Master Xu Yun [虛雲] - Exploring the Interface Between the “Mind Precept” and the "Vinaya Discipline"!
Master Xu Yun – the Mind Precept in Action
Dedicated to My Father - Peter Wyles (1943-2026) - the Original Hermit
Peter Wyles (Centre-Left) & Family - "Moses Waveman" of Torbay!
By Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD
(Edited by Gee Yau)
'Monks, what is right action? To refrain from killing life, to refrain from taking what has not been given, to refrain from sexual misconduct - that, monks, is called right action.' DN 11 32 1 (Johansson 1981)
Author's Note: Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) passed away on October 13th, 1959 (according to the Western Calendar) - with 2026 being the 67th anniversary of his passing (there are certain complications effecting how the solar and lunar calendars interface). This year also marks the 48th anniversary of the passing of Charles Luk (d. 1978) and the 20th anniversary of the passing of Richard Hunn (d. 2006). The Vinaya Discipline assists an individual to a) find, and b) sustain their place in life. This "place" is not special but it is vitally important. It is the process of becoming what we already are without hesitation or deviation. There is a certain power in being outwardly "retiring" and inwardly "aware" of an all-embracing "emptiness" (a powerful way of peacefully "resisting" tyranny). The (deluded) material world is harsh - so the up-holder of the Vinaya Discipline must apply a constructive "giving-way" as a means to bring order to the inner and outer worlds - and achieve objectives without deviating from the "Dao". Artificial social status is not the answer - even though some of us will hold high office - most will not. The Vinaya Discipline belongs to the entirety of humanity - not just to a privileged clique - as its structure and design ensures that the Dharma is a) preserved, and b) applied. The agency of the Vinaya Discipline is that of the "Precept" or "Vow". This is a short (directive) sentence which describes a preferred state of mind, and a required orientation and placement of the physical body. The uprooting of greed, hatred, and delusion - and cultivation of "emptiness" - is the motivational premise. This is how the upholding of the Vinaya Discipline guarantees an "emptiness" of being which is non-attached to material reality. Morality is the vehicle not the end. Forgiveness for weakness and deviation is the norm. The power of the Vinaya Discipline is immense and all that is required for it to be activated - through a focusing of will-power. This is the power of Buddhist "morality" (Sila) - which is nothing more than the directing of inner energy (jing, qi, and shen) toward a transformatory end. The formulation of the material world, although often difficult to divert away from ignorance, can be subtly transformed due to the innate power of the Vinaya Discipline. All injustices are rendered null and void by the inner reaction to their outer presence. Outer injustices may not be stopped per se (due to the power of collective karma) but when there is no concretised individual to be targeted - a transformative void is cultivated that has the potential to envelope and realign reality. This is why Master Xu Yun (1840-1959) placed so much emphasis upon the upholding of the Vinaya Discipline - with "honesty" being at its core. Do not pretend to be a monk if the Vinaya Discipline has not been taken (and is not upheld) - and do not pretend to be a lay-person if it has. Before the Buddha formulated an official "Sangha" - his devout lay and ascetic followers met in equality during the twice-monthly meetings (on the New and Full Moon - an ancient Brahmanical ritual) - to recite the "suttas" (full term "suttanta") - where individuals verbally recited these teachings learned by word of mouth. Groups formed where renowned reciters ("Suttantika") expressed and explained each teaching - whilst others present listened and discussed the content. As the Buddha could only be in one-place at anytime (metaphysical arguments apart) - when His teachings became widespread - many such reciting groups existed all dedicated to the personalised instructions he gave to various adherents. These groups would form the foundation of the 18-schools that developed after the Buddha's passing. The issue was that there evolved at least 5000 different suttas - and this sheer bulk of instruction could not be properly recited during a single-day - initiated twice per month. This problem was eventually solved through the Buddha forming a dedicated monastic elite which he termed "bhikkhu" (beggar) - the daily life of which was regulated by guidance extracted from the suttas. The Buddha termed this cross-reference of the suttas as the "Vinayadhara" or "Vinaya Discipline". This new body of work remained stable in length and was designed to be properly recited during a single-day. (What the monastics "thought" about the content of the Vinaya and suttas was categorised in a separate body of work [of indeterminant length] termed the "Abhidhamma"). This shifted the emphasis of the monthly meetings from "sutta" to "Vinaya". Within contemporary Chinese Buddhism, the ancient "Suttantika" is termed "Dharma-Master" (法師 - Fa Shi) - whilst the "Vinaya-Master" is termed "Lu Shi" (律师), The Ch'an School also uses the title "Meditation Master" (禅师 - Ch'an Shi). When the underlying reality is realised all these differing states and designations are reconciled (as duality is transcended) - as the insight becomes clear and sharp. This history suggests the Buddha did not originally advocate a separate monastic community - and even attempted to abolish it later in his life. The Buddha's twice-monthly meetings were democratic and premised upon mutual respect and equality between the laity and the ascetics. The original "ascetic" (samanna) was free to wander and live how they wanted - often learning from various teachers with no set procedure. The Buddhist "bhikkhu" is a specialisation of the "samanna" that dedicated the monastic exclusively to following the Buddha's teaching. Even so, the fact that the Buddha insisted on referring to these specialists as "beggars" suggest he never intended for these individuals to be considered superior to non-monastics. Indeed, the Vinaya records the story of a certain Upasaka - who was tgranted a "suttu" by the Buddha - who then "summoned" the bhikkhus to quickly travel to his abode (even though it was the time of the rainy season retreat) so that he could verbally recite this teaching to the monks (for safe-keeping within their collective memory). The "superior" aspect of the path the bhikkhu follows is one of purified karmic endeavour. It is a path free of the usual hurdles ordinary people are presented with on a daily basis. However, as the Pali Suttas make clear - members of the lay community could often achieve enlightenment. The Ch'an School recognises that monastics are actually humble and positioned below the laity - and that part of this humility is premised upon the strict upholding of the Vinaya Discipline.. Understanding this reality explains the attitude of Master Xu Yun.
ACW (4.10.2026)
ACW (4.10.2026)
Author: Adrian Chan-Wyles Engaged in Qianfeng Daoist "Neidan"!
‘I proclaim there is absolutely no difference between a layperson with a mind (Citta) which is liberated and a bhikkhu which has been liberated for a century.’
(Mahanama) Gilyāna Sutta SN 55.546
‘The layperson Tapussa, because of hearing the Tathagata, has gone to the utmost supreme transcendence… and has his being in the enlightenment of the immortal itself.’
Tapussa Sutta AN 9.41 – Mahavagga 4
(Mahanama) Gilyāna Sutta SN 55.546
‘The layperson Tapussa, because of hearing the Tathagata, has gone to the utmost supreme transcendence… and has his being in the enlightenment of the immortal itself.’
