The Sangha and the State: The Ideal Relationship according to Buddhist Monks in

Classical India

Ancient Buddhist Thought: Final Exam Spring 2010

Scott Abel

The two most preeminent institutions of the Classical Era in India ideally

coordinated in the hopes of creating a harmonious society so that people may seek

enlightenment. The institutions described are the Classical Indian state and the Buddhist

monastery as described by the Buddhist monastery’s ideal church-state relationship. In

early Theravada Buddhist doctrine, the king or the state primarily dealt with secular

doctrine, whereas the monastic orders preserved the Dhamma and promoted deeds of

merit. The structure of this essay will include an examination the ideal characteristics of

a Buddhist king, observations about the ideal church-state relationship, and

interpretations of anecdotes involving Buddhist kings and ecclesiastical figures. This

essay will argue that during the Classical Era of India, Buddhist ideals required the

monastic order, or the Sangha, to maintain a balanced relationship with the state in which

both institutions remained separate but mutually dependent for support. This essay will

also argue that each institution possessed specific obligations that include the

preservation of the Buddhist society and keep to Theravada Buddhism pure. Although

the Buddhist doctrine that is about the relationship between the Sangha and the state is

ancient, its relevance remains important in the modern era.

In modern Burma, Buddhism and the Sangha continue to play an important role in

state affairs. Many of the ideals promoted in the post-colonial era recall similar concepts

and ideas established in early Buddhism. Prime Minister U Nu, a pious Burmese

1

Buddhist, expanded the importance of Buddhism through various measures during his

tenure as the prime minister of an independent Burma after the final of British colonial

government departed. He promoted Buddhism through various means by convening the

sixth Buddhist Council in 1954, supporting institutions such as the Ecclesiastical Courts,

and Pali-language universities to translate Buddhist texts. U Nu brought the Sangha

closer to state functions by paying for the restoration and building of Buddhist structures

and establishing Buddhism as the state religion in 1962 with much support from the

Sangha.1 During military junta rule over Myanmar, Buddhist monks marched against the

rise in fuel prices in August 2007 in the Sapphron Revolution. Three hundred monks

defied the state by marching in the town Sittwe, Myanmar.2 The protesters, led by monks

and democratic supporters, throughout the country in total amounted to the tens of

thousands. The junta, however, quashed the protests, leaving thirteen dead and countless

people arrested.3 The protest symbolizes the monks’ ability to object to the legitimacy of

the government, but without being overly involved in politics. The ideal relationship

established in the ancient Buddhist texts remains relevant in modern times as monks can

be influential to fellow Buddhists.

The ideal Buddhist king and state needed to possess certain characteristics that

embodied the virtues of the Buddhist Dhamma, in other words, the ideal king followed a

strict code of conduct established by Buddhist thought. The ideal king concept arose

from a series of legendary kings who became known as the Cakkavatti king, which

1 Melford Spiro, Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese Vicissitudes, (New York: Harper and Row, 1970), 379, 385.2 The Associated Press, “Captive Nation: A token release from a growing gulag,” The Economist, Feb. 18, 2010, print edition.3 Central Intelligence Agency, “Burma,” CIA World Factbook, April 7, 2010, www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html (accessed April 2010).

2

translates into English as the “wheel-turning” king.4 According to the Buddha, an ideal

king must have certain characteristics that allow him to rule his kingdom in a manner that

preserves order and promotes prosperity. The Buddha proclaimed that people in the

beginning chose the first kings to rule over and protect them in return for a proportion of

the people’s rice. The king instituted justice to maintain a fair and civil society, while

remaining competent, congenial, and even good-looking. Ideally, the king possessed the

thirty-two characteristics that are also signs of a buddha, as the king was essentially a

buddha’s secular counterpart.5 According to the Buddha, the ideal king should possess a

personality of kindness, responsibility, and a strong sense of justice.

