Petra Kieffer-Pülz, "Stretching the Vinaya Rules and Getting Away with it (11th I. B. Horner Lecture, 2005)", The Journal of the Pali Text Society , Vol. XXIX ( 2007 ), 1–49. (original) (raw)
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 Ś vetāmbara 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.
American Journal of Comparative Law, 2021
This Article examines rules of procedure and process that structure the Buddhist legal system in the Theravāda tradition, the dominant tradition of Buddhism in South and Southeast Asia. Drawing on important Buddhist texts written in Pāli as well as evidence from monastic legal practices in contemporary Sri Lanka, it argues that one can find within the Theravāda tradition a robust body of what H.L.A. Hart would call "secondary rules," which determine how monks ought to apply prohibitions, manage disputes, and administer sanctions. These include detailed guidelines for making accusations, classifying legal cases, conducting hearings, settling disputes, examining litigants, evaluating evidence and witness testimony, appealing cases, prescribing penalties, and rehabilitating offenders. While these rules share similarities with other systems of state and religious law, Buddhist "rules about rules" not only ensure that disputes are settled properly but that the process of legal action itself both reflects and engenders favorable moral dispositions among monks. Underscoring both the similarities and differences between Buddhist law and other legal systems, this Article invites non-specialists to look (again) at the importance of Buddhist law--one of the oldest and most widespread systems of nonstate law--for the broader field of comparative legal studies, from which it has been largely absent.
The Buddhist Monastic Law codes (Vinaya) reach back into pre-Christian times. Those of the three living traditions are still in use today. In my contribution I will focus on the monastic law code of the Theravada tradition, and illuminate the role it played in the life of the monks during the centuries, focusing especially on two disputes about the Buddhis monastic boundary (sīmā) that occured in the 13th and the 19th c. CE in Sri Lanka. The first of these quarrels was a transnational dispute between South Indian and Sri Lankan monks, and had repercussions up to the early 20th c. CE. The second was a local dispute within the Amarapuranikāya in 19th c. Sri Lanka, for the solution of which assistance was sought from outside Sri Lanka. I will show how the guidelines for settling disputes and the means of evidence to be applied in case of disputes described in the monastic law code were implemented, and will take a closer look at the role the monastic law code played.
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 Ś vetāmbara 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.
Buddhism, Law, Buddhist Law (Corrected draft)
Annual Review of Law & Social Sciences, 2025
Buddhism and its legal traditions have shaped Asian law and politics for more than two millennia. Today, nearly half of the world's population lives in areas where Buddhist law has flourished in the past and/or in the present. Seven countries have citizens who mostly identify as Buddhists: Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Mongolia, and Bhutan. Elsewhere, Buddhism has deep historical, cultural, and political influence, especially in Nepal, India, Korea, Japan, Singapore, China, Vietnam, and Taiwan, but also in the broader Buddhist diaspora in and beyond Asia. This article offers an overview of Buddhism's connections with law. After a short primer on Buddhism, it introduces readers to the various forms of Buddhist law that have evolved in Asia. It then considers Buddhism's entanglements with contemporary forms of state law before reflecting on the future of socio-legal approaches to Buddhism and law.
Anāpatti and Legal Exceptions: Early Buddhist Monastic Ethics and Modern Legal Frameworks
South India Journal of Social Science, 2025
The Buddhist framework emphasizes the contextual nature of transgressions, recognizing that ethical violations cannot be assessed solely by their outcomes but must also consider the intention and circumstances of the individual. This understanding of moral responsibility provides valuable insights to contemporary legal ethics, particularly in the areas of professional accountability, conflict resolution, and restorative practices. Drawing from the Vinaya Piṭaka, this paper explores how ethical breaches were categorized, addressed, and resolved within the monastic community. By comparing the Buddhist concept of anāpatti with modern legal principles, the paper highlights how ancient philosophical insights can inform current debates on the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners, the role of intention in determining culpability, and the integration of restorative justice into legal systems. This study highlights the enduring relevance of Buddhist ethical concepts in developing a more compassionate and context-sensitive approach to legal ethics.
Litigating Vinaya: Buddhist Law and Public Law in Contemporary Sri Lanka (final corrected proof)
Buddhism, Law and Society (final corrected), 2018
How do contemporary legal systems affect the interpretation and application of religious laws such as Buddhist monastic law? What happens when Buddhists turn to public litigation to dispute the meanings of the Vinaya Piṭaka, the monastic disciplinary code? This article answers these questions by looking closely at recent court cases from Sri Lanka. It argues against the influential assumption that contemporary legal regimes stabilize and narrow interpretations of religious law. It illustrates instead how certain domains of modern legality, especially constitutional law, create new opportunities, spaces and incentives for destabilizing and pluralizing the interpretation of religious norms. Drawing on original legal submissions, draft bills, interviews and other sources from the " expanded archive " of law, I explain why the use of constitutional law has broadened and deepened debates about Buddhist monastic law, its core rules, key texts and regulatory role in the modern world.
Ben Schonthal: Guest Editor’s Introduction: Buddhist Legal Pluralism? Looking Again at Monastic Governance in Modern South and Southeast Asia; Matthew Walton and Aung Tun: Monks and Ambiguities of Law in Myanmar; Monica Lindberg Falk and Hiroko Kawanami: Monastic Discipline and Communal Rules for Buddhist Nuns in Myanmar and Thailand; Ben Schonthal:Litigating Vinaya: Buddhist Law and Public Law in Contemporary Sri Lanka; Thomas Borchert and Susan M. Darlington: Political Disrobing in Thailand; Michael R. Chladek: Imagined Laity and the Performance of Monasticism in Northern Thailand; Gregory Kourilsky and Patrice Ladwig:Governing the Monastic Order in Laos: Pre-modern Buddhist Legal Traditions and Their Transformation under French Colonialism.