Tapussa Sutta AN 9.41 – Mahavagga 4
PREAMBLE: This article examines the praxis between the lay Buddhist community and the monastic component of that community. In effect, this is an examination of the interface between one version of the Vinaya Discipline (the 5, 8 or 10 Precepts upheld by the laity) – and the Vinaya Discipline proper (the 227 Precepts [male] and 366 Precepts [female]) upheld by the fully ordained monastics. Many assume incorrectly, that only the monastics uphold the Vinaya Discipline – and the laity do something else, not directly related, but forming somekind of mimicry or weak reflection. This perception, wherever it exists, creates a false dichotomy. The morality (Sila) instructions that comprise the Vinaya Discipline are extracted from the 5000 Buddhist texts (Suttas-Sutras) and are not an alien aspect inserted from the outside of Buddhism. Precepts, are of course, “vows” designed to limit (and therefore “discipline”) the mind and body toward a higher orientation of being not reliant upon a theistic entity (either within or without). The Vinaya Discipline requires “self-effort” and nothing else. Buddhist monastics formed scattered communities throughout North India – with each grouping focusing upon the various Suttas these monastics preferred (usually the Buddha’s precise teaching which assisted the development of the individual monastics themselves). Within the early Buddhist communities when the Buddha was alive – no single Buddhist grouping followed “all” the Buddhist teachings. The Buddha spent his time wandering around between these developing communities – advising as he went. Early Buddhism was very different to developed, or received Buddhism. Due to this diversity, many Buddhist monastics “disagreed” with one another – whilst acknowledging the right to dissent (as the Buddha taught). Seated meditation has been present within “all” Buddhist communities from the earliest times – as it is the principle method utilised by the Buddha prior to his enlightenment. This meditation is the vehicle conveyed by the Chinese Ch’an School (the Indian Dhyana School) – and it forms that practice which interfaces between the lay-practice of the Vinaya Discipline and the monastic practice of the Vinaya Discipline (this is true even if it is acknowledged that the Buddha gave equal weight to meditating whilst “standing”, “walking”, “sitting”, and “lying”). Indeed, the Vinaya Discipline (Mahavagga 4) relates how the two merchants - Tupassa and Bhallika - came from Orissa (Ukkala) to where the Buddha was located – accompanied by four gods. The gods, knowing that the Buddha (who was sat in meditation at the foot of a tree) was enlightened – advised the two merchants to make offerings of rice and honeycomb so as to attain a karmic blessing. The Buddha understood that he could not (as a Tathagata) receive such gifts with his hands – so the gods presented him with four stone bowls (one from each of the four-corners of the world) – so that these offerings could be made, accepted, and enjoyed. The Buddha agreed with this offering and method of attaining it – and the origin of the begging bowl was established. Following this interaction, the merchants Tupassa and Bhallika took Refuge in the Buddha and Dhamma (the “Double Gem”) – as the formal “Sangha” did not yet exist. These two individuals constituted the first two lay-people to join the Buddha. There is more to this story which is continued in the “Tapussa Sutta” referenced above (and linked below). This may be at a later date after the begging-bowl episode as the Buddha entered Uruvelakappa already carrying a begging bowl. Ananda (the Arahant) takes Tupassa and Bhallika to meet the Buddha (again) and receive instruction about correctly following the Dhamma. After meticulously explaining the path of uprooting greed, hatred, and delusion, and realising the emptiness of self – the Buddha confirmed that there is no difference between an enlightened lay-man and an Arahant (it may be that “bhikkhus” in the formal sense did not yet exist). However, in the Gilyāna Sutta (referenced above and quoted below), the Buddha explains to Mahanama that there is no difference between a lay-person who has realised enlightenment and a “bhikkhu” who has attained the same state. Although there are different ways of achieving enlightenment within the Chinese Ch’an School – it could well be that the method of “seated meditation” is the door-way that sees all distinction returned to the empty mind ground and permanently reconciled. The hua tou method instantaneously "returns" all six sense-organs to the empty mind ground - so that the mind is "stilled" (relative enlightenment) - and then "expands" to embrace the Ten Directions (full enlightenment). (End)
FOREWORD: The Vinaya Discipline did not always exist. For much of the history of the Buddha's teachings - it was the "Dhamma" (verbal teachings of a wise and guiding nature) that defined the school of asceticism that Gotama Siddhartha originated out of the "Samanna" (tree-root dwelling) tradition that was prominent throughout India at the time. Probably many tens of thousands of men (and some women) pursued this other-worldly path of spiritual purification. Many mature followers of Brahma (later known as "Hindus") - after getting married, raising a family, and pursuing a livelihood (and securing material wealth) - would willingly renounce this existence and set-forth (naked) into the wilderness. By the time of the Buddha's existence (anywhere between 1000-500 BCE) a new development had occurred which saw "younger" people refusing to participate in the traditional lifestyle expected of the followers of Brahma. Leaving the world prior to marriage - or during marriage - was considered spiritually and culturally outrageous at the time. Indeed, the Brahmin priests declared this a misuse of "kamma" that would lead to deficient rebirths and godly-inspired (karmic) punishment. This extra pressure assisted in the development of entirely "new" methods of controlling the mind and transcending the body. The Buddha, through his actions and preferred methodology, was breaking the long established religious norms of ancient India - even though He claimed that he was "re-discovering" an old teaching that had been forgotten. What the Buddha established was considered outrageous at the time - but is viewed today as almost "conservative" in nature. His method of traversing the distance between the "deluded" and the "non-deluded" state he defined (in Pali) as the "Dhamma" (Authoritative Path) or "Dharma" (in Sanskrit). This is a vast body of knowledgeable work consisting of around 5000 Suttas-Sutras. The Vinaya Discipline forms one of the three "baskets" (Tipitaka-Tripitaka) of texts which define the Buddha's Path (the other two being the "Sutta-Pitaka" and the "Abhidhamma-Pitaka"). The Abhidhamma, of which there are many renditions, is an accumulation of "wise" (Panna-Prajna) examinations concerning how older monastics understood the Suttas and Vinaya, and so on. The Abhidhamma often reflects an advanced form of the Buddha's teachings - very different to those offered to the laity in the standard Suttas. This is true of the Theravada School - which maintains that the laity cannot realise enlightenment - and that they must never be taught the Abhidhamma under any circumstances. This is not the case in the Mahayana or Tantrayana traditions. Of course, in the modern age, Western academics have successfully accessed these texts and carefully translated them into English - so that any individual can access the content outside of the control of the Buddhist schools. Exactly the same reality exists for the Vinaya Discipline. Yes - there are substantial differences between the various renditions - the Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan, and other languages (there is Prakrit and even Turkic translations of the Dhamma) - although the central core remains clearly the work of a single thinker. Here is the prescient issue. The Buddha used the development of a Vinaya Discipline as a scaffolding structure that supported and assisted the process of defining the Dhamma - but was not designed to replace or supersede it. This is why the Buddha did say that the monastics, if they so wished, could "abolish" the Vinaya Discipline following his passing - but the monastics chose to retain this text. This is the historical background to the subject-matter of this article. The Vinaya Discipline is crucial for defining the Dhamma - and when the Dhamma is functioning correctly - the Vinaya Discipline becomes obsolete. These are the realities that must be borne in-mind when exploring this interesting topic. Whereas the Japanese Buddhist traditions rejected the Vinaya Discipline at source (Japanese monastics can choose to voluntarily uphold the Vinaya Discipline as a personal choice if they so wish) - but China did not. Master Xu Yun, speaking in the early 1950s, was highly critical of a number of ordained Chinese monks who had sojourned to Japan - and returned after a number of years with Japanese wives and children - still wearing their robes and expecting all the deference from the laity for which their assumed status demanded. Master Xu Yun was of the opinion that these monks had "broken" the Vinaya Discipline they had taken - and were therefore "dishonestly" claiming to uphold the Vinaya Discipline - whilst continuously breaking the Precepts. This is why Master Xu Yun made it clear that he wanted the following of the Vinaya Discipline to be enshrined within modern (secular) Chinese law. Breaking the Precepts within Chinese Buddhism today - is tantamount to breaking secular law - and is considered a criminal act. A corrupt monastic can be arrested and charged for fraud whilst being stripped of his or her monastic status. Master Xu Yun believed that this move would strengthen the Sangha over-all - thus benefitting humanity without end. This reality must run in parallel with the Ch'an practice of the "Mind Precept" - and the very real idea that the laity (as well as animals, insects, and plants, etc) can realise full enlightenment. These two-realities can exist simultaneously - providing the empty mind ground is penetrated and fully realised - achieving an all-embracing mind-set. (End)
Ch'an Meditation
The Vinaya Discipline (Vinaya-dharma) permeates all the Buddhist Schools. However, the "Vinaya", although considered vitally important and established by the Buddha to guide the behaviour of his monastic community (those men and women who lived a celibate lifestyle outside of society) - is "secondary" to the Dharma. This was explained by the Buddha. Everything in the Vinaya stems from the Sutras - but the Buddha did explain (when he was near to dying) that if the monastic community thought it was not required, they, as a body in democratic agreement, could dissolve the Vinaya. The Sangha at that time voted to keep the Vinaya. Bear-in mind that there were at least eighteen schools of Buddhist interpretation immediately following the Buddha's Pari-Nirvana - all with different understanding about what the Buddha thought. Even the Pali texts of the Theravada record, certain Elders disagreeing with their recantation of the Suttas - preferring to follow the instructions given to them directly by the Buddha Himself. My experience as to whether the Vinaya Discipline is fully recited by the entire (gathered) community of monastics (twice a month on the New Moon and Full Moon) within Sri Lankan Theravada School depends upon the size and location of the temple or monastery. Monastics from smaller and/or remote places may have to travel to a nearby larger temple or monastery, or are granted various types of exemption - or permission to hold smaller conclaves. Ascetics living in the jungles of Sri Lanka, living at the root of a tree (like the Buddha) are not ordained bhikkhus (probably) and are not required to attend a temple twice a month (a lay-person has the right to attend the by-monthly conclave as a member of the lay-Buddhist periphery when the monastics are reciting). At this time, lay-people have the right to report a bhikkhu whose behaviour may (or may not) have violated the Vinaya Discipline. Although often forgotten today - the "bhikkhu" is a "beggar" who is supposed to be humble and beneath the lowest lay-person (this is more important for the highest bhikkhus). Any bhikkhu who acts like they are superior - is breaking the Vinaya Discipline. In return, the lay-community offers daily food, material for robes, and a general respect associated for the bhikkhu's pure behaviour.
Remember, lay-people, by upholding the five, eight, or ten precepts are in fact adhering to an element of the Vinaya Discipline and does not exist outside of it. Within the Mahayana and Tantrayana Schools, these points are still relevant - but there is a greater latitude of interpretation (often linked to "compassion", "loving kindness", and wisdom"). This is why there are slightly different versions of the Vinaya Discipline today - and archaeological evidence suggests there may have been far more in the past. Although an objective Western academic perspective tends to choreograph the development of Buddhism, and places this tradition before or after that tradition, within the tradition itself, the particular lineage or school is (internally) considered absolutely real and self-evidently authentic. The Chinese Ch'an School, as an example, does not consider itself a later development. Within the Chinese Buddhist tradition, there is a clause which permits "self-ordination" when an individual is isolated and has no access to the monastic community. Some type of external focal-point is required (such as a Buddha-image) and the individual pledges to follow the Dharma to the best of their ability (which often involves a hermit's lifestyle of committed meditation). The Ch'an School tends to make use of this, and this is where the "Mind Precept" originates. The "Mind Precept" involves the immediate realisation of the empty mind ground - which is the essence of all other 227 precepts the male monastics are required to follow (311 precepts for women). This is the difference between the Mahayana School of the Ch'an lineage and the Theravada School. The Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra demonstrates how the "lay" and the "monastic" possess exactly the same empty mind ground as essence - and how Vimalakirti censured Venerable Upali (the Buddha's Master of the Vinaya) for being "attached" to the knowledge he possessed.