Other sources explained what the virtues of the ideal king were and what the

punishments were for a king who neglected his duties, which sometimes embodied the

more Vedic concepts in Buddhist ideology. The anecdotes from the Jataka gave the king

ten specific obligations demanded from the Bodhisattva. The obligations included

generosity to those in need, remaining morally upright, and to be unselfish in his capacity

as king. In his work, the king had to maintain his integrity, truthfulness, and remain

gentle with the population by implanting policy without causing injury. He must also

maintain self-control, calmness, patience, and virtue.6 The Jataka required that the ideal

king, in summation, follow the Buddhist concept of Dhamma. Should a king stray from

it, Brahmin priests and Buddhist monks could help the king find the proper path.7 As

there was no single Buddhist ideal for the king, each region with a Buddhist influence

developed their own ideologies.

4 Peter Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, (New York: Cambridge UP, 2000), 114. 5 Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 114.6 Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 115.7 Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 115.

3

Another source, the Mahavastu, depicted the ideals of kingship with dire

consequences should a king become unrighteous. The Mahavastu focused more on the

role of the king as the arbiter of justice and an effective ruler. A king should remain calm

and impartial in his judgment while refusing sensual indulgences. An ideal king had just

social policies that allow immigrants into his lands and supports the impoverished, while

protecting the wealthy. In his domestic affairs, the king should act responsibly in regard

to his treasury and granary and while in his foreign affairs remain friendly to other kings.

The kingdom and the universe will fall into chaos if the king should stray from his

obligations, resulting in the suffering of his people.8 In the case of the Mahavastu, the

king’s obligations combined the governmental and the spiritual, as the Vedic tradition

mentioned in the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. The Vedic Dharma placed the king

as Dharma’s regent and enforcer, which adds a divine aspect to his rule.9 The

intertwining of the divine and the regal speaks of Vedic influences in this particular case,

as the king must rule properly or the world may suffer because of his ineptitude.

The other aspects of ancient Theravada Buddhist traditions perspective of an ideal

king focused less on divinity and more upon the practice of the rule of morality or

Dhamma. Symbolism in the ordination ceremony for monks ritualistically places all

people equally in front of Dhamma, which united the political and religious aspects of

society. Kamma treats all people equally and punishes unwholesome deeds and rewards

meritorious deeds to perpetrators regardless of their status in society. Kamma vindicates

all inequality in the physical realm through previous actions as punishments or rewards.10

8 Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 115.9 Ainslie Embree, Sources of Indian Tradition: From the Beginning to 1800, (New York: Columbia U. P., 1988), 210.10 Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 20-21.

4

All people, including the king, must eventually answer to Kamma, which justifies and

legitimizes the Buddhist social structure. Should a king violate the rules of the Dhamma,

he could expect a punishment in time, therefore, he should rule within the Dhamma.

The ideal Classical Buddhist society rested on stability provided by the

institutions of church and state through mutual support and a balance of influences. In a

triangle of balances between the state with the king as its head, the Sangha, and the

general public, each entity had specific obligations to the other. Dana, an important ideal

of Buddhism, requires Buddhists to give material goods such as clothes or food.11 Two

texts, the Mahavamsa and Culavansa explain how a king granted titles of rank and gold

to monks who made the Sangha prosper. The ideal state required the king to offer

donations to the Sangha including material goods, favors, gold, and people right up to the

king. Even the state itself could be donated to the Sangha in a symbolic manner. The

king or his ministers would purchase people and the state back from the Sangha. The

state, often represented as an umbrella, was the only donation that could be given back

from the Sangha without being purchase.12 The king also had watch over the monasteries

of the Sangha to ensure they did not collapse by bringing in more monks and giving them

more land whenever necessary.13 The Dhamma obliged Buddhist kings to maintain the

balance of society by donating wealth to the Buddhist monastery and preserving the

Sangha.

11 John Strong, “Rich Man, Poor Man, Bhikku, King: Quinquennial Festival and the Nature of Dana,” Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 108.12 Steven Kemper, “Wealth and Reformation in Sinhalese Buddhist Monasticism,” Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 155-156.13 Kemper, “Wealth and Reformation,” 158.

