Vinaya in Theravaada Temples
in the United States
By Paul David Numrich
University of
Illinois at Chicago
ISSN 1076-9005; Volume 1 1994
Abstract:
Vinaya (the monastic discipline) plays an essential role in defining
traditional Theravāda Buddhism. This article examines the current state
of vinaya recitation and practice in the nearly 150 immigrant Theravāda
Buddhist temples in the United States, and also speculates on the
prospect of traditional Theravāda's firm establishment in this country.
Specific vinaya issues discussed include the pātimokkha ceremony, the
discussion about vinaya adaptation to the American context, adaptations
in the areas of monastic attire and relations with women, and principles
of adaptation at work in Theravāda temples in the United States. Various
passages in the Theravāda literature recount a conversation between the
Thera Mahinda and King Devānampiya-Tissa of Ceylon concerning the
progress of Buddhism's establishment on the island. "When, Venerable
Sir, will the (religion's) roots indeed be deep?" the King asks. Ven.
Mahinda replies: "When a young man, born of Ceylonese parents on the
island of Ceylon, having gone forth on the island of Ceylon and learned
the monastic discipline in this same island of Ceylon, when he will
recite that discipline on the island of Ceylon--then, Great King, will
the roots of the religion indeed be deep."[1] In other words, Buddhism's
firm establishment in a country requires indigenous monks (bhikkhu-sangha)
who uphold the monastic discipline (vinaya) through recitation of its
precepts (pātimokkha sikkhāpada) (see W. Rahula 1966:56; 1978:55, 65;
Gombrich 1988:150-1). As Michael Carrithers (1984:133) succinctly puts
it, "no Buddhism without the Sangha, and no Sangha without the
Discipline."
With nearly 150
immigrant Theravāda temples and perhaps as many as 600 resident
Theravāda bhikkhus in the United States today, we do well to examine the
current state of vinaya recitation and practice in this country.
Traditional Theravāda's survival here depends upon this among other
factors.[2]
As the ancient
conversation between Mahinda and Devānampiya-Tissa indicates, the firm
establishment of Theravāda Buddhism in a country requires bhikkhus who
recite the 227 precepts.[3] Traditionally, the recitation ceremony takes
place twice monthly as the Theravāda monks within a given geographical
area (usually a village) gather together at a temple with baddha sīmā,
that is, sacred boundaries consecrated by specific ritual action of the
bhikkhu-sangha. In lieu of such a temple, monks may recite the
pātimokkha within abaddha sīmā, viz., "areas whose boundaries have been
established by the government [e.g., a municipality] or by ancient usage
[e.g., a body of water]" (Wells 1975:179). A minimum of four bhikkhus is
required for a legitimate pātimokkha ceremony,[4] which reveals "the
truly communal dimension of the pātimokkha institution," as Gombrich
(1988:109) observes. The bi-monthly corporate recitation serves as both
a "solidarity ritual" (Gombrich 1988:108) and "a kind of 'quality
control'" (Wijayaratna 1990:124) for the bhikkhu-sangha.
The situation in
America today makes it difficult for many Theravāda monks to perform the
pātimokkha ceremony in the traditionally prescribed ways. For instance,
a temple with fewer than four monks may be the only Theravāda temple in
the immediate metropolitan area, as in Fort Smith, Arkansas, or
Anchorage, Alaska. Even in cities with several Theravāda temples, like
Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., distances between temples
and differences in ethnic identity can mitigate against frequent joint
pātimokkha ceremonies. Moreover, only a few temples in the country have
consecrated baddha sīmā.[5] Although Theravāda monks in America find
ways of adjusting to these constraints--carrying out informal
confessions, gathering together for the formal pātimokkha ceremony less
frequently than bi-monthly--their sense of communal solidarity and
institutional strength may necessarily suffer thereby.
Wijayaratna's comment
above about "quality control" within the bhikkhu-sangha raises an
important practical consideration--the difficulty in holding to certain
ancient vinaya requirements in a modern Western society. Of course,
adaptation of the vinaya to new circumstances occurred almost from the
beginning of the Buddha's movement: "The Master did not hesitate to
modify the rules to make the life of monks and nuns easier in different
climatic and social conditions" (Wijayaratna 1990:53). Before the Buddha
died, he granted the bhikkhu- sangha permission to make necessary
modifications of minor vinaya rules, but the bhikkhu-sangha has never
been able to determine just which rules the Buddha considered
"minor."[6] Consequently, the Theravāda tradition devised a paradoxical
hermeneutic of vinaya adaptation which included, on the one hand, strict
adherence to the ancient disciplinary code, and, on the other hand, a
set of "amendments" or "new rules" standing outside the ancient texts (pālimuttaka-vinicchaya)
and reached through consensual agreement among the monks (katikāvata).
