What about Rats? Buddhist Disciplinary Guidelines on Rats: Daoxuan’s Vinaya Commentaries

Abstract

Buddhist texts generally prohibit the killing or harming of any sentient being. However, while such a ban may seem straightforward, it becomes much more complex when annoying or dangerous animals are involved. This paper focuses on one such animal—the rat. These rodents feature prominently in monastics’ daily lives, so it should come as no surprise that both Indian and Chinese Buddhist masters pay attention to them. In the first part of the paper, we investigate the problems that rats can cause, how monastics deal with them, and what the authors-compilers of Buddhist vinaya (disciplinary) texts have to say about them. In the second part, we focus on how Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667)—one of the most prominent vinaya masters of the early Tang Dynasty—interprets the vinaya guidelines and their implementation in Chinese monasteries. As we will see, he raises a number of potential issues with regard to strict adherence to the Buddhist principles of no killing and no harming, and so reveals some of the problematic realities that he felt monastics faced in seventh century China.

1. Introduction

As is well known, Buddhism calls for the protection of all living beings, humans and animals alike. Yet, what at first sight may seem a straightforward stipulation becomes much more complicated in circumstances involving dangerous and/or annoying animals. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Buddhism’s monastic guidelines contain extensive advice on how to deal with such animals. This paper focuses on a particularly disturbing group of creatures—namely, rodents. First, it investigates early Indian vinaya (disciplinary) texts’ recommendations on the subject of rats and mice; then it explores how Chinese commentators, notably the vinaya master Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667), interpreted these instructions.1

In order to understand how early Indian disciplinary masters attempted to regulate monastics’ responses to rodents, we must look closely at the vinaya texts. There are six full, extant vinayas. Four of these survive only in Chinese translation; there are Chinese, Sanskrit and Tibetan versions of the fifth; and the sixth is extant only in the Pāli language. In chronological order of translation, the five Chinese vinayas are:2 the Shisong lü 十誦律 (T no. 1435, 23; Sarvāstivāda vinaya); the Sifen lü 四分律 (T no. 1428, 22; Dharmaguptaka vinaya); the Mohesengqi lü 摩訶僧祇律 (T no. 1425, 22; Mahāsāṃghika vinaya); the Mishasai bu hexi wufen lü 彌沙塞部和醯五分律 (T no. 1421, 22; Mahīśāsaka vinaya); and the Genbenshuoyiqieyou bu pinaiye 根本說一切有部毘奈耶 (T nos. 1442–1451, 23–24; Yijing’s 義 淨 (635–713) translation of large parts of the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya).3 The first four of these texts were translated in the fifth century CE, whereas Yijing translated the fifth much later, at the beginning of the eighth century. By then, however, a number of influential Buddhist masters had already started to promote the Dharmaguptaka vinaya; in consequence, this became the principal reference point for monastic discipline in China.4 Arguably the most important of these masters was the monk Daoxuan 道宣 (596–667), who wrote extensive commentaries and accounts in which he meticulously analyzed the vinaya guidelines and introduced them to Chinese audiences. He studied every vinaya translation that was available to him, and although he repeatedly stressed that the Dharmaguptaka vinaya was paramount, he urged his followers to consult the others when necessary (T no.1804, 40: 上 1.2b19–20). Information was thus, gleaned from various texts to inform a detailed exposition on the correct interpretation and implementation of Buddhist guidelines. Potential regional differences among the various traditions were consequently not considered, as all of the guidelines were regarded as the words of the Buddha himself. This paper focuses on Daoxuan’s most renowned commentary—Sifen lü shanfan buque xingshi chao 四分律刪繁補闕行事鈔, An Abridged and Explanatory Commentary on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (T no. 1804, 40).

In general, all of the Buddhist disciplinary texts, Indian and Chinese alike, regard every living being as a creature to be protected: that is, they should never be harmed or killed. However, they do permit humans to safeguard themselves against dangerous and/or annoying animals.5 When addressing the subject of dangerous animals, all of the vinaya texts focus primarily on snakes, which are often discussed in conjunction with scorpions, centipedes, and venomous insects. In addition, the Dharmaguptaka vinaya (T no. 1428, 22: 3.585b21–22, 3.586c5) defines places where there are tigers, wolves, lions, bears, and other “evil animals” (zhu e shou 諸惡獸), including ants, as “difficult” (nan 難).6 While these ferocious animals may pose a mortal danger to monastics, annoying creatures—especially insects, such as mosquitoes, flies, ants, and bedbugs—have the capacity to plague their lives on a daily basis.7 In this context, the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya advises monastics to avoid “dangerous” (jing 驚) places, which are defined as places that house thieves; “dreadful” (bu 怖) places that are inhabited by tigers, leopards, and wolves; and “perilous” (weinan 畏難) places that are blighted by mosquitoes and flies, snakes, and scorpions, or wind and heat (T no. 1442, 23: 24.756c18–20).8 Indeed, any environment where snakes, scorpions, insects, and/or ants congregate is deemed unsuitable for monks (T no. 1442, 23: 12.688b29–c1).

As we shall see in the first part of this paper, the vinayas are less restrictive on the subject of rats and mice, either or both of which may be meant by the term shu 鼠 in the Chinese translations. For instance, monasteries are not required to find locations that are entirely free of these creatures, nor relocate if they infest an established community. Instead, the vinayas provide recommendations on how to live alongside them, such as how to avoid or repair damage they may cause without harming the animals themselves. It is self-evident from these texts that rodents were pervasive in monastic buildings, so handling them was a daily concern. The presence of food in monasteries particularly attracts these annoying animals, and the damage they cause can be very substantial. It is as such no surprise that they are seen as a nuisance, and that measures need to be taken.

The second part of the paper focuses on how these guidelines were interpreted and extended in Tang China, particularly by Daoxuan. For instance, there was increasing domestication of dogs and cats around this time in China, often specifically for pest control, which led to a prohibition against Buddhists keeping them. Here again, rodents provoke strong antipathy, leading to intense discussions on the fate of these animals.

2. Rats in the Vinaya Texts

As mentioned, the Chinese translations of the vinaya texts do not differentiate between rats and mice, so hereafter, for the sake of simplicity, this paper will use the term “rats” in reference to both.9 As we will see, rats can cause a great deal of trouble in monastic communities: they eat leftover food, gnaw on clothes and mats, and make holes in the floor or walls. Moreover, they epitomize uncleanliness. Yet, Buddhism treats them in precisely the same manner as it treats all other animals: they should not be harmed, but gently removed. That said, the vinaya stories do not cast rats in a positive light. For example, they often portray them as evil thieves. On the other hand, there are occasional references to their loyalty and cleverness, particularly with regard to their ability to outwit their worst enemies—cats.