5

In return for the king’s gifts to the Sangha, he received certain rights that gave

him extensive power over the monasteries. The king had the power to reform the

monasteries to his liking when less than five monks lived in the Order. Although this

may entail giving the monks more land, he had the right to unify the monks and

command them to obey Buddhist principles. When necessary, the king expelled laymen

from the monastery. The most important thing the king received in return for all his

obligations to the Sangha was its support for his regime. By accepting the king’s

donations, the Sangha legitimized the king as the ruler of the territory. If monastery

disfavored the king excessively, he simply could forego his obligation to recognize the

monastery’s boundaries and refuse to protect it. To refuse the king’s gifts by inverting

their bowls was the most harm the monks and nuns could legally inflict.14 By inverting

their bowls, the monks and nuns questioned the legitimacy of the king’s reign, which

might lead the Buddhist population to do the same. The king would ideally seek the

advice of the monks if they refuse his donations or even if the Sangha itself needed

purification.15 The idealized relationship between Sangha and the king gave the state

specific duties in return for the prize of legitimacy. The relationship also required a

balance of power between the Sangha and the state so that the Sangha does not neglect its

duties and the king may know when he has gone astray in his rule.

A monarchy was not the only government system that the Buddha considered to

preserve his ideals. Ultimately, the ideal society was free of poverty and peaceful, along

with a Buddhist as its leader, who did not have to be a monarch. The Buddha approved

of the republic government system during his lifetime and even made suggestions to 14 Kemper, “Wealth and Reformation,” 158, 159.15 Robin Lovin, “Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology: Buddhist and Christian Strategies for Change,” Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 197-198.

6

preserve the Vajjian Republic. He mentioned that people should assemble often

peacefully, maintain proceedings according to tradition, and allow the elders the right to

speak at the assemblies, along with actually respecting their opinions. Even when the

Buddha could see the republic disappearing to the power of the kingdoms, he spoke of

preserving the ideals of mutual respect and assembly-based decision making. In regard to

religion, the Buddha encouraged the reverence of the Vijjian shrines, while maintaining

their ancestor’s support for the shrines.16 Although the Buddha made no specific mention

of the relationship between the Sangha and the republic, his principles suggest that

individuals donate their wealth to religious figures and institutions so that they may be

preserved.

An ideal Buddhist society could not exist if chaos ruled and therefore people

needed a government to ensure order. In order to achieve nibbana or enlightenment, a

person needed to depend on the rest of society. To advance this cause, each person

needed to help maintain a wholesome community because a secure and tranquil society

permitted monks and laymen alike to focus on bringing nibbana. In times of anarchy and

chaos, people became distracted from their goal of achieving nibbana. Monks may only

bring about security through tolerance and without the use of violence.17 Political leaders

and government administrators may assist people in need, but this did not necessarily

reflect the ideal situation. The government must, however, enforce the laws of Dhamma

to prevent people from going astray.18 Governments must ensure order in the state so that

the Sangha and the rest of society may continue to pursue enlightenment.

16 Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 113-114.17 Phra Rajavaramuni, “Foundation of Buddhist Ethics,” Russell Sizemore and Donald Swearer eds, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A Study in Buddhist Social Ethics, (Columbia, SC: U. of South Carolina P, 1990), 36-37.18 Rajavaramuni, “Foundation of Buddhist Ethics,” 38.

7

The Sangha also has obligations toward the state and its people, which bring

monks and nuns into interdependence with the rest of society. The Sangha was not to

dominate the king or his policies, rather, in the best of circumstances a monk may speak

for the king or the king may allow for a monk sit upon the throne for an ordination

ceremony. In general, the Sangha remained detached from the state by refusing to

intervene in daily politics.19 Rather, monks and nuns preserved the Dhamma and spread

it to those who have not accepted it.20 While the secular world maintained its routines,

the monks and nuns reminded society of the ultimate goal of people’s existence. The

Sangha gave the Dhamma to society as a gift because it led to the ultimate salvation and

solved the problems of physical existence.21 Essentially, the ecclesiastical Sangha had

the duty to explain Dhamma and ideally did not involve itself in politics, which it left to

the king. In return for salvation for the masses and legitimacy for the king, the Sangha

required their material support.

Monks and nuns have other obligations to the Sangha and the state that are more

difficult to define, but still important. Monks and nuns must not become attached to their

wealth or misuse it because their misconduct damages the Sangha and even the state.

