The Counting Stick (Salaka) and
the Majority /Minority Rule
in the Buddhist
Community
Hubert Durt
Membre de l'Ecole Frangaise d'Extreme-Orient
The present study is an abstract of my article Chu 壽"(Skr. Salaka, pali salaka, Stick) to be published in the Vth issue of the Hobogirin 法 宝 義 林, a French language dictionary about Sino-Japanese Buddhist terminology. The ob-ject of this research is an attempt to study diachronically a few rules we can find in the earliest Codes of Discipline (Vinaya) as well as in the more recent
Pure Regulations (Shinigi清 規) of the Zen Sect. All those rules treat the topic
of counting sticks.
I will insist here on the juridical use of those counting sticks, i. e. their use in determining a majority when a contested decision has to be taken ; also, the relative importance attached' either to individual opinion or, in other cases, to the unanimity of the Buddhist Community (Samgha). What will matter are the cases when the stick is the way to express a personal will and can thus be compared to the ostrakon of Greek democracy and the ballot of the modern polls.
Dealing mostly with the Pali Vinayal) and its commentary: the Samantapa-sadika2), the fragments of the different Sanskrit Vinaya3) and with the Vinaya of the various schools kept in Chinese translation4), we can see that there
1) (abbr. P. V.) ed. Oldenberg, 5 vol., repr. Pali Text Society, London 1964. 2) ed. Takakusu, Nagai, Mizuno, 7 vol., P. T. S. 1924-1947; Chinese Translation
(C.): Taisho Daizokyo XXIV N 1462.
3) Mulasarvastivadavinaya in Nalinaksha Dutt, Gilgit Manuscripts III. 4, Calcutta 1950; Mahasamghikavinaya in B. Jinananda, Abhisamacarika, K. P. Jayaswal stitute, Tibetan Sanskrit Works Series, vol. IX, Patna 1969.
(29) The Counting Stick (Salaka) and the Majority/Minority rule(H. Durt) existed in Ancient India a rather broad use of the sticks : from a medical or hygienical usage to the uses of counting or voting.
When used for counting, the sticks are said to have been employed in several different ways: like a calendar, recording the date of the Uposatha ceremony5) and also as devices helping the recitant to remember the hundreds of minor rules6). They were definitely mnemotechnical objects at the origin. At a more developed stage, counting sticks seem to have been used as a kind of abacus7). All those uses are quantitative: sticks help to do additions. They are not restricted to the Samgha but appear to have been known in the secular world, in particular in case of famine, as is shown by the word salakavrtti and its interesting explanations which would lead too far in the present context.
There could be also qualitative uses, when the sticks were employed to ex-press different opinions. In that case, additions were made of counting sticks of various forms or colours. This use seems alse to have been known outside the Samgha, as is shown by the account of the submission of the town of Kapilavastu by King Virudhaka.
As is well known, it is after a consultation made through voting sticks that the Sakyaputra decided to submit themselves to their arch-enemy. This decision, contrary to the wish of the Buddha, was in fact the result of the devil's intri-gue. Following one tradition8), Mara voted several times ; following another tradition), Mara took the disguise of a respectable elder and, casting the first ballot, he influenced the votes of the people following him. The consequences of this rigged vote were catastrophic for the people of Kapilavastu.
4) Mahisasaka (V. M-): T. XXII N 1421; Mahasamghika (V. Msg.): T. XXII N 1425; Dharmaguptaka (V. Dh.): T. XXII N 1428; Sarvastivadin (V. S-): T. XXIII N 1435; Mulasarvastivadin (V. MS.) : T. XXIII N 1442-XXIV N 1451. 5) V. Msg. xxxiv p. 499c.
6) V. Msg. xxvii p. 448a; cm. T. XL N 1804 i. 4 p. 35a.
7) T. XXIX N 1558 xx p. 104c; E. de La Vallee Poussin, L'Abhidharmakosa de Vasubandhu, repr. Melanges Chinois et Bouddhiques, vol. XVI, Bruxelles 1971, vol. iv, p. 54.
8) V. M. xxi p. 141b; V. Dh. xii p. 860c. 9) V. MS. T. XXIV N 1451 ix p'. 241a.
The Counting Stick (9alaka) and the Ma jority/Minority rule (H. Durt) (30)
***In the regulations of the Vinaya, the use of counting sticks is stipulated in two fixed cases : at the ceremonies like Uposatha, Varsa and Pravarana, which are a part of the daily routine of the Community ; and at the meeting for "appeasement of quarrel", Adhikaranasamatha, which happens only in excep -tional circumstances.
At Uposatha, it is the quantitative aspect of counting sticks which is predo-minant. One counts the members of the Community, with an eventual distinc-tion between ordained monks and novices. It is not only a way to control the monks present at an obligatory reunion but also a way to settle the number of rations in the distribution of food or clothings which takes place often at the occasion of an Uposatha reunion. It is in those cases of distribution that we see the sticks used as a kind of ration ticket.
