Model Monks’ Monasticism

One of the image-rich descriptions of a true monks’ lifestyle is preserved in M 31, M 128 and Mv 10.4, which report the Buddha’s meetings with Venerables Anuruddha, Kimbila and Nandiya. There is a fair amount of detail to their highly praised mode of communal living that invites further speculations about their lifestyle.

It seems that M 128, before the venerables’ enlightenment, and M 31, after their enlightenment, are set in different places. A 8.30 is given in yet another place and is reported to be the locale of Ven. Anuruddha’s solitary attainment of arahantship[1]. Apparently the three monks lived together as is described on different occasions and in between stayed alone or with other monks[2] (as Ven. Anuruddha did in M 32, M 68 or M 127).

Part of the monks’ set up was to have a lay man who was working and living on the way into the monastery discourage visitors – even monks – from entering the monastery. This is rather unusual. Normally Buddhist monasteries are open places welcoming practically anybody to visit most of the time. There is a complex protocol to receiving monks that gives a legal format to monastic hospitality (Cv 8). In fact, it is even doubtful whether it is permissible for monks to prohibit other monks entry to a monastery belonging to the Sangha, as most of the requisites, including the monastery itself, have been offered to all monks. While there are many legal measures that can be taken against recalcitrant monks, almost none permit limiting or depriving monks of requisites.

One possible solution to this problem is that the monastery where the three were staying was not a Sanghika monastery but belonged to a lay person or groups of lay people. In any case, the Buddha has no recorded objections to their set up, including the guard.

A peculiarity about the two Suttas is that Ven. Anuruddha hears the park keeper talking to the Buddha. In all likelihood the Buddha came in the afternoon, some time after his meal. If Ven. Anuruddha was within hearing distance of the park keeper’s lodging at that time, it doesn’t appear that he was living that secluded. Certainly he would also hear the park keeper do and say all sorts of other things. It does not appear that he overheard the conversation between the Buddha and the park keeper by psychic powers because that would likely have been mentioned and in M 128 he is still at the beginning of his samadhi practice. And had he not been there right away, the Buddha would certainly have explained that he is their teacher to the park keeper in a convincing manner himself.

Furthermore, on having been informed by Ven. Anuruddha about the Buddha’s arrival, the three of them are reported to have taken different duties upon themselves in receiving the Buddha, one taking his things, one preparing a seat and one setting out water for washing the feet – in other words they appear to have been there right away. Had they lived in kutis far apart from each other like monks do in forest monasteries, Ven. Anuruddha would probably have received the Blessed One and then gone to get the others which could have taken anytime from ten minutes to half an hour or more. From the description in the Sutta, however, one gets the impression that all of them lived rather close together, much like monks often live in a single house in the west.

Given the possibilities in India at the time, they could probably have lived in any way they liked, so it appears – especially since they chose that set up at least twice – that this choice had some kind of benefit for them. One possibility is that, with their attitude towards communal living – considering oneself fortunate to be able to live with such friends in the holy life and considering their preferences before one’s own – it might have been practical to live together so closely so one could look after one another and the communal space more effectively. Also it would not be the same level of burden to be close to others as it would be with a more random kind of group and attitude. At least, none of them would make much noise.

It is interesting then, that they would go on almsround separately, apparently on different routes. The presentation of Ven. Anuruddha gives the impression that their schedule was not extremely fixed because he describes the distribution of duties as ‘whoever comes first…’ or ‘whoever sees (that something needs to be done).’ That indicates that there was a measure of flexibility to their going on almsround, of course in part dictated by a world before clocks. One could have imagined that they chose going on separate almsround so to have greater solitude but with the three living so close together, it appears more likely that they did this to give more people the opportunity to make merit (to have three monks going on almsround would usually not be perceived as a burden more than one in a normal village situation). And it was more the trend of the time but with the type of life they lived they could easily have decided otherwise. It might also make it a little more convenient to completely abstain from talking if everybody did their thing entirely on their own schedule. Perhaps it is true for small groups of friends in general, that it is better to have as little fixed schedule as possible, since everybody is mature enough to look after the communal space as it requires.

Given that we know that Ven. Anuruddha kept the ascetic practice of not lying down for all or most of his monastic life (fifty-five years are recorded in the Theragatha) and that he only used rag robes, it is remarkable that he answers the Buddha’s question how they abide earnest, ardent and resolute by describing their communal lifestyle. One would imagine that their earnestness is reflected more in ascetic practices, their attitude towards lay people or other monks, long hours of formal meditation, or the type of attitude towards the experiences in meditation or daily life. Instead, all of them mention that caring for each other (though excluding contact with others) expresses their sincerity towards the goal best. Since they became arahants it is worth considering what the advantages of this system could be.

One way in which their life was rather categorically different from most monks’ communal living is that they probably actually supported each other’s practice in some kind of dedicated way. Most monks tend to just live alongside each other and, need be, pretend each others defilements are not so bad. However, in every field that produces top-performance, highly dedicated and trained people work together in teams, being challenged, corrected, coached, motivated, instructed, competing, all under pressure on a daily basis, usually in groups.

In psychology, ideal group size to achieve the coveted synergy-effect is debated but in general groups of three to five are considered best. Larger groups tend to disintegrate into subgroups and incline to dealing with progressively more global issues; intensive discussion of personal ‘real’ issues between individuals is lost to presentations and diplomatic positioning. Results of the group processes are distorted by the dreaded ‘groupthink’ which describes overly rash consent in group discussions due to peer pressure. Show-off practices like brain-storming or encounter groups basically don’t deliver if the sums are done correctly, not least because of hidden hierarchies and dynamics within these groups. For small groups, closeness and great coherence are the keys to strength and survival (for large groups, high fluctuation is key to survival to prevent stagnation).

