Buddhism, Human Rights and Social Renewal, Part 9

The Buddha Sangha

Nalin Swaris

The central concern of Siddhartha Gotama Buddha’s Teaching (Dhamma) and Ethical Path is the identification and eradication of the sources of suffering. Human liberation is not a purely private affair; neither is it understood as an escape from society or dissolution of the self in a "Cosmic Self." The goal of the Path is the eradication of the craving for and clinging to things material and immaterial, to people and institutions mistakenly perceived as objects of lust or threats to one’s ego-existence. According to the Buddha, the obsessive oscillation between lust and hate is the principal source of suffering. Protests against oppressive social institutions and compassionate actions to alleviate suffering in the world were originally envisaged as integral aspects of Buddhist missionary endeavours.

After some hesitation, the Buddha decided to propagate what he had discovered. He counselled kings and chieftains of federated clans about righteous governance, but he realised that society also needed men and women who would exemplify the values he sought to instil into rulers and ruled alike. Thus, when he made the decision to propagate his message of deliverance, he did not seek state patronage to morally influence society; he chose to do it through an organisation committed to the values of his Dhamma. He strove all his life to mould his own asocietal community that would be a fitting exemplar and bearer of his message. He hoped this new society would demonstrate in practice what could be possible in the wider society. This was the significance in the Buddha’s founding of a community of mendicant preachers. He sent out his first disciples with the mandate to propagate his message of deliverance "for the welfare and happiness of the many-folk (bahujana) out of compassion for the world."

The Founding of the Buddha Sangha

The Buddha made a strategic choice about the type of organisation to best embody and transmit the values of his Dhamma. Several models were available at the time. One was the ashram model adopted by renouncers who embraced the contemplative life of severe asceticism. These ashrams were forest retreats, and individuals dissatisfied with life in society could repair to one and undergo training beneath a guru in order to purify themselves and attain peace of mind. After testing the ashram model and its methods, Siddhartha Gotama discarded it as dissatisfactory. He realised these techniques did little to change the conditions which engendered suffering, not only at the personal level, but also in society.

The most powerful system of political organisation at the time was the monarchical, imperial State, but the Buddha rejected the monarchical model where power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader and social order is maintained through a top-down chain of command because the highest virtue in such a society is unquestioning obedience. The Buddha rejected this model because blind obedience was incompatible with his belief in informed understanding and self-reliance.

Before he renounced household life, Siddhartha Gotama was heir to the joint chiefdom of the Sakyan tribal federation. He had been educated in the customs and organisational principles of clan society and would eventually have played a leading role in the governance of his clan. In these societies, social unity was maintained through kinship. In large tribal federations, social cohesion was preserved through two organisational principles: segmentation and descent. A federation consisted of several segments or kinship clusters, each descended from a common ancestor. The entire federation, moreover, claimed to have descended from a real or mythical ancestor. The heads of the senior lineage of various segments met in a formal assembly to decide matters of common concern. This was a form of representative government, though restricted to the property-owning lineage. Domestic slaves and wage labourers performed productive labour; they were excluded from property rights and marriage with members of the ruling stratum. Matters of public concern were settled after the free exchange of opinions and by common consent.

Summoning all his mendicant disciples for a special meeting, the Buddha instructed them on seven conditions that would ensure that his own Sangha "would prosper and not decline." These parallel the practices of the ganasanghas praised by the Buddha. The Maha Parinibbana Sutta clearly shows that, when it came to his own organisation, the Buddha rejected the monarchical system and modelled it instead on the ganasangha. To this day, the community of Buddhist renouncers and followers is known as the Sangha, which the Buddha referred to as his Savaka Sangha. Unfortunately, sangha has been erroneously translated into English as "order" when it is better seen as a "tribe."

The Sangha founded by the Buddha may have been envisaged as the exemplar and catalyst of a society that holds and cherishes the values of universal and non-discriminating compassion, equality in rights and privileges and the brotherhood and sisterhood of all humans. Experience, intelligence and wisdom indicate that these are ethical imperatives that humankind today cannot afford to ignore if it is to survive as a species.