On another side, one of the eight methods called adhikaranasamatha which are approved to solve a dispute inside the Samgha is to refer to the opinion of the majority of the Community. It is a method to use in the last extremities, when all the other methods have failed. As it is necessary to know which opinion got the highest quantity of votes, there is here a qualitative aspect which prevails by comparison with the Uposatha's counting.
As we have seen by the account of the vote in Kapilavastu and as we will see in different accounts from the history of the early Samgha, this method was potentially very dangerous as it could lead to the worst calamity for a community : the formation of a schism.
This explains why the use of sticks in order to settle a dispute is so cautiously treated in the Vinaya. The Community had to be suspicious about a method whose result is not known by advance. Therefore to assure power to orthodoxy, some rules even go so far as to recommend the heaviest pressures and even the falsification of the result of an unwelcome vote. It appears clearly that the nominal object of the vote, i. e. to determine a majority, is diverted to its real object which is the reinforcement of orthodoxy.
To refer to a vote as a last resort was definitely a double-edged weapon. There is a tendency, in the Codes of Discipline as well as in the historical
-468-(31) The Counting Stick (Salaka) and the Majority/Minority rule (H. Durt) accounts, to minimize the usefulness of this method and to stress its negative aspects. From a comparative study of the rules of vote in the different Vinaya, it is possible to reach the following conclusions
I The Pali Vinaya does not take the use of salaka ' at the Posadha (I, p. 117) much into account but concentrates on the adhikaranasamatha (II, p. 98-99). The Samantapasadika (VI, p. 1198, C. xviii p. 796c) gives, in order to consolidate the othodox clan, savoury indications which Sukumar Dutt10) compared to the electoral frauds of modern times.
2 The Mahzsasaka Vinaya, though more developed on Uposatha regulations (xviii p. 123a), is as usual, rather close to the Pali Vinaya, as we can see for adhikaranasamatha (xxiii p. 154-155a).
3 About the adhikaranasamatha, the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (xlviii p. 919a-b) presents what seems the most equilibrated prescriptions. This particular aspect of this Vinaya seems to have fallen into oblivion in China though this Vinaya became the most widely followed in that country. On another side, this Vinaya does not neglect the Uposatha regulations (xxxv p. 818c-819a).
4 Again about adhikaranasamatha, the Sarvastivadavinaya, generally the
most juridical of all the Vinaya, gives, in two passages (xx p. 146b-c, xxxv p. 254b-c) a rash and probably incomplete summary.
5 Both Mahasamghika Vinaya and Mulasarvastivadavinaya give a very cere-monial character to the use of sticks at the Uposatha (V. Msg. xxxiv p. 499b, Abhisamacarika, pp. 3, 6-7, 10-11) and at the Varsa (V. MS. N 1445 p. 1041b-c, N 1458 vii p. 564b-c, Gilgit Mss. III. 4, p. 133). The same Codes of Discipline show a very negative attitude attitude toward the use of sticks in case of appeasement of conflict. The Mulasarvastivadin barely mention the explanation of this method and only in the Sangraha of *Visesa (T. XXIV N 1458 xiv p. 608a) and in the Karika of *Vasakha (T. XXIV N 1459 ii p. 645b). The Maha-samghika show an attitude of distrust towards it and, even, in some cases, recommend brutality to suppress an unwelcome vote (xiii p. 334b-c).
Ironically enough, Fa Hien Mme, in his historical appendix to his translation
The Counting Stick (Salaka) and the Majority/Minority rule (H. Durt) (32) of this last work, reports that the Mahasamghika Sect, as indicated by its name, was precisely born from a majority gained through a referendum with voting sticks1l). The Mahasamghika were thus turning themselves against a method from which they had profited: an attitude which has also some modern flavour. Let us mention here that it is only the ceremonial aspect of the use of counting sticks at the Uposatha which has known further developement in
later periods in China and Japan, principally in the works of Tao Hsuan 道
宣 (T'ang 唐 Period)12) and Yuan Shao 元 照 (Sung 宋Period)13), representing the Nan Chan 南 山School of Discipline, and in the Ch'an 禅Sect's Ch'ing kuei
清 規, as, by example, the Shingi of Keizan 螢 山 (Kamakura鎌 倉Period)14). In this disappearance of probably the only instance where individual monks had voting power as well as in this progression toward ritualism, we can recognize an universal phenomenon which is the sclerosis of societies growing old. The use of voting sticks, even if potentially dangerous, was a part of the original dynamism of the Community.
Soon or later, this situation came to be considered as threatening for the existence of the Community. Any settlement through a numerical factor came to be seen more and more as contradictory to the other strict and inalterable rules of the Vinaya.