When Buddhism spread to China from India – it was a strictly “vegetarian” lineage – which must have existed either at the time of Buddha (or just after). It seems that the only reason meat was permitted at all was because a “beggar” could not pick and chose the waste-food he or she solicited on a daily basis from those who already lived in a state of abject poverty. The Buddha made the conditions surrounding the consumption of meat to be so stringent that it was almost impossible to acquire. A Buddhist monastic must cultivate a mind free of attachment to all consumption of food and drink. The appetite, stomach, and mode of consumption must be a) “mindful” , and b) “non-attached” during the entire process. In a very real sense, the digestive system of the bhikkhu belongs to the lay-community that offers material and moral support to the Sangha. Of course, within the Theravada School, the term “Sangha” only refers to those men and women who have achieved full-ordination. It does not include those in training to become a bhikkhu, or any member of the lay community. This seems to be a (later) monkish invention following the death of the Buddha (found in the “Abhidhamma”) – as such an attitude is not strictly speaking acting in accordance with the (Pali) Sutta. A similar attitude surrounds the odd idea that the laity cannot realise enlightenment (there are at least 13 examples of lay-people achieving this state in the Pali Suttas) with the Buddha stating clearly that there is “no difference” between a lay-person who has achieved enlightenment and a bhikkhu who has attained enlightenment. This is compounded by the idea that the bhikkhu must only teach a watered-down version of the Dhamma to the laity – and never share the Abhidhamma teachings - which are considered suitable only for the Ordained Sangha. Then there is the equally odd idea that women are spiritually inferior to men – as this seems to be a later insertion into the Buddha’s teaching - to placate the misogynistic attitudes prevalent within India at the time.
Within China, a lay-person and an ordaining individual must adhere to the Bodhisattva Vows – as well as the Vinaya Discipline. Although these two sets of vows parallel one another – the difference lies in that the Bodhisattva Vows do not require celibacy – whilst the Vinaya Discipline demands celibacy. Sometimes, an individual is described as a “lay-monk” who follows the Bodhisattva Vows - and some of the Vinaya Discipline. A lay-person may leave society and considered “monastic” (possibly a “hermit”) when upholding only the Bodhisattva Vows – which are considered spiritually very powerful in their own right. Even a fully ordained Buddhist monk in China might sit quietly whilst “nine” cones of incense are placed on the top of the shaven head burned done to the skin and bone (leaving white dots as scars) representing a commitment to the Bodhisattva Vows. The practitioner remains “unmoved” by the resulting pain. Novices quietly begin the Vinaya Discipline training by being subjected to ever increasing numbers of precepts – until the full amount is achieved. As daily begging was outlawed in China centuries ago, ordained monastics must cultivate the land around their monastery – and participate in farming that produces fruit and vegetables. The monastics participate in the harvesting of the crops so that the community can be fed. At major temples and monasteries, the Vinaya Discipline might be recited twice monthly – but this depends upon tradition and expectation. In particularly strict Ch’an temples, seated meditation takes the place of all other practices – this is where the “Mind Precept” comes into practice.
As Master Xu Yun states, when the empty mind ground is fully achieved, all worldly distinctions fall away. There is never a time that an individual is not following the Vinaya Discipline or manifesting the Dharma. This is a subtle teaching that must not be misused. Prior to realising the empty mind ground – then an individual might well have to make use of all kinds of expedient devices. This includes the ritualistic pursuing of the Vinaya Discipline. Such practices discipline the mind and body and prevent any further hellish karma from being generated. In other words, the capacity to be “ignorant” is suppressed by wisdom. As Master Xu Yun insisted that the Vinaya Discipline became part of China’s Secular Law in the 1950s – this removes corrupt individuals from joining the Sangha for an easy life with no intention to cultivate the Dharma. It is illegal in China for a Buddhist monastic to deliberately “break” the Vinaya Discipline – so strict is the situation following Master Xu Yun’s suggestion. Master Xu Yun was of the opinion that Buddhism cannot be considered legitimately “present” in a country if the Vinaya Discipline is not upheld (Master Xu Yun rejected the Japanese convention of abandoning the Vinaya Discipline). Although all this is materially correct – if the empty mind ground is realised – all this restriction is instantaneously transcended.
Although it would seem that Buddhism arrived in China from India between 100 BCE- 100 CE – it was not until around 600 CE that a more or less complete rendition of the Buddha’s teaching was present in China. The nobility may have had an incomplete intellectual appreciation of Buddhism very early on, but it took some time for the Buddha’s teaching to permeate Chinese society properly. In a society where 90% of the population was illiterate, Buddhist teachings had to be practical and easily passed-on. Evidence suggests that early Buddhist communities mirrored their Confucian counter-parts – with individual learned men forming the centre a Buddhist community around them. A new development at this time (c. 400 CE) saw the Chinese understanding of “nepotism” being challenged. Until that time, each surname-clan was hierarchical in authority and exclusive in nature. Each family in this Confucian society had to model itself on the imperial family – with every member of a family knowing their proper place within society. What rights and duties were applicable to each individual within a single name-clan were not transferable to an individual born into a different name-clan. As the new Buddhist communities in China were not exactly sure how Indian Buddhism was fully organised – they chose to emphasis its universalist nature. Confucian possessed no monastic institution of its own, and so the early “Sangha” was a “lay” structure that believed that caring for individuals from other name-clans was the root of the Buddhist teaching.
To achieve this transformation, the (Buddhist) community (or group) took the surname of the dominant individual leading the group. He transferred his surname to complete strangers (within Confucianism, other clans, even if living nearby, were considered “foreigners”). This all slowly changed as more Indian Buddhist monastics walked to China and transmitted authentic Buddhist knowledge. This process of development may have been aided by Chinese individuals walking to India in search of the Buddhist teachings. Although China may have possessed the tradition of individual men and women retiring to the countryside to pursue isolated spiritual transformation – the arrival of Buddhism in China offered a structured approach to developing a monastic institution. Once Buddhist teaching was understood, Confucian society was abandoned and an ordained individual had to accept and practice the Vinaya Discipline (which advocated the alien concept of celibacy). Although interpreted through a Confucian filter – the practice of Buddhism in China assumed a very different outer manifestation to its early Confucian-based model. Although the Confucian aspects of “respect”, “self-discipline”, and “education” were retained – it was the manner in which these Chinese attributes were applied via the Buddhist influence that created an entirely “new” religious mode of practice. The Chinese family surname was abandoned and the clan (tribal) name of the Buddha – “Sakya” (or “Shakya”) – took its place for all monastics (Buddhist monastics also lost their first-names which were replaced by names derived from Buddhist philosophy). Ordained men and women in China became the “son” and “daughter” of the Buddha “Sakyamuni” (the Sanskrit term “Sakyamuni” or “Shakyamuni” is transliterated into the Chinese language as “釋迦牟尼” [Shi Jia Mou Ni] and is usually shortened to “Shi” [釋] – being placed at the beginning of an ordination name).
As can be understood, although the “Dharma” or Buddhist Sutras are considered the philosophical core of the Buddha’s message – the Vinaya Discipline derived from within these teachings in response to unique or unfamiliar happenings unfolding in the material environment of the male or female monastics. Of course, not all of the received texts originated with the Buddha himself – and have been the product of additions overtime. This is how the different Buddhist schools developed – all agreeing on the main-points – but disagreeing in interpretation and emphasis. The Buddha and the Buddhist community had to balance the political and religious realities of the times within which it existed. This may explain the odd narrow-minded view-point found in the more conservative renditions of the Vinaya Discipline which involve misogynist attitudes toward women, discrimination against those with disabilities, and the rejection of those in-debt, or those with a criminal record. Even those who have deserted from an army – or are on the run trying to avoid conscription – are denied access. All these ideas have been explained as being practical responses to non-Buddhist authorities – those permitting the Sangha to live on donated land free of taxation and conscription. Viharas, however, were not to become safe-havens for the desperate, the criminal, or the destitute. As logical as this sounds, such thinking does not align itself with the unconditional loving kindness, compassion, or wisdom as expressed by the Buddha himself. This observation explains why it is that the different versions of the Vinaya Discipline differ in tone and acceptance of “difference”.
Needless to say, I experienced none of these proscriptions when taught the Vinaya Discipline in Hong Kong (China). Men and women who have served time in the ordained Sangha in China – but who have returned to lay-life - are able to wear their robes within their own homes (as each Chinese home possesses a family shrine). Robes can also be worn by the laity in a temple during holy days. Robes can only be worn in public by a lay-person with permission by the local Buddhist Authorities. Furthermore, if a former monastic has achieved a certain level of meditative attainment during their time in the temple, their Master may grant them the permission to continue to use their ordination name within lay society. Such individuals may also have to keep their heads shaved and eat only vegetarian food, etc, even if participating in marriage and raising a family. As time progresses, the couple must both participate less and less within sexual desire, and adopt an ever-purer state of body and mind in preparation for a good departing from the world. Remember, both the laity and Sangha adhere to exactly the same Vinaya Discipline with the distinction being one of intensity and commitment. Without the Vinaya Discipline, and this is the point emphasised by Master Xu Yun, genuine Buddhism cannot exist in a country outside of India if the Vinaya Discipline has not been transmitted to that country, and is actively upheld in that country. This is, in real terms, the uprooting of greed, hatred, and delusion. This is the realisation of (the empty-state) of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. These three taints no longer arise and manifest from within the empty mind ground – which remains in the “uncreated” state (of non-conditioned Nirvana). Conditioned Nirvana, of course, is the many realisation of the many contrived states leading to the penetration of the non-conditioned “uncreate”.
