 |
|
 |
|
|
October 01, 1999
Do We Need Priests? A Historical
Perspective on the Early Buddhist Order (Part I)
By Shin Yatomi
SGI-USA Vice Study Department Leader
I. Introduction
Someone interested in Buddhism recently asked me the following
question: “So where?s your temple?” “We
don?t have either temples or priests. We?re a lay Buddhist
group,” was my reply.
“Oh really? . . .”
Sensing this person?s befuddlement, I explained the circumstances
surrounding the 1991 excommunication of the SGI by the
Nichiren Shoshu priesthood. This conversation reminded
me that when people hear about Buddhism, their mental
associations typically go from the Buddha (imagined as
a grinning man with a big belly and long earlobes) to
temples and tonsured men in robes attending to rituals
or absorbed in quiet contemplation.
Though the SGI members are doing better than ever since
our split with the priesthood, many still ponder the question:
“Do we need priests? Are we missing something because
we lack a formal priesthood?” Through my experiences
over the past nine years, I do not feel that I am missing
anything. When I attend SGI discussion meetings and other
activities, I feel encouraged and nourished-inspired to
further develop my personal practice.
But we should not depend solely on subjective experiences
and feelings to reach this conclusion. For this reason,
it might be helpful for us to reexamine the relationship
between the priesthood and laity and investigate the historical
development of the Buddhist priesthood.
II. The Tension and Anxiety
Between Priesthood and Laity
It is not unusual to associate the concept of religion
with the hierarchy of 1) a supreme power or deity, 2)
priests and 3) the masses. This triad in which the saving
force and the saved are connected by religious intermediaries
has been a familiar concept in human history. For example,
the word hierarchy1 derives from the Latin hierarchia,
which means the power or rule of episcopate. Throughout
the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, the word primarily
meant each of the three divisions of angels who were considered
a link between God and people.In the history of religion,
tension and anxiety, rather than accord and unity, have
more often permeated this triad. The priestly class wants
to retain its role as intermediaries between the saving
power or deity and the people. However, the priest class
is keenly aware that its status completely depends upon
the laity?s acknowledgement of its supposed authority
in this role. In a political or behavioral sense, the
power of priesthood derives not from God or the Buddha,
but from the very lay believers who deem the priests to
be their spiritual superiors. This inherent paradox in
the nature of the clergy?s authority is a fundamental
cause of their anxiety. Lay believers also have cause
for their own tension in the triad. They are often caught
between their desire to establish direct and unrestricted
communion with the sacred on one hand, and the sense of
security that comes from assigning responsibility for
spiritual matters to the clergy on the other. Since both
priesthood and laity have reasons for tension and anxiety
in this triad, it is ultimately an unstable and dynamic
relationship in which the status of each element is constantly
evolving.
No religion is immune to the tensions and conflicts arising
from this triad. (Even a religion that has rejected the
role of priesthood still has to deal with the absence
of priesthood.) The Protestant Reformation and the counter-Reformation
of Catholicism may be one of the most well-known examples.
Against the doctrines expounded by the Church, Martin
Luther (1483-1546) advocated the priesthood of all believers.
He wrote: “We are all consecrated priests through
baptism... A priest in Christiandom is nothing else but
an officeholder... If we are all priests... and all have
one faith, one gospel, one sacrament, why should we not
also have the power to test and judge what is right or
wrong in matters of faith?”2 He also expounded on
the sufficiency of the Bible: “Unless I am convicted
by the testimony of Scripture or plain reason (for I believe
neither in Pope nor councils alone, since it is agreed
that they have often erred and contradicted themselves),
I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience
is captive to the Word of God.”3 In response to
Protestantism, the Church at the Council of Trent in 1563
defended its basic position that the priesthood “consists
in the power of consecrating and offering the Body and
Blood of the Lord, and of remitting and of retaining sins.”4
The Church reaffirmed that the priestly orders “do
not depend on the call or consent of the people, nor the
secular power.”5 According to the Church, the powers
of priests to interpret and preach the teaching of Christ
as well as to forgive sins derive from Christ himself.6
The rift between the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood and the
SGI similarly presents the tension and anxiety inherent
in the triad of the saving influence (the Gohonzon, or
Nichiren Daishonin?s enlightenment), the priesthood and
lay believers. Ultimately, the priesthood under the leadership
of Nikken, the current high priest, was unable to withstand
that tension. The solution it sought was to sever ties
with one corner of the triad-the members of the SGI-and
replace it with something less a source of tension. That
was a laity largely of disaffected members of the SGI
who were fewer in number and less apt to question the
priesthood?s exercise of authority over them.