Regarding the problem of the preservation of the Community, we can detect reference to the counting sticks in the legendary treatment of four of the major crisis which affected the primitive Samgha : the schisms of Devadatta and Mahadeva, the First and the Second Council.
The schisms of Devadatta15) and Mahadeval6), reported in much the same legendary fashion, broke out after a vote generally described as taken with
11) ' V. Msg. xl p. 548b; T. LV N 2145 iii p. 20c-21a. 12) T. XL N 1804 i. 4 p. 34c-35b.
13) T. XL N 1805 i. 4 p. 233b-234a. 14) T. LXXXII N 2589 i p. 432a-433a.
15) P. V. II, p. 199; V. M. xxv p. 164b; V. Dh. xlvi p. 909b; V. S. xxxviii p. 265 a; V. MS. T. XXIV N 1450 xi p. 153bc, Gilgit Mss. III. 4 p. 249-250. 16) T. XXVII N 1545 ixc p. 511c; T. LII N 2300 v p. 456a.
(33) The Counting Stick (alaka) and the Majority/Minority rule (H. Durt) voting sticks. By a fatal, and probably volontary transfer, the schism was
partly blamed on the method of voting with sticks.
The accounts of the two Councils are both introduced by a tale of what seems to have been an act of preparatory purification : the trial of Ananda, preceding or, in a few records, following the First Council1?);the condamna-tion of the ten heresies of the ill-famed Vr jiputraka bhiksu, before the Second Council18).
In both cases, the counting sticks are employed with a purely mnemotechnical purpose: during the recital, one stick was put down for every failure of Ananda and for every one of the ten points of the Vr jiputraka. There is no mention Samgha concerning the interpretation to give to those failures or to those of a vote by the heresies. At the Ist Council, Kasyapa and, at the 2nd Council, Revata, Yasas (Yasoda) or Sambhoga have the authority to decide.
A significant difference between the two Councils is that, in the older one, Ananda's trial is said to have taken place in front of the assembly of the five hundred arhat, whereas the four synoptic Vinaya19) refer to the creation, at the more recent Council, of a committee of only nine, eight representatives and one referee, who are called up for the trial of Vr jiputraka's errors. The
practice of selecting a committee f o representatives of the Samgha is not unknown in the Codes of Discipline20), but this procedure at the 2nd Council seems to manifest an attitude of distrust toward the too numerous assembly of the "seven hundred".
Another interesting point is that when the use of counting sticks did not have a negative result, like the outbreak of a schism, but a positive one, like the success of the two Councils, this use of the sticks is represented in the 17) J. Przyluski, Le Concile de Rajagrha, Buddhica, Memoires vol. 1, Paris 1928, p. 257-278; A. Bareau, Les premiers Conciles bouddhiques, Annales du see Guimet, Bibliotheque d'etudes, vol. LX, Paris 1955, p. 7-15.
18) M. Hofinger, Etude sur le Concile de Van'ah, Bibliotheque du Museon, vol. XX, Louvain 1946, p. 197-212; A. Bareau, op. cit., p. 59-67.
19) P. V. II, p. 305-307; V. M. xxx p. 193c-194b; V. Dh. Iv p. 971a-b; V. S. lxi p. 453c-455c.
The Counting Stick (Salaka) and the Majority/Minority rule (H. Durt) (34) narration as something quite unimportant.
There might be also more than a coincidence in the fact, rather puzzling, that only the Vinaya of the Mahasamghika (xxxii p. 492a-b) and of the sarvastivadin (T. XXIV N° 1451 xxxix p. 404c-405c), whose authoritarian and ritualistic outlook had been pointed out above, mention these sticks in the trial of Ananda. As for the 2nd Council, however, those two don't mention the sticks at all and it is only the four synoptic Vinaya which report their use, restricted, as said before, to the committee in charge of the trial of Vr raka's errors.
Could the rite of putting down counting sticks at every "count of indictment" during the aforementioned trials be a residue of, what might have been a true consultation of the Community? If this hypothesis was correct. there could have been a tendency, in the compilation of the historical tradition about the primitive Samgha, to suppress episodes showing the rather free status of the Community at her first stage. The mention of the sticks could thus be the
remnant of the record of an authentic vote.
Though this last point is only an hypothesis, we know with certainty that there was a tendency, apparent both in the Vinaya regulations and in the history of the early Samgha, to enforce the authority of the leaders in order
to defend the existence of the Community. As a consequence, the juridical use of counting sticks seems to have been rather shortlived and was gradually
converted into a merely ritual gesture.
This process of ritualisation is the typical way of respecting a tradition without being bound by it: to eliminate the living content of a tradition by
reducing it to its formal aspect.
This is only a short and necessarily insufficent abstract of a study on one particular detail of the Vinaya regulations. However, I believe that this very limited study can help to illustrate the parallel growth of authoritarianism and ritualism inside the Buddhist Community, a phenomenon of some historical
interest.