The Buddha Sangha’s Constitution

The Buddha’s organisation came to be the Buddha Sangha. Membership in this Sangha was not determined by birth but by the free choice of an aspirant and literally by formal adoption into a new type of kinship group. The foundation of a new kind of sangha was a brilliant and imaginative project of practical transcendence. Members of the aristocracy, Brahmins, "ritually unclean" performers of menial tasks, like scavengers — all were admitted to full and equal membership in the Buddha Sangha. This act of "going forth from the household to the homeless life" was, in its historic context, more than the giving up of married life: it was the renunciation by men and women of the patriarchal household and its power relationships.

The Buddha founded a new type of sangha by taking the positive values and practices of clan societies and by transcending in practice their narrow perspective, which confined egalitarianism to blood relations. The Buddha extended the egalitarianism and solidarity to include all human beings and founded a Universal Tribe, which he called a "Sangha of the Four Quarters," comprising male and female renouncers and householders. The choice of colour worn by the Buddha’s disciples was a frontal rebuff of the Brahmins varna, or colour scheme. White was worn by Brahmins to indicate ritual purity and high social status. Black was assigned to Sudras. The Buddhist mendicants donned saffron coloured robes, the colour of rags worn by the untouchable candalas. Reversing Brahmin notions of high and low, the Buddhist householders wore white garments when they assembled to listen to instructions on the Dhamma from mendicants. Incensed Brahmins regularly attacked Buddhist mendicants as Sudras, "shameless beggars, shavelings, dark fellows born of Brahma’s foot." They faced a formidable threat because the Buddhists’ leader was an outstanding personality once of a prestigious ksatriyan lineage.

When a man or woman entered the Sangha of mendicants, he or she legally became a member of this universal society. A candidate was in practice initiated into a local commune, which was also called a sangha. The Universal Sangha was a federation of self-governing communes, a ganasangha in the best sense of the term, because the existing system’s particularism had been transcended, not in thought, but in practice. Private property was abolished, and the clan tradition of collective ownership adopted. Property was shared as was the practice among members of an extended kinship group. The amalgam of this new society was filial devotion to the founding father, the Buddha, and dana: sharing the values of his Dhamma. In the spirit of dana, the renouncers brought the gift of Dhamma instruction to the householders; and in exchange, the householders provided them with the basic necessities of life. It is therefore not surprising that the first Buddhists referred to themselves as "Sons and Daughters of the Sakyan."

The Buddha Sangha’s Unity

In accord with the tradition of lineage societies, the unity of early Buddhist sanghas was not merely legalistic. The members were welded together by bonds of familial affection. In their songs of freedom, the first Buddhist women expressed gratitude for the beautiful friendship, kalyana mittata, and the sisterhood they found in the bhikkhuni sangha. The Buddha’s companion and aide Ananda once asked him if beautiful friendship and companionship in the Sangha constituted a partial realisation of his Noble Path to which the Buddha replied:

• "Not so! Not so, Ananda! Truly, the whole of this life of excellence consists in beautiful friendship, beautiful support and beautiful comradeship."

This seldom quoted description of the Noble Way’s social efflorescence suggests the Buddha believed that the goal of human liberation has to be realised, not in another world, but through the creation of a social humanity and a humane society. Real freedom is possible only in authentic communities where individuals obtain happiness in and through free and non-discriminating association. In a morally transformed society, individuals will see each other, not as means or obstacles to their freedom, but as the conditions of their freedom. Freedom from every form of subjection is what his asocietal Sangha was meant to provide and exemplify. In the Buddha’s own words (from the Book of Discipline): "In my Sangha, there is only one flavour, the flavour of freedom."

The Buddha realised that even his own Teaching, wrongly grasped, could be a basis for conceit among his followers. The message could be reified into a doctrine, fetishised and fought over, instead of being used as "a raft for crossing to the shore of freedom." Yet the Buddha’s Teaching is self-dissolving of its authority because, when the goal of the Path is realised, the Teaching as "a view" can be discarded: liberated disciples would "speak of what is known by themselves, seen by themselves and found by themselves."