Disruptions caused by misconduct within the Sangha may result in social disorder.22 If

monks and nuns ceased to be pious, failed to exemplify Dhamma, and corrupted the

Sangha, society may follow their example. Without the purity of the Sangha and the

maintenance of the Dhamma, the Sangha might fracture and nibbana may be lost to all.

Therefore, the Sangha needed the king to step in when necessary to keep the Sangha pure

to preserve the Dhamma and legitimize the king’s occasional role in ecclesiastical affairs. 19 Lovin, “Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology,” 197.20 Lovin, “Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology,” 198.21 Lovin, “Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology,” 206.22 Sizemore and Swearer, Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation, 17.

8

Even in times of unity, the Sangha needed the state to maintain its possessions

and position in society. In one instance, probably replicated other times, a wealthy

layman wanted to bequeath his estate to the Sangha through a written will just before he

died, which the state permitted. As part of an informal agreement during instances such

as these, the monastic community admitted the childless man on the verge of death as

part of their order to care for him until he died. The donor or “shaven-head householder”

could remain at his estate until his death, upon which the Sangha anticipated it would

receive his estate. The state officially sanctioned the transactions where the Sangha

acquired estates bequeathed by dying wealthy men.23 The state allowed monasteries to

obtain estates from heirless men, which the state could have determined belonged to it.

Rather, the state allowed the Sangha to gain much from the legacy of the wealthy,

perhaps out of respect for the wishes of the deceased and the Sangha.

The interaction regarding inheritance between the Sangha and the state

exemplified the significance of the contradictions between Buddhist and Vedic laws and

the established of legal precedent as established by the king. One important precedent

regarding inheritance between the laws of the Buddha and the Vedic laws involved a

dispute between the king’s ministers and the Buddha. With the death of a monk owning

a large estate named Upananda, government ministers sought to seize his estate while

monks closed his chamber with the royal seal. The Buddha, cognizant of the situation,

dispatched Ananda to speak with the king regarding the inheritance of Upananda.

Ananda questioned the king on the existence of a relationship with Upananda, which the

king did not. After his questioning, Ananda convinced the king to agree that the

23 Gregory Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on Monastic Buddhism in India, (Ann Arbor, MI: The Institute of Buddhist Traditions, 2004), 11.

9

deceased monk’s possessions belonged to the monastic community. Furthermore, the

two established the legal separation of the king’s secular affairs and the affairs of the

monastic community.24 The Upananda incident showed the influence of the Buddha and

his disciples in allowing for the Sangha to establish its legal independence from the

government.

The system of inheritance did not always work exactly to the interests of the state

and ultimately the king decided what would be confiscated when a man without heirs

died. In one case, a householder wanted to join a monastery and started the training

required for ordination. When the householder fell ill, his training stopped as monastic

rules prohibited the ordination of the ill. The would-be monk returned home to recover

with attendants from the monastery, but his condition worsened and he willed his estate

to the monastery. When he died, the state became interested in collecting his estate as he

was a sonless man, which according to Indian law, permitted the king to seize the estate.

The king declared, however, that the Buddha’s law permitted the Sangha to take the

estate as secular laws did not apply in this situation.25 The instances involving the deaths

of the householders showed the clear legal distinction between the state and the Sangha

as separate institutions. The latter account also suggests that ecclesiastical law held

precedence over secular law according to the early Buddhist ideal, but ultimately the king

mediated between the interests of the Sangha and the state.

The monks’ and nuns’ legal claim to the properties of householders had limits

because they lacked any legitimate claim to properties in certain circumstances. A

vihara, or house,26 may be donated to a monastery by a secular layperson without 24 Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, 311-312.25 Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, 103-104.26 Stanley Wolpert, “Krishnamurti, Jiddu,” ? Stanley Wolpert ed., Encylcopedia of India, Vol. 3., (Detroit: Charles Scribner’s Son, 2006), 42-43.

10

formally handing the ownership of the property to the monastery. In one instance, the

king confiscated a vihara owned by a layperson and inhabited by monks. Despite the

pleas of the owners to do something about the seizure, the monks remained silent to the

owner and requested instructions from the monastery in regard to procedures for

abandoning the site.27 This instance clearly shows the king had the to right to seize the

property even when the owners remained alive and with monks residing on the property.

