THE MONASTIC INSTITUTION OF BURMA AND ITS PHONGYS, THE BUDDHIST

PRIESTS.

BY DR. JIVANJI JAMSHEDJI MODI.

(Read on 28th June 1922).

I.

After attending, from the 28th January to the 1st of February 1922, the second Oriental Con

Introduction.

ference at Calcutta, to which I was nominated a Delegate by our Society and by the University of Bombay and some other Literary Societies, I had the pleasure of visiting the Oriental countries of Burma, the Malay Peninsula ruled over by England as Strait Settlements, Indo-China, including Cochin-China and Tonquin ruled over by the French, and China and Japan. My visit was a flying visit to some of the principal cities and towns of these countries. Though it was a visit of a globe trotter, it was undertaken with an eye to study with pencil and note-book in hand. I propose submitting before this and other societies some papers on my Notes of what I have seen, heard and read. This paper is one of such papers. The object of this brief paper is to submit a few notes on the Pongys or Phongys, the Buddhist priests of Burma. These Phongys are generally connected with the monasteries So, before speaking of them, I will first speak briefly on the Monastic Institution in general and the Monasteries of Burma in particular.

Monasticism.

II.

Monasticism or monachism (from monos, alone) literally means "living alone." It is an inclination in the mind of man to live alone, away from others, either temporarily or for a long time. When we say alone, away from others," it may be in the midst

66

of towns and cities, or far away from cities, in desert solitudel. Thus, we see that the monasteries, the seats or homes for persons of this kind of inclination, are both in the midst of cities as well as out of cities, in less frequented places. As said by Dr. Herbert B. Workman1, the root or the basic idea is that of a kind of "a yearning for self-surrender." He says: In every human heart, except, possibly, the utterly depraved, we find a yearning for self-surrender rising at times to a passion. Even in the worldling, buried deep beneath the deposits of self, there is an instinct he cannot explain, the power of which he may attempt to laugh away, that leads him, in spite of himself, in a moment of heroic decision to give his life a ransom for others. Few there are to whom there do not come at times visions of a nobler life.” Rev. A. F. Littledale says similarly: "The root-idea of monachism in all its varieties of age, creed, and country, is the same-namely, retirement from society in search of some ideal of life which society cannot supply, but which s thought attainable by abnegation of self and withdrawal from the world. This definition applies to all the forms of monachism which have left their mark on history, whether among Brâhinans, Buddhists, Jews, Christians or Moslems.?"

Monasticism ab. sent from Zoroastrianism.

III.

Rev. Littledale does not name among the people which had, or have, some forms of monasticism, the ancient Iranians or Zoroastrians. The idea of a kind of "self-surrender" is not absent from Zoroastrianism; nay, it is more than prevalent. A Zoroastrian is asked not to think much of 'self.' In the good of the community in general, he is to drown, his self.' Herodotus refers to this teaching when he says of the ancient Persians : 'He that sacrifices is not

1 The Evolution of the Monastic Ideal (Chap. I. Historic Survey of the Ideas of Monasticism), p. 3.

* Encyclopædia Britanica, 9th ed. Vol. XVI, p. 698 "Monachism.”

permitted to pray for blesings for himself alone; but he is obliged to offer prayers for the prosperity of all the Persians, and the king, for he is himself included in the Persians." He is to pray for all men.2 But the idea of retirement from society" is foreign to his mind. He is to seek a kind of self-surrender," but that not for his 'self' but for the self' of society.' So, in order to do so, he must remain in the midst of society. If that kind of "self-surrender," selfsurrender in the midst of cociety, was the basic root of monasticism, Zoroastrianism had no objection to it. To try to be "unworldly" in the midst of the "world" is one thing; to be "unwordly "out of the world is another thing. Like the king Janaka3 of the Indian story, one can lead such a life of selfsurrender, remaining at the same time in the midst of society. Such a self-surrender can be displayed in the midst of an active life. Again, this question of monasticism in relation to Zoroastrianism may be looked at from a general point of view. It leaves a broad field for views. It permits no extremes, no faddism of any kind, e.g., it does not enjoin fasting from any religious point of view, though it teaches moderation. Again, another reason why ancient Iran had no monastic institution, is, that the Zoroastrian religion of the country advocated marriage and prohibited celibacy.

1 Herodotus Bk., I, 132. H. Cary's Translation (1889) p. 60.

2 Vide my

66

Moral Extrets from Zoroastrian books," p. 27.