2.1. Annoyances Caused by Rats

2.1.1. Eating Leftover Food

All of the vinayas categorize storing leftover food as a pācittika offense.10 The Mahīśāsaka vinaya (T no. 1421, 22: 8.54b1–7) explains that this prohibition was drafted because insects and rats (chong shu 虫鼠) may damage the monks’ lodgings by chewing through the walls to gain access to the leftovers. Moreover, if laypeople were to see the resulting holes in the walls, they would likely deduce what had attracted the rats and criticize the monks’ overabundance of food. Monastics are warned not to hoard other edible goods, too. For instance, the Pāli vinaya (Vin III, pp. 250–51) cautions against storing medicines such as ghee, butter, oil, honey, and molasses in pots and bags that are liable to leak. Should that happen, the monastery would be overrun by rats (undura),11 which would lead to rebukes and criticism of the monks’ luxurious lifestyle.

Notwithstanding these two examples, the vinayas contain surprisingly few references to rats eating human food, so it seems that this was not considered a major problem. Moreover, a parallel text that served as a moral code for lay Buddhist followers (the Youposai jie jing 優婆塞戒經; Upāsakaśīla Sūtra; Sūtra on Upāsaka Precepts, translated by the monk Dharmarakṣa between 424 and 426 CE), goes so far as to encourage compassion towards rats (and sparrows) that eat grain in fields or barns. It says (T no. 1488, 24: 5.1059a21–23):

復觀田倉多有鼠雀犯暴穀米。恒生憐愍復作是念。如是鼠雀因我得活。念已歡喜無觸惱想。當知是人得福無量。

If, when [a person] sees many rats and sparrows damaging grain in his field or barn, he always feels compassion for them and then thinks, “In this way, rats and sparrows are able to live because of me,” and if, after thinking this, he feels joyful and has no thoughts of harming them, you should know that this person will attain immeasurable blessings.12

Clearly, in this text, compassion and the merit it ensures override any annoyance a rat may cause.

2.1.2. Gnawing on Mats and Robes

While the vinayas rarely address the issue of rats eating the monastics’ food, they are much more concerned with the damage they can do to mats and robes, especially when these items are improperly stored.13 The Pāli vinaya, for instance, mentions that rats—and often also ants (upacikā)—have a tendency to gnaw on robes, mats, bags, and even fastenings made out of creepers and cords that are used to tie doors to walls,14 while the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya (T no. 1425, 22: 9.308b13–17; p.309a16–20) warns that birds and rats are liable to pilfer mats that monks store incorrectly. Similarly, the Pinimu jing 毘尼母經 (*Vinaya Mātṛkā Sūtra), a vinaya commentary that was translated into Chinese in the second half of the fourth or the start of the fifth century CE, states that insects and rats will gnaw on abandoned mats (T no. 1463, 24: 4.824a9–14).15 Consequently, the Buddha urged monks to beat mats clean and fold them neatly prior to leaving a room. Meanwhile, the Mūlasarvāstivāda *Vinayasaṃgraha—*Viśeṣamitra’s (?–?) commentary on the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya that the aforementioned Yijing translated into Chinese—insists that robes must be handled with care and stored in places where they will not be eaten by insects (including ants), chewed on by cows, or gnawed on by rats (T no. 1458, 24: 5.554b1–3).16 Similarly, the Binaiye 鼻奈耶 (a transcription of vinaya)—a vinaya text that was translated into Chinese in 383 CE17—cautions against storing surplus robes in a pile as this will cause them to rot, and insects, moths, and mice (chong du shu 虫蠹鼠) will gnaw on them. Should laypeople witness this, they will surely criticize the monks. As a result, the Buddha prohibited the accumulation of extra robes and categorized any breach of this rule as a niḥsargika pācittika (T no.1464, 24: 6.874b19–27).18

Clearly, then, rats are viewed as opportunists that will take full advantage of monks’ neglect of their belongings by gnawing at them and so rendering them unclean (bu jing 不淨). The Mahīśāsaka vinaya (T no. 1421, 22: 21.142a22–24) hints at this when advocating the use of an underskirt (chen shen yi 襯身衣; probably a simple piece of cloth) to protect the main monastic robes from soiling (bu jing) with mud, as this would attract rats.19 Similarly, the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya urges monks to ensure that their seating material is not soiled (bu jing) by insects, rats, dirt, or dust (T no. 1425, 22: 14.342c3–11).

Given that a monastic robe becomes unclean from the moment when a rat gnaws on it, some of the vinaya texts consider whether such a tainted item may still be worn. This discussion is inextricably linked to the subject of pāṃśukūla (cīvara) robes—otherwise known as “refuse rags”—which were fashioned from material retrieved from a “dust-heap” (pāṃśu-kūla)20 and worn by some members of the monastic community in accordance with one of the twelve (or thirteen) ascetic practices (dhūtaguṇa).21 Many of these dust-heaps were located in cemeteries, while others were adjacent to washing places or simply on the roadside.22 The monks and nuns who wore refuse rags did so to demonstrate their detachment from property and beauty, which they insisted overrode any negative connotations of filth and waste. Here, though, it is important to note that robes are a highly sensitive issue in the vinaya texts, as they are said to represent the reputation and purity of the monastic community. As Gregory Schopen points out: “To be accepted as a Buddhist monk one must not present in public an unkempt appearance or be seen in disreputable robes.” (Schopen 2007, p. 70). Similarly, Steven Collins emphasizes that a monastic’s social position rests on “a spotless performance.” (Collins 1997, p. 198). Therefore, as a general rule, any dirty robe should be thoroughly washed.23 That said, as Nicholas Witkowski has demonstrated, monastics who chose a dhūtaguṇa lifestyle felt that it was incumbent on them to wear nothing but refuse rags, or at least transform them into respectable robes. However, this leaves the question of whether monastic robes that have been defiled by rats may be considered as legitimate refuse rags and repurposed accordingly.

There is a distinct lack of consistency on this issue not only across the vinayas but sometimes within individual traditions. In the Pāli vinaya, any robe that rats or ants have gnawed is classified as “destroyed” (naṭṭhacīvara), which means it may be replaced (Vin III, p. 213). However, such a robe may still be considered an acceptable refuse rag. Indeed, in the same vinaya’s Parivāra chapter, robes that have been gnawed by rats appear in a list of acceptable (Pāli) paṃsukūla robes (Vin V, p. 129).24 There are comparable guidelines in the Mūlasarvāstivāda tradition: while the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya (T no. 1442, 23: 17.715c10–13; T no. 1443, 23: 8.947a25–28), the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayakārikā (T no. 1459, 24: 626c17–20),25 and the Mūlasarvāstivāda *Vinayasaṃgraha (T no. 1458, 24: 5.552a20–23) all include robes gnawed by rats in their lists of legitimate refuse rags (fen sao yi 糞掃衣—that is, pāṃśukūla robes), the latter text also notes that clothes that have been damaged by insects and rats should be considered “lost” (T no. 1458, 24: 6.557b3–4). In contrast, the Sarvāstivāda vinaya includes rags gnawed by rats in two separate lists of inappropriate refuse rags (T no. 1435, 23: 51.371a7–8 and 56.413c23–25)26, while the Sapoduo pini piposha 薩婆多毘尼毘婆沙 (a commentary on this vinaya) urges monastics not to accept or offer gifts of robes that rats have gnawed (T no. 1440, 23: 5.531c20–21 (accept); T no. 1440, 23: 7.546b22–23 (offer)).27 Nevertheless, the latter text clearly acknowledges that some monastics do own such items as it includes them in a list of monks’ possessions (T no. 1440, 23: 4.526c23–25). In contrast, again, the Mahīśāsaka and Dharmaguptaka traditions are at least internally consistent, as their respective vinayas (T no. 1421, 22: 21.143b13–17; T no. 1428, 22: 39.850a22–23 and 60.1011b26–28) not only permit monks to wear rags that have been gnawed by rats but also include them in their lists of permissible refuse rags.