In a world divided by personal and group interests, the first Buddha Sangha was intended to demonstrate in practice that there is another possibility. The Buddha expressed this ideal, as originally envisaged, in beautiful and moving language in the Dhammapada:

• "Let us live happily, hating none, in the midst of those who hate.

Let us live healthily, among those who live unhealthily.

Let us live free from care among those afflicted with anxiety.

Let us live happily then, we who posses nothing

Like radiant gods."

The Buddha Sangha’s Democratic Ethos

Religious and moral philosophers can proclaim noble ideals, but they remain empty phrases unless translated into concrete practices. The Book of Discipline, the Vinaya Pitaka, provides information on how the ancient values and practices of the ganasanghas were translated into concrete rules and regulations in the Buddha Sangha. This Buddhist Book of Discipline is strikingly different from the Rules of Monastic Discipline in the Christian tradition, such as the Rules of St. Benedict, which served as the model for subsequent monastic orders and religious congregations. The Buddha did not draft a constitution and impose it on those wishing to enter his Sangha. The Vinaya Pitaka is a record of a jurisprudential tradition that developed in the early Buddhist communities following rules of procedure established by the Buddha himself. Regulations were enacted to resolve issues on a case-by-case basis.

The Buddhist communes did not have a head corresponding to an abbot or abbess nor father or mother superior of Christian monastic orders. The Book of Discipline states that anyone aspiring to be a "superior" in this manner should be regarded "as a fool." The Christian monastic axiom is that the voice of the superior is the voice of God. The superior has to be obeyed without question. Siddhartha Gotama was the member of a warrior class; and as he recalled after his Awakening, he was familiar with military discipline and the art of warfare, but he did not wish to impose militaristic discipline on his Sangha. What he required of all his followers was informed understanding and free acceptance of his Teachings. When a person was admitted into the Sangha, he or she undertook to practice poverty and celibacy, but no vow or oath of obedience was required. The Noble Eightfold Way given to householders and renouncers alike is not a table of prohibitions but a call to positive living.

The head of a local Buddhist community was the senior bhikkhu or bhikkhuni, seniority being determined not by age but from the year that a mendicant entered the Sangha. The head of a community, however, could not unilaterally decide matters of doctrine and discipline; these had to be settled by a formal assembly of all members in the community. The Buddha realised that a majority decision may not always be just and correct. He therefore insisted that decisions taken by an assembly had to be made in what was called "The Presence," referring to (1) the presence of the complete assembly, (2) the parties to the dispute and (3) the spirit, not merely the letter, of the Dhamma and the Vinaya as it applied to all members of the Sangha of the Four Directions.

As the Sangha grew and spread geographically, problems arose in local communities over the correct interpretation of the Dhamma and the general rules of discipline. Guidelines were developed for deciding how the rules could be applied to suit particular situations. In every case, however, the interpretations and applications had to be in accord with the spirit of the Dhamma and Vinaya — hence, the requirement that a decision be made in their presence. This meant that decisions could be declared outside the scope of the basic regulations as, indeed, they often were. The principles and procedures below are from the Vinaya Pitaka’s chapters on the Formal Acts of the Sangha and Dissension in the Sangha. This is not an exhaustive list; rather, the points have been chosen to indicate the democratic ethos of the early Buddha Sangha.

(1) Disputes that required a formal resolution were twofold: those regarding matters of doctrine and those regarding discipline.

(2) Fortnightly meetings were held for edifying discussions about the Dhamma and to renew the dedication of renouncers to the pursuit of moral perfection. These meetings were similar to the Chapter of Faults in the (much later) Western monastic system. Individuals publicly confessed breaches of the code of discipline, asked the forgiveness of the community and promised to reform themselves.

(3) In addition to these stipulated meetings, extraordinary meetings could be convoked if disputes arose over doctrinal and disciplinary matters. Rules governing the convocation and conduct of such assemblies are clearly laid down.