It is said of this king, that he led a monk's life and declared himself to be a monk. Some monks asserted that a king, living in the midst of all temptations of pleasure, &c., cannot live as a monk and cannot be a monk. King Janaka heard this and he once invited all the monks to his city as his guests. But he stipulated, that they all may come to the outskirts of his city and then enter the city, holding on their heads pitchers, full of water. They must reach his palace without spilling any water on their shoulders out of the brimful pitchers. If their shoulders were found wet with water spilt from the pitchers, they would subject themselves to punishment. The monks accepted the invitation, and collected themselves at the city gate. Then, they were given on their heads pitchers full of water upto the very brim. They all entered into the city and, looking straight before them, walked very slowly, steadily.

Celibacy is enjoined for a monastic life. We know of cases of marriage, or, what may be called, half-marriage among monks in spite of this injunction. For example, Dr. Workman speaks of "married monks living in outer cells' with their wives and children," at the monastery of Beth Abhé in 594 and of their being driven out. Dr. P. Smith2, while speaking of the clergy before the Reformation, says: "The vow of celibacy was too hard to keep for most men and some women; that many priests, monks and nuns, broke it cannot be doubted. A large proportion of the clergy was both wofully ignorant and morally unworthy. Besides the priests who had concubines, there were many given to drink and some who kept taverns, gaming rooms and worse places. Plunged in gross ignorance and superstition, these blind leaders of the blind who won great reputation as exorcists or as wizards were unable to understand the Latin Service or creed in any language." But in spite of such occasional breaches of discipline, celibacy was a general rule and injunction in the monastic institution of the West.

In the East also, there were occasional breaches. I remember seeing a woman in one of the three Tibetan gumpás or monas

and carefully, so as not to spill any water on their shoulders from the
pitchers over their heads. They looked straight, lest any attempt to
see the city on the right or the left may spill the water. Thus, they all
reached the royal palace, and were welcomed by Janaka, who then asked
them how they liked his city. They all replied: "Sire! We have
seen nothing of your city. We looked straight and walked, lest looking
either to the right or to the left may cause any spilling of water, which,
you said, should not be the case." The king was pleased with the
answer and said:
"I had made that stipulation, to show to you that
just as, while walking through a crowded city where people had assembed
to see ou coming to the palace in procession, you looked straight and
did not look to the right or to the left to avoid a mishap, so I, as a
king, though I live in a city and in a palace in the midst of a number
of temptations, always try to look straight, and, unmoved by wordly
things here and there, lead a true monk's pious life."

1 Evolution of Monastic Idea," by Dr. Workman, p. 55, n. 4.
"The age of the Reformation," by Dr. P. Smith, p. 25.

teries round Darjeeling, and was surprised to learn, that she was kept by one of the Lamas. On speaking to them of the injunction of celibacy, I was told: "Buddha said: 'Do not marry.' So, we do not marry, but keep." But, in spite of such cases, celibacy is the general rule. But, in Zoroastrianism, according to the Vendidad, married life is held generally to be a virtuous life. All the clergy and the laity are required to marry. Ahura Mazd himself is spoken of as prefering a married man to an unmarried one, a man with children to one without children. So monasticism, which enjoins celibacy, can have no room in Zoroastrianism. Though we read Christian monasteries being tolerated in Persia,-e.g., Firdousi in his account of the reign of Yazdazard, speaks of a Christian monastery whose good monks saw the dead body of the murdered king and bemoaned his loss-we read nowhere, either in Parsee books or in other books, of a Zoroastrian monastery in Persia.

of

IV.

Monasteries, though mostly dissolved in

Monasticism in Christianity.

Protestant

countries, still exist in many parts of Europe,1 and Western Asia. Mr. Harry Charles

Lukach,2 in his chapter on "the Monasteries of the Levant," gives us an interesting account of the Monasteries of St. Luke in Stiris, Meteora and Mount Athos. What he says of some monasteries reminds us of what we read 'and know of some Lamesaries of Tibet, and monasteries of Burmah. His mention of the following facts principally reminds us of the similarity:

Some monasteries had a few monks, and some had a very large number.

1 I had the pleasure of visiting the great monastery of Chartreuse at Naples in July 1889.

2 The Fringe of the East. A Journey through Past and Present provinces of Turkey (1913) pp. 6-32.