Even if the monks had legal recourse, perhaps a direct appeal to the king, they remained

silent. Ultimately, according to the Buddhist ideals, the king interpretted and enforced

inheritance and property laws, but the ideal king would remain faithful to the Buddhist

tradition.

The king had proper recourse if monks acted to his disliking by working with the

Sangha to establish new rules. In one anecdote, a monk meditated in the forest while

securing his legs closed to avoid any personal indiscretions with a goddess in the forest.

Having discovered the monk with his legs closed, the goddess angered by his gesture,

threw him into the air. Unfortunately, the monk, with legs still secured, landed on top of

the king sleeping on his palace roof. The king voiced his displeasure to the Buddha about

the monk’s nighttime behavior, resulting in the prohibition against forest meditation.28

Although the story may seem fanciful, it reveals a significant part of the relationship

between the Sangha and the state. The monk, although if his story is to believed did

nothing wrong, offended the king in the middle of the night at his own palace, which

required a measure to ensure such an incident never happened again. The king, rather

than directly reforming the monk’s rules, requested the Buddha address the situation.

27 Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, 181.28 Schopen, Buddhist Monks and Business Matters, 26.

11

Such actions show a clear separation between the king’s authority and the Sangha, while

showing that neither the state nor the Sangha possessed immediate authority over the

other.

A king may decide to remove the influence of the Buddha from his kingdom, but

in doing so he risks isolating himself from his people. According to the Pancavarsika,

the mischievous Devadatta convinced King Ajatasattu of Rajagaha to forbid his people

from listening to the Buddha or his monks and Devadatta also convinced the king not to

allow his people to give any alms or donations to the Buddha and his monks. The king’s

people become distressed at losing their opportunity to learn about the Dhamma and

complained that the Buddha, along with his disciples, would have to leave to request alms

elsewhere. Hearing such pleas, the god Indra left heaven to console the king’s subjects

and to support the Buddha, along with the Sangha. Although the god vowed to feed them

for five years, the Buddha reduced it to five days for ritual reasons. Indra’s divine

powers turn the town of Venuvana, where the Buddha stayed, into a palace where

spiritual entities served the Sangha. The king enticed by the divinity and good treatment

of the monks, permits himself and his people to enter the divine palace, where gods and

men listen to the Buddha and his Dhamma.29 This incident shows the relationship

between the populace, the king, and the Sangha with a few other characters involved.

Even though the king unjustly cuts off his kingdom’s relationship with the Sangha, the

Buddha made no attempt to force the king to accept the Dhamma and did not attempt to

supersede the king’s authority. Even when faced with the prospect starvation, the Sangha

remains in Venuvana. The upset populace remained peaceful and obedient to the king’s

29 Harvey, An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics, 113.

12

wishes. The situation resolved itself when divine forces sway the king from Devadatta to

listen to the Dhamma.

The previously mentioned incident in Venuvana is not the only instance of Vedic

influences as another king erred in his judgment in regard to the Dhamma. According to

some Buddhist traditions, the violation of Dhamma created dire circumstances for the

kingdom. In one such case, King Kanakavarna, ruler of a vast kingdom called

Jambudvipa, meditated on the subject of taxation, duties, and customs. Concluding from

his meditation that they were unwarranted, the king decreed an end to all forms of

taxation and government fees. The results were disastrous as the cosmos misaligned,

causing a twelve-year drought in Jambudvipa. The king, concerned over the possibility

of famine, confiscated his kingdoms food and distributed it evenly for eleven years. By

the twelfth year, the king only possessed one unit of food left and his kingdom remained

on the brink of starvation. Fortunately, a bodhisattva mystically flew to the palace and

received an audience with the king. The bodhisattva requested the last unit of food and

the king complied. As a result, the sky rained, releasing the kingdom from poverty and

the specter of starvation.30 The story of King Kanakavarna informs the reader about the

roles of the state and the Sangha.

King Kanakavarna administered his kingdom improperly, nearly resulting in the

death of his people. The king strayed from his obligations to his kingdom by meditating,

a task that should be left to others. The king’s actions of no taxes and complete

redistribution of wealth caused discord as it distorted merit and the market economy. The

king’s duty is to permit others to achieve enlightenment.31 The king’s distribution of

30 Andy Rotman, “Marketing Morality: The Economy of Faith in Early Buddhism,” 200, www.smith.edu/religion/documents/rotman-marketingmorality.pdf, 4-5.31 Rotman, “Marketing Morality,” 7-9.

