From the 5th/6th c. CE onwards Vinaya condensations replaced the study of the monastic law code (Vinaya) and its commentary, the Samantapāsādikā, in the daily curriculum of the monks of the Theravāda tradition in present-day Sri Lanka. Directives in the royal ordinances (katikāvata) of Lanka dating from the 12th/13th and 18th c. CE regarding the texts to be memorized by young monks show that, in addition to the condensations, the katikāvatas themselves were an issue in the education of the monks. Thus it seems that the Vinaya and its commentary were pushed into the background. In the present contribution I try to show that this attitude in daily life does not reflect the situation in crises of the Buddhist community, when it becomes necessary to prove specific issues by authoritative statements. In such cases the most authoritative source, that is, the monastic law code which is considered the “Word of the Buddha,” the fully Enlightened One, by tradition, came into play again, together with the commentary considered to include the information from the earliest commentaries that as it was understood were included already in the 1st saṅgīti. In two challenging legal disputes concerning Buddhist monastic boundaries (sīmā) I will show that in the attempt to solve the legal disputes, the monastic law code and its commentary served as the last resort.
目次
Abstract 103 1. Introduction 104 2. The landscape of law texts in the Theravāda tradition 105 3. Guidelines for settling a dispute 110 4. Means of evidence to be applied in cases of disputes 111 5. The application of the monastic law codes in the 12th to 19th c. CE 115 5.1 The first dispute: Coḷiyas against Sīhaḷas in the end of the 12th or beginning of the 13th c. CE 115 5.1.1. Details concerning the monastic boundaries (sīmā) relevant for this dispute 117 5.1.2 Argument of the South Indians (Coḷiyas) 121 5.1.3. Argument of the Sīhaḷas 125 5.1.4 The evidentiary methods applied by the Coḷiyas and the Sīhaḷas 127 5.1.5 The impact of this dispute on later traditions 129 5.1.5.1 King Rāmādhipati or Dhammacetī (Burma, 15th c. CE) 129 5.1.5.2 Chapa৬a Saddhammajotipāla (Burma, 15th c. CE) 130 5.1.5.3 Tipi৬akālaṅkāra Munindaghosa (Burma, 1578–1650/51) 130 5.1.5.4 Saṅgharāja Ñeyyadhamma (Burma, 1858 CE) 131 5.1.5.5 Saṅgharāja Vajirañāṇavarorasa (Siam 1860–1921 CE) 132 5.1.6. Conclusions from the first dispute 133 5.2 Dispute within the Amarapuranikāya in Balapiṭiya, Lanka in the 19th c. CE. 134 5.2.1. Outline of the historical data 134 5.2.2 Texts written in connection with this dispute 143 5.2.2.1 Ñeyyadhamma, Sīmāvivādavinicchaya 144 5.2.2.2 Vimalasāra, Sīmālakkhaṇadīpanī 146 5.2.2.3 Dhammālaṅkāra, Sīmānayadappana 148 5.2.2.4 Conclusion to the Second Dispute 149 6. Concluding Remarks 150 Acknowledgements 151 Remark concerning the rendering of the Pāli text 152 List of Illustrations 152 Abbreviations 152 References 154