Shortly after the SGI?s announcement in 1993 that it would
be conferring Gohonzon to its members, the Nichiren Shoshu
Bureau of Religious Affairs stated: “The Soka Gakkai
is a group that has been excommunicated by Nichiren Shoshu,
and has absolutely no relationship with Nichiren Shoshu.
Therefore, no matter what actions the Soka Gakkai may
take, Nichiren Shoshu has no connection with those actions
whatsoever.”7 But with this resolute denial of any
ties with their former lay believers came the rather emotional
plea: “Nichiren Shoshu believers who are still members
of the Soka Gakkai! At least one last time, reconsider
the path you are taking! Once you have crossed the line
and accepted the ultimate heresy-the counterfeit object
of worship-you will have crossed over to the wrong side
of the river that separates enlightenment from extremely
long imprisonment in the evil paths.”8
In fact, the priesthood?s “one last time”
was not really the last; it has continued to attempt to
win back its excommunicated lay believers even until today.
The priesthood?s obsession with its former lay believers
most eloquently illustrates its anxiety stemming from
the paradox of its source of authority mentioned above.
To assert its supposed spiritual superiority, the priesthood
had to strike at the basis of its own priestly authority
by excommunicating the majority of its lay believers.
The priests of Nichiren Shoshu are not the only ones who
have experienced tension and anxiety due to the triad
of spiritual interdependency. The SGI, in one sense, traded
its problems with the priesthood for another challenge.
Having been excommunicated, the SGI can no longer rely
on the priesthood as support for a sense of orthodoxy.
Today the Nichiren Shoshu priesthood stresses believers?
obedience to the high priest as an absolute necessity
for their enlightenment: “If one has correct faith
following the guidance of the High Priest, then benefit
will result. However, even if one possesses a traditional
Gohonzon, if the person worshipping it slanders the High
Priest of the conferral of the lifeblood of the Law, .
. . there will be no benefit.”9 According to the
priesthood?s doctrine as indicated here, what is more
important than believing in the Gohonzon is to follow
the high priest. According to the priesthood, only the
high priest, by the virtue of his assumed mystical lineage
from Nichiren Daishonin, can correctly interpret the founder?s
teaching and guide lay believers toward salvation. The
priesthood claims: “The Nichiren Shoshu faith consists
of following the lifeblood received by only a single person
[i.e., the high priest].”10
The priesthood?s idea of Buddhist practice provides a
sense of comfort and security to some people in that they
need not struggle to find and establish a direct and intimate
connection with the ultimate reality—their own Buddha
nature. Their faith is validated by a third party. Simply
put, their only responsibility is to defer to their local
priest, through whom they commune with the high priest,
who communes with the Mystic Law on their behalf. Those
of us who have chosen to practice the Daishonin?s Buddhism
without the priesthood, however, must accept the struggle
to perceive and manifest our inherent Buddhahood as the
Daishonin urges us: “Therefore, when you chant the
Mystic Law and recite the Lotus Sutra, you must summon
up deep conviction that Myoho-renge-kyo is your life itself.”11
In this case, it is a practitioner?s responsibility to
define and establish his or her relationship with the
Buddha nature.
This internal challenge of ours, furthermore, is often
made more difficult by the popular notion that Buddhism
is the domain of monks or priests. Even in modern times,
the image of an Asian man in robes, sans hair, is the
image of Buddhism to many. The idea that ordinary lay
people can develop a mastery of Buddhist thought and practice
seems out of synch with people?s impression of traditional
Buddhism.
The history surrounding the development and evolution
of the Buddhist order, however, tells us that a institutionalized
priesthood is not an absolute element in Buddhist tradition.
History enables us to view the role of the Buddhist priesthood
as something constantly evolving and dynamic in its forms.
In the following, I would like to briefly trace the history
of the Buddhist priesthood and their relationship to the
laity.
III. The Early Buddhist Order
Why Did Shakyamuni Become Homeless?
To better understand the nature of the early Buddhist
Order, it is important to know why Shakyamuni left the
secular world to pursue a religious life. Being a monk
or priest at that time in India meant to be homeless and
lead the life of a wandering mendicant. It was a role
fundamentally different from that of Buddhist priests
in Japan today, the majority of whom are married, have
families, and thus are virtually indistinguishable from
the laity except for ceremonial robes and shaved heads.
In Shakyamuni?s India, it was customary for those aspiring
to a religious life to leave their families. Professor
Hajime Nakamura describes the nature of Shakyamuni?s decision
to leave home as follows: “In a modern sense it
corresponds to leaving the family and going to the city
or abroad for study or to obtain certain skills.”12
The option to become a monk, however, was limited to the
affluent because the initiates had to leave enough resources
behind to provide for their familes.13 Indeed, Shakyamuni
himself came from an affluent royal family.
There were two types of religious practitioners during
Shakyamuni?s time: the brahmanas and the sramanas. The
brahmanas were the priests of Brahmanism (the ancient
form of Hinduism), considered the highest caste of Indian
society, even above those of the ruling ksatriya class.
14 In his youth, a brahmana left home to study the Vedas
under a teacher. After completing his study, he returned
to his family to marry and raise a family. He would then
officiate at various sacrificial rituals for the Hindu
gods. When his sons returned from their initial studies
and became old enough to assume responsibility for the
household, the brahmana would leave home again to embark
on a life of wandering.
The sramanas were a newer type of religious practitioner.
They would enter a life of wandering and begging while
young, and engage in various ascetic practices in their
quest for the absolute.15 But they never again returned
to secular life. For both types of religious practitioner,
however, a life of wandering and begging was considered
the norm in their religious discipline. When Shakyamuni
set out to seek a solution for people?s suffering, he
chose the life style of a wandering monk, according to
the social customs of his day. If he were alive today
in America, we can easily assume that the form of his
initial religious role would have been different. Even
an enlightened person intent on spiritual reform would
be unlikely to begin as a wandering monk today. Shakyamuni?s
choice to become a monk or priest in no way implies the
absolute value of the priestly class in Buddhism; it simply
indicates his adoption of the social customs of his day
in achieving his aims.
Against Class Discrimination
After Shakyamuni attained enlightenment, he began to preach
his teaching (the Dharma) to all people, regardless of
their caste, race, sex or economic status. He first converted
the five monks with whom he had initially practiced austerities.16He
then converted Yasas, the son of a wealthy elder of Benares,
and Yasas? parents and wife became Buddhist laymen (upasaka)
and laywomen (upasika).17 Through Shakyamuni?s preaching,
his order grew to include people from all walks of life-for
example, rulers such as King Bimbisara of Magadha;18 non-
Aryan slave women such as Punnika;19 artisans such as
the blacksmith Cunda20; wealthy merchants such as Sudatta,21
the sick, such as Suppabuddha, who was a leper described
as “a poor, miserable, wretched creature”22;
and even criminals such as Angulimala,23 who was a vicious
bandit; and the list goes on.
Regarding Shakyamuni?s preaching career, Professor Hajime
Nakamura comments:
It was unheard of in Gotama?s contemporary India to preach
one?s teaching to all the people. This is obvious when
we compare his situation with the various philosophers
of the Upanisads, who limited their audiences and often
confined themselves to preaching to their own children,
or distinguished individuals whom they deemed were qualified
to receive instruction. Gotama Buddha broke this traditional
restriction and doing so must have required considerable
determination and courage. 24
Judging from Shakyamuni?s disregard of social or economic
distinctions in choosing his audience, the early Buddhist
order must have been a dynamic movement open to all people.
The Buddhist movement at its beginning was opposed to
any form of class discrimination. 25
The Origin of the Samgha
The Buddhist order was called samgha (also spelled as
sangha). During Shakyamuni?s time, the same term described
a number of political groups and trade guilds; it was
also applied to religious groups.26 The general notion
of the samgha included the four groups of Buddhists: monks
(bhiksu), nuns (bhiksuni), laymen (upasaka) and laywomen
(upasika). 27 When it is used in early Buddhist texts,
however, the term usually refers to the two orders of
priesthood: the order of monks (bhiksu-sangha) and the
order of nuns (bhiksunisangha).28 The Buddhist Order was
often called samagra-sangha or “harmonious order.”
It was thought that members of the samgha should practice
in harmony since they share the same goal of attaining
enlightenment.29
A distinction was made between the two types of Buddhist
order. The first type was called sammukhibhuta-sangha
or the “present order,” meaning a Buddhist
order that existed at a certain time and place.30 During
Shakyamuni?s time, many orders were formed in various
locations. Those orders were governed by rules called
vinaya. But a Buddhist scripture on monastic discipline
records that Shakyamuni did not initially set forth priestly
rules: “For the five years immediately following
Sakyamuni?s Enlightenment, the sangha of bhikkhu was completely
pure but after that they gradually committed errors. As
a result, the Buddha established regulations as the need
arose . . .”31 The second type of samgha was more
of a conceptual expression of the Buddhist order called
caturdisa-samgha (the “universal order” or
“the order of the four quarters”), which included
all the Buddha?s disciples of the past, present and future
and was expressed as monastic rules applicable to all
the present orders.32 No present order could claim the
possession of monasteries and other buildings; all the
properties were considered to belong to the universal
order.33
All the Buddhist priests during Shakyamuni?s time led
a life of wandering and begging except for three or four
months of the rainy season when they took shelter in one
place and engaged in intensive study and meditation.34
According to the early Buddhist texts, priests were allowed
to possess six items: three robes, a begging bowl, a cloth
to sit upon, and a water strainer.35 Their lives were
austere and entirely devoted to their religious practice.
It is interesting to note that soon after Shakyamuni?s
death, which various scholars estimate to have been around
the end of the fifth or fourth century BCE,36 Buddhist
priests renounced the life of wandering and started to
settle down.37 This transition from wandering to settlement
marked the beginning of the Buddhist priests? lives at
temples and monasteries.38 In this regard, it must be
pointed out that Shakyamuni never had a temple or monastery
if it refers to a priest?s permanent residence or home.
He remained homeless to the end; his entire life as a
religious practitioner was spent in travelling and preaching
his Dharma to all people.
The Three Treasures
The three treasures, which is also translated as the three
refuges or the three gems, are the Buddha, the Dharma
(i.e., his Law or teaching), and the samgha (the Buddhist
order or community). It is an old Buddhist tradition that
practitioners pay respect to those three fundamental elements
of Buddhism. Sutta-Nipata, one of the early Buddhist scriptures,
explains that the Buddha is worthy of respect because
he expounded the truth that benefits all people; 39 Shakyamuni?s
Dharma is worthy of respect because it enables all people
to attain peace and overcome death.40 Lastly, the samgha
is worthy of respect because it consists of the Buddha?s
“faithful followers” who have “steadfast
hearts.”41
The Buddha and his teaching are obviously important because
without them there could be no Buddhism. In fact, during
the earliest period of Buddhism, homage was paid only
to the Buddha and the Dharma. Paying homage to all the
three treasures is considered to be a later tradition.42
Professor Hermann Oldenberg suggests that the idea of
the three treasures began in a period after Shakyamuni?s
death when the Buddhist order “stood as the sole
visible exponent of the idea hitherto embodied in Buddha,
as the sole possessor of delivering truth.”43 In
other words, it is the significance of the samgha that
the Buddha?s faithful disciples spread his teaching, especially
after his passing. Put simply, the essential role of the
samgha lies in propagation activities. This is consistent
with Shakyamuni?s emphasis to widely spread the Dharma.
In one of the early texts, Shakyamuni tells his priestly
disciples:
Go out and preach, monks, out of compassion for sentient
beings, and out of concern for the world. Bring benefits,
happiness, and caring to gods and men. No two of you should
go to the same place. Preach the Dharma with reason and
eloquence so that it will be good at the beginning, middle,
and end. 44
The samgha becomes worthy of respect only when its members
are correctly spreading the Buddha?s teaching. Put another
way, the true samgha is nothing other than a group of
Buddhist practitioners dedicated to the propagation of
Buddhism.
Spiritual Equality and Self-reliance
Other notable characteristics of the samgha include its
spiritual equality. It was thought that Shakyamuni?s disciples
were fully capable of attaining the same enlightened state
as their teacher. This idea is reflected in one of the
eight analogies of the samgha comparing it to the ocean.
In one of the early texts called Udana, Shakyamuni states:
“Just as, monks, the mighty ocean is of one flavour,
the flavour of salt, even so, monks, this dhamma is of
one flavour, the flavour of release.”45 Through
the Buddha?s teaching, all people can savor exactly the
same state of enlightenment as the Buddha. Just like water
in the great ocean has the same salty taste everywhere,
there is no distinction in the spiritual state people
may attain through the Buddha?s teaching.
This spiritual equality of early Buddhism is documented
elsewhere as well. For example, the spiritual state attained
by the five monks who were the first Buddhist converts
is depicted as being exactly identical as Shakyamuni?s
enlightenment. In this regard, Professor Hajime Nakamura
states: “The notion that the Buddha?s disciples
could never reach the same goal that he attained since
he was super-human, is a product of later imagination
promulgated by the pompous theologians of subsequent eras,
and a distortion of historical fact.”46 Any Buddhist
who declares that he has obtained a spiritual status that
cannot be attained by other practitioners is making a
claim that even Shakyamuni did not make and thereby promoting
a non-Buddhist perspective.
Spiritual equality acknowledged in the samgha had some
implications in terms of its organizational characteristics.
Although priests? seniority in length of practice was
respected, there was no hierarchical character in the
early samgha. Some priests had some administrative duties
such as caretaker of sleeping quarters and council chambers
or as distributors of food and other necessities.47 But
they had no greater political influence than others within
the order. Professor Hermann Oldenberg points out: “Unanimity
was necessary as a general rule in most of the resolutions
of the Order.”48 The early samgha was democratic
in its nature and structure.
Furthermore, the samgha did not have a specific person
or high priest who would interpret the Buddha?s teaching
for the rest of the Buddhist community. In fact, the samgha
did not claim to have any authority to institute new rules
or interpret the Buddha?s teaching. Although new rules
were introduced into the samgha after Shakyamuni?s death
in response to changing circumstances, the monks made
sure to attribute those changes to the Buddha himself.49
This attitude of the early samgha indicates that in addition
to the spread of Buddhism, the preservation of the Buddha?s
teaching was considered an important function of the Buddhist
order.
In other words, faithfulness to the founder was an essential
prerequisite for the Buddhist order. No arbitrary legislation
or interpretation contradicting Shakyamuni?s teaching
was tolerated within the Buddhist order. Consequently
the samgha did not choose to have a leader who would legislate
rules and interpret doctrines. The faithful observance
of the Buddha?s teaching was viewed as paramount.
Although every Buddhist was thought capable of attaining
the same enlightenment as Shakyamuni, the samgha refused
to acknowledge any specific person to succeed their teacher
immediately after the founder?s death. One of the early
Pali texts called Majjhima Nikaya records the discourse
between Ananda (one of Shakyamuni?s ten major disciples)
and a certain Brahmin, which took place soon after Shakyamuni?s
death. Parts of this dialogue reveal an important aspect
of the samgha:
Brahmin: “Is there a single Almsman who in every
respect and in every particular possesses all the qualities
that were possessed by the reverend Gotama, the Arahat
all enlightened [the Buddha]?”
Ananda: “No, Brahmin. For the Lord made a Path where
path there was none, traced out a Path where path there
was none, and revealed a Path till then unrevealed...
Today his disciples follow him in the Path which has come
to them from him. ...”
Brahmin: “Is there any particular Almsman, Ananda,
who was designated by the reverend Gotama to be at his
decease your alternative refuge, and to whom, in his place,
you might have recourse today?”
Ananda: “No.”
Brahmin: “Is there any such Almsman chosen for this
purpose by the Confraternity and designated as such by
Elders and Almsmen?”
Ananda: “No.”
Brahmin: “Having no such alternative refuge, how
come you to be in such unison?”
Ananda: “We lack not an alternative refuge, Brahmin;
we have one in the Doctrine. . . .”
Brahmin: “Is there any one particular Almsman who
today you respect and revere, to whom you show honour
and worship and to whom you look up with respect and reverence?
Ananada: “Yes.”
Brahmin: “In answer to my previous questions, you
have already told me that Gotama designated no Almsman
as an alternative to himself as your refuge at his death,
and that the Confraternity has designated no one since;
but now you tell me there is an Almsman whom you revere
and in dependence on whom you live in respect and reverence.
What can your words mean?”50
At this point, Ananda starts to explain ten various qualities
that would make a person worthy of respect.51 In other
words, anyone who develops virtuous character and abilities
should be respected. As we can see in Ananda?s discourse,
the samgha did not place anyone in a position of spiritual
superiority above the rest; at the same time it encouraged
honor and respect for anyone virtuous as a result of practice
based on Shakyamuni?s Dharma.
Originally neither the Dharma nor the samgha allowed for
any intermediary to stand between a practitioner and his
or her enlightenment. Individual practitioners are responsible
for their salvation through their own efforts to practice
the Buddha?s teaching. After all, self-reliance is a cornerstone
of Buddhism. Shakyamuni instructed Ananda on his deathbed:
“Therefore, Ananda, in this world be an island to
yourself, be a refuge to yourself and take refuge in no
other. Make the Dharma your island, the Dharma your refuge
and no other.”52
No Excommunication of Lay Believers
The Order of early Buddhism did not reject a priest unless
he committed a serious violation of the rules of monastic
conduct, such as a transgression of the four great prohibitions:
sexual intercourse, stealing, killing and lying.53 At
the same time, if priests wanted to return to their secular
lives and continue to practice as lay believers, they
were always free to do so. It was generally thought that
no one should be bound to the priestly order or the Buddhist
community as a whole by external powers.
Consequently there was no notion of excommunication of
laity in early Buddhism. In this regard, Professor Hermann
Oldenberg comments: “A formal excommunication of
unbelieving, unworthy, or scandalously-living lay-brothers
there was not, and, as a result of circumstances, there
could not be.”54 If there were a lay believer disruptive
to the Buddhist community, the members of the priestly
order would simply refrain from receiving alms from such
a person.55 This was as far as the priestly order went
in applying sanctions to lay believers for transgressions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
