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)
Related papers
Rebecca R. French, Mark A. Nathan, Buddhism and Law, An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 2014, 2014
Identity of Buddhist Jurisprudence
Journal of Buddhist Education and Research, 2015
This paper aimedto study an issue of the knowledge of the history, philosophy, and nature of Buddhist law as depicted in early Buddhist texts which were related to the Patimokkha in VinayaPitaka. The VinayaLaws are similar in certain respects to other ecclesiastical law, but it differs fundamentally in itsstructure, jurisprudence and application from the latter. The laws of Vinaya are more distinct and better codified than any other the contemporary law-codes. The Buddhist Vinaya is based on celibacy, moral precepts and doctrinal ideals. The Buddha not only codified the ascetic principles but also improved them in changing its aim, scope and nature. So, the identity of Buddhist jurisprudence can be divided into eight vital characteristics, which are as follows:-1) Sammuti (convention), 2) contribution of Brahamacariya (Celibacy), 3) the influence of the institution of Yatis(a pious ascetic), 4) Uposatha in Order Literature, 5) public opinion, 6) Suggestion of Bhikkhu, 7) Atikkamo (transgression) and Itihasa (tradition). It would be worthy to note here that the core of the Buddhist jurisprudence is Parivasa (Probation of Offender) which is the Buddhist solution to reform and rehabilitate the criminal leading him to the attainment of final blessing i.e. Nibbana.
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.
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.
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.
The Role of Rules in Personal Development and Interpretations of the Vinaya in Western Countries
This paper deals with the issues surrounding, the teaching of a course on 'Buddhism and Law', in a Law School. To complete the analysis of the issues involved, I firstly, outline the background details of the students and my personal background in teaching 'Buddhism and Law'. Secondly, I address what I see the pedagogical challenges in this course and how I attempt to meet them. Thirdly, as the Vinaya is the basic code which defines monastic life and the students and are enthusiastic 'rule-interpreters', I concentrate the rest of the paper on the way I deal with the Vinaya in this course. Students opt for this course as a change to traditional courses (for example commercial law, taxation law). The students are in their fourth or fifth year and have mostly completed arts degrees. Students are educated in the social sciences and in particular have a good background in legal interpretation. Many students have an interest in philosophy and in religious issues ge...
In his contribution to this volume Professor v. Hiniiber elegantly demonstrates that Pali Buddhism is a legalistic enterprise. The vinaya-dhara (the monks who had been trained in vinaya expertise) wrote for and argued with each other in an idiom that most closely resembles the glossators on the Digest of 13th century Europe and the early jurists of 10th century Islam. They talk and think like lawyers, even if the vinaya in action lacks some of the features which we nowadays expect from a legal system. The vinaya-dhara were experts in interpreting the sangha's collective intention and possessed a monopoly on the ordination of new recruits into the sangha. Thus, if we think of the sangha anthropomorphically, they are its super-ego and its reproductive organs, while the abidhammist meditators are its heart and soul. The conclusion I draw from v. Hiniiber's article is that the vinaya is nearly as central to the Buddhist religion as the shari'a is to Islam. If we were to rank religions in order of legalism, Theravada would come at the legalistic end of the scale, near to Islam and far from, for example, Taoism. But on a direct comparison, Islam appears more legalistic, more concerned with regulating the day to day activities of its adherents, than the Theravada: it is possible to be a Buddhist without adhering to the vinaya but it is impossible to be a Muslim without following the shari'a. Burma presents a challenge to these generalizations about legalism and Buddhism. In Burma this gap between Islam and Theravada has narrowed-perhaps even to the point of disappearance. In pre-colonial Burma the monks adhered to the vinaya while the laity adhered to its own distinctive legal literature, known to the Burmese as "dhammathat and rajathat" and to the British as "Burmese Buddhist law." My main aim in this article is to persuade you that this law for the laity is, in a deep sense, Buddhist. If I can establish that dhammathat and rajathat are related to the dhamma-vinaya of the Pali canon in much the same way as the classic 47 1. 56.
Poaching Textual Authority: The Reception of the Legal Codes for Buddhist Monastic Women
Sakyadhita Newsletter, 2024
The four essays collected here were originally presented as a panel at the 2022 American Academy of Religion Annual Meeting. In organizing this panel, Amy Langenberg and I chose to emphasize the theme of reception: how Bhikṣuṇī Vinaya has been interpreted and practiced in different historical and cultural contexts. We viewed this as a generative way to address connections between the textual tradition of the Vinaya and the living communities past and present for whom these texts, or the idea of these texts, have importance. Contributors: Annie Heckman, Manuel Lopez, Darcie Williams and myself (find write-up on pp. 8–16 of Sakyadhita Newsletter).
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.