English
There are two ways of making the mattress ; one way is to sew a piece of cloth so as to make a bag in which wool is put, the other is to weave (cotton) threads (into a mattress), the latter being something like Ch'ii-shu 4 (a kneeling- mat’). ) The-size of a mattress is two cubits wide and four cubits long ; it is thick or thin according to the season. Begging for a mattress is forbidden, but m given by others no guilt is incurred (in accepting it), but the (actual) use of it was not allowed (by the Buddha) §, and strict rules were laid down in detail. All these are the things to lie on, and are not the same thing as the three garments (i.e. Tri#ivara). Again, the ‘right livelihood’ mentioned in the Vinaya means, above rd #Pj HE; the text has Hh XK by mistake. ? This word occurs in Hiuen Thsang. See Julien, Mémoires, liv. ii, 68. ° For some reference to Kauseya, see Mahdvagga VIII, 3,1; Julien’s Hiuen Thsang, I, 253; II, 68, 189. : * The Chinese is HE fit. It may be observed that this name is not Chinese, and that this mat was first brought from India. The Chinese is sometimes vEE iit ; I cannot yet find the Sanskrit equivalent, Perhaps Uraa. ° It is often the case that a thing is allowed to be possessed, but not allowed to be used. I-tsing may be thinking of a rule to the above effect, though this is not clear. ’ NECESSARY FOOD AND CLOTHING. 61 all, one’s eating (lit. mouth and stomach). The tilling of land should - be done according to its Proper manner (i.é. to till-land for oneself is not permissible, but to do so for a Buddhist community, Sargha, is allowable), while sowing or planting are not against the teaching (lit. the net of teaching). If food be taken according to the law, no guilt will be 7 incurred, for it is said in the beginning *, ‘ by building up one’s character® , one could increase one’s own happiness,’ . According to the teaching of the Vinaya, when a cornfield is culti- vated by the Sangha (the Brotherhood or community), a share in the product is to be given to the monastic servants or some other families by whom the actu tilling has been done. Every product should be divided into six parts, and one-sixth should be levied by the Satigha ; the Sangha has to provide the bulls as well as the ground for cultivation, while the Sangha is responsible for nothing else. Sometimes the division of the product should be modified according to the seasons. Most of the monasteries in the West follow the above custom, but - there are some who are very avaricious and do not divide the produce, but the priests themselves give out the work to servants, male and female, and see that the farming is properly done. Those who observe the moral Precepts do not eat fagd given by such persons, for it is thought that such priests themselves plan out the work and support themselves by a ‘wrong livelihood ;’ because in urging on hired servants by force, one is apt to become passionate, the seeds may be broken, and insects be much injured while the soil is tilled, One’s daily food does not exceed one Shang, and who can endure hundreds of sins incurred while striving to get even that? Hence an honest man hates the cumbersome wosk of a farmer, and permanently keeps away from it (lit. rejects it and gallops away for ever) carrying with him a pot and a bowl. Such a man sits still in a place in a quiet forest and takes pleasure in company with birds and deer ; being free from the noisy pursuit of fame and profit he practises with a view to the perfect quictude of Nirvana, According to the Vinaya it is allowable for a Bhikshu to try to gain profits on behalf of the Brotherhood (i.e. Sangha), but tilling land and injuring life are not permitted in the Buddha’s teaching, for there * In what or by whom? The text has. #6 . 62 A RECORD OF BUDDHIST PRACTICES. x is nothing so great in injuring insects and hindering proper action as agriculture. In the books written, we have not seen the slightest refer- ence to acres of land (lit. ten acres, but ‘ten’ here is as much as to say ‘some’) that might lead one to a sinful and wrong livelihood; but as to the rules on the three garments that may be faultlessly, nay, rightly carried out, how much + pen and ink have been wasted by people! Alas! these matters can only be explained to those who are believing, but not be discussed with those who are sceptical. I only fear that those who are handing down the Laws may embrace an obstinate view. When I for the first time visited Tamralipti, I saw in a square ‘outside the monastery some of its tenants who, having entered there, divided some vegetables into three portions, and, having presented one of the three to the priests, retired from thence, taking the other portions with them. I could not understand what they did, and asked of the venerable Ta- shing Tang (Mahayana Pradipa*) what was the motive. He replied : ‘The priests in this monastery are mostly observers of the precepts. As cultivation by the priests themselves is prohibited ® by the great Sage, they suffer their taxable lands to be cultivated by others freely, and partake of only a portion of the products. Thus they live their just life, avoiding worldly affairs, and free from the faults of Restoying, lives by ploughing and watering fields. I also observed, that every morning the managing priest (of that monastery) examined water on the side of a well; that, if there was no insect in it, that water was used, and if there was a life in it, it was filtered; that, whenever anything, even a stalk of vegetable, was given (to the priests) by other persons, they made use of it through the assent of the assembly ; that no principal office was appointed in that monastery ; that when any business happened, it was settled by the assembly ; and J. has ig cist instead of te HE cen which is the reading of all other texts. The former is, no doubt, correct. i is certainly a mistake for ia . HE is a word used for ‘left out’ in copying ; and thus ia pit might have been a marginal remark by a copyist, showing that here the character ie was left out ; but gradually these two characters might have got into the text. This is the only explanation I can give ; otherwise this passage is unintelligible. Pay ee a, Sp ae ne ae Pe ee aa ee ee a NECESSARY FOOD AND CLOTHING. 63 that, if any priest decided anything by himself alone, or treated the priests favourably or unfavourably at his own pleasure, without regarding the will of the assembly, he was expelled (from the monastery), being called a Kulapati (i.e. he behaved like a householder). The following things also came under my notice. When the nuns were going to the priests in the monastery, they proceeded thither after having announced (their purpose to the assembly). The priests, when they had to go to the apartments of the nuns, went there after having made an inquiry. They (the nuns) walked together in a company of two, if it was away from their monastery; but when they had to go to a layman’s house for some necessary cause, they went thither in a com- pany of four. I saw that on the four Upavasatha-days of every month a great multitude of priests, all having assembled there late in the after- noon from several monasteries, listened to the reading of the monastic _Tites, which they obeyed and carried out with increasing reverence. I also witnessed the following things. One day a minor teacher (i.e. one who is not yet a Sthavira) sent to a tenant’s wife two Shing (prastha) of rice, carried by a boy. This action was considered to be a sort of trick. The case was brought by a petson before the assembly. The teacher was summoned, examined, and he and his two accomplices admitted the charge. Though he was free from crime, yet, being ashamed, he withdrew his name (from the assembly), and retired from the monastery for ever. His preceptor sent him his clothing (which was left behind him) by another person. Thus all the priests submitted to their own laws, without ever giving any trouble to the public court. Whenever women entéred into the monastery, they never proceeded to the apartments (of the priests), but spoke with them in a corridor for a moment, and then retired. At that time there was a Bhikshu named A-ra-hu-(not ‘shi’)la-mi-ta-ra (Rahula-mitra)! in that monastery. He . This R@hula-mitra may be the same as that Rahulaka whose verses are given in the Subbdsitavali of Vallabhadeva (2900), and in the S4rngadharapaddhati (35, 14). These verses are (see p. 104, Peterson's Subhdshitavali)— I, Subh. 2900: Yah kurute parayoshitsangam VaAikhati yaska dhanam parakiyam ; Yaska sada, guruvriddhavimant Tasya sukham na paratra na 4eha. 64 A RECORD OF BUDDHIST PRACTICES. x. + was then about thirty years old; his conduct was very excellent and his fame was exceedingly great. Every day he read over the Ratnakisa-- . sfitra?, which contains 700 verses. He was not only versed in the three collections of the scriptures, but also thoroughly conversant with the secular literature on the four sciences. He was honoured as the head of the priests in ‘the eastern districts of India*. Since his ordination he . never had spoken with women face to face, except when his mother or sister came to him, whom he saw outside (his room). Once I asked him why he behaved thus, as such is not holy law. He replied: ‘I am naturally full of worldly attachment, and without doing thus, I cannot stop its source. Although we are not prohibited (to speak with women) by the Holy One, it may be right (to keep them.off), if it is meant to prevent our evil desires.’ The assembly assigned to venerable priests, if very learned, and also to those who thoroughly studied one of the three collections, some of the - best rooms (of the monastery) and servants.