13

wealth failed to accumulate merit as it is the goal of the Sangha to help society gain

merit. Merit only accrued once the king gave food to the bodhisattva, which saved the

kingdom. The king should offer dana to spiritual people such as a bodhisattva or a

monastery. The story clearly distinguished the roles of the political figures and the

spiritual figures, who both contribute to a Buddhist society. The state collects taxes and

administers order, whereas the Sangha deals with spiritual matters such as the collection

of merit.

One historical king, Asoka, also appears in Buddhist texts as a legendary king

who donated generously to the Sangha. The legendary Asoka became an ideal Buddhist

king through his acts of generosity to the Sangha. In one particular incident, Asoka’s son

obligated Asoka to outbid his donation to the Sangha. Asoka tripled his son’s donation

by giving the Sangha his family, ministers, himself, and kingship, leaving only the royal

treasury. Using finance from the state treasury, the ministers bought back the king’s

donations for 400,000 pieces of gold, which allowed the king to recover the throne and

renewed him spiritually. The incident reinforced the distinction between the state and the

Sangha.32 Asoka’s generosity and willingness to hand the kingdom over to the Sangha

also showed an ideal balance between the Sangha and the state. The Sangha cannot

intervene in secular affairs and therefore cannot rule, whereas the legendary Asoka

cannot directly move the people toward enlightenment.

The ideal relationship between the Sangha and the state remained one of balance,

as neither could directly nor permanently dominate the other. Robin Lovin claims that

the ideal Buddhist king possessed authority over both the Sangha and the secular realm.33

32 Strong, “Rich Man, Poor Man, Bhikku, King,” 110-112.33 Lovin, “Ethics, Wealth, and Eschatology,” 205.

14

His analysis of the Buddhist ideal, however, requires that the Sangha always submit to

the will of the king and integrates with the state at some level. Neither is the case, as the

Buddhist monks ideally submit to the king when their order is clearly in need of reform.

Furthermore, many anecdotes clearly separate secular law and the law of the Sangha,

leaving king to deal with the material world and usually not in the affairs of the Sangha.

An ideal or Cakkavatti king could not violate precedent established by Buddhist tradition,

therefore limiting his rule to the secular realm. The ancient Buddhist texts simply do not

support the placement of the king as leader of the Sangha and the secular kingdom in

classical India.

The ideal relationship between the Sangha and the state in Classical India required

that the two entities remain separate, along with instituting a system of balances to ensure

that neither could meddle in the affairs of the other. Ultimately, the ideal king ruled by

the Dhamma, whereas the Buddhist monks and nuns instructed and preserved the

Dhamma for the public. Both institutions supported each other to ensure the preservation

of the Dhamma and the maintenance of the status quo. The king received advice and

legitimacy from the Sangha, while the Sangha received dana and purification from the

king. Should the ideal relationship exist between the Cakkavatti king and the Sangha, the

general population may reach nibbana much sooner.

15

Works Cited

Central Intelligence Agency. “Burma.” CIA World Factbook, April 7, 2010. www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bm.html (accessed April

2010).

Embree, Ainslie ed. Sources of Indian Tradition: From the Beginning to 1800.

New York: Columbia U. Press, 1988.

Harvey, Peter. An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics. New York: Cambridge UP,

2000.

Rotman, Andy. “Marketing Morality: The Economy of Faith in Early Buddhism.”

2009. www.smith.edu/religion/documents/rotman-marketingmorality.pdf.

Schopen, Gregory. Buddhist Monks and Business Matters: Still More Papers on

Monastic Buddhism in India. Ann Arbor: The Institute for the Study of Buddhist

Traditions, 2004.

Sizemore, Russell and Swearer, Donald ed. Ethics, Wealth, and Salvation: A

Study in Buddhist Social Ethics. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1990.

Spiro, Melford. Buddhism and Society: A Great Tradition and Its Burmese

Vicissitudes. New York: Harper and Row, 1970.

16