In this way, "without changing the letter of the law, monks discovered
ways and means of overcoming the difficulty [of following some rules in
their original form] by interpreting the law without compromising
themselves" (W. Rahula 1978:63; cf. Wimalaratna 1991). The key here, as
in any hermeneutical enterprise, has to do with the point at which the
line of "compromise" is crossed.
In America, that line
of compromise has been the subject of considerable discussion among both
ethnic-Asian and American- convert Theravāda bhikkhus. The topic took
center stage at the 1987 Conference on World Buddhism in North America,
held in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ven. Dr. Havanpola Ratanasara, Patron Monk
of Dharma Vijaya Buddhist Vihara, Los Angeles, who later that year was
named Executive President of the newly-formed American Buddhist
Congress, summarized the social realities of vinaya adaptation.[7]
"[Vinaya] is not a static thing," he observed, "because [it concerns] a
living group of persons. Living persons will have to adjust to the
changing conditions of the society. Monks are not like stones. . . they
are living creatures, they have to face changing conditions in the
society. So, according to certain conditions, things are changing."[8]
Furthermore, Ven. Dr. Ratanasara asserted, the contemporary
bhikkhu-sangha must take up the challenge of vinaya adaptation in
America. "Who can go and make a petition to the Buddha these days?" he
asked the Conference rhetorically. "Buddha has given permission to the
Sangha. . . therefore, it is with the Sangha this problem to tackle."
On the other side of
the issue however, several Conference participants spoke against any
tampering with the vinaya at all. By pointing out that the bhikkhus at
the First Buddhist Council considered only a Buddha's wisdom capable of
distinguishing "minor" from "major" vinaya rules, Ven. U Silananda,
Abbot of the Burmese Dhammananda Vihara, Daly City, California,
implicitly challenged today's bhikkhu-sangha to show cause that its
wisdom matches the Buddha's before tackling this problem. To change the
vinaya is to change the bhikkhu-sangha's identity, Ven. Silananda
explicitly warned. Ven. Walpola Piyananda, Abbot of Dharma Vijaya, Los
Angeles, shared his fear that, by cutting up the vinaya, the monks would
be "dismembering" the Buddha, since the Buddha had appointed the vinaya
as Teacher after his physical death. Another Conference participant,
Samaneri Sunanda, cautioned against a slippery slope effect: better to
keep all the rules, even strict and inconvenient ones, since breaking a
few so-called "minor" rules now will lead to breaking more rules later
and eventually to having no rules at all.
My discussions with
American-convert Theravāda bhikkhus have uncovered a clear strain of
conservatism on vinaya matters that may characterize this group.[9] One
told me straightforwardly that ethnic-Asian monks in America, not
American-convert monks, are behind the push to modify the vinaya to suit
the American context. Another agreed that American-convert monks do not
wish to change any vinaya requirements, since the discipline provided by
the vinaya remains crucial to a viable monastic expression of Buddhism.
"The Vinaya is something that requires a lot of time to appreciate," one
of the monks wrote me. "When I first was ordained, the prospect of
memorizing and having to live by a lot of picayune rules was the least
appealing part of the training. And yet I came to realize, after living
several years in the [monastic] community, that most all of the issues
that created friction within the community came from people breaking the
rules." Since the scandals of leadership improprieties within larger
American Buddhism in the 1980s (see Fields 1992; Butler 1990), the value
of what one respected American-convert monk calls "the protective
envelope that the Vinaya provides for monastics" has drawn renewed
appreciation.[10]
To get a fix on the
present state of Theravāda vinaya adaptation in the United States, let
us briefly examine two key, practical areas--monastic attire and
relations with women.[11]
The Buddha allowed his
monks three robes--an undergarment, a loose-fitting top piece, and a
double-layered cloak.[12] Triple- robed Theravāda monks in America face
two challenges. First, the climate poses a real health concern. The
possibility of hypothermia so troubled the director of security services
for one Midwestern Thai temple that he circulated a letter through the
Council of Thai Bhikkhus in the United States suggesting adoption of a
"proper winter uniform for Monks," with yellow clerical collar and
Buddhist lapel pin to identify the wearer as legitimate clergy.[13]
Second, beyond the climatic incompatibility of robes and the harsh North
American environment lies the more disturbing incompatibility of robes
and American cultural prejudices. Often mistaken for "Hare Krishnas,"
Theravāda monks have endured "cat calls or rude comments, and in rare
cases [have been] assaulted by religious bigots" while out in public (Y.