Overall, then, while most of the vinaya traditions consider clothes gnawed by rats as problematic, the guidance on their use often remains a matter of debate.

2.1.3. Making Holes in Floors and Walls

The holes that rats make in floors or walls are another cause for concern for the authors-compilers of the six vinayas. For instance, the Sarvāstivāda vinaya characterizes areas with holes made by snakes, centipedes, venomous insects, and rats as “difficult” (nan 難; T no.1435, 23: 3.20c16–18).28 Similarly, both the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya (T no. 1425, 22: 34.505c21–23) and the Dharmaguptaka vinaya (T no. 1428, 22: 33.802b15–16 and 49.931b1) advocate filling in rats’ holes with mud.29 The latter vinaya also explains that while monastics should usually abstain from digging the ground or even asking someone else to do so, there are some exceptions to this rule, such as when cleaning the floor or removing earth that rats have disturbed (T no. 1428, 11.641b20–24).30

The maintenance of a spotlessly clean environment was probably the primary motivation behind these injunctions to fill in rats’ holes and tunnels and therefore, eliminate the most visible signs of their presence. However, doing so clearly would have had the added, more practical benefit of making it more difficult for them to reenter and traverse the monastic compound.

2.2. How to Deal with Rats

Unsurprisingly, given the annoyance, damage, and disruption to Buddhist practice that rats can cause, the vinayas offer a series of guidelines for monastics on how best to protect themselves and their belongings from these persistent pests. First, though, all of them reiterate that no member of the Buddhist community should intentionally kill any living creature, including rats, and that violating this stipulation constitutes a pācittika offense:

若比丘故殺畜生命者波逸提。

If a bhikṣu [monk] deliberately breaks off the life of an animal, he commits a pācittika.31

Moreover, the Mūlasarvāstivāda *Vinayasaṃgraha explicitly states that this rule encompasses birds, snakes, and rats (T no. 1458, 24: 12.595a9–10). However, the injunction against killing does not imply that monks and nuns must remain completely defenseless against annoying animals.32 Indeed, some of the vinayas actively encourage the removal of rats from monastic buildings. For instance, the Dharmaguptaka vinaya (T no. 1428, 42.870c16–19) relates that a group of monks were frightened (jing wei 驚畏) by an infestation of rats, which prompted the Buddha to assure them that they were permitted to startle (jing 驚) the animals and drive them out of the monastery. He also sanctioned catching the creatures in a box, on the condition that they were subsequently released and not left to die.33 Protecting the lives of rats and snakes is similarly inviolable in the Mūlasarvāstivāda Vinayakārikā (T no. 1459, 24: 3.647c15–20), which states that such creatures must always be considered with “compassionate thoughts” (bei nian 悲念). However, if necessary, they can be gently removed and released in a safe place where there are no people. The Mahāsāṃghika vinaya (T no.1425, 22: 14.343b8–19) adopts a slightly different perspective by focusing on what might motivate a rat’s removal. After specifying that a monk who drives a fellow monastic out of a room commits a pācittika offense, the vinaya goes on to explain that banishing a snake or a rat while feeling anger or hatred (chen hui 瞋恚) toward it is also an offense, albeit a less serious one, termed a yuepini zui 越毘尼罪.34 On the other hand, if the monk calmly announces, without anger or hatred, “It is a useless thing” (wu yi zhi wu 無益之物) prior to driving it out, he commits no offense.35 Therefore, the injunction is clearly against acting maliciously, rather than the act itself.

Some of the vinayas go further than these prohibitions against harming the creatures themselves and warn against damaging or blocking their habitats. For instance, the Pāli vinaya (Vin III, p. 151) insists that no rat’s nest (āsaya) should be destroyed during the construction of a new building. The same goes for the homes of ants, termites, snakes, scorpions, and many other creatures, too. Meanwhile, according to the Mulian wen jielü zhong wu bai qing zhong shi 目連問戒律中五百輕重事, Five Hundred Questions Asked by Maudgalyāyana on Light and Heavy Vinaya Issues, which was translated into Chinese between 317 and 420, (Demiéville et al. 1978, p. 126) an interior rat’s hole may be blocked on condition that it leads to another hole outside the house. If only one hole is found, it must remain unblocked (T no. 1483, 24: 983b25–27 and 995b24–27).

In summary, all Buddhists must take great care not to harm any living creature, including rats, even if they are a nuisance. However, they can be gently driven away or captured, taken to a safe place, and released, if necessary.

2.3. The Rat’s Reputation

As mentioned earlier, the vinayas have a generally negative attitude toward rats, often characterizing them as bad-mannered creatures or thieves. On the other hand, they sometimes allude to rats’ supposed loyalty to other animals, and consequently to their role in defeating Devadatta—the Buddha’s cousin and rival, who came to be seen as the embodiment of evil behavior.36

2.3.1. Rats’ Bad Manners

The Mahāsāṃghika vinaya is especially concerned with rats’ bad manners in its guidelines on how monastics should walk and eat. For instance, when a monk enters a layman’s house, he should not shake his head as “prostitutes, rats, and wolves” do because his host will associate this with the behavior of evil men (huai bai ren 壞敗人) (T no. 1425, 22: 21.401b14–17). In addition, monks should not lap up food with their tongues and allow spit to dribble out of their mouths because this is how negligent people (fang yi ren 放逸人), snakes, rats, dogs, and cats eat. Once again, this sort of vulgar conduct is associated with evilness (T no. 1425, 22: 22.404b22–25). Similarly, monks who chew noisily are bracketed with pigs and rats (T no. 1425, 22: 22.406a4–7).

2.3.2. Thieving Rats

Several vinayas portray rats as thieves that hide their booty in their holes, which naturally raises the question of what monks should do if they come across the stolen items. For instance, if monks collect them for their own use, have they themselves committed theft? In general, the vinayas classify stealing as a pārājika offense—the most serious category, which is usually punishable by loss of monastic status.37 Yet, the Mahīśāsaka vinaya (T no. 1421, 22: 28.183c26–28) states that if a monk finds a bag of money in a rat’s hole and seizes it in the knowledge that he is stealing, he commits a less serious (although still grave) sthūlātyaya offense, just as he would if taking something that he knew belonged to a bird or some other creature.38 So, while rats are not accorded the same status as human victims of theft, seizing their possessions is still considered an offense.