Although the path of a Buddhist monastic is considered the “fast track” to the end of suffering – the path for the lay-person is strewn with all kinds of obstacles and blocks, which must be surmounted if progress is to be made. A lay-person must navigate the world of hindering Samara so that delaying karma is kept to a minimum. Such are the dynamics of the exterior life. For the monastics, as many of these barriers are removed through the ordination process and the application of the Vinaya Discipline. As the lay-person is expected to only apply a few of the Vinaya Discipline rules, fewer barriers are removed (a priori). This is the challenge and there is no point denying the qualitative difference in the two lifestyles. The reality is that we cannot all be Buddhist monastics. What might seem easy to achieve for some – is very difficult to achieve for others – and no amount of will-power or forceful endeavour will alter this karmic situation. What the Buddha’s path offers is the meditative penetration of the “present moment – experienced “here and now”. This “present moment” is exactly the same for the lay-person as it is for the monastic – and this insight demonstrates the power of the Ch’an School. A qualified teacher understands exactly how to guide a practitioner into the penetration of the “present moment” – which has the empty mind ground as its base. This is the multidimensional “Mind Precept” that all lay-people and monastics must apply as their foundational practice. Bhikkus (bhikshus) are distinct from the laity – and are below the laity – not because they are inferior but because they are supportive and expansive (like the broad earth). Buddhist monastics are humble like the dust, and should keep their gaze directed toward the ground - those function they mirror.
The importance and power of “sila” (morality) is such that when the Buddha was alive – he was illiterate despite being a member of the then highest caste. He was well-educated in the practical sense and had heard all the Brahmanic texts recited by the Hindu priests. In this sense the Buddha was well-educated but not literate. Literacy in those days was restricted to the royal court and used to record laws, punishments, treaties, and victories in war, etc. Reading and writing was not practiced by the religious or individual high-born Hindus. The contemporary correlation between “literacy” and “education” in the West probably has its roots in ancient Greek culture. It was around 400-500 years after the passing of the Buddha that the Buddhist texts were written-down in their entirety. However, even before this, Emperor Ashoka had his scholars engrave various aspects of the Buddhist teachings on stone-pillars (during the 3rd century BCE) publicly erected at different places throughout his Empire. Recitation Masters would be posted at each pillar and have the task of daily reciting the Dharma. Just how long all this was since the passing of the Buddha depends upon when he lived. The Western date is between the 6th-5th centuries BCE – with some scholars suggesting the Buddha lived even nearer to the Christian-era. These dates might not be correct as within traditional Chinese Buddhism – the Buddha is believed to have lived between the 10th-9th century BCE – with various archaeological finds in India supporting this earlier date. Master Xu Yun supported this earlier dating – often teaching about the Indian Buddhist monks who visited China and relayed this date. Although this appears in the Chinese-language edition of Xu Yun’s biography – Charles Luk omitted it from his English translation (apparently publishing this extract in a Buddhist magazine – although I have never found a copy). Instead, I accessed the Chinese-language version and translated it anew into the English language.
The Theravada, Mahayana, and Tantrayana Vinaya Discipline state that a member of the Sangha is anyone who has realised “emptiness” – and those who have formally ordained. This recognises that a lay-person and a monastic realises exactly the same state of “emptiness”. Theravada ideology, however, states that lay-people, although they can theoretically realise “emptiness”, are unlikely to do so, and are liable to “die” if they do not ordain immediately after achieving this. There is no scriptural basis for this in the Dharma-teachings – it is an assumed interpretation designed to artificially raise the bhikkhus (“beggars”) above the laity (they “beg” from). The laity within the Theravada tradition, despite being critical for the existence and perpetuation of the Sangha, are excluded from inclusion in it. A devout lay-person living within a Theravada country are not members of the Sangha. This is different to the Mahayana and Tantrayana traditions – which sees the definition of the “Sangha” extended to embrace the lay-community as an act of compassion and wisdom. When all of the extant Buddhist literature is examined – combined with the practices of the surviving Buddhist traditions around the world (including objective academic study), it is logical to assume that the Buddha advocated a “fluid” or “non-fixed” approach to a) being a bhikkhu, and b) being a member of the Sangha. Indeed, due to the contradictory evidence, it is unclear exactly what the Buddha’s original teaching was. An interesting document is the “Dhammapada” Sutta located within the Khuddaka Nikāya (Minor Collection) section of the Sutta-Pitaka. It is thought that this unusual text (even in its Pali rendition) used to be far more prevalent throughout Theravada countries than it is today. Due to the divergence that developed between the message of the Dhammapada and the developed viewpoint of Theravada ideologues – the bhikkhus quietly removed this text from circulation as it was believed its content confused the laity. Throughout the rest of the Buddhist world – this text was very popular within all traditions and very well-known.
The issue surrounds how the Buddha defined a “bhikkhu” within the text of the Dhammapada – a key Early Buddhist text. Indeed, many of the ideas found in the Dhammapada mirror those found within the (Sanskrit) Sutras found in the Mahayana and Tantrayana traditions. As these more liberal and accepting attitudes appear in the Pali Canon – it would seem disingenuous to assume that these ideas were a later development. Like Vimalakirti’s criticism of Upali – the Buddha’s view as expressed in the Dhammapada – appears to advocate a more flexible interpretation of what a bhikkhu “is” and “is not”. The Buddha does not deny the ordination process or the importance or status of the conventional “bhikkhu” – but he also suggests that there are other ways of viewing this process. The Buddha defines a “bhikkhu” as:
Remember, lay-people, by upholding the five, eight, or ten precepts are in fact adhering to an element of the Vinaya Discipline and does not exist outside of it. Within the Mahayana and Tantrayana Schools, these points are still relevant - but there is a greater latitude of interpretation (often linked to "compassion", "loving kindness", and wisdom"). This is why there are slightly different versions of the Vinaya Discipline today - and archaeological evidence suggests there may have been far more in the past. Although an objective Western academic perspective tends to choreograph the development of Buddhism, and places this tradition before or after that tradition, within the tradition itself, the particular lineage or school is (internally) considered absolutely real and self-evidently authentic. The Chinese Ch'an School, as an example, does not consider itself a later development. Within the Chinese Buddhist tradition, there is a clause which permits "self-ordination" when an individual is isolated and has no access to the monastic community. Some type of external focal-point is required (such as a Buddha-image) and the individual pledges to follow the Dharma to the best of their ability (which often involves a hermit's lifestyle of committed meditation). The Ch'an School tends to make use of this, and this is where the "Mind Precept" originates. The "Mind Precept" involves the immediate realisation of the empty mind ground - which is the essence of all other 227 precepts the male monastics are required to follow (311 precepts for women). This is the difference between the Mahayana School of the Ch'an lineage and the Theravada School. The Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra demonstrates how the "lay" and the "monastic" possess exactly the same empty mind ground as essence - and how Vimalakirti censured Venerable Upali (the Buddha's Master of the Vinaya) for being "attached" to the knowledge he possessed.
When Buddhism spread to China from India – it was a strictly “vegetarian” lineage – which must have existed either at the time of Buddha (or just after). It seems that the only reason meat was permitted at all was because a “beggar” could not pick and chose the waste-food he or she solicited on a daily basis from those who already lived in a state of abject poverty. The Buddha made the conditions surrounding the consumption of meat to be so stringent that it was almost impossible to acquire. A Buddhist monastic must cultivate a mind free of attachment to all consumption of food and drink. The appetite, stomach, and mode of consumption must be a) “mindful” , and b) “non-attached” during the entire process. In a very real sense, the digestive system of the bhikkhu belongs to the lay-community that offers material and moral support to the Sangha. Of course, within the Theravada School, the term “Sangha” only refers to those men and women who have achieved full-ordination. It does not include those in training to become a bhikkhu, or any member of the lay community. This seems to be a (later) monkish invention following the death of the Buddha (found in the “Abhidhamma”) – as such an attitude is not strictly speaking acting in accordance with the (Pali) Sutta. A similar attitude surrounds the odd idea that the laity cannot realise enlightenment (there are at least 13 examples of lay-people achieving this state in the Pali Suttas) with the Buddha stating clearly that there is “no difference” between a lay-person who has achieved enlightenment and a bhikkhu who has attained enlightenment. This is compounded by the idea that the bhikkhu must only teach a watered-down version of the Dhamma to the laity – and never share the Abhidhamma teachings - which are considered suitable only for the Ordained Sangha. Then there is the equally odd idea that women are spiritually inferior to men – as this seems to be a later insertion into the Buddha’s teaching - to placate the misogynistic attitudes prevalent within India at the time.