Ven. Anuruddha answers the Buddha’s question how he and his friends live earnestly, ardent and resolute by saying that they were discussing the Dhamma every five nights for the entire night. This type of meeting is doubtlessly an extremely efficient way to create and nourish close bonds. Nights spend together talking inevitably give an entirely different flavor to a relationship. Especially with continuity and purpose like that of those monks, the closeness of their group will be intense. This, however, would necessitate that the group is closed, i.e. outsiders, even friendly or adored ones, would be disruptive to that group building and exploration process. They would not know the culture of the group and prevent continued discussion of highly personal issues, views or positions and thereby personal growth, exemplified in the case of the monks at hand by the ultimate personal growth attainment, arahantship.

M 31 gives us a seemingly curious clue as to the nature of their discussion when Ven. Anuruddha answers the Buddha’s question whether they had attained ‘supernormal’ attainments by saying – on substantial coaxing by the Buddha – that they all had become arahants. After the Buddha had left, Vens. Kimbila & Nandiya asked Ven. Anuruddha how he knew that they had become arahants. From this peculiar exchange it emerges that their discussion apparently didn’t include their more powerful successes. However, when Ven. Anuruddha describes the state of affairs of their meditation to the Buddha in M 128, Vens. Kimbila and Nandiya don’t appear surprised and Ven. Anuruddha could not have had psychic powers then, so it seems their discussions included their personal experiences. Also in A 3.131 Ven. Anuruddha is reported asking Ven. Sariputta about a personal problem at the end of his path.

In coaching of expert performance, accomplishment and resultant praise plays a progressively less significant role. It is in the nature of experts that they know very accurately their strength and weaknesses and they do not usually need to be motivated anymore. In keeping with this principle, it seems that the three were discussing their questions in relatively general terms, perhaps in a way similar to the Suttas which only rarely command (“Therefore you should train yourself thus: …”) but much more commonly describe an aspect of the existential situation – and it is in these almost depersonalized sounding Suttas that the audience are reported to attain degrees of enlightenment more frequently.

If this seems vague or conjectured we could take the nature of master lessons in music as a cue. The teacher apparently doesn’t motivate the student or corrects his technique there but shows the student a particular kind of interpretation of a piece the student already knows technically well. Although students could listen to recordings of their preferred teacher playing the pieces they’re interested in, the personal interaction and explanations seem to be worth the substantial sums these hours cost.

There are a number of Suttas that involve Ven. Anuruddha, often as questioning, in M 128 about the meditation of the three monks. In A 3.131 he asks Ven. Sariputta why he doesn’t have the highest attainment yet, in spite of substantial prerequisite cultivation. A 8.30 catches him thinking what were called ‘thoughts of a great man (mahapurisa vitakka)’ by the Blessed One. They seem to be his guidance towards the ultimate realization. In both Suttas it is pointed out to him by the Buddha and Ven. Sariputta respectively that he needs to relinquish preoccupation and consequent identification with the path qualities. These are very personal questions.

There are, however, also a few questions of his on the nature of women. Ven. Kimbila is recorded to have asked questions (likely several accounts of the same occasion) about the cause for the deterioration of Buddhism in the future. From these questions one gets the impression that they have been also interested in this kind of strategical thinking. Although the three were – at least during the time of their three-monk retreat – rather proactive in preventing involvement with other monks, it appears from several snippets and the great praise of the Buddha in M 31, that they were very much concerned about other beings and the future of the Sasana.

The Theragatha also gives us a good clue about what the great monks of the Buddha’s time had on their minds. The advantage of verses are that they are neither edited nor formatted in the way discourses are, as that would destroy the verse-meter. What is noticeable in going through the verse creations of hundreds of monks and nuns is how close their thoughts, interests and insights are to the thought and wording the Buddha introduced in the Suttas. This would not appear to be surprising, were it not that practically all contemporary monks (including those known within the last hundred years) introduce language and interests from all sorts of schools of thought and traditions to describe and explain their insights but are rather ill at ease with the language of the Suttas. Depending on the consensus around them they openly admit, even brag, that they have no access to the language of the Suttas or they pretend that they love the Suttas without their being much in the way of evidence in their presentation for this. Quite apparently they don’t feel that the Suttas conceptual framework and type of thought represents their experiences sufficiently or accurately.

The question is, why this may be the case. One obvious speculation is that they do not have enough familiarity, i.e. knowledge and application of Sutta-type discussion. Perhaps the actual presence of a Buddha or enlightened disciple using this kind of language is missing for them. However, with the Buddha stressing the high quality of the wording and format he chose, the canonical material suggests revival attempts of the style of thinking and language of the Suttas.

Arahantship aside, the retreat format Ven. Anuruddha and his friends chose seems to be particularly good one to live oneself into the world of applied Sutta thought. There can be no doubt that the editors of the Canon, presumably the five hundred monks of the first council, thought so too, for otherwise they would have hardly included this lifestyle’s description three times. And when the Buddha gives one of his most outstanding praises to these monks, it is reported to be instantly reverberating through the celestial realms up to the Brahmas, perhaps the first time that happened since the Buddha’s own awakening. These distinctions make the effort involved in keeping the ascetic restraints of the silent, reclusive life-style in combination with frequent knowledge-involving Dhamma discussions through long nights convincingly acceptable and it is really almost strange that no known tradition has evolved around practice in this way yet.