The Dharmaguptaka vinaya’s guidelines on this issue are more complex, so it illustrates them with two distinct stories (T no. 1428, 22: 55.978a24–29). First, it tells of a group of rats that gathered walnuts in the local village and stored them in the monastery. When the monks found the nuts and took them, knowing that they were stealing, they committed a pārājika offense. The circumstances—and the judgment—in the second story are rather different. The monks in the Jetavana monastery found a number of rats’ holes, so they sent an attendant to fill them in, whereupon the attendant found medicine and pieces of silk that he handed to the monks.39 Unsure whether they should accept these items, the monks petitioned the Buddha for advice. The Buddha decreed that the animals had no use for the medicine or the silk, so the monks had not committed a (pārājika) offense. Nevertheless, they should still not accept such items as gifts. There are several important aspects to this story. First, by ordering an attendant to destroy the rats’ holes, rather than doing it themselves, the monks seem to avoid any responsibility for a deliberate act of destruction. Second, as the monastics had no knowledge of the medicine and silk prior to the moment when the attendant handed them over, they cannot be accused of intending to steal these items. Third, unlike the walnuts in the first story, medicine, and silk are said by the Buddha to be of no use to rats (although one could of course wonder whether rats might not have liked to use the silk as bedding, for instance). Thus, it is clear that the Dharmaguptaka vinaya is primarily concerned with the monks’ intentions, and the extent to which animals need what they have gathered, rather than the status of rats.

The Sarvāstivāda vinaya (T no. 1435, 23: 58.431a20–29) raises another issue in relation to theft: whether one has the right to recoup one’s stolen belongings. In the illustrative story, the monastery’s storeroom contains food, drinks, and precious objects. A group of rats make their way inside, steal (tou 偸) these items, and carry them to their holes. They also seize pieces of material. At first, the monks do not know who or what is stealing their belongings. However, one day, a monk deposits the alms he has received while begging in the storeroom. Later, when he returns for the food, he sees a group of rats scurrying off with it. The monk chases the rats, destroys their holes, and collects not only the food they had taken from him (i.e., his possessions) but other items, too (i.e., the rats’ possessions). His fellow monks decide that he has committed a pārājika offense, but the accused monk doubts this ruling. The Buddha decrees that he has not, in fact, committed a pārājika offense; nevertheless, he should have taken only his own belongings.40 Therefore, the Sarvāstivāda vinaya permits a victim of theft to recoup their own—but not others’—stolen goods (at least from rats).

The very next story in the Sarvāstivāda vinaya (T no. 1435, 23: 58.431a29–b11) begins with a monk sleeping in his room. A rat enters with food and places it under the monk’s bed. In the morning, the monk washes his hands and receives the food from an attendant (jing ren 淨人). The other monks rarely see this monk begging for alms, yet they notice that he still has food. When they ask him about this and he tells them what happened, they decide that he has committed a pārājika offense because the rat itself did not offer him the food. However, the Buddha explains that the rat who brought the food was the monk’s father in a previous life, so in this instance the monk has committed no offense. Nevertheless, the message is clear: monks cannot simply take rats’ food whenever they wish. Indeed, under normal circumstances, this would be considered a pārājika offense.

In summary, several vinayas discuss rats’ thieving nature and provide various guidelines on how monks should deal with it. Although there are some slight differences across the texts, all of the traditions consider intentional theft from a rat as a punishable breach of the monastic code, albeit not always a pārājika offense. In addition, the Sarvāstivāda vinaya permits monks to recoup their stolen belongings.

2.3.3. Rats’ Loyalty and Cleverness

The Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya, which is renowned for its colorful stories, includes three in which a rat plays a major role. On each occasion, the rat defeats Devadatta after the Buddha’s evil cousin has tricked his companions. All three of these tales appear in the Saṃghabhedavastu (T no. 1450, 24), the chapter on schisms.

In the first story (T no. 1450, 24: 17.188a29–c20), a rat, a snake, a lion, and a number of other animals all fall into a pit. The lion knows that he is the strongest creature there, but he also understands that they are all in the same predicament, so he chooses not to harm any of the others. A hunter then comes across the pit. First, he helps out the lion, who thanks him and informs him that one of the creatures in the pit is an insect with a black head (hei tou chong 黒頭蟲) is ungrateful, so the hunter should not bother to save it. However, the hunter disregards this advice and saves all of the other stranded animals, including the insect. Later, each of the formerly trapped animals “profits”—that is, acquires something—and offers it to the hunter. For instance, an owl steals jewelry from the king and his courtiers while they are sleeping in a garden, then presents it to the hunter. The black-headed insect hears of this and tells the king where he will find the jewels, whereupon the furious king tracks down the hunter and seizes hold of him. The hunter swears that he has never stolen anything, explains that the jewels were a gift from the owl, and returns them to the king. Nevertheless, the king still imprisons him. The rat sees this and alerts the snake, who hatches a plan: he will bite the king so that the hunter can use a charm to save the monarch’s life; the grateful king will then release the hunter and give him a reward. The rat dutifully relays the plan to the hunter, who plays his part perfectly, saves the king, and receives his reward. Finally, it is revealed that the hunter is the Buddha while the duplicitous black-headed insect is his cousin Devadatta. However, perhaps the most interesting aspect of this tale is that the rat is characterized as loyal and grateful, rather than annoying and larcenous.

The second story (T no. 1450, 24: 17.188c22–189a15) similarly highlights rats’ fidelity. A weasel (shu lang 鼠狼), a rat, and a venomous snake all seek shelter in the same hole during a downpour. The weasel wants to attack the rat, but the snake points out that they are all in the same predicament, so they should not harm each other. The weasel and the snake then ask the rat to venture outside and collect some food. The rat complies with their request, but the weasel still vows to eat him should he return empty handed. However, the snake warns the rat, which enables him to escape from the weasel following his failure to find food. The rat is the Buddha, who is loyal and trusts his companion, the snake. The weasel is Devadatta.