Rahula 1987:16).
To date, among
Theravāda monks in United States temples, adaptation of the three-robes
requirement has entailed donning certain items of protective clothing,
for instance, saffron-colored T-shirts under the upper robe in Southern
California, sweaters over the robes in the Midwest, the latter practice
having received approval from the Supreme Patriarch of Thailand
according to one Thai monastic respondent from Chicago. Suggestions that
monks adopt a "proper winter uniform" or perhaps confine the wearing of
robes to ritual occasions have fallen on deaf ears. The "absence of
robes," the reasoning goes, creates more problems than it solves:
Buddhist laypeople would be deprived of an object of reverence, "for it
is the robe which is honored rather than the person," and non-Buddhist
Americans would no longer find their interest piqued by a distinctive
monastic symbol that might "stimulate thoughtful conversation."[14] When
I questioned one Sinhalese monk about wearing civilian clothes in order
to avoid confrontations on the streets of Los Angeles, he responded
that, although it might spare him some abuse, he might also forget he
was a monk and be empted to act in un-monkly ways.
Another important area
of Theravāda vinaya adaptation in America concerns monks' relations with
women. The tradition sees absolute celibacy as essential to the monastic
lifestyle. The pātimokkha lists sexual intercourse as the first offense,
a pārājika, literally a "defeat" or "setting aside (from the
bhikkhu-sangha)" (see Gombrich 1988:104), commission of which makes one
ipso facto no longer a bhikkhu.[15] Moreover, in a fashion analogous to
Judaism's "building a fence around the Torah," the pātimokkha prohibits
a monk from being alone with or traveling with a woman, while the
tradition forbids a monk's physical touching of a woman.
The dilemma in this for
Theravāda monks in America runs along two levels. Strict adherence to
traditional etiquette can embarrass and even offend American women
visiting a temple or seeking individual counseling or instruction from a
monk. One monastic respondent predicted that monks in America will
slowly adopt the practices of shaking hands with and hugging women as
normal, cultural expressions of courtesy and friendship. As to the
second level of the dilemma, while Theravāda monks in America may
recognize the stumbling-block to monastic recruitment presented by the
celibacy rule,[16] none would advocate setting aside the rule. Instead,
it appears that efforts will be directed toward ways of cultivating a
non-monastic leadership in United States temples (see Numrich 1994,
[1996]).
In United States
temples where vinaya adaptation has occurred, three principles seem to
be at work. First, only minor modifications have been implemented, or,
to put it differently, only "minor" vinaya rules have been modified.
Clearly "major" rules like triple robing and celibacy stand
unchallenged, though accessories to the robes have appeared and social
relations with women may be more flexible.[17] Secondly, practicality
comes into play--where vinaya restrictions become impractical,
adaptation occurs. This principle depends on the first principle,
however, for no matter how impractical a "major" vinaya rule seemingly
becomes (e.g., wearing robes in public or requiring a celibate monastic
community), modification of it has not yet occurred. Lastly, vinaya
adaptation relies on a consensual process, among monks certainly, but
also between monks and laity in a temple. Without the approval of its
lay constituency, a United States temple's bhikkhu-sangha finds it
difficult if not impossible to enact even "minor" modifications in the
most "impractical" rules. Summing up the frustrations sometimes felt by
progressive Asian monks in immigrant temples, Ven. Dr. Ratanasara of
Dharma Vijaya, Los Angeles, observed that "they often are trapped by
their congregation members who wish them to remain 'old country' in
order to preserve a nostalgia for their old home life, while they
themselves pursue the new American dream" (Dart 1989:7).[18]
It is still early in
the historical development of immigrant Theravāda Buddhism in the United
States.[19] If immigration trends hold steady or increase, we should see
the continued proliferation and consolidation of temples in coming
decades. Barring a tightening of United States visa restrictions,[20]
and assuming a constant source of monks in the home countries, these
temples can import their monastic staff from Asia indefinitely. Communal
recitation of the pātimokkha will become easier, minimal adaptation of
vinaya requirements will continue. However, unless these imported monks
can speak to the offspring of Asian immigrants in culturally and
spiritually meaningful ways, a native-born bhikkhu-sangha will not
likely arise among this group. Moreover, even though we may be seeing a
renewed appreciation for the value of the monastic path among American
converts, it seems unlikely that such appreciation alone will overcome
the strong cultural sentiments favoring lay-oriented religiosity in this
country.[21] Without indigenous American bhikkhus, whether ethnic-Asian
or American-convert, Theravāda Buddhist monasticism will remain a
perpetually replenished green growing garden, rather than becoming a
deeply-rooted, natural outgrowth of the Theravāda experience in the
United States.[22]
Notes
[1] Samantapāsādikā I,
102; cf. Mahāvaṃsa 126; Dīpavaṃsa
chapter. 14, vss. 20-4; Vinaya-nidāna 103. Return
[2] The bulk of the
present essay comes from a larger paper on this topic (Numrich 1994).
