It is evident that the bhikkhu, originally enjoined to forsake all ordinary social bonds, eventually became enmeshed in but another network of social relations both within the Sangha and without, in his interaction with lay society. Hermits and wandering mendicants, representing the more asocial pole of the monastic ideal, became a quantitatively negligible phenomenon but did not entirely disappear. The tension between more and less socialized forms of renunciation persisted and even became from very early on (if not always in a uniform fashion) a significant factor in the various splits and divisions undergone by the Sangha in all Theravada countries.

Out of the divergent emphases on “practice” versus “study” already voiced in the first Buddhist councils developed the distinction between two major types of monastic vocations: ganthadura, the vocation of books, that is, of studying and teaching (by implication, teaching the laity); and vipassanadhura, the vocation of meditation (implying less of a connection to the laity). Another distinction that not necessarily fully coincided with the former was that between arannavasi, or vanavasi – forest dwellers – and gamavasi – dwellers in monasteries in towns and villages. Forest dwellers were not necessarily hermits, but they did live a more secluded life than gamavasi, either individually or in groups, devoting most of their time to meditation and keeping their contact with lay life to a minimum.