followed by the bhikkhus that they criticize as inferior and even illegitimate. Finally, we see here little evidence of interactions or relationships between the forest renunciants and the nonforest bhikkhus. The little interaction that is mentioned notes either the settled monks' ignoring of the forest traditions or open hostility against them. 54 As Pārāpariya and Phussa see it, then, a dramatic change has occurred within Buddhism: there seems to be an increasing tendency for Buddhist renunciants to move from forest into village, abandoning the solitary vocation of meditation in favor of the collective, monastic life defined primarily by other preoccupations, including cultivating correct external behavior and engaging in study and debate. We may refer to this type of movement from forest retreat to village monastery as a process of monasticization. In the history of Indian Buddhism, as we shall see, monasticization occurs in a number of different contexts. In the present instance, the center of gravity of Buddhism seems to be shifting from forest to a nonforest type of renunciation. It is not possible to determine whether the monasticization described in these songs reflects only the growing popularity of town-and-village renunciation within Buddhist circles or whether it reflects a time when the development of what came to be classical monasticism was in full spate. In other cases of monasticization the issue is more clear, for they involve the movement of traditions, specific phenomena, and individuals-- originally associated with forest Buddhism--into the context of settled monastic life. In the process of monasticization, these are absorbed and integrated into monastic Buddhism in a way that inevitably involves some transformation of both assimilated and assimilator. Understanding this process of monasticization is essential to an accurate appreciation both of the forest renunciants themselves and of their dynamic relationship with the more conventional forms of Buddhism.