The third and final story (T no. 1450, 24: 20.201c10–202a7) focuses on the king of the rats, who uses his cunning to defeat his worst enemy, a cat (mao 猫). The king has five hundred subjects, all of whom live in the vicinity of an old cat. The cat killed many rats in his younger days, but now he finds it much more difficult to catch them, so he devises a new strategy. He sits, seemingly in meditation, in front of the rats’ hole. When the rats emerge, they ask the cat what he is doing, and the cat replies that he committed many offenses in the past, but now he wants to atone for those crimes. The rats are happy to hear that the cat has decided to follow a more virtuous path, so they honor him by walking three times around him. The cat watches quietly until almost all of the rats have passed by but then pounces and eats the final rat. This happens a number of times until the king of the rats realizes that some of his subjects are missing. He also notices that the cat seems to have much more energy than previously. Upon investigating the cat’s excrement, the king finds evidence of his fellow rats’ hair and bones, and his suspicions are confirmed when he catches the cat in the act of eating one of his subjects. He also considers that if the cat had eaten only plants, fruit, roots, and leaves, there would be no bones or hair in its excrement. He wishes the cat peace, but announces that he will no longer be able to feed on rats. The false cat is Devadatta.41

Interestingly, this story not only discusses rats but also focuses on a cat—an animal that rarely features in the vinaya texts. A short anecdote in the Mūlasarvāstivāda vinaya (T no. 1442, 23: 32.799c23–801b12) in which a young man sets himself on the road to wealth by offering a dead rat to a cat’s owner suggests that at least some people kept domesticated cats.42 And two separate passages in the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya mention cats spying on rats.43 Otherwise, though, cats are notable by their absence. One possible explanation for this is that they were rarely kept as fully domesticated animals in Indian monasteries or laypeople’s homes.44 However, they were widely used for pest control in China, which meant that Chinese vinaya commentators felt duty bound to tackle the issue of whether it was advisable or even permissible for monasteries to keep cats and other animals for that purpose.

3. Rats in Chinese Vinaya Commentaries

The sudden abundance of translated disciplinary texts in fifth century China soon prompted local masters to write extensive commentaries in which they analyzed the vinayas and introduced them to the domestic monastic audience. This paper focuses on the commentaries and guidelines of one of these early Chinese Buddhist masters, Daoxuan (596–667), who effectively established the benchmark for monastic behavior in China for the next millennium and beyond. In his works, Daoxuan strongly adheres to every aspect of the Indian vinaya texts, including their prohibitions against deliberately harming or killing any living creature. In addition, though, he provides detailed guidelines on issues that the original Indian texts fail to address, including the common Chinese practice of keeping cats and dogs for the sole purpose of killing rodents.

3.1. Daoxuan’s Vinaya Commentaries

All of Daoxuan’s commentaries, including his foremost work, the Sifen lü shanfan buque xingshi chao, An Abridged and Explanatory Commentary on the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya (T no. 1804, 40), explore the vinaya guidelines in forensic detail. When discussing the vinayas’ guidelines on animals, his primary focus is on acting with intent to cause harm, and the karmic consequences of doing so. For instance, after acknowledging that the vinayas classify deliberately killing an animal as a pācittika offense, Daoxuan goes further and suggests that the karmic consequences of committing such an offense cannot be entirely expunged merely by observing the stipulated vinaya protocols. He writes (T no. 1804, 40: 下 1.104b17–18):45

雖懺三惡道罪不除。如比丘殺畜。罪報猶在。

Even if one repents the offenses that lead to the three evil destinies [hell, hungry ghost, and animal], [the karmic effect] is not annulled. This is the case when a bhikṣu kills an animal. The retribution for the offense remains.

Here, as throughout Daoxuan’s commentaries, the intent of the perpetrator is paramount. Hence, the karmic impact is undiminished because the monk deliberately killed an animal, even though he subsequently regrets committing a pācittika offense and atones for that offense by performing the requisite penance. This message is reiterated in another section of the same text (T no. 1804, 40: 中 1.49a9–14):

如明了論述云。有四種麁惡言犯罪。一者濁重貪瞋癡心。二者不信業報。三者不惜所受戒。四者輕慢佛語。故心而造則得重果。以此文證。由無慚愧初無改悔。是不善心。故成論害心殺蟻。重於慈心殺人。由根本業重。決定受報縱懺墮罪。業道不除。

As mentioned in the Mingliao lun,46 there are four kinds of despicable acts that are recorded as offenses: one, being greedy, angry, or foolish with a contaminated mind; two, showing disbelief in the workings of karma; three, not cherishing the precepts one has accepted; and four, belittling the words of the Buddha. If one acts intentionally, one experiences a heavy karmic effect. As this text explains, since there is no shame and not even a beginning of repentance, this is a non-benevolent state of mind.47 Therefore, the Cheng lun 成論 (*Tattvasiddhiśāstra)48 [says] that killing an ant with an evil state of mind is worse than killing a person with a compassionate state of mind. Since the karmic effect will be heavy, one certainly receives retribution,49 even if one expiates the pācittika offense (duo zui 墮罪).50 The karma will not be annulled.

This conviction that intentionally harming animals has serious karmic consequences informs Daoxuan’s analysis of several of the vinaya passages that discuss rats. Although he does not refer to many of the problems that rats may cause, he mentions them briefly during a discussion of clothes that are gnawed or burned, and adds that such items of clothing are considered taboo in India and consequently thrown away (which may be taken as a hint that Chinese monastics did not have such a taboo) (T no. 1804, 40: 下 1.112a13–14).51 Later, when discussing the prohibition against monastics digging the ground, he echoes the Dharmaguptaka vinaya’s exception that they may remove earth that rats have disturbed (T no. 1804, 40: 中 3.76c25–28; T no. 1806, 40: 中 .443c16–20).52 Similarly, he asserts that holes made by snakes and rats in a stūpa should be filled (T no. 1804, 40: 下 3.134b12). Finally, he endorses the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya’s guideline that rats may be driven out of a building on condition that this is not done in a state of anger (T no. 1804, 40: 中 5.78b5–6) as well as the Dharmaguptaka vinaya’s recommendation that they may be removed as long as they are released safely (T no. 1804, 40: 下 4.148b7–8).

On the subject of taking animals’ possessions, and specifically those belonging to rats, Daoxuan discusses whether this should constitute a pārājika offense. Although he does not directly address the Dharmaguptaka and Mahīśāsaka vinayas’ contrasting views on this issue, he offers an explanation for the former’s somewhat harsher ruling (T no. 1804, 40: 中 1.59a18–21):

有人斷同大重者。胡律云。鼠偸故桃積成大聚。比丘盜之。佛言波羅夷。故有解。非望畜生還望本主。以鼠盜疑豫未決望人猶是本主。故還就人結重。

Some people judge that [the theft of animals’ possessions] is similar to a grave offense [in this case a pārājika offense]. Therefore, [the Dharmaguptaka] vinaya says:53 “Rats steal walnuts and pile them up on a big heap. A bhikṣu steals them. The Buddha says that he commits a pārājika offense.” The reason can be explained. It is not judged from the perspective of the animal, but it is still judged from the perspective of the original owner, because, when the rat steals, it is not yet certain and not yet decided [who the true owner is]. Thus, the [issue] is still judged by regarding the person [whose walnuts the rats stole] as the original owner. Therefore, with reference to the person, [the theft] is seen as a grave offense.

