | āgārikā hy enaṃ dhārayanti tasmān na bhikṣuṇā sarvanīlaṃ cīvaraṃ dhāra(v3)yitavyam* pūrvavad yāvat* sātisāro bhavati | evaṃ sarvapītaṃ sarvalohitaṃ avadātaṃ na kalpaty eva || uddānam || dīrghadaśaphaṇadaśaṃ kaṃbukoṣṇīṣaveṣṭanam* kutapa uṣṭrakaṃbalaṃ plīhakānanda sāntarottaraṃ || || aparo’pi bhikṣur bha(v4)gavantam idam avocat* icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta dīrghadaśaṃ cīvaraṃ ◯ dhārayitum* bhagavān āha | tīrthikadhvaja eṣa pūrvavad yāvat* sātisāro bhavati | aparo’pi bhikṣur bhagavantam idam avocat* icchāmy ahaṃ bhadanta phaṇadaśaṃ cī(v5)varaṃ dhārayituṃ | bhagavān āha | tīrthikadhvaja eṣa mohapuru◯ṣa pūrvavad yāvat* sātisāro bhavati. The form yadutāṃgalāḍiḥ is a scribal error for yadutāṃganāḍikā.

  43. The following expression is omitted here: yaduta parṇaśāṭikāṃ tasmān na bhikṣuṇā parṇaśāṭikāṃ dhārayitavyaṃ dhārayati (“namely a robe of leaves. Therefore a monk should not wear a robe of leaves. If he wears [it]”). Similar expressions are omitted below where pūrvavad yāvat (“as before up to”) occurs.

  44. While the Gilgit Sanskrit text mentions tirīṭi (“robe of the bark of the tirīṭa tree”), the Tibetan translation reads gso ma’i seng ras kyi chos gos (“robe of thin hempen cloth”).

  45. The gloss tirīṭi iti valkala has no parallel in the Tibetan translation.

  46. The manuscript reads aṃganāḍikā (literally “veins of limbs”). It is unclear to me exactly what this word refers to here. Edgerton explains aṃganāḍikā as “loin-cloth” on the basis of the Tibetan translation pa char (see BHSD, p. 6, s.v.), but the Sanskrit word itself bears no direct connection to loin-cloth.

  47. This uddāna is a summary of the contents of the following part (fols. 261v4–262r2) of the Cīvaravastu.

  48. Dutt’s edition gives the misreading channadaśaṃ, while the manuscript actually reads phaṇadaśaṃ. On the word phaṇadaśa, see above Table 2, footnote d. The Tibetan translation has kha tshar gdengs ka lta bu’i chos gos (“robe [with] fringes like the expanded hood of a serpent”).

  49. See, respectively, Vin I 305,15–306,34; T. 1421(xxii) 138a23–b11; T. 1428 (xxii) 858b16–c5; T. 1435 (xxiii) 197c15–198a27; see also §30 and §32 in Table 2.

  50. See Vin I 281,34–36: anujānāmi bhikkhave cha cīvarāni khomaṃ kappāsikaṃ koseyyaṃ kambalaṃ sāṇaṃ bhaṅgan ti (“Monks! I allow six [kinds of] robe-materials: linen, cotton, silk, wool, coarse hemp, and hemp”).

  51. See T. 1428 (xxii) 849b13–16.

  52. See T. 1421 (xxii) 23b28–29.

  53. See T. 1435 (xxiii) 197c15–17: 有一比丘白佛:“聽我著野麻衣。”佛言:“聽汝著野麻衣。 野麻衣不妨得道。 少欲知足” (“A bhikṣu said to the Buddha, ‘Please allow me to wear a robe of wild hemp.’ The Buddha said, ‘I allow you to wear a robe of wild hemp. A robe of wild hemp brings no obstruction to one’s attaining of the path. [One should] have few desires and be contented’”).

  54. See T. 1425 (xxii) 455a17–19.

  55. Mahāvīra’s practice of plucking out his own hair is clearly stated, for instance, in the Ācārāṅga Sūtra (tr. Jacobi 1884, p. 199).

