| dc.description.abstract | For this thesis, I have edited three chapters of the Mūlasarvāstivādavinaya from the facsimile edition of the Gilgit manuscripts viz., Karmavastu, Pudgalavastu and Pārivāsikavastu, along with their Tibetan and English translations. These chapters are concerned with legal action, individual cases and the case of a monk who has temporarily been excluded from the saṃgha. The thesis will also attempt to clarify some legal concepts and procedures in the Vinaya by comparing them to Western legal concepts such as animus nocendi (intention to harm), and stare decisis (let the decision stand, i.e., a judicial precedent) and to discuss the concept of “exclusion as punishment”.
My study of the three vastus from the Mūlasarvāstivādin and Pāli traditions show that “exclusion” was the main form of punishment used by these Buddhist communities for a “pigheaded monk” as well as a monk convicted of a saṃghāvaśeṣa offence. The rules prescribed in the Vinayavastu illustrate various types of exclusion, from temporary to permanent. These rules prescribe a milder form of exclusion for lesser offences: the withdrawal of privileges and demotion to an inferior status to that of the prakṛtibhikṣu (a bhikṣu of normal status). The rules in the Prātimokṣa are concerned with serious offences and penalties. The saṃghāvaśeṣa offence is deemed the most severe of those offences which can be recovered by saṃghakarman. In case the offender shows no sign of animus nocendi (i.e., the offence is not concealed), a period of probation (mānāpya) will be imposed on him. He is then required to please the monks of normal status by means of the performance of certain daily responsibilities until he is reintegrated into the saṃgha. If the convicted monk still shows sign of animus nocendi by which he concealed the offence, he must be subjected to further temporary exclusion to reform his harmful mind. The designated term parivāsa should, therefore, be understood directly from its etymology pari√vas (live outside) which seems to correspond to both Tibetan translation (spo ba) as well as Chinese terminology 別住 even though some other texts also apply transliteration 波利婆沙 instead of translation. In this thesis, I will show that being excluded from his community (social exclusion) is meant to raise the awareness of an erring monk with the expectation that after serving the period of probation, the probationer can be wholeheartedly welcomed back to the community (i.e., the saṃgha in which he belongs) without any prejudice.
In order for parivāsa to be undertaken as atonement for an offence, a formal course of action (karman) must first be performed. All the procedures required for this karman are described in the texts with full details. In addition, any legal dilemmas that incur a saṃghāvaśea offence must be resolved and then codified as a judicial precedent, so that the codified judicial precedents can be used to resolve future cases. This codification process results in the preservation of specific cases in the texts, and provides us with important insight into Buddhist communities in the past. When a monk has committed a more severe offence than those entailing saṃghāvaśeṣa, the penalty of parivāsa (temporary exclusion) cannot be implemented, but the asaṃvāsa punishment must be enforced, and the monk becomes subject to permanent exclusion. | en_US |