Thus, Daoxuan’s interpretation of this passage is that the Dharmaguptaka vinaya must consider that the walnuts’ original human owner is still their rightful owner, regardless of the fact that a rat has stolen them, so any subsequent theft from the rat would still constitute theft from the person—that is, a pārājika offense.54 The implication of this analysis is that stealing something that truly belongs to a rat (as opposed to something the animal has stolen) may be considered a lesser offense, because no transgression has been committed against a previous human owner. In this way, Daoxuan deftly reconciles the Dharmaguptaka and Mahīśāsaka vinayas’ seemingly incompatible guidelines on the subject of stealing from animals.

3.2. Daoxuan’s Comments on the Situation in China

Much of Daoxuan’s renown stems from the fact that he was a fervent defender of Buddhism.55 This is reflected in his texts, where he frequently advocates strict adherence to the vinaya guidelines on the grounds that they constitute a first line of defense against the decline of the Dharma. For instance, in his biographical work Further Biographies of Eminent Monks (Xu gaoseng zhuan 續高僧傳; T no. 2060: 621a14–15), he states:

律爲法命。弘則命全。今不欲不弘56正法斯滅。

Vinaya is the life of the Dharma. If one propagates it, the life [of the Dharma] is complete; now, if one does not intend to promote [vinaya], the True Dharma will be extinguished.57

Daoxuan also warns against the decline of the Dharma in the Sifen lü shanfan buque xingshi chao (T no. 1804, 40: 上 2.23c8–15):

滅法不久。寺家庫藏廚所多不結淨。道俗通濫淨穢混然。立寺經久。綱維無教。忽聞立淨惑耳驚心。豈非師僧上座妄居淨住導引後生同開惡道。或畜貓狗專擬殺鼠。牛杖馬䩛韁絆箞橛。如是等類並是惡律儀。雜心云。惡律儀者流注相續成也。善生成論。若受惡律儀則失善戒。今寺畜貓狗。並欲盡形。非惡律儀何也。擧衆同畜一衆無戒。

[If the aforementioned behavior continues], the disappearance of Dharma is not far away. The storage rooms and kitchens of monasteries have often not been designated as purified [places] (jie jing 結淨).58 Monastic and laity intermix [throughout the monasteries], and what is pure or dirty becomes indistinguishable. Monasteries have been established for a long time, but regulations have not been taught. When [monastics] suddenly heard of [the correct procedure for] establishing a purified [storage room and kitchen], they were confused and shocked. Is it not that teachers and seniors, completely oblivious of a pure life, lead the younger generation on a journey down an unwholesome path? Some keep cats and dogs with the specific intention of killing rats, or they [have] sticks for cattle, reins for horses, halters and pegs. All such acts are evil deportment (e lü yi 惡律儀).59 The Za xin 雜心 (*Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra) says that “evil deportment” (e lü yi) means that there is a flow [of unwholesome acts], continuously being accomplished.60 The Shansheng 善生 (Upāsakaśīla Sūtra)61 and the Cheng lun 成論 (*Tattvasiddhiśāstra)62 [leave no doubt that] if one embraces evil deportment, one loses good morality. Now, [monastics] keep cats and dogs in their monasteries, intending to have them for their whole lives. If this is not evil deportment, what else can it be? [If] the whole community together raises [cats and dogs], [then] the entire community is lacking [vinaya] rules.

In this lengthy extract, Daoxuan builds a strong argument that all animals should be treated well, and certainly that cats and dogs should not be kept to hunt other creatures, including rats. Indeed, he draws on several texts to explain why the latter practice contradicts Buddhist principles. First, he refers to a passage in the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra (T no. 1552, 28: 3.890b12–c3)63 that addresses the issue of “restraint and non-restraint” (lü yi bu lü yi 律儀不律儀; i.e., good and evil deportment). This text asserts that both good and bad morality (shan ji bu shan jie 善及不善戒) flow and that they are continuously or successively accomplished (liu zhu xiang xu cheng 流注相續成), then explains that good morality should be displayed toward all living beings and that it is a prerequisite for monastic ordination. Its much more detailed definition of “non-restraint” (bu lü yi 不律儀; i.e., evil deportment and thus bad morality) includes a list of twelve “evil” occupations, many of which relate to animals: slaughterer of sheep, chicken-keeper, pig-keeper, bird-catcher, fisherman, hunter, slaughterer of dogs, and game warden (i.e., chief hunter), along with thief, executioner, jailer, and dragon-charmer.

Next, Daoxuan cites the Upāsakaśīla Sūtra (T no. 1488, 24: 7.1069c8–1070a2), which states that those who follow good precepts (shan jie 善戒) receive many blessings, whereas those who follow incorrect precepts (e jie 惡戒) amass immeasurable faults.64 The Upāsakaśīla Sūtra equates “incorrect precepts” with “evil deportment” (e lü yi) and illustrates this with a list of fifteen improper occupations that is broadly similar to the aforementioned list in the *Saṃyuktābhidharmahṛdayaśāstra.65 Interestingly, the same sūtra specifically prohibits keeping dogs for hunting (and thus killing) purposes and suggests that anyone who does this, or follows one of the other banned careers, is sure to accumulate a great deal of bad karma throughout the life course. Daoxuan seems to share this view, as he asks how keeping cats and dogs in monasteries can be anything other than evil deportment.

Finally, Daoxuan supports his argument with reference to a philosophical treatise, the *Tattvasiddhiśāstra. He does not include a quotation at this point, but he is most likely thinking of two passages that contrast the benefits of good deportment (shan lü yi 善律儀) with the unwelcome repercussions of bad deportment (bu shan lü yi 不善律儀) (T no. 1646, 32: 8.302b21–303c3).

In another commentary, the Liang chu qing zhong yi 量處輕重儀, Models for Measuring and Handling Light and Heavy Property (T no. 1895, 45: 845b22–c19), Daoxuan distinguishes between animals that are economically useful, even in a monastery, and those that are not.66 First, he mentions domesticated animals—such as camels, donkeys, cows, and sheep. These animals may be kept as long as they are treated properly, without recourse to whips or sticks. Next, he insists that all wild animals—including monkeys and apes, deer, bears, pheasants, rabbits, mountain cocks, wild ducks, and geese—should be released into nature. He then introduces a third and final group of animals: those that monasteries keep for the express purpose of killing rodents. Once again, Daoxuan is unequivocal on this issue (T no. 1895, 45: 845b26–27):

畜惡律儀即猫狗殦梟鷹鷂鼠蠱鼠弩弓檻等。及弓箭五兵機羅殺具者。

Keeping [these animals] is [a sign of] evil deportment (e lü yi): cats, dogs, owls, and hawks.67 Poison and crossbows [are also used to kill] rats, as are cages, and so on. And bows and arrows, five kinds of weapons, traps and snares, [all] instruments to kill.68

Later in the same text, he explains (T no. 1895, 45: 845c9–19):