  56. T. 1428 (xxii) 945c20–23: 時六群比丘以剪刀剪鬚髮。 佛言: “不應爾。”彼剃髮不剃鬚。 佛言:“應剃鬚髮。”彼剃鬚不剃鬚。 佛言:“應剃鬚髮。”彼拔髮。 佛言:“不應爾。”(“At that time, the Group-of-Six bhikṣus cut off their beards and hair with knives. The Buddha said, ‘This should not be done.’ They cut off their hair but did not cut off their beards. The Buddha said, ‘One should cut off the beard and hair.’ They cut off their beards but did not cut off their hair. The Buddha said, ‘One should cut off the beard and hair.’ They plucked out their hair. The Buddha said, ‘This should not be done’”).

  57. See Vin I 306,28–29: manussā ujjhāyanti khīyanti vipācenti seyyathāpi gihī kāmabhogino ti.

  58. See Schopen (1994a, p. 553; 2004, p. 81) (cited in Kieffer-Pülz 2014, pp. 52–53).

  59. See Schopen (1994b, p. 171; 2004, p. 210).

Abbreviations

BHSD:

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary. Vol. II: Dictionary, by Franklin Edgerton. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953

Chin.:

Chinese

CPD:

A Critical Pāli Dictionary. Begun by V. Trenckner; revised, continued and edited by Dines Andersen et al. Copenhagen: Royal Danish Academy; Bristol: The Pali Text Society, 1924–2011

D:

Derge Kanjur. Bka’ ’gyur (sde dge par phud). 103 vols. Buddhist Digital Resource Center, W22084. Delhi: Delhi karmapae chodhey gyalwae sungrab partun khang, 1976–1979

GBM:

Gilgit Buddhist Manuscripts (Facsimile Edition), ed. Raghu Vira and Lokesh Chandra. Śata-Piṭaka Series 10 (1)–(10). New Delhi: International Academy of Indian Culture, 1959–1974

GM:

Gilgit Manuscripts, ed. Nalinaksha Dutt. 4 volumes in 9 parts. Srinagar and Calcutta: J. C. Sarkhel at the Calcutta Oriental Press, 1939–1959

P:

The Tibetan Tripitaka: Peking Edition, Kept in the Library of the Otani University, Kyoto. Reprinted under the Supervision of the Otani University, Kyoto. Edited by Daisetz T. Suzuki. 168 vols. Tokyo-Kyoto: Tibetan Tripitaka Research Institute, 1955–1961

Pkt.:

Prākrit

S:

sTog Palace manuscript Kanjur. Bka’ ’gyur (stog pho brang bris ma). 109 vols. Buddhist Digital Resource Center, W22083. Leh: Smanrtsis shesrig dpemzod, 1975–1980

Skt.:

Sanskrit

SWTF:

Sanskrit-Wörterbuch der buddhistischen Texte aus den Turfan-Funden und der kanonischen Literatur der Sarvāstivāda-Schule, begonnen von E. Waldschmidt, hg. von H. Bechert, K. Röhrborn, J.-U. Hartmann, Bd. I ff., Göttingen 1973 ff.

T.:

Taishō shinshū daizōkyō 大正新脩大蔵経. Edited by Takakusu Junjirō 高楠順次郎 and Watanabe Kaigyoku 渡辺海旭. 100 vols. Tokyo: Taishō issaikyō kankōkai 大正一切経刊行会, 1924–1935

[]:

akṣara damaged or whose reading is uncertain

{}:

Superfluous akṣara(s)

<>:

Omitted (part of) akṣara(s) without gap in the manuscript

{{}}:

Correction mark in the manuscript

|:

daṇḍa

·:

Single dot (punctuation mark)

::

Double dot (visarga used as punctuation mark)

*:

virāma

’:

avagraha, not written in the manuscript, but added in the transliteration

ẖ:

jihvāmūlīya

ḫ:

upadhmānīya

◯:

String hole

References

  • Balbir, N. (1990). Stories from the Āvaśyaka commentaries. In Phyllis Granoff (Ed.), The clever adulteress and other stories: a treasury of Jain literature (pp. 17–74). Oakville: Mosaic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balbir, N. (1993). Āvaśyaka-Studien. Introduction générale et Traductions. Alt- und Neu-Indische Studien 45,1. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

  • Banerjee, A. C. (1957). Sarvāstivāda literature. Calcutta: J. C. Sarkhel at the Calcutta Oriental Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chung, J. (2004). Das Upasaṃpadāvastu: Vorschriften für die buddhistische Mönchsordination im Vinaya der Sarvāstivāda-Tradition. Sanskrit-Version und chinesische Version. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S. (2004). Vinaya Mātṛkā – mother of the monastic codes, or just another set of lists? A response to Frauwallner’s handling of the Mahāsāṃghika Vinaya. Indo-Iranian Journal, 47(2), 77–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S. (2009). Locating humour in Indian Buddhist monastic law codes: A comparative approach. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 37(4), 311–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S. (2014a). Vinaya Texts. Gilgit Manuscripts in the National Archives of India: Facsimile Edition (Vol. 1). New Delhi: The National Archives of India; Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University.

  • Clarke, S. (2014b). Family matters in Indian Buddhist monasticisms. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke, S. (2015). Vinayas. In J. A. Silk, et al. (Eds.), Brill’s encyclopedia of Buddhism (Vol. I, Literature and Languages, pp. 60–87)., Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Simini, F. (2016). Of gods and books: ritual and knowledge transmission in the manuscript cultures of premodern India. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Filliozat, J., & Kuno, H. (1938). Fragments du Vinaya des Sarvāstivādin. Journal Asiatique, 230, 21–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frauwallner, E. (1956). The earliest Vinaya and the beginnings of Buddhist literature. Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente (hereafter Is. M. E. O.).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli, R. (1977). The Gilgit manuscript of the Saṅghabhedavastu being the 17th and last section of the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādin. Roma: Is. M. E. O.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnoli, R. (1978). The Gilgit manuscript of the Śayanāsanavastu and the Adhikaraṇavastu being the 15th and 16th sections of the Vinaya of the Mūlasarvāstivādin. Roma: Is. M. E. O.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grey, L. (2000). A concordance of Buddhist birth stories (3rd ed.). Oxford: The Pali Text Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirakawa, A. (1960). Ritsuzō no kenkyū 律蔵の研究 [A Study of the Vinaya-Piṭaka]. Tokyo: Sankibō Busshorin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirakawa, A. (1995). Nihyaku gojikkai no kenkyū 二百五十戒の研究 [A Study of the Two Hundred and Fifty Monastic Rules], Vol. IV. Hirakawa Akira chosakushū 平川彰著作集17. Tokyo: Shunjūsha.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobi, H. (1884). Jaina Sutras, Translated from Prākrit. Part I: The Ākārāṅga Sūtra, the Kalpa Sūtra. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

  • Jinananda, B. (1953). A Study of the Pāli Vinaya Mahāvagga in Comparison with the Corresponding Sections of the Gilgit Manuscripts. PhD dissertation, University of London.

  • Karashima, S. (2016). Indian Folk Etymologies and their Relations in Chinese Translations—brāhmaṇa, śramaṇa and Vaiśramaṇa. Annual Report of the International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology at Soka University, 19, 101–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karashima, S., & Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya, M. I. (2015). The Avadāna Anthology from Merv, Turkmenistan. In S. Karashima & M. I. Vorobyova-Desyatovskaya (Eds.), Buddhist manuscripts from central Asia. The St. Petersburg Sanskrit Fragments Volume I (pp. 145–523). Tokyo: The International Research Institute for Advanced Buddhology, Soka University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieffer-Pülz, P. (2014). What the Vinayas Can Tell Us about Law. In R. R. French & M. A. Nathan (Eds.), Buddhism and the law: An introduction (pp. 46–62). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lamotte, É. 1981. Le Traité de la grande Vertu de Sagesse. Tome II. Louvain-la-Neuve: Université de Louvain, Institute Orientaliste.