Within China, a lay-person and an ordaining individual must adhere to the Bodhisattva Vows – as well as the Vinaya Discipline. Although these two sets of vows parallel one another – the difference lies in that the Bodhisattva Vows do not require celibacy – whilst the Vinaya Discipline demands celibacy. Sometimes, an individual is described as a “lay-monk” who follows the Bodhisattva Vows - and some of the Vinaya Discipline. A lay-person may leave society and considered “monastic” (possibly a “hermit”) when upholding only the Bodhisattva Vows – which are considered spiritually very powerful in their own right. Even a fully ordained Buddhist monk in China might sit quietly whilst “nine” cones of incense are placed on the top of the shaven head burned done to the skin and bone (leaving white dots as scars) representing a commitment to the Bodhisattva Vows. The practitioner remains “unmoved” by the resulting pain. Novices quietly begin the Vinaya Discipline training by being subjected to ever increasing numbers of precepts – until the full amount is achieved. As daily begging was outlawed in China centuries ago, ordained monastics must cultivate the land around their monastery – and participate in farming that produces fruit and vegetables. The monastics participate in the harvesting of the crops so that the community can be fed. At major temples and monasteries, the Vinaya Discipline might be recited twice monthly – but this depends upon tradition and expectation. In particularly strict Ch’an temples, seated meditation takes the place of all other practices – this is where the “Mind Precept” comes into practice.
As Master Xu Yun states, when the empty mind ground is fully achieved, all worldly distinctions fall away. There is never a time that an individual is not following the Vinaya Discipline or manifesting the Dharma. This is a subtle teaching that must not be misused. Prior to realising the empty mind ground – then an individual might well have to make use of all kinds of expedient devices. This includes the ritualistic pursuing of the Vinaya Discipline. Such practices discipline the mind and body and prevent any further hellish karma from being generated. In other words, the capacity to be “ignorant” is suppressed by wisdom. As Master Xu Yun insisted that the Vinaya Discipline became part of China’s Secular Law in the 1950s – this removes corrupt individuals from joining the Sangha for an easy life with no intention to cultivate the Dharma. It is illegal in China for a Buddhist monastic to deliberately “break” the Vinaya Discipline – so strict is the situation following Master Xu Yun’s suggestion. Master Xu Yun was of the opinion that Buddhism cannot be considered legitimately “present” in a country if the Vinaya Discipline is not upheld (Master Xu Yun rejected the Japanese convention of abandoning the Vinaya Discipline). Although all this is materially correct – if the empty mind ground is realised – all this restriction is instantaneously transcended.
Although it would seem that Buddhism arrived in China from India between 100 BCE- 100 CE – it was not until around 600 CE that a more or less complete rendition of the Buddha’s teaching was present in China. The nobility may have had an incomplete intellectual appreciation of Buddhism very early on, but it took some time for the Buddha’s teaching to permeate Chinese society properly. In a society where 90% of the population was illiterate, Buddhist teachings had to be practical and easily passed-on. Evidence suggests that early Buddhist communities mirrored their Confucian counter-parts – with individual learned men forming the centre a Buddhist community around them. A new development at this time (c. 400 CE) saw the Chinese understanding of “nepotism” being challenged. Until that time, each surname-clan was hierarchical in authority and exclusive in nature. Each family in this Confucian society had to model itself on the imperial family – with every member of a family knowing their proper place within society. What rights and duties were applicable to each individual within a single name-clan were not transferable to an individual born into a different name-clan. As the new Buddhist communities in China were not exactly sure how Indian Buddhism was fully organised – they chose to emphasis its universalist nature. Confucian possessed no monastic institution of its own, and so the early “Sangha” was a “lay” structure that believed that caring for individuals from other name-clans was the root of the Buddhist teaching.
To achieve this transformation, the (Buddhist) community (or group) took the surname of the dominant individual leading the group. He transferred his surname to complete strangers (within Confucianism, other clans, even if living nearby, were considered “foreigners”). This all slowly changed as more Indian Buddhist monastics walked to China and transmitted authentic Buddhist knowledge. This process of development may have been aided by Chinese individuals walking to India in search of the Buddhist teachings. Although China may have possessed the tradition of individual men and women retiring to the countryside to pursue isolated spiritual transformation – the arrival of Buddhism in China offered a structured approach to developing a monastic institution. Once Buddhist teaching was understood, Confucian society was abandoned and an ordained individual had to accept and practice the Vinaya Discipline (which advocated the alien concept of celibacy). Although interpreted through a Confucian filter – the practice of Buddhism in China assumed a very different outer manifestation to its early Confucian-based model. Although the Confucian aspects of “respect”, “self-discipline”, and “education” were retained – it was the manner in which these Chinese attributes were applied via the Buddhist influence that created an entirely “new” religious mode of practice. The Chinese family surname was abandoned and the clan (tribal) name of the Buddha – “Sakya” (or “Shakya”) – took its place for all monastics (Buddhist monastics also lost their first-names which were replaced by names derived from Buddhist philosophy). Ordained men and women in China became the “son” and “daughter” of the Buddha “Sakyamuni” (the Sanskrit term “Sakyamuni” or “Shakyamuni” is transliterated into the Chinese language as “釋迦牟尼” [Shi Jia Mou Ni] and is usually shortened to “Shi” [釋] – being placed at the beginning of an ordination name).
As can be understood, although the “Dharma” or Buddhist Sutras are considered the philosophical core of the Buddha’s message – the Vinaya Discipline derived from within these teachings in response to unique or unfamiliar happenings unfolding in the material environment of the male or female monastics. Of course, not all of the received texts originated with the Buddha himself – and have been the product of additions overtime. This is how the different Buddhist schools developed – all agreeing on the main-points – but disagreeing in interpretation and emphasis. The Buddha and the Buddhist community had to balance the political and religious realities of the times within which it existed. This may explain the odd narrow-minded view-point found in the more conservative renditions of the Vinaya Discipline which involve misogynist attitudes toward women, discrimination against those with disabilities, and the rejection of those in-debt, or those with a criminal record. Even those who have deserted from an army – or are on the run trying to avoid conscription – are denied access. All these ideas have been explained as being practical responses to non-Buddhist authorities – those permitting the Sangha to live on donated land free of taxation and conscription. Viharas, however, were not to become safe-havens for the desperate, the criminal, or the destitute. As logical as this sounds, such thinking does not align itself with the unconditional loving kindness, compassion, or wisdom as expressed by the Buddha himself. This observation explains why it is that the different versions of the Vinaya Discipline differ in tone and acceptance of “difference”.
Needless to say, I experienced none of these proscriptions when taught the Vinaya Discipline in Hong Kong (China). Men and women who have served time in the ordained Sangha in China – but who have returned to lay-life - are able to wear their robes within their own homes (as each Chinese home possesses a family shrine). Robes can also be worn by the laity in a temple during holy days. Robes can only be worn in public by a lay-person with permission by the local Buddhist Authorities. Furthermore, if a former monastic has achieved a certain level of meditative attainment during their time in the temple, their Master may grant them the permission to continue to use their ordination name within lay society. Such individuals may also have to keep their heads shaved and eat only vegetarian food, etc, even if participating in marriage and raising a family. As time progresses, the couple must both participate less and less within sexual desire, and adopt an ever-purer state of body and mind in preparation for a good departing from the world. Remember, both the laity and Sangha adhere to exactly the same Vinaya Discipline with the distinction being one of intensity and commitment. Without the Vinaya Discipline, and this is the point emphasised by Master Xu Yun, genuine Buddhism cannot exist in a country outside of India if the Vinaya Discipline has not been transmitted to that country, and is actively upheld in that country. This is, in real terms, the uprooting of greed, hatred, and delusion. This is the realisation of (the empty-state) of non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion. These three taints no longer arise and manifest from within the empty mind ground – which remains in the “uncreated” state (of non-conditioned Nirvana). Conditioned Nirvana, of course, is the many realisation of the many contrived states leading to the penetration of the non-conditioned “uncreate”.
Although the path of a Buddhist monastic is considered the “fast track” to the end of suffering – the path for the lay-person is strewn with all kinds of obstacles and blocks, which must be surmounted if progress is to be made. A lay-person must navigate the world of hindering Samara so that delaying karma is kept to a minimum. Such are the dynamics of the exterior life. For the monastics, as many of these barriers are removed through the ordination process and the application of the Vinaya Discipline. As the lay-person is expected to only apply a few of the Vinaya Discipline rules, fewer barriers are removed (a priori). This is the challenge and there is no point denying the qualitative difference in the two lifestyles. The reality is that we cannot all be Buddhist monastics. What might seem easy to achieve for some – is very difficult to achieve for others – and no amount of will-power or forceful endeavour will alter this karmic situation. What the Buddha’s path offers is the meditative penetration of the “present moment – experienced “here and now”. This “present moment” is exactly the same for the lay-person as it is for the monastic – and this insight demonstrates the power of the Ch’an School. A qualified teacher understands exactly how to guide a practitioner into the penetration of the “present moment” – which has the empty mind ground as its base. This is the multidimensional “Mind Precept” that all lay-people and monastics must apply as their foundational practice. Bhikkus (bhikshus) are distinct from the laity – and are below the laity – not because they are inferior but because they are supportive and expansive (like the broad earth). Buddhist monastics are humble like the dust, and should keep their gaze directed toward the ground - those function they mirror.
