ABSTRACT
We have seen in Chapter 2 that Buddhist monastics are not expected to intervene in many areas of secular life. The householder/ monk opposition is most clearly expressed in the vinaya rules relating to livelihood. Monks are prohibited from any remunerative employment or work by which their basic subsistence could directly be produced, including agricultural tasks, trade, medical or astrological work, and so on. The clear practical implication of this is that, by definition, the monastic community is dependent upon lay support. This theoretical ideal for the operation of monastic/lay relations was historically often modified in various ways, especially in the case of large-scale wealthy and powerful monastic institutions, which developed in different parts of pre-modern Asia. But in principle, and often in practice from the perspective of individual monks, monastics must receive their basic necessities from the lay community. They are a respected group representing spiritual values, set apart but connected to the laity in a relationship of mutual dependency and support. Where the full code is maintained intact, the only alternative to dependence on lay people is an ascetic life, entailing distance from human communities, surviving, for example, by wearing discarded rags and subsisting on foraged or
discarded foods requiring no digging or work effort. The Buddha himself had emerged from the ranks of the ancient Indian wandering ascetic movement, and its uncompromising ascetic and non-worldly code left its mark on the Buddhist monastic rule, most clearly in the preservation of the four resorts. These are alms for food, discarded rags for clothing, a tree for shelter, and fermented cattle urine for medicine, and they are symbolically acknowledged in the monk’s ordination ceremony. Yet the early Buddhist monastic code toned down this discipline in line with the Middle Way principle of avoiding the extremes of indulgence or asceticism, and more ascetic practices remained simply as options for a minority. The mainstream Buddhist model for the religious life rather became that of the monk who is removed from the worldly involvements of householders, unlike the household brahman priest, yet who may remain close to the lay community, in contrast to the forestdwelling naked Jain ascetic. Eating moderately the food given to him, wearing basic and unadorned robes, the Buddhist monk should act with decorum, demonstrate upright morality and, in dealings with the laity, represent the values of the contemplative life.