  • Majumdar, R. C. (1945). Historical materials in Gilgit manuscripts. In D. R. Bhandarkar, et al. (Eds.), BC Law Volume, Part I (pp. 134–141). Calcutta: The Indian Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malyshev, S. V. (2019). A Sanskrit-Tocharian A bilingual text of the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-Vinaya. Tocharian and Indo-European Studies, 19, 71–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panglung, J. L. (1981). Die Erzählstoffe des Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya analysiert auf Grund der tibetischen Übersetzung. Tokyo: The Reiyukai Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pischel, R. (1900). Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen. Strassburg: Trübner.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, W. (ed.) and Norman, K. R. (tr.). (2001). The Pātimokkha. Oxford: The Pali Text Society.

  • Ralston, W. R. S. (1882). Tibetan Tales, Derived from Indian Sources. Translated from the Tibetan of the Kah-gyur by F. Anton von Schiefner, done into English from the German, with an Introduction. London: Trübner & Co.

  • Rosen, V. (1959). Der Vinayavibhaṅga zum Bhikṣuprātimokṣa der Sarvāstivādins. Sanskritfragmente nebst einer Analyse der chinesischen Übersetzung. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, R. (2018). The Buddhist literature of ancient Gandhāra: An introduction with selected translations. Somerville: Wisdom Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki, S. (1994). Buddhist Sects in the Aśoka Period (4): The Structure of the Mahasāṃghika Vinaya. Bukkyō kenkyū 佛教研究 [Buddhist Studies], 23, 55–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiefner, A. (2007). Übersetzungen aus dem tibetischen Kanjur: Beiträge zur Buddhismuskunde und zur zentralasiatischen Märchenforschung. Hrsg. von Hartmut Walravens. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Originally published between 1860–1879. 

  • Schlingloff, D. (1964). Zur Interpretation des Prātimokṣasūtra. Zeitschrift Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, 113(3), 536–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, I. J. (1845). 'Dzangs blun oder der Weise und der Thor. Aus dem tibetischen übersetzt und mit dem Originaltexte herausgegeben. Erster Theil, Der tibetische Text nebst der Vorrede. Zweiter Theil, Die Übersetzung. St. Petersburg: W. Gräff’s Erben/Leipzig: Leopold Voss.

