The Heterogeneity of the Monastic Order and the Laity

In the 6th century BCE, a new philosophical movement was stirring up the Ancient India and the
philosophers of the same movement were called shramanas. They were people, men to be specific,
who came out of the ordinary society and became wanderers with the aim of discovering the truth
and attain happiness, or peace of mind at least. Moreover, they rejected the Veda and brahmanas’
authority, ridiculed the complicated rituals, tried to show the absurdity of Vedas and the entire
Brahmanical system was declared fraudulent by them. This new philosophical system of Ancient
India had 5 major organised schools each with their own teacher. The schools were: Buddhism,
Jainism, Ajivika, Charvaka and Ajnana. Of these, Buddhism is the most the most well-known and
successful and since the beginning, his religion had a more popular base. However, as pointed out by
Singh, it should be noted that Buddhism did not start as a religion, but as a way of life which was
taught by the Buddha and was believed to have the potential to transform a person and free him
from the cycle of rebirth. He had addressed his teachings to the Buddhist monastic order (sangha)
and the laity. The essence of his teachings is traditionally believed to have been propounded by him
in his first sermon at Sarnath called the ‘Turning of the Wheel of Law’. His teachings or doctrine or
dhamma consisted of the Four Noble Truths (Ariya-sachchani) – the world is full of suffering
(dukkha), suffering is caused by human desires (samudaya), it can be removed (nirodha), and it can
be achieved by the Noble Eightfold Path (Atthanga-magga). The path is comprised of eight
interconnected principles of action – right view, intention, speech, action, livelihood, effort,
mindfulness and concentration. The Buddhist community grew during the time of the Buddha and
only got consolidated after his death, there were some cracks in the same at a later stage though.
The Buddhist community had two important dimensions: the sangha (the monastic order) and the
laity (upasakas and upasikas). Although how much homogenous the groups may appear from the
outside, they were greatly varied in terms of their social composition ranging from brahmanas to the
untouchables. However, before the social composition of the groups the question is that to whom
the message of the Buddha appeal.

The textual evidence (Thera- and Their-gatha) is suggestive of, according to B.G Gokhale, his
message appealing especially to the town-dwellers and the new social classes which emerged during
the time. Of the 328 monks and nuns in these texts (134 brahmana, 75 kshatriyas, 98 vaishyas, 11
shudras and 10 outcastes) more than two-thirds came from large towns and nearly half of them
came from powerful households. Also, for the social composition of the lay support the canonical
texts constantly use the term gahapati (literally meaning ‘master of the household’). Further,
Richard Gombrich points out that the gahapati in the canon is the head of a ‘respectable’ family and
not a brahmana until specified. Moreover, as far as the appeal is concerned, it has been
conventional to argue that rapid social changes during the age of the iron generally tended to upset
people, hence, the above-mentioned groups joined the Buddhist faith. Also, the use of Pali seems to
be an important factor. Furthermore, kinship ties too played an important role in the propagation of
Buddhism. The concept of ahimsa also appealed to people and was popularised for the first time.
Another observation is that since it was, unlike Jainism, more aware of the contemporary needs of
the agriculture, the village folk showed a greater acceptance of it. Furthermore, it is practical to
point out that the kings gave patronage to Buddhism (how much they were moved by it cannot be
told exactly) to win their social support and increase their base. Lastly, Buddhism is also credited
with consolidating some social bonds. This is because it laid some conditions: the soldiers could not
enter the monastic order without the permission of the king, slaves could not join until freed by their
masters and the debtors could not join until they have paid their debt off. This further strengthened
the position of the kings, slave-owners and moneylenders. As pointed out by European scholars like
Eliot, Oldenberg, Fick and Bougle and Indian Marxist historians of the time, Buddha did not seek to
break the caste system. It simply was against the Brahmanical pretensions and rituals and adopted a
liberal attitude towards the people of the low castes. Also, in the Anguttara Nikaya it is asserted that
after joining the sangha, the person becomes without varna (vevanniyanti).