The importance and power of “sila” (morality) is such that when the Buddha was alive – he was illiterate despite being a member of the then highest caste. He was well-educated in the practical sense and had heard all the Brahmanic texts recited by the Hindu priests. In this sense the Buddha was well-educated but not literate. Literacy in those days was restricted to the royal court and used to record laws, punishments, treaties, and victories in war, etc. Reading and writing was not practiced by the religious or individual high-born Hindus. The contemporary correlation between “literacy” and “education” in the West probably has its roots in ancient Greek culture. It was around 400-500 years after the passing of the Buddha that the Buddhist texts were written-down in their entirety. However, even before this, Emperor Ashoka had his scholars engrave various aspects of the Buddhist teachings on stone-pillars (during the 3rd century BCE) publicly erected at different places throughout his Empire. Recitation Masters would be posted at each pillar and have the task of daily reciting the Dharma. Just how long all this was since the passing of the Buddha depends upon when he lived. The Western date is between the 6th-5th centuries BCE – with some scholars suggesting the Buddha lived even nearer to the Christian-era. These dates might not be correct as within traditional Chinese Buddhism – the Buddha is believed to have lived between the 10th-9th century BCE – with various archaeological finds in India supporting this earlier date. Master Xu Yun supported this earlier dating – often teaching about the Indian Buddhist monks who visited China and relayed this date. Although this appears in the Chinese-language edition of Xu Yun’s biography – Charles Luk omitted it from his English translation (apparently publishing this extract in a Buddhist magazine – although I have never found a copy). Instead, I accessed the Chinese-language version and translated it anew into the English language.
The Theravada, Mahayana, and Tantrayana Vinaya Discipline state that a member of the Sangha is anyone who has realised “emptiness” – and those who have formally ordained. This recognises that a lay-person and a monastic realises exactly the same state of “emptiness”. Theravada ideology, however, states that lay-people, although they can theoretically realise “emptiness”, are unlikely to do so, and are liable to “die” if they do not ordain immediately after achieving this. There is no scriptural basis for this in the Dharma-teachings – it is an assumed interpretation designed to artificially raise the bhikkhus (“beggars”) above the laity (they “beg” from). The laity within the Theravada tradition, despite being critical for the existence and perpetuation of the Sangha, are excluded from inclusion in it. A devout lay-person living within a Theravada country are not members of the Sangha. This is different to the Mahayana and Tantrayana traditions – which sees the definition of the “Sangha” extended to embrace the lay-community as an act of compassion and wisdom. When all of the extant Buddhist literature is examined – combined with the practices of the surviving Buddhist traditions around the world (including objective academic study), it is logical to assume that the Buddha advocated a “fluid” or “non-fixed” approach to a) being a bhikkhu, and b) being a member of the Sangha. Indeed, due to the contradictory evidence, it is unclear exactly what the Buddha’s original teaching was. An interesting document is the “Dhammapada” Sutta located within the Khuddaka Nikāya (Minor Collection) section of the Sutta-Pitaka. It is thought that this unusual text (even in its Pali rendition) used to be far more prevalent throughout Theravada countries than it is today. Due to the divergence that developed between the message of the Dhammapada and the developed viewpoint of Theravada ideologues – the bhikkhus quietly removed this text from circulation as it was believed its content confused the laity. Throughout the rest of the Buddhist world – this text was very popular within all traditions and very well-known.
The issue surrounds how the Buddha defined a “bhikkhu” within the text of the Dhammapada – a key Early Buddhist text. Indeed, many of the ideas found in the Dhammapada mirror those found within the (Sanskrit) Sutras found in the Mahayana and Tantrayana traditions. As these more liberal and accepting attitudes appear in the Pali Canon – it would seem disingenuous to assume that these ideas were a later development. Like Vimalakirti’s criticism of Upali – the Buddha’s view as expressed in the Dhammapada – appears to advocate a more flexible interpretation of what a bhikkhu “is” and “is not”. The Buddha does not deny the ordination process or the importance or status of the conventional “bhikkhu” – but he also suggests that there are other ways of viewing this process. The Buddha defines a “bhikkhu” as:
Mendicant Restraint in the eye is good.
Good is restraint in the ear.
The nose restraint is good.
Good is restraint in the tongue.
In the body restraint is good.
Good is restraint in speech.
In thought restraint is good.
Good is restraint in all things.
A bhikshu,
Restrained in all things,
Is freed from pain.
He who controls his hand,
He who controls his feet,
He who controls his speech,
He who is well controlled,
He who delights inwardly,
Who is collected,
Who is solitary and content,
Him they call bhikshu.
The bhikshu who controls his mouth,
Who speaks wisely and calmly,
Who teaches the meaning and the law,
His words are sweet.
He who dwells in the law,
Delights in the law,
Meditates on the law,
Follows the law,
That bhikshu will never fall away from true law.
Let him not despise what he has received,
Nor ever envy others.
A mendicant who envies others does not obtain peace of mind.
A bhikshu who,
Though he receives little,
Does not despise what he has received,
Even the gods will praise him,
If his life is pure and if he is not slothful.
He who never identifies himself with name and form and does not grieve over what is no more,
He indeed is called a bhikshu.
The bhikshu who acts with kindness,
Who is calm in the doctrine of Buddha,
Will reach the quiet place,
Nirvana,
Cessation of natural desires and happiness.
O bhikshu,
Empty this boat.
If emptied it will go quickly,
Having cut off passion and hatred,
Thou wilt go to nirvana.
Cut off the five senses.
Leave the five,
Rise above the five.
Abhikshu who has escaped from the five letters,
He is called Ogetina,
Saved from the flood.
Meditate,
O bhikshu,
And be not heedless.
Do not direct thy thought to what gives pleasure,
That thou mayest not for thy heedlessness have to swallow the iron ball in hell,
And that thou mayest not cry out when burning.
This is pain.
Without knowledge there is no meditation.
Without meditation there is no knowledge.
He who has knowledge and meditation is near unto nirvana.
Abhikshu who has entered his empty house and whose mind is tranquil,
Feels a more than human delight when he sees the law clearly.
As soon as he has considered the origin and destruction of the elements,
The canda of the body,
He finds happiness and joy which belongs to those who know the immortal nirvana.
And this is the beginning here for a wise bhikshu,
Watchfulness over the senses,
Contentedness,
Restraint under the law,
Keep noble friends whose life is pure and who are not slothful.
Let him live in charity.
Let him be perfect in his duties.
Then in the fullness of delight he will make an end of suffering.
As the vassica plant sheds its withered flowers,
Men should shed passion and hatred,
O ye bhikshus.
The bhikshu whose body and tongue and mind are quieted,
Who is collected and has rejected the baits of the world,
He is called quiet.
Rouse thyself by thyself,
Examine thyself by thyself,
Thus self protected and attentive,
Wilt thou live happily,
O bhikshu.
For self is the lord of self,
Self is the refuge of self,
Therefore curb thyself as the merchant curbs a good horse.
The bhikshu,
Full of delight,
Who is calm in the doctrine of the Buddha,
Will reach the quiet place,
Nirvana,
Cessation of natural desires and happiness.
He who,
Even as a young bhikshu,
Applies himself to the doctrine of Buddha,
Brightens up this world like the moon when free from clouds.
Wisdom of the Buddha – The Unabridged Dhammapada – Translated by F. Max Muller: Chapter 25 “Bhikkhu”
(2000), Dover Thrift Editions, Pages 45-46
Within Chapter 26 of the Dhammapada – entitled “Brahmana” – the Buddha states:
Because a man is rid of evil, therefore he is called Brahmana; because he walks quietly, therefore he is called Pravtagita (Pabbagita, a pilgrim).
The man who wears dirty raiments, who is emaciated and covered with veins, who meditates alone in the forest, him I call indeed a Brahmana.
Him I call indeed a Brahmana who keeps aloof both from laymen and from mendicants, who frequents no houses, and has but few desires.
Muller can be unusually precise, whilst at other times his renditions drift slightly, whilst remaining over-all very important. For instance, what Muller renders as:
‘He who is thoughtful, blameless, settled, dutiful, without passions, and who has attained the highest end, him I call indeed a Brahmana.’
Is translated by Narada Thero (1993) as:
‘He who is meditative, stainless and secluded, he who has done his duty and is free from corruptions, he who has attained the Highest Goal, - him I call a brahmana.’
Good is restraint in the ear.
The nose restraint is good.
Good is restraint in the tongue.
In the body restraint is good.
Good is restraint in speech.
In thought restraint is good.
Good is restraint in all things.
A bhikshu,
Restrained in all things,
Is freed from pain.
He who controls his hand,
He who controls his feet,
He who controls his speech,
He who is well controlled,
He who delights inwardly,
Who is collected,
Who is solitary and content,
Him they call bhikshu.
The bhikshu who controls his mouth,
Who speaks wisely and calmly,
Who teaches the meaning and the law,
His words are sweet.
He who dwells in the law,
Delights in the law,
Meditates on the law,
Follows the law,
That bhikshu will never fall away from true law.
Let him not despise what he has received,
Nor ever envy others.
A mendicant who envies others does not obtain peace of mind.
A bhikshu who,
Though he receives little,
Does not despise what he has received,
Even the gods will praise him,
If his life is pure and if he is not slothful.
