Many persons have often put to the writer the following question:—Is it credible that the founder of Buddhism established from the beginning a body of religious, with so perfect an hierarchy and so complete an organisation as to elicit the wonder and astonishment of all those who contemplate it with a serious attention? No doubt, Buddhists attribute to Gaudama all the regulations contained in the Patimauk, or the book of theenfranchisement; they maintain that the contents of Cambawa, or book for the ordination of Patzins, have been arranged by the same hand. But the absurdity of such an assertion cannot fail to strike the eyes of even a superficial observer. These two books, with their elaborate divisions and subdivisions, must have been gradually prepared and arranged at an epoch when Buddhism had taken deep root and spread its branches far and wide, and had become the dominant religion in the countries where it is flourishing. To confer splendour on the admittance of individuals into the body of monks, the rules of the Cambawa were enacted. To render the life of religious an object of greater veneration in the eyes of the community, the regulations of the Patimauk were devised, and were very likely brought, by a slow process, to the state of completeness we see them at present.
Though Gaudama had nothing to do with the redaction of the books under examination, he is, nevertheless, the author of the principal and most important regulations.It is in the Thoots or instructions he has delivered on different occasions that we must search for discovering the germ and origin of the principal points contained in the Patimauk and the Cambawa. At the conclusion of many of his instructions we find some hearers believing in him, and applying for admittance into the society of his disciples. When he approved of their dispositions, the applicants had but to renounce the ordinary pursuits of life, exchange their dress for the one regularly prescribed, and engage to live in a state of strict chastity: they then became at once members of the Thanga, without having to go through a prescribed ordeal. Faith in Buddha on the one hand, and on the other willingness to live in poverty and chastity, were the only requisites for obtaining admittance into the spiritual family of Buddha. The applicants were obliged to live in poverty, and depend for their food on the alms they could procure by begging. Hence they were called Bickus, or mendicants. They had to wear a dress made with rags picked up in cemeteries and stitched together. They placed themselves under the guidance of Gaudama, and denied to themselves all sensual gratifications. Such were the first and principal obligations imposed on the new converts who embraced a religious life. The Bickunies, or women who had embraced the holy profession, were gradually subjected to the same regulations. The minor details of the rule were introduced as consequences flowing from the general principles. This has been the work of time, and perhaps of one of the councils.
It does not appear from the instructions of Gaudama that the steps of the hierarchy were defined and fixed by him, as they have subsequently been. We remark in the assembly, the Bickus, or mendicants, constituting the great mass of the religious, then theThera, or, as the Burmans write it,Mathera, the ancients, or members of the assembly distinguished by their age and proficiency in learning and virtue, and the Aryias, or those who had made the greatestprogress in meditation and contemplation, and had entered into the current of perfection.
It has been asked also whether those who had reached one of the four Meggas—that is to say, who had become a Thautapan, a Sakadagam, &c.—were always members of the Thanga, and could not live in the world. From the tenor of certain passages in the life of Gaudama we see that many pious laymen became Thautapan, Sakadagam, and even Anagam; that is to say, followed the three first Meggas, though they continued to live in the world. The father of Buddha, King Thoodaudana, the father of Ratha and many others, reached one of the above-mentioned states, though they continued to follow the ordinary pursuits of life. This fact deserves attention, because it shows that the institutions of Gaudama rested on a broad basis, and that a life in the world was not an obstacle to following the ways of perfection.
In a note on the Nats, the writer, having expressed the opinion that the word “Nat,” used by Burmans, was derived from the Sanscrit term Nath, which means lord, Major Phayre gave it as his decided opinion that the expression was a purely Burmese one, not at all derived from the Sanscrit. Leaving aside the etymological question, of which it may be said thatadhuc sub judice lis est, we are happy to communicate to the reader the following reflections that have come from the pen of that distinguished scholar, who is so intimately acquainted with all that relates to Buddhism.
“The modern Burmans acknowledge the existence of certain beings which, for want of a better term, we will call ‘almost spiritual beings.’ They apply to them the name Nat. Now, according to Burmese notions, there are two distinct bodies or systems of these creatures. The one is a regularly constituted company, if I may say so, of which Thagya Meng is the chief. Most undoubtedly that body of ‘Nat’ was unknown to the Burmans until they became Buddhists. Those are the real Dewah or Dewata.
“But the other set of Nats are the creatures of the indigenous system, existing among all the wild tribes bordering on Burmah. The acknowledgment of thesebeings constitutestheir only worship. On these grounds I consider that the Burmese acknowledged and worshipped such beings before they were converted to Buddhism.
“Now, if they acknowledged such beings, they, no doubt, had a name for them, similar in general import to the ‘fairy, elf,’ and so on among the inhabitants of Britain for beings of a quasi-spiritual nature. I may observe there is a complete analogy in the state of Burmese belief in the existence of such beings and that which prevailed formerly in Europe, and some remnants of which may be found even now existing among the uneducated. I mean that before the Anglo-Saxon tribes were converted to Christianity the belief in fairies and elfs was universal. With Christianity came a belief in a different order of spiritual beings, and with that a new name derived from the Latin, angel. This is somewhat analogous to the state of things among the Burmese before and after their conversion to Buddhism.
“But to return to the Burmese. They, when they received Buddhism, appear to have generally retained their vernacular name for the beings called in PaliDewa. Why this should be done is certainly not apparent. Why have the English and all Teutonic nations retained the ancient nameEvil, and spirits, though they adopted with Christianity a new term for good spirits generally? I allude to the termDevil, which, there is no doubt, is philologically connected with that Pali word Dew-a orDev-a.
“Regarding the meaning of the wordNatin Pali, I have no Pali dictionary, but I have the ordinary Oordoo Dictionary, which includes all ordinary Sanscrit words. I find there the Sanscrit word ‘Nath,’ and the meaning rendered ‘master, husband, lord.’ There is nothing to show that it refers to any supernatural being, but is only a term of respect. As such it might in Pali be made applicable to Nats. In Burmese, the people whobelieveinNats seldom use that word, but some honorific phrase. Some fishermen I knew quarrelled about their shares in a pool of water. In the case they constantly referred to the share of the ‘Ashing-gyee,’ who was no other than the presiding Nat of the said pool.”