(4) A matter could be validly settled only if all members of a community participated in deliberations. Everyone who enjoyed full membership of the community, however junior, had the right to participate and vote. Thus, at least within the Sangha, the principle of universal suffrage was recognised.

(5) Issues that required a complete assembly and a quorum to constitute such an assembly were laid down.

(6) The head of a community did not become de jure the president of an assembly called to settle internal disputes and dissension. For such occasions, the assembly elected a learned and virtuous person as its ad hoc president. This position ceased after deliberations were concluded. The rules admonish the president not to use the position as a means for personal elevation within the community.

(7) Once a decision to convoke an assembly was taken, all legal members of a community had to be given due notice so they could attend and participate in the deliberations. This precluded the possibility of one faction manipulating a meeting towards their ends. If due to unavoidable circumstances an individual could not participate, a reason was necessary. She or he could, however, delegate another member of the community to speak and vote on her or his behalf.

(8) A motion had to be presented thrice. The participants were given time to discuss and debate, the aim being to arrive at a consensual decision. Once the president was satisfied that the matter had been sufficiently discussed and consensus emerged, the decision was presented as a formal resolution. The resolution was also presented thrice to ensure that everyone fully understood its import. A resolution was considered unanimously adopted if the assembly remained silent each time it was presented.

(9) The assembly could also take a secret ballot, if more feasible, in which case a polling officer was appointed. The officer had to be a person of proven moral rectitude, personal integrity and learning in the Dhamma and the Vinaya. The secret ballot could be taken by the "whispering method" — the members whispered their opinions into the polling officer’s ear — or by using marked wooden tokens. In general, the community was required to abide by the majority decision, but not always, as the polling officer had the power to declare a decision, even if taken unanimously, outside the scope of the Dhamma and Vinaya.

(10) A decision taken previously could not be changed later with the help of absentees. Such a move was invalid.

(11) If a discussion drifted aimlessly and the assembly found it difficult to decide the matter or there was danger that the debate would become acrimonious, the president or polling officer could call for an adjournment. The participants were asked to consider their opinions in the spirit of the Dhamma and Vinaya and to come back to make an informed and honest decision.

(12) If still unable to reach an agreement, the matter would be entrusted to a committee acceptable to the contending parties. An arbitration committee had to consist of at least eight people, including a president and secretary, and qualifications are specified. The secretary would announce points referred to the committee one by one. The president would give his opinion, and others would then express theirs. Later a vote would be taken to settle the issue. The committee would reconvene the assembly, and the secretary would repeat the points of contention. The president of the commission would announce the decision taken. The community was required to abide by the commission’s decision, and the proceedings were terminated.

(13) If the committee found it difficult to arrive at a decision, the matter was referred back to the full assembly, and a decision was taken by a simple majority. The matter was then declared closed. In exceptional situations, the matter could be referred to a body of jurors belonging to another community.

(14) Rights of dissent and secession were recognised in the first sanghas. They envisaged situations where, despite extensive discussion and sincere effort, parties to a dispute could not arrive at a decision because each party believed in conscience that it was correct. A dissenting party then had the right to secede and form a new community without forfeiting its communion with the Sangha of the Four Directions. The Buddhist approach stands in striking contrast to the dogmatism of many religions in which dissenters have been branded heretics and burned at the stake or wars have been waged to preserve the "purity" of the faith.

The Vinaya Pitaka also provides clear guidelines on how to deal with violations of discipline by renouncers, including no physical punishment, the right to be judged by one’s peers and the right to plead not guilty and offer a defence before a full assembly with assistance from an advocate if sought.

Since all "realities" are impermanent and without substance, the Buddha observed that "nothing is worth clinging to." This is not a recipe for melancholy but a hygienic measure for the depression arising when people fail to recognise the true character of actuality: perpetual flux. The attitude the Buddha advocated for well-faring in an ocean of impermanence is dispassion towards oneself and compassion towards others. The community that the Buddha founded was an attempt to translate this value into practice.

(This is the ninth in a series of 10 articles extracted from the text Buddhism, Human Rights and Social Renewal by Dr. Nalin Swaris and published by AHRC. Copies are now available by contacting AHRC.)