He who never identifies himself with name and form and does not grieve over what is no more,
He indeed is called a bhikshu.
The bhikshu who acts with kindness,
Who is calm in the doctrine of Buddha,
Will reach the quiet place,
Nirvana,
Cessation of natural desires and happiness.
O bhikshu,
Empty this boat.
If emptied it will go quickly,
Having cut off passion and hatred,
Thou wilt go to nirvana.
Cut off the five senses.
Leave the five,
Rise above the five.
Abhikshu who has escaped from the five letters,
He is called Ogetina,
Saved from the flood.
Meditate,
O bhikshu,
And be not heedless.
Do not direct thy thought to what gives pleasure,
That thou mayest not for thy heedlessness have to swallow the iron ball in hell,
And that thou mayest not cry out when burning.
This is pain.
Without knowledge there is no meditation.
Without meditation there is no knowledge.
He who has knowledge and meditation is near unto nirvana.
Abhikshu who has entered his empty house and whose mind is tranquil,
Feels a more than human delight when he sees the law clearly.
As soon as he has considered the origin and destruction of the elements,
The canda of the body,
He finds happiness and joy which belongs to those who know the immortal nirvana.
And this is the beginning here for a wise bhikshu,
Watchfulness over the senses,
Contentedness,
Restraint under the law,
Keep noble friends whose life is pure and who are not slothful.
Let him live in charity.
Let him be perfect in his duties.
Then in the fullness of delight he will make an end of suffering.
As the vassica plant sheds its withered flowers,
Men should shed passion and hatred,
O ye bhikshus.
The bhikshu whose body and tongue and mind are quieted,
Who is collected and has rejected the baits of the world,
He is called quiet.
Rouse thyself by thyself,
Examine thyself by thyself,
Thus self protected and attentive,
Wilt thou live happily,
O bhikshu.
For self is the lord of self,
Self is the refuge of self,
Therefore curb thyself as the merchant curbs a good horse.
The bhikshu,
Full of delight,
Who is calm in the doctrine of the Buddha,
Will reach the quiet place,
Nirvana,
Cessation of natural desires and happiness.
He who,
Even as a young bhikshu,
Applies himself to the doctrine of Buddha,
Brightens up this world like the moon when free from clouds.
Wisdom of the Buddha – The Unabridged Dhammapada – Translated by F. Max Muller: Chapter 25 “Bhikkhu”
(2000), Dover Thrift Editions, Pages 45-46
Within Chapter 26 of the Dhammapada – entitled “Brahmana” – the Buddha states:
Because a man is rid of evil, therefore he is called Brahmana; because he walks quietly, therefore he is called Pravtagita (Pabbagita, a pilgrim).
The man who wears dirty raiments, who is emaciated and covered with veins, who meditates alone in the forest, him I call indeed a Brahmana.
Him I call indeed a Brahmana who keeps aloof both from laymen and from mendicants, who frequents no houses, and has but few desires.
Muller can be unusually precise, whilst at other times his renditions drift slightly, whilst remaining over-all very important. For instance, what Muller renders as:
‘He who is thoughtful, blameless, settled, dutiful, without passions, and who has attained the highest end, him I call indeed a Brahmana.’
Is translated by Narada Thero (1993) as:
‘He who is meditative, stainless and secluded, he who has done his duty and is free from corruptions, he who has attained the Highest Goal, - him I call a brahmana.’
Scattered throughout the Dhammapada are numerous indicators of a more lateral interpretation of what a Buddhist ascetic might – and might not – be. Within Hinduism a Brahmin is a priest (not a monk) who lives within lay-society and is often married with children. Of course, he might chose to be celibate and live an itinerant lifestyle of wandering around. Such an individual is free to define their own manifestation without becoming mired in segregational definitions of being. It is interesting that the Buddha would chose a much more flexible status such as this to define a type of bhikkhu – which is also “not a bhikkhu”. This is not to say that the Buddha ignored the laity. Indeed, as the Buddha premised his teaching upon compassion and wisdom (meditated by loving kindness), He taught many different types of people – including soldiers, prostitutes, and even a mass murderer. As the Buddha’s system is designed as a guide to reach the other shore – it is not a “punishment” inflicted by a god or spirit. The Vinaya Discipline and the Dharma are not “punishments” in the theistic sense. The Buddha, in a very modern sense, used throughout his teaching career the principle of “cause and effect”. An analogy might be that if an individual does not like the burning sensation of placing the hand in a fire – then it would be wise for that individual not to place the hand in a fire. The Buddha taught how to remove negative causes that produced negative effects – and how to cultivate positive causes that generates positive effects. Initially, the Buddha’s method strove to improve the life of the participant here and now (by removing gross suffering) through behaviour modification (i.e. the following of the Precepts) – whilst meditational practice was then used to uproot the far more subtle “taints” deeply ensconced within the fabric of the mind (the application of the “Mind Precept”).
For the Buddha, everyone (including animals, insects, and all life-forms) was capable of Sonadanda Sutta, improving their lives and eventually achieving enlightenment (Nirvana). The Buddha explained the origin of the material world in the Agganna Sutta, he criticised war, wickedness and wealth in the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta, and he guided the lay-community in the Sigalavada Sutta. He denied the idea of the existence of an “atma” (a type of Hindu “soul”) in the Potthapada Sutta, and he defined how a genuine teacher of the Dharma should be qualified in the Lohicca Sutta. Again, the Buddha re-defined the Brahman in the Sonadanda Sutta. Remember, when the Buddha left home, he was not ordain, although he pursued a number of spiritual paths. He assumed the life of a “samanna” or “ascetic” – which was a common sight in ancient India. No one authorised his spiritual activity and He chose which practice to pursue in a more or less ad hoc manner which tends to be lost in the later establishments of Buddhism. The Buddha explained this lifestyle in the Samanna-phala Sutta (Fruits of the Life of a Wandering Ascetic). The early Bhikkhus wandered from place to place and sat meditating at the foot of trees – only later setting down in purpose-built “viharas”. This is how wandering “root-dwellers” (samannas) became conflated with established “beggars” (bhikkhu). In reality, the Buddha’s teaching allows for both expressions. What unites “samannas”, “bhikkhus”, and “lay-people” (upasaka-upasika) is the posture of seated meditation and the application of Buddhist insight and tranquillity self-cultivation technique. This practice was enhanced through the bodily discipline of applying various increments of the Vinaya Discipline. The “mind precept” – being the empty mind ground – is the essence of all the hundreds of rules listed in the Vinaya Discipline. If the empty mind ground is not penetrated – then it does not matter how many precepts are followed – as they simply become superficial distractions with no genuine spiritual merit.
Ignorance continued unabated despite the vows modifying behaviour in a limited sense. By way of contrast, and a reality found in Hui Neng’s “Heart Sutra” – the realisation of the empty mind ground that is expansive throughout the Ten Directions (the practitioner “jumps-off” the hundred-foot pole) – is the authentic upholding of the Vinaya Discipline in the past, present, and future, as all greed, hatred, and delusion is permanently uprooted and the ridgepole of ignorance broken. The Ch’an School is the most advanced of the Buddhist lineages and it transforms the relationship between the practitioner and the written texts. The texts are not to be raised above physical practice and legitimate accomplishment. On the other hand, when the “wisdom” (prajna) capacity of the mind is fully activated – all the Buddhist texts can be read and fully comprehended. Shaving the head can be carried-out by anyone and is not limited to monastics. However, for the individual entering the ordained Sangha – formally taking all the vows of the Vinaya Discipline as a gate-way for the mind to penetrate the empty mind ground. Despite Ch’an not relying upon the limitations inherent within words and letters – the Vinaya Discipline acts as an essential “mirroring-device” that simultaneously links China to India – and the surface mind to the empty mind ground. Master Xu Yun understood this and would not let this organic relationship be undermined by those who sought to abandon the Vinaya Discipline – disguising their “laziness” as “enlightenment”. This is how Master Xu Yun protected the Dharma in modern China.
For the Buddha, everyone (including animals, insects, and all life-forms) was capable of Sonadanda Sutta, improving their lives and eventually achieving enlightenment (Nirvana). The Buddha explained the origin of the material world in the Agganna Sutta, he criticised war, wickedness and wealth in the Cakkavatti Sihanada Sutta, and he guided the lay-community in the Sigalavada Sutta. He denied the idea of the existence of an “atma” (a type of Hindu “soul”) in the Potthapada Sutta, and he defined how a genuine teacher of the Dharma should be qualified in the Lohicca Sutta. Again, the Buddha re-defined the Brahman in the Sonadanda Sutta. Remember, when the Buddha left home, he was not ordain, although he pursued a number of spiritual paths. He assumed the life of a “samanna” or “ascetic” – which was a common sight in ancient India. No one authorised his spiritual activity and He chose which practice to pursue in a more or less ad hoc manner which tends to be lost in the later establishments of Buddhism. The Buddha explained this lifestyle in the Samanna-phala Sutta (Fruits of the Life of a Wandering Ascetic). The early Bhikkhus wandered from place to place and sat meditating at the foot of trees – only later setting down in purpose-built “viharas”. This is how wandering “root-dwellers” (samannas) became conflated with established “beggars” (bhikkhu). In reality, the Buddha’s teaching allows for both expressions. What unites “samannas”, “bhikkhus”, and “lay-people” (upasaka-upasika) is the posture of seated meditation and the application of Buddhist insight and tranquillity self-cultivation technique. This practice was enhanced through the bodily discipline of applying various increments of the Vinaya Discipline. The “mind precept” – being the empty mind ground – is the essence of all the hundreds of rules listed in the Vinaya Discipline. If the empty mind ground is not penetrated – then it does not matter how many precepts are followed – as they simply become superficial distractions with no genuine spiritual merit.
