136 Budhism : — Laws of the Budhist Priesthood. 



82. Priests, if a residence in a wilderness appears to be 

 for the welfare of a priest, and if lie have no preceptor there 

 with whom he may live, he may continue without being under 

 inspection, saying within himself, Whenever a suitable person 

 arrives I will dwell with him. 



Maha Kassapa was Upadya to a person who sought to 

 obtain Upasampada, and he sent a messenger to Ananda re- 

 questing him to come and recite the formulary. Ananda 

 thought, I cannot presume to pronounce the name ( his 

 proper name when he was a layman) of the Tero : I reverence 

 the Tero. The case was submitted to Budha, who decreed : 



83. Priests, I permit the Gotra (of the Upadya) to be 

 used in reciting the formulary. 



[That is, instead of saying N desires to receive Upasam- 

 pada under Pipili as his Upadya, he may use the name given 

 when he became priest, and say, N desires to receive Upa- 

 sampada under Maha Kassapa as Upadya. The object was to 

 avoid pronouncing the proper name of the Upadya, which 

 would be regarded as claiming an equality with him.] 



There were two candidates for Upasampada having Maha 

 Kassapa as their Upadya : a contest arose respecting the one 

 to be first ordained, as he would be the senior, the privileges 

 of seniority being considerable. Budha decreed: 



84. Priests, I permit two persons to be named in the 

 same formulary. 



That is, both names to be joined : as M and N desire to 

 receive Upasampada, &c, by which means they would stand 

 on an equality. 



There were several candidates for Upasampada under 

 different Upadyas: they contended who should be ordained 

 first, and the Upadyas thought they might all be included in 

 the same formulary. The case was reported to Budha, who 

 decreed: 



85. Priests, I permit two or three to be included in one 

 formulary, if they have the same Upadya, but not if the 

 Upadyas be different. 