惡律儀具。事類乃希。時復縁邊塞首中表無知。或加畜用。既事在罪増。並可焚屏。則同瓦屋之非法也。故善見論云。若有施器仗者。僧應打壞。不得賣。若賣與人。前得行殺。賣者同業故。論中其有畜非法之物。衆主破之無捐財咎。正論明斷。準用何疑。亦有養畜猫狗專行殺害。經論斷在惡律儀。同畜便失善戒。出賣則是生類。業障更深。施他還續害心。終成纒結。宜放之深藪任彼行藏。必繋之顯柱更増勞役。但依前判彼我夷然。便息生殺怨家。新樹慈悲聖宅(其餘鷙鳥例此騰空)。

As for things [connected] to evil deportment, there are not so many in this category. At times, in remote as well as central regions, a lack of knowledge is evident. Some people keep and use [such things]. And since these things exacerbate the offense [against living beings], they should be burned and rejected. It is just as much against the Dharma as a hut made out of mud, [which must be destroyed].69 Therefore, the Shanjian lü piposha 善見律毘婆沙 says that if one is offered weapons, the saṃgha should destroy them, and one cannot sell them.70 If one sells [weapons] to a person prior to their committing murder, then the karmic retribution for the seller is the same [as the murderer]. In commentaries [it is said that] if one keeps things that go against the rules, then the monastic managers destroy them, so they do not increase wealth or fault.71 The correct position is that [these things] are clearly proscribed;72 this is doubtless the standard to use. There are also those who raise and keep cats and dogs, specifically to kill [rats]. The sūtras and commentaries proscribe this as “evil deportment.” Together keeping these [animals for pest control], one diverges from the good precepts. If one sells them, the karmic retribution will be even worse, since they are living beings. If one gives them to someone else, this still perpetuates harmful intentions (hai xin 害心) and ultimately manifests [karmic] bondage. The deep wilds of fitting release let them come and go as they please. The manifest yoke of forced bondage further increases their hardship. Only by following the previous determination we can both [i.e., the animals and the monastics] feel at ease, thus calming the enemy of birth and death and newly establishing a holy residence of compassion. (As for birds of prey, they should be dealt with according to the same principle, and released into the open.)73

It may come as a surprise that people kept dogs as rat-catchers, but there is clear evidence that they were domesticated in China as early as the Shang era (c. twelfth century BCE onwards),74 and they were certainly associated with pest control prior to the start of the Common Era.75 For example, there is a beautiful illustration of a dog catching a rat in a Han Dynasty tomb in Sichuan (see Figure 1).76 It is generally agreed that the domestication of cats—and their use as rat-catchers—was a somewhat later development, although opinions differ on precisely when this began. The debate centers on how best to interpret the term li 貍/狸, which at one time may have encompassed everything from wild cats, to other small felines, to completely different species, such as raccoon dogs.77 Nevertheless, von Kispal insists that li was used—if not exclusively—in reference to domesticated cats from at least the third century BCE onwards.78 By contrast, Barrett and Strange argue that the previous, broader definition may have persisted long into the Common Era.79 Either way, it seems likely that the domestication of wild cats was a slow and gradual process. That said, as Wilt Idema has demonstrated in his study and translation of Chinese animal fables, there is evidence that not only keeping but breeding cats became increasingly popular over the course of the Tang Dynasty.80 This may explain why Daoxuan felt the need to comment on the animals’ use in pest control.81 Moreover, several entries in the Chinese Buddhist dictionary Yiqiejing yinyi 一切經音義 (Sounds and Meanings for all [the Words in the] Scriptures; T no. 2128, 54), begun by the seventh century monk Xuanying 玄應 and completed in the early ninth century by his fellow monk Huilin 慧琳, hint that the breeding of rat-catching cats (by now termed mao 猫) was fairly commonplace in Buddhist circles, if not necessarily in wider Chinese society.82

Other sources similarly point to the presence of cats in Tang monasteries. For instance, von Kispal cites a number of poems in which scholar–monks praise the cat’s aptitude for catching rats,83 while Barrett and Strange quote a number of historical sources that contain references to the animal’s “duty” (zhi 職) to catch rodents and protect grain supplies (Barrett and Strange 2019, pp. 88–93). All of these sources indicate that domesticated cats’ primary task was to keep rodents at bay. For instance, there is very little evidence that Daoxuan’s contemporaries either viewed them as pets or attempted to turn them into friendly, gentle companions.84 Interestingly, an eighth century medical treatise, the Ben cao shi yi 本草拾遺 (Additions to Materia Medica) by Chen Cangqi 陳藏器 (?–757), cited in Zhenglei bencao 證類本草 (Collected and Classified Materia Medica), a book on pharmacology written by the Song scholar Tang Shenwei 唐慎微 (1056–1093), includes details of a medical experiment in which cats were fed nothing but rice. Unsurprisingly, the experiment was a total failure, as the animals’ bones decayed so dramatically that they were left unable to walk.85 There is no evidence that Chinese monastics either knew of this experiment or attempted to replicate it with their own cats (and dogs), but even if they had, they surely would not have succeeded in keeping the animals away from meat for very long.86

This brings us back to Daoxuan’s concerns about monasteries’ use of cats and dogs for pest control, and whether this is consistent with Buddhist principles. He was not alone. For instance, one of the Fanwang jing 梵網經’s precepts,87 which concerns the assistance that Buddhists should extend to both the living and the dead, explicitly encourages compassion (ci xin 慈心), for example by releasing captive animals and safeguarding all living creatures.88 It also specifically condemns the rearing of cats, swine, and dogs.89

Nevertheless, rats were widely despised for the annoyances they caused both within and outside monasteries. This antipathy is evident in a number of Buddhist texts that discuss rebirth as a rat, such as the fifth–sixth century Shan’e yinguo jing 善惡因果經 (Sūtra of the Outcome of Good and Bad Deeds), which was found at Dunhuang.90 In particular, this sūtra connects current misdeeds and wrongful attitudes to a previous life as a rat (T no. 2881, 85: 1382a25–26):

穿牆竊盜貪財健怨無有親疎者從鼠中來

[A person who] breaks walls, steals, is avaricious, and displays anger, and who has no close or distant relatives, comes from the life of a rat.

Meanwhile, Daoists—who were often heavily influenced by Buddhist concepts—drew the same connection, but in reverse.91 For instance, the Taishang dongxuan lingbao yebao yinyuan jing 太上洞玄靈寶業報因緣經, Scripture of the Most High from the Dongxuan Lingbao Canon Regarding Retribution and Karmic Causes, which dates to the Sui Dynasty (589–618) at the latest, suggests that rebirth as a rat is karmic retribution for living the life of a greedy human (DZ 336, Vol. 10, p. 366b8).92 This notion is reiterated in the popular seventh century Dongxuan lingbao sandong fengdao kejie yingshi 洞玄靈寶三洞奉道科戒營始, Regulations for the Practice of Daoism in Accordance with the Scriptures of the Three Caverns, a Dongxuan Lingbao Canon (DZ 1125),93 which asserts that “life as a rat or a weasel (you 鼬) comes from greedily devouring the leftovers from rites of purgation, drinking alcohol, and eating meat.”94 Clearly, then, rats’ problematic behavior is directly associated with and explained by negative karma and retribution in both the Daoist and the Buddhist traditions.

Finally, it is worth taking a moment to look at the mysterious rat that adorns the mid-Tang southern wall of Yulin Cave 25 (see Figure 2),95 which represents the paradise of Amitābha Buddha. This rat—with characteristic bloated body, sharp nose, long tail, and sleek feet—seems to be sneaking surreptitiously into a monastery at the foot of a pillar, so it may represent an unwelcome intruder. On the other hand, Vaiśravaṇa, the god of wealth as well as a forceful protector of Buddhism, is sometimes depicted in the company of a rat,96 and he also appears in Yulin Cave 25. However, his image is on the northern wall—the direction with which he is commonly associated—so in this instance a direct connection with the rodent seems unlikely.97 Maybe the rat simply represents the practical difficulties that all Chinese monasteries were facing, given the damage that rodents could cause; or perhaps there is a deeper meaning to its unsettling presence. Either way, it probably provoked the customary reactions of revulsion and fear among anyone who caught a glimpse of it.

4. Conclusions

Rats are rarely seen as friendly animals. Although a handful of Indian and Chinese fables portray them as loyal companions, they are usually cast as badly behaved pests. Similarly, the vinaya texts address a number of the annoyances with which rats are commonly associated, such as their voracious appetite for leftover food and the damage they can cause to floors and walls in their attempts to reach it. This allows the vinayas to highlight the issue of greedy monastics who gather more food than they need, to the dismay of lay followers. Rats thus represent two distinct but interconnected problems: on the one hand, they damage monastic buildings; on the other, they are a visible sign of monks’ and nuns’ improper behavior, which damages the image of the saṃgha.

At least one Buddhist text (Youposai jie jing; Upāsakaśīla Sūtra; Sūtra on Upāsaka Precepts), which was primarily directed at laypeople, calls for compassion toward rats and insists they should be allowed to live their natural lives and eat their fair share of grain. Unfortunately, though, they also gnaw greedily on mats, robes, and other material, which reinforces their reputation for uncleanliness (bu jing)—an unwelcome trait that the vinayas are keen to eliminate. This further extends what Suzanne Mrozik terms the “physiomoral” discourse, i.e., the physical body being both a manifest cause and effect of (un)ethical behavior.98 In our case, it is an unclean robe that signifies an unclean mind, so the presence of rats is not merely annoying but potentially dangerous because it undermines the purity that every monastic community seeks to display. On the other hand, dirty or threadbare robes can also signify a strong commitment to asceticism and a lack of attachment—another monastic ideal. Consequently, the vinaya texts are forced into a compromise: while they express an aversion to robes that rats have gnawed, they do not fully prohibit their use. This highlights the delicate balance that Buddhist monastics are expected to maintain between wearing humble clothing (and, by extension, living a humble life) and presenting an exemplary, spotless appearance to the outside world.99

The vinaya texts are clear on the subject of rats’ presence in monasteries: they are disruptive nuisances, so they are unwelcome. However, they are also sentient beings, which means they are covered by the prominent Buddhist injunction against harming or killing any living creature. Although killing an animal is not of the same magnitude as killing a human being, the vinaya masters are still keen to promote it as a general principle by which all monastics should abide. As a result, monks and nuns are obliged to devise inventive strategies to dissuade rats from entering their monasteries—or to capture and release them—without causing them any harm. It is important to note that people are expected to carry out these tasks without the assistance of rat-catching animals, such as weasels or cats, which are scarcely mentioned in the vinayas. From this, it may be assumed that such animals were not yet used for pest control at the time when the vinayas were written.

Finally, the vinayas draw parallels between rats’ behavior and some undesirable traits. Notwithstanding occasional references to the animals’ loyalty, and the prominent role they play in a couple of stories in which the Buddha’s evil cousin Devadatta is vanquished, the prevailing attitude toward them is overwhelmingly negative. For example, the Mahāsāṃghika vinaya deems their scurrying and messy eating socially unacceptable and therefore evil. That said, this and the other vinaya texts are most concerned with rats’ larceny, although they do not go so far as to sanction depriving the animals of all their possessions as punishment for their bad behavior. Indeed, while stealing from a rat is generally not classified as a grave (pārājika) transgression, every vinaya that addresses it still considers it an offense.

Following the translation of the vinayas into Chinese, a number of local masters, such as Daoxuan, analyzed the texts and added their own comments and interpretations, in part to make the guidelines more relevant to the seventh century Chinese monastic context. For instance, in a general discussion on animals (T no. 1804, 40: 下 3.141a24), Daoxuan reminds his readers:

念一切眾生同是佛因。起不殺行。即是敬信信知因果。作長壽緣

Remember that all living beings are equally endowed with the potential to Buddhahood. That is why we should not kill. This is to respect the teaching, to put trust in the law of cause and effect, and so secure a long life.

Therefore, every sentient being, including rats, should be protected from harm. Here and elsewhere, Daoxuan’s primary focus is on the intent behind the act, rather than the act itself, as he warns his audience that the karmic consequences of committing an offense against animals cannot be entirely expunged merely by following the recommended vinaya procedures. Hence, it is no surprise that he strictly prohibits each and every form of animal abuse. Moreover, he broadens this injunction to encompass the use of cats and dogs for pest control and hints that this might be a double offense because, in addition to being held in captivity, the animals are encouraged to kill (or at least intentionally threaten) other sentient beings. To Daoxuan’s mind, this is a clear example of “evil deportment” and a sad reflection of the decline of the Buddhist Dharma. Given the strength of his comments, it seems safe to assume that Tang monasteries had few qualms about using cats to keep rats at bay, to the dismay of at least some vinaya masters. Indeed, this may have been a contentious issue long before Daoxuan was even born, as the Fanwang jing, a fifth century text that was aimed at both monastics and laypeople, condemns the domestication of cats and dogs and advocates the release of all captive animals. In other words, all Buddhists, not just monks and nuns, have an obligation to treat all animals, including rats, with compassion.

Although Daoxuan and his fellow vinaya masters may have convinced at least some of their readers to abide strictly by this principle, the general antipathy toward rats persisted in China, as is reflected in both Buddhist and Daoist reincarnation tales. These stories invariably present rebirth as a rat as karmic retribution for misdeeds in a previous life, while typical rat-like characteristics, such as larceny, greed, and anger, may resurface as human flaws. Did the artist who painted the southern wall of Yulin Cave 25 have this in mind when he added the image of a rat to his mural? Or was his intention to draw attention to one of the many challenges that Chinese monastics had to face each day? Either way, the rat seems to be sneaking surreptitiously into the monastery, whereupon Daoxuan would have insisted that the monks were duty bound to avoid it, carefully remove it, or simply tolerate it, in accordance with the Buddhist principle of treating all living creatures with respect and compassion.