Ignorance continued unabated despite the vows modifying behaviour in a limited sense. By way of contrast, and a reality found in Hui Neng’s “Heart Sutra” – the realisation of the empty mind ground that is expansive throughout the Ten Directions (the practitioner “jumps-off” the hundred-foot pole) – is the authentic upholding of the Vinaya Discipline in the past, present, and future, as all greed, hatred, and delusion is permanently uprooted and the ridgepole of ignorance broken. The Ch’an School is the most advanced of the Buddhist lineages and it transforms the relationship between the practitioner and the written texts. The texts are not to be raised above physical practice and legitimate accomplishment. On the other hand, when the “wisdom” (prajna) capacity of the mind is fully activated – all the Buddhist texts can be read and fully comprehended. Shaving the head can be carried-out by anyone and is not limited to monastics. However, for the individual entering the ordained Sangha – formally taking all the vows of the Vinaya Discipline as a gate-way for the mind to penetrate the empty mind ground. Despite Ch’an not relying upon the limitations inherent within words and letters – the Vinaya Discipline acts as an essential “mirroring-device” that simultaneously links China to India – and the surface mind to the empty mind ground. Master Xu Yun understood this and would not let this organic relationship be undermined by those who sought to abandon the Vinaya Discipline – disguising their “laziness” as “enlightenment”. This is how Master Xu Yun protected the Dharma in modern China.
CONCLUSION: Master Xu Yun, for all his compassionate flexibility, was a traditionalist with regards to Buddhist ideology. He believed that Buddhism was only present in a country when at least four bhikkhus (bhikshunis) were present and met every two-weeks to recite the Vinaya Discipline. The implication was that these monks had travelled from a country within which Buddhism was already established, or local monks had visited Buddhist countries and returned empowered to establish a new chapter of the Buddhist monkhood. This is establishment Buddhism which Xu Yun viewed as the moral strength upon which all the Buddhist Schools must rest. Not all monasteries and temples gather twice a month - but some are designated to perform this function. Monks and nuns from outlying temples and monasteries will often congregate at the main temples - although this will not be a strict or regular requirement. Hermits, due to the nature of their practice, are not expected to be present at the bi-monthly conclave - and neither are laity. The laity can choose to submit to all the Vinaya Discipline without ordaining - or they can follow just the basic rules. Some members of the laity even follow no specific rules - but develop the intent to do so when their practice is strong enough. Here is the main point - following the Vinaya Discipline is a purely voluntary act. Monks and nuns "choose" to give-up their right "not" to follow the Vinaya Discipline - whereas the laity is not obligated at all. Hui Neng, the (illiterate) 6th Patriarch of Ch'an, was a lay-person when he attained full enlightenment. Only later did he ordain as a monk - for official purposes. Vimalakirti never ordained. The Ch'an Records are full of men, women, and children who attain enlightenment - and monastics who after retaining enlightenment – no longer participated in the daily life of the Sangha. In this post-enlightenment state no self-limiting structure is required. Master Xu Yun knew this – but his life was in the position of upholding the Vinaya Discipline. As a monk he possessed no other function – but this must not be mistaken as limiting the expression of Dharma. The Vinaya Discipline developed over-time with its core content being extracted from the Dhamma teachings enshrined in the Pali Suttas (I routinely switch between "Pali" and "Sanskrit" premonitions depending upon context). As such, the Vinaya Discipline as an extension of the Dhamma could be abolished without no over-all loss to the Buddha's teachings. The issue is one of clarity and convenience of access. Whereas it is difficult to routinely access the 5000 Buddhist suttas and make sense of the diverse teachings they convey - a specialised "Vinaya Discipline" offers a "direct" approach to enhanced discipline. It is also true that the Buddha was not ordained and voluntarily sought reality in the wilderness. During his early teaching phase - there was no Sangha and the rules to be followed were few but exact. Many followers attained Arahantship without the guidance of the developed Vinaya Discipline. All this is preserved within the Buddha's teaching and is not negated simply because a developed Vinaya Discipline became a central aspect of Buddhist practice (End)
AFTERWORD: There are two types of Tantra practice within Buddhism (each with their various lineages). One exists in China proper - the other in the Tibetan area. (By the way, there also exists two versions of the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra - one in Tibetan [see Thurman] the other in Chinese [see Luk]). Contrast and context are important to gain an all-round understanding of a concept and practice. An issue in the West concerns the Judeo-Christian attitude of separating the world into a dichotomy of "Good" verses "Evil" - with two morally-judged categories running in a parallel that can never be reconciled (good must defeat evil in the end - but the "end" exists in some far-off - theoretical future). The Buddha (and even the Brahmanism he left behind) did not subscribe to this harsh separation of reality. Indeed, an argument can be made that the good and bad of everyday existence is equally bad (i.e. potentially full of suffering) and must be given-up (via the Vinaya Discipline) to realise the non-dual nature of Nirvana. As individuals, each human being is the physical product of "coitus" - or its scientific equivalent (as regards artificial insemination). Sexual desire is an evolutionary device which guarantees coitus - so that conception can take place. This is how reproduction of the species takes place. All the cultural constructs that surround this act are more or less irrelevant - as they serve as something of a "ritual" to facilitate a future generation (hence the Buddha's rejection of the superficial emotions associated with "attachment"). In ancient China, tribal women believed the heat and light of the "sun" entered their womb (causing "conception") when they touched a (phallic) totem after they had engaged in coitus with a male. This belief was so strong, and lasted so long, that ethnic Chinese women still wear a jade-disc (representing the "sun") on a cord around their neck (although most no longer know "why" they do this). Within the Buddhist Kingdom of Bhutan, Polyandry still holds sway - where women dominate society (the "matriarchy") and possess three or four husbands each. Of course, Bhutan possesses its own folk beliefs and a mixture of Buddhist ideas and practices (much of it Tibetan). In the Sichuan area of China, Charles Luk learned the Phowa Tibetan technique which seeks to transmit the life-energies out of the top of the head (through the crown-chakra) at the point of death. As well as realising the all embracing empty mind as taught within the Ch'an School - Charles Luk took the practical (extra step) of learning a method for the smooth transition of life-essence (精 - jing) into the macrocosmic orbit of the Daoist School. As for the Tibetan Tantric School, the Vinaya Discipline of this tradition does permit a man and a woman to ordain as celibate monastics and live together as husband and wife in a Yogic union (the integrating of the "daka" [male] and "dakini" [female]). Although sexual desire must be fully uprooted through meditation and discipline - on occasion a detached form of "coitus" is permitted to facilitate conception. This is rare and must not be habitual. Needless to say, due to the strength and power of the desire mechanism, the Buddha forbade ALL indulging of the sexual appetite - at least in his public teaching (this included bestiality which the Buddha felt he had to make clear). However, even during the Buddha's life-time there were members of the laity who realised Nirvana without formally taking the Vinaya Discipline (although they probably followed aspects of it). Many of these lay-people may have existed before the formulation of the Vinaya Discipline and therefore could not have followed what was not yet already there. Vimalakirti was a lay-person who possessed numerous wives and children - and yet attained Nirvana. Then there are the numerous examples of enlightened lay men, women, and children in China. This, I believe, is the consequence of the "Mind Precept" and its correct application. The Buddha said that his teaching is a raft designed to carry the practitioner across the river of delusion - to the other shore of enlightenment. Once the journey is achieved - the raft is no longer required. Until that time - "rafts" (i.e. "Dharma") must be continuously constructed and utilised effectively. (End)
©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2026.
References & Further Reading:
Rune EA Johansson, Pali Buddhist Texts Explained to the Beginner, Scandinavian Institute of Asian Studies, Monograph Series, (1981) Curzon Press
F Max Muller, Editor, Sacred Books of the East, Vinaya Texts, Vols. XIII (Part I Patimokkha, Mahavagga I-IV,), XVII (Part II Mahavagga V-X, Kullavagga I-II), & XX (Part III Kullavagga IV-XII), Vinaya Texts - Translated from the Pali by TW Rhys Davids & Herman Oldenberg, (1982), Motilal Banarsidass
Robert AF Thurman, The Holy Teaching of Vimalakirti - Mahayana Scripture, (1990), The Pennysylvania State University Press University Park and London - Tibetan Translation Translated into English
Charles Luk, The Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra, Shambala, (1990) - Chinese Text Translation into English
Nyanaponika Thera, The Heart of Buddhist Meditation - A Handbook of Mental Training Based on the Buddhist Way of Mindfullness, (1962), Rider
Walpola Rahula, Zen & The Taming of the Bull - Towards the Definition of Buddhist Thought, (1978), Gordon Fraser, London
Wadinagala Pannaloka, Deviant Sex and Buddhism, Emerging Percetions in Buddhist Studies, No. 24, (2000), DK Print