The sangha had come into existence during the time of the Buddha and after his death (parinibbana)
the duty of preaching the dhamma and spreading the word came on the shoulders of the bhikkhus
and bhikkhunis later. W. Jong and Uma Chakravarti have pointed out that there is no published work
giving a comprehensive analysis of the references to the social composition of the early Buddhists in
the early Pali texts. However, as mentioned above, the Thera- and Their-gatha in conjunction with
Dhammapala’s commentary on them tells us of the heterogeneity of the sangha. Although the text
dates to fifth century CE, the information it provides is authentic. As Gombrich told us there being
328 people in the sangha, Chakravarti tells us that there are 105 references to individuals who joined
sangha. A major chunk of these comprised to brahmanas being 39 in number, followed in
descending order by kshatriyas (28), ucca kula (21), parabajjikas (8), nica kulas (8) and gahapatikula
(1). Also, in addition to the 39 brahmanas mentioned in the text, 8 more brahmanas are mentioned
as becoming arahants, one being Bavari and 7 being his students. The division of the kshatriya
component is as follows: 22 from the gana-sanghas, 5 belonging to the rajakulas and the last one is
only known as being of a kshatriya origin. Moreover, of the 22 representatives of the gana-sanghas,
16 were Sakyans, of whom 9 were related to the Buddha, 2 were Vajjians, another 2 were Mallas,
one was a Lichchhavi and another one was a Koliyan. Of the 21 representatives of the ucca kulas 14
were setthis, 2 were a gopaka couple, 2 were from a genteel background, one was a courtesan and
the last 2 were kula-puttas. The gahapati component was represented by a single bhikkhuni, who
was the wife of a gahapati. The nica kula component of the bhikkhu community comprised of 2
barbers, and one potter, fisherman, vulture trainer, actor, elephant trainer and dasiputta each.

There have been some important bhikkhus whose social origins are pointed out by Buddhist texts
like Mahavagga, Majjhima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya etc. The prominent of them being Sariputta
and Moggallana. Both of them had been paribbajakas before meeting the Buddha. Earlier they had
been followers of a titthiya leader Sanjaya and later went on to join the Buddhist sangha. Also, it is
told that they were the constant chief disciple of the Buddha in many previous births. Next is the
brahmana Maha Kassapa. It is told that he lived for many years as a forest dweller and had been a
paribbajaka before joining the sangha. After Buddha’s death the First Buddhist council was held at
Rajagriha after the initiative taken by him and he presided over the same. It was in this council that
the Vinaya and Sutta Pitakas were compiled. And also, his closeness with the Buddha is told in
Mahaparnibbana Sutta, where Buddha’s body refused to burn until Maha Kassapa came and paid
homage to it. Some of the important bhikkhus had come from the kshatriya background too. The
most renowned figure among them is Ananda. The most striking feature of his personality was his
human quality. As Chakravarti points out, “Ananda was also a great champion of good causes.” This
is because it was, he who persuaded the Buddha to allow the entry of women into the sangha. He
was also called the treasurer of the dhamma. He joined the sangha with five other kinsmen of the
Buddha: Bhaddiya, Bhagu, Kimbila, Anuruddha and Devadatta. Lastly, Upali was the only
representative of the nica kulas amongst the prominent disciples of the Buddha. His greatest
achievement was his mastery of Vinaya and helping Maha Kassapa to codify the Vinaya Pitaka.

The laity component includes all those who took refuge in the Triratna (Three Jewels): the Buddha,
the dhamma and the sangha, but did not join the monastic order. In the Buddhist texts they are
stated to have supported the sangha. The laity, of course, was a much bigger community in
comparison to sangha. It, like the sangha, had people from all walks of life: men-women, rich-poor,
high-born-low-born and the like. The earliest references of the brahmana component accounts for
76 brahmanas, of which 8 were wealthy and prestigious. Also, in many suttas of Digha Nikaya and
Majjhima Nikaya the meetings of Buddha with many prominent brahmanas are highlighted. The
prominent figures from the brahmana background are Pokkarasadi and Sonadanda. The former was
earlier a teacher with many followers and later became an upasaka with his wife and children. The
latter was a prosperous and virtuous brahmana and a teacher of 300 brahmanas and later became a
lay follower of Buddha being influenced by Pokkarasadi and King Bimbisar. The next in the category
are the lay followers who were gahapatis. The most important or rather historians’ favourite (as the
discussion about laity is incomplete without mentioning him) is Anathapindika. His greatest
contribution to the sustenance of the monastic order was the purchasing of Jetavana from the
prince Jeta Kumara after a paying a fabulous price and gifting it to the Buddha. From then he had
made many donations for the Buddha and the sangha and has been a prominent figure among the
texts. In addition to him, some more gahapati feeders of the sangha are Citta, Mendaka, Sandhana,
Nakulamata and Nakulapitar. Also, it is gahapatis who are generally mentioned in the list of most
eminent upasakas and they constituted the largest group amongst the laity. Also, the first lay
followers of the Buddha were the two merchants named Tapassu and Bhallika. This tells that apart
from the brahmana, kshatriya and gahapati families, upasakas also came from vanijja ucca kulas.
Apart from the higher people, there were also low caste supporters of Buddhism as is evident from
the episode of Cunda, at whose place Buddha had his last meal before he was attacked by dysentery.
Also, there are some significant female figures who feature in the texts and supported and fed the
sangha. As noted by Xinru Liu, it was women who cooked meals and served the sangha and, hence,
became the primary audience the sangha had to address while arguing for feeding being a
meritorious act. Among the best known upasikas and the supporters of sangha, who after their
death entered the world of gods (Heaven of Thirty-Three), are Visakha Migarmata, Uttara (Mother of
Nanda), Sirima and two sisters, Bhadda and Subhadda. It should be noted that most of the women
(including the above mentioned) came from gahapati background. However, women from low social
background are also mentioned: Lakhuma (a fisherwoman), Rajjumala (a slave girl) and an old,
feeble Chandali (this is known from Vimanavatthu). Other than these, the most important part of
the laity was the secular, the king. The king was the highest laity. The role of the kings was providing
patronage to the religion and protecting its professors. From Ajatasattu to the death of Ashoka three
Buddhist councils were already held. Providing patronage to the religion was also done to broaden
the support base. However, for the propagation of the religion, the greatest role was played by
Ashoka. It is due to his efforts to spread the dhamma that made Buddhism the earliest of the only
three trans-civilisational religions in the world (other two are Christianity and Islam).

