As to the name Ṡramaṇa (from root Ṡram, ‘to toil’), bear in mind that, although Buddhism has acquired the credit of being the easiest religious system in the world, and its monks are among the idlest of men—as having no laborious ceremonies and no work to do for a livelihood—yet in reality the carrying out of the great object of extinguishing lusts, and so getting rid of the burden of repeated existences, was no sinecure if earnestly undertaken. Nor was it possible for men to lead sedentary lives, whose only mode of avoiding starvation was by house to house itinerancy. As to the form of admission, there was no great strictness in early times, when all applicants were admitted without inquiry. It was only when the Order increased that murderers, robbers, debtors, soldiers and others in the King’s service, lepers, cripples, blind, one-eyed, deaf and dumb, and consumptive persons, and all subject to fits were rejected[38]. Originally it was enough for the Buddha to have said, ‘Come (ehi), follow me.’ This alone conferred discipleship. In time, however, he commissioned those he had himself admitted to admit others. Then the form of admission to the brotherhood was divided into two stages, marked by two ceremonies, which have been very unsuitably compared to our ordination services for deacon and priest. At any rate the term ‘ordination’ is wholly misleading, if any idea of a priestly commission or gift of spiritual powers be implied. The youthful layman who desired admission to the first degree, or that of a novice, had to be at least fifteen years old[39] (Mahā-v° I. 50); and such novices had to be at least twenty (from conception) before the second rite or admission to the full monkhood. The first rite was called pravrajyā (pabbajjā), ‘going forth from home’ (Mahā-v° I. 12). Persons admitted to this first degree of monkhood were called Ṡrāmaṇera (Sāmanera), ‘novices,’ though they were also called ‘new’ or ‘junior monks’ (Navako Bhikkhu). They might be admitted by a senior monk without appearing before any formal conclave; but not without the consent of their parents, and not without attaching themselves to a religious teacher (upādhyāya) after their admission. It is said that Gautama was urged by his father Ṡuddhodana to require the sanction of parents, in rather touching and remarkable words, to the following effect:— ‘The love for a son cuts into the cuticle (ćhavi); having cut into the cuticle, it cuts into the inner skin (ćamma); having cut into the inner skin, it cuts into the flesh; having cut into the flesh, it cuts into the tendons (nhāru or nahāru); having cut into the tendons, it cuts into the bones; having cut into the bones, it reaches the marrow (aṭṭhi-miṅjā), and abides in the marrow. Let not Pabbajjā, therefore, be performed on a son without his father’s and mother’s permission’ (Mahā-vagga I. 54).