Return
[3] On the 227
pātimokkha sikkhāpada, see Ñāṇamoli
Thera 1969; Vajirañāṇavarorasa
1971:5-31. Return
[4] More informal
procedures (pārisuddhi, "purity") are followed with less than four
monks; see Vinaya I, 124-5. Return
[5] For instance,
according to my monastic respondents, 1 of the 8 Sinhalese temples and 2
of the 20 Dhammayuttika Thai temples in the United States have baddha
sīmā. Return
[6] The Theravāda texts
tell us that the Buddha's beloved disciple, Aananda, neglected to query
the Buddha about the "minor" rules and that the First Buddhist Council
could not make a determination thereupon (see Dīgha Nikāya Ī, 154;
Vinaya Ī, 287-8). Return
[7] Quotes from World
Buddhism in North America, a video documentary of Conference
proceedings. Return
[8] Ven. Dr. Ratanasara
immediately nuanced his statement, perhaps with the notion of
pālimuttaka-vinicchaya in mind: "if certain practices are to be altered,
if you don't like to use 'alteration' or 'change,' we may call it 'to
add'." Return
[9] I suggest elsewhere
(Numrich [1996]) that Theravāda Buddhism may hold a particular
attraction for American converts from fundamentalist religious
backgrounds. Return
[10] Bhikkhu Bodhi
(1992), now living in Sri Lanka, contributed his "open letter" to a
forum discussion in the now- defunct newspaper Dharma Gate. Two other
American-convert monks whom I interviewed stressed the need for a
monastic presence in American Buddhism. One spoke of a group in the
Boston area that may soon take concrete steps in this direction. Several
respondents pointed to the Bhavana Society's (High View, West Virginia)
efforts as well. Return
[11] A more detailed
examination of these and other areas may be found in Numrich 1992.
Return
[12] Vinaya I, 289. The
three robes requirement is assumed in the pātimokkha sikkhāpada, the 227
precepts recited bi- monthly by Theravāda monks. Specific precepts in
the pātimokkha prescribe proper reception, possession, and wearing of
the three robes. Return
[13] Fodde
correspondence. Return
[14] Dharma Vijaya
Newsletter February, 1982:3. Return
[15] Vinaya I I I, 109.
The other pārājika offenses are taking something (above a certain value)
not given, murder, and false claims of attaining superhuman states.
Return
[16] As some observers
point out, the monastic lifestyle simply goes against the grain of
mainstream American culture. In contrast to Asian Buddhist countries,
monasticism is not portrayed as a viable option in this society, much
less as a spiritual ideal. The perpetual, spiritually-motivated chastity
of the monastic calling must appear odd to the average American who, as
a Sinhalese monk put it to me, seems to consider sex as much a human
necessity as food and water. Return
[17] Interestingly, I
received slightly different opinions from two monks on the question of
where to draw the line between the "major" (i.e., non-modifiable) and
the "minor" (i.e., modifiable) rules in the 227 pātimokkha sikkhāpada.
One monk, an ethnic Asian, considers the first 19 rules "major"--the 4
pārājika, the 13 sanghādisesa, and the 2 aniyata (these last forbidding
a monk to be alone with a woman). The other monk, an American convert,
draws the line at the first 17 rules only. An example of a "minor,"
modifiable rule in both of these interpretations would be the
prohibition of traveling alone with a woman, one of the 92 pācittiya.
Return
[18] My written survey
of two such temples revealed less resistance among adult immigrants to
modification of "minor" vinaya rules than to modification of the "major"
rules on monastic robes and celibacy. Second-generation immigrant survey
respondents showed significantly more openness to modification of
"major" rules than the adult generation (see Numrich 1992:270-2). Return
[19] All but one of the
approximately 150 temples were established after 1970, the exception
being the Washington, D.C., Buddhist Vihara (est. 1966). Return
[20] One Sinhalese
monastic respondent keeps reminding me of the situation in Malaysia,
where the government apparently shut off the supply of monks from Sri
Lanka, resulting in the closing of the Sri Lankan vihāras there. Return
[21] Cf. Prebish's
(1988:677) prediction: "It appears that, for the immediate future,
Buddhism will remain an almost exclusively lay community in America."