Most importantly, neither of the two communities can thrive being isolated from one another. Some
interaction is bound to be there. The laity supported the sangha. The support was in the form of
donations of land, constructing viharas, gifting robes, medicines or supplies and, primarily, feeding
the sangha and looking after the basic needs of the monks. On the other hand, the monks preached
the dhamma in return for the sustenance. This interaction was not only facilitated by the alms
begging rounds and the concept of karma and rebirth, but the location of the settlement of the
monks, including the Buddha, played an important role in this. As Liu has stated, “The location
needed to be accessible for lay followers from the cities but not be submerged by urban chaos….
such resorts needed also to keep the sangha in contact with the wild terrains where Yakkha, Naga,
and other non-conformist communities lived.” As the sangha expanded with time, its dependence
on the goodwill of the laity grew. After the death of the Buddha, it became even more important for
the monks to emphasise his scheme of rebirth. Hence, the argument of feeding the monks being a
merit-generating act moving them towards happier afterlives was made to convince the laity for
donating and feeding. For promoting patronage by the lay society, the monks and nuns also used a
group of Pali texts in Khuddaka-nikaya. This made the lay Buddhist community aiming only to be
reborn in heaven and merit was becoming a kind of spiritual cash for the things which the money
could not buy. This concept has been pointed out and elaborated by Gombrich. He argues that “the
treatment of ethical action as a currency fits Buddhism’s commercial background.” He also asserts
that “virtue acquired a purchasing power” meaning that heaven could be bought by moral deeds.
The textual evidence is suggestive of transfer of merit entering Buddhism around the time of
Buddha’s demise. Consequently, in the subsequent time, this gave rise to spiritual capitalism – the
rich being resourceful enough to make donations and acquiring merit and heaven and the opposite
being true for a low man.

In a nutshell, Buddhism started as a way of life which was shown by the Buddha and it was only in
the later times that teachings had a wide appeal and took firm grip over the minds of the people
paving way for the consolidation of Buddhism as a religion. The doctrines stood in complete
opposition to Brahmanism. Further, the Buddhist community was, and still is, divided into two
groups – the monastic order and the lay community. Both of these are important pillars of
Buddhism. Also, there had been an interaction between the two since the time of the Buddha. Here,
interestingly a biological term can be applied to a historical context – the relation of the sangha and
the laity was a mutually symbiotic relation, meaning that both were in a give and take relation where
the laity provided material necessities and the monks and nuns preached the dhamma in return.
Later, around the passing of the Buddha, the concept of merit being generated by moral deeds came
into Buddhism, got consolidated later and gave rise to spiritual capitalism.

Bibliography
1. Krishna Mohan Shrimali, The Age of Iron and the Religious Revolution c.700-c.350 BC, Delhi:
Tulika Books, 2007
2. Uma Chakravarti, The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism, Delhi: Oxford University Press,
1987
3. A.K. Warder, Indian Buddhism, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited, 2000
4. Xinru Liu, Early Buddhist Society: The World of Gautama Buddha, Ranikhet: Permanent Black,
2022
5. Richard F. Gombrich, Theravada Buddhism: A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern
Colombo, Oxford: Routledge ,2006
6. Upinder Singh, A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12 th
Century, Delhi: Pearson Longman, 2008
7. D.N. Jha, Ancient India in Historical Outline, Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 2015
8. Romila Thapar, The Penguin History of Early Indian from the Origins to AD 1300, Delhi: Penguin
Books India, 2003
9. R.S. Sharma, India’s Ancient Past, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006
10. A. L. Basham, ed., A Cultural History of India, Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1996