Hier werden die Unterschiede zwischen zwei Versionen angezeigt.
Beide Seiten der vorigen RevisionVorhergehende ÜberarbeitungNächste Überarbeitung | Vorhergehende ÜberarbeitungNächste ÜberarbeitungBeide Seiten der Revision | ||
de:lib:authors:thanissaro:bmc1:bmc1.ch05 [2019/10/28 16:57] – close f div Johann | de:lib:authors:thanissaro:bmc1:bmc1.ch05 [2019/10/30 13:23] – Title Changed Johann | ||
---|---|---|---|
Zeile 1: | Zeile 1: | ||
+ | <WRAP box fill >< | ||
+ | <div center round todo 60%> | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Kodex für buddhