Search

This paper compares the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya with its counterparts in the other four Sthavira Vinayas, namely the Cīvarakkhandhaka/Cīvaradharma[ka] sections of the Vinayas of the Theravādins, Dharmaguptakas, Mahīśāsakas and Sarvāstivādins. It demonstrates that a significant number of stories and rules in the Cīvaravastu have no parallel in the other Sthavira Vinayas. Even those stories and rules that have parallels or partial parallels in the other Sthavira Vinayas can still offer us glimpses into the distinctive concerns of the Mūlasarvāstivādin jurists who wrote or redacted this text. Based on three comparative tables and two examples, this paper argues that the Mūlasarvāstivādin authors/redactors of the Cīvaravastu, contrasted with the jurists of other Sthavira sects or schools, displayed at least five characteristics. First, they shared some common narrative lore with the Śvetāmbara Jainas, which is not found in the other Sthavira Vinayas. Second, they showed a stronger predilection for including past-life stories. Third, they repeatedly used the learned-but-greedy monk Upananda to create comic effect. Fourth, they were strongly and explicitly concerned with a wider range of legal issues related to Buddhist monastic inheritance, and came up with detailed solutions to such issues. Fifth, they showed a more acute awareness of the connection between monastic clothing and public image, as well as the need for thoroughly differentiating the appearance of Buddhist monks from that of other religious groups in ancient India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reconsiders the long-held view that Chapter 36 of the Nanhai jigui neifa zhuan or "Record of the Inner Law Sent Home from the South Seas" written by the Chinese pilgrim Yijing is a translation of a long passage from the Cīvaravastu of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinaya. Through comparing Chapter 36 with the Gilgit Sanskrit text of the Cīvaravastu , the Tibetan translation of the Cīvaravastu , and Yijing's translation of the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayasaṃgraha , this paper reveals, on the one hand, significant differences between Chapter 36 and the extant versions of the Cīvaravastu , and, on the other hand, substantial overlap between Chapter 36 and Yijing's translation of the Vinayasaṃgraha. It argues that Chapter 36 was not translated from the Cīvaravastu (or at least not from a version of the Cīvaravastu identical with or similar to the Gilgit Sanskrit version), but rather seems to have been composed by Yijing through drawing largely (though not entirely) from the Vinayasaṃgraha. This paper therefore demonstrates anew that Yijing's travel record cannot be simply taken as his eyewitness report of Buddhist monastic practices in ancient India. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]