Return
[22] Cf. W. Rahula
1978:66-7. The vast majority of the monks in Theravāda temples in the
United States are Asian nationals, often possessing only minimal
English-language proficiency and passing acquaintance with American
culture. My monastic respondents (from within Thai and Sinhalese
circles) report no new permanent monks from the ranks of the American
born and/or raised immigrant second generation, and can identify only
about ten non-Asian monks (one African-American, the rest Caucasian) in
United States temples. Return
References
Bhikkhu Bodhi
1992 "What's Wrong with
American Buddhism?" Dharma Gate:International Buddhist Newspaper 1,3
(February):10-11.
Butler, Katy
1990 "Encountering the
Shadow in Buddhist America." Common BoundaryMay/June:14-22.
Carrithers, Michael B.
1984 "'They Will Be
Lords upon the Island': Buddhism in Sri Lanka." In The World of
Buddhism: Buddhist Monks and Nuns in Society and Culture, Edited by
Heinz Bechert and Richard Gombrich, 133-46. New York: Facts on File.
Dart, John
1989 "Los Angeles Monk
Advocates an Americanized Form of Buddhism." Los Angeles Times, July 8,
pt. Ī:6-7.
Dharma Vijaya
Newsletter. Los Angeles: Dharma Vijaya Buddhist Vihara.
Fields, Rick
1992 How the Swans Came
to the Lake: A Narrative History of Buddhism in America. 3rd ed.,
revised and updated. Boston: Shambhala.
Fodde, Robert W.
1990 Correspondence to
Phravisuddi Sombodhi. October 23.
Gombrich, Richard
1988 Theravāda Buddhism:
A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo. New York: RKP.
Ñāṇamoli
Thera, Venerable (translator)
1969 The Pāṭimokkha:
227 Fundamental Rules of a Bhikkhu. Bangkok: King Mahā Makuta's Academy.
Numrich, Paul David
1992 "Americanization in
Immigrant Theravada Buddhist Temples." Dissertation, Northwestern
University.
1994 "The Prospect of
the Sangha in US Theravāda Buddhism." Paper presented in Buddhism
Section and North American Religions Section, ĀR Annual Meeting,
Chicago, Illinois. November 20.
[1996] Old Wisdom in the
New World: Americanization in Two Immigrant Theravada Buddhist Temples.
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, forthcoming.
Prebish, Charles S.
1988 "Buddhism."
Encyclopedia of the American Religious Experience: Studies of Traditions
and Movements, ed. Charles H. Lippy and Peter W. Williams. Vol. 2. New
York: Scribner's.
Rahula, Reverend Walpola
1966 History of Buddhism
in Ceylon. 2nd ed. Colombo: MḌ.
Gunasena.
1978 Zen and the Taming
of the Bull: Towards the Definition of Buddhist Thought. London: Gordon
Fraser.
Rahula, Yogavacara
1987 "Buddhism in the
West: A View by a Western Buddhist Monk." Dharma Voice: A Quarterly
Bulletin of the College of Buddhist Studies Los Angeles, April:15-16.
Vajirañāṇavarorasa, Somdet Phra Mahā Samaṇa
Chao Krom
1971 Phrayā. Navakovāda:
Instructions for Newly-Ordained Bhikkhus and Sāmaṇeras.
Bangkok: Mahā Makuta Buddhist University.
Wells, Kenneth E.
1975 Thai Buddhism: Its
Rites and Activities. Bangkok: Suriyabun.
Wijayaratna, Mohan
1990 Buddhist Monastic
Life, According to the Texts of the Theravāda Tradition. Translated by
Claude Grangier and Steven Collins. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Wimalaratna, Venerable
Dr. Bellanwila
1991 "Research Problems
in the Contemporary Study of Theravada Buddhism." Religion Department
Colloquium. Northwestern University, October 12.
World Buddhism in North
America: A Documentary Based on the Conference on World Buddhism in
North America. 1989. Videocassette. Ann Arbor, MI: Zen Lotus Society.
Copyright 1994
---o0o---
Source: http://jbe.gold.ac.uk/
Update: 01-12-2004