  • Schopen, G. (1994a). Doing business for the lord: Lending on Interest and written loan contracts in the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 114(4), 527–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (1994b). The monastic ownership of servants or slaves: Local and legal factors in the redactional history of the two Vinayas. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 17(2), 145–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (1995a). Deaths, funerals, and the division of property in a monastic code. In D. S. Lopez (Ed.), Buddhism in practice (pp. 473–502). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (1995b). Monastic law meets the real world: A monk’s continuing right to inherit family property in classical India. History of Religions, 35(2), 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (1996). The lay ownership of monasteries and the role of the monk in Mūlasarvāstivādin monasticism. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 19(1), 81–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (1999). The bones of a Buddha and the business of a monk: Conservative monastic values in an early Mahāyāna polemic tract. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 27, 279–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2000). The good monk and his money in a Buddhist monasticism of “the Mahāyāna Period”. The Eastern Buddhist, 32(1), 85–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2004). Buddhist monks and business matters: Still more papers on monastic Buddhism in India. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2006a). A well-sanitized shroud: asceticism and institutional values in the middle period of Buddhist monasticism. In Patrick Olivelle (Ed.), Between the empires: Society in India 300 BCE to 400 BCE (pp. 315–347). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2006b). The Buddhist “monastery” and the Indian garden: Aesthetics, assimilations, and the siting of monastic establishments. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 126(4), 487–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2007a). The Buddhist Bhikṣu’s obligation to support his parents in two Vinaya traditions. Journal of the Pali Text Society, 29, 107–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2007b). The learned monk as a comic figure: On reading a Buddhist Vinaya as Indian literature. Journal of Indian Philosophy, 35(3), 201–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2008a). On emptying chamber pots without looking and the urban location of Buddhist nunneries in early India again. Journal Asiatique, 296(2), 229–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2008b). Separate but equal: Property rights and the legal independence of Buddhist nuns and monks in early North India. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 128(4), 625–640.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2010). On the underside of a sacred space: some less appreciated functions of the temple in classical India. In E. Franco & M. Zin (Eds.), From Turfan to Ajanta: Festschrift for Dieter Schlingloff on the occasion of his eightieth birthday (Vol. II, pp. 883–895). Lumbini: Lumbini International Research Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2012). The Buddhist nun as an urban landlord and a “legal person” in early India. In F. Voegeli, et al. (Eds.), Devadattīyam: Johannes Bronkhorst Felicitation Volume (pp. 595–609). Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2014). Buddhist nuns, monks, and other worldly matters: Recent papers on monastic Buddhism in India. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopen, G. (2017). A Buddhist Monastic Code as a Source for Indian Law. In P. Olivelle & D. R. Davis Jr. (Eds.), Hindu law: A new history of Dharmaśāstra (pp. 383–401). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schuessler, A. (2009). Minimal old Chinese and later Han Chinese: A companion to grammata serica recensa. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silk, J. A. (2007). Child abandonment and homes for unwed mothers in ancient India: Buddhist sources. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 127(3), 297–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silk, J. A. (2008). Managing monks: Administrators and administrative roles in Indian Buddhist monasticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strauch, I. (2014). Looking into water-pots and over a Buddhist scribe’s shoulder: On the deposition and the use of manuscripts in early Buddhism. Asiatische Studien/Études Asiatiques, 68(3), 797–830.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidyabhusana, S. C. (1915). So-sor-thar-pa; or, a Code of Buddhist monastic laws: Being the Tibetan version of Prātimokṣa of the Mūla-sarvāstivāda School. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 11, 29–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wille, K. (1990). Die handschriftliche Überlieferung des Vinayavastu der Mūlasarvāstivādin. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wille, K. (2014). Survey of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Turfan Collection (Berlin). In P. Harrison and J.-U. Hartmann (Eds.), From birch bark to digital data: Recent advances in Buddhist manuscript research. Papers Presented at the Conference Indic Buddhist Manuscripts: The State of the Field, Stanford, June 15–19 2009 (pp. 187–211). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.

  • Wu, J. (2014a). Stories of King Bimbisāra and His Son Ajātaśatru in the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda-vinaya and Some Śvetāmbara Jaina Texts. Indo Tetsugaku Bukkyōgaku Kenkyūインド哲学仏教学研究 [Studies in Indian Philosophy and Buddhism], 21, 19–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J. (2014b). Violence, virtue and spiritual liberation: A preliminary survey of Buddhist and Jaina stories of future rebirths of Śreṇika Bimbisāra and Kūṇika Ajātaśatru. Religions of South Asia, 8(2), 149–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J. (2017). Parallel stories in the Āvaśyakacūrṇi and the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya: A preliminary investigation. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 137(2), 315–347.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier draft of this paper was presented at the workshop “The Idea of Text in Buddhism” organised by Dr. Eviatar Shulman and held at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel on December 10–12, 2019. I thank Dr. Shulman for his kind encouragement, and the participants for their valuable comments. I am also grateful to Prof. Diwakar Acharya for his editorial advice, and to two anonymous reviewers for their illuminating remarks. Any remaining errors are mine alone.

Funding

The completion of this paper was sponsored by the National Social Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 2018VJX071.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Humanities, Tsinghua University, 30 Shuangqing Road, Beijing, 100084, People’s Republic of China

    Juan Wu

Authors
  1. Juan Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Wu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wu, J. The Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya and Its Counterparts in Other Indian Buddhist Monastic Law Codes: A Comparative Survey. J Indian Philos 50, 581–618 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09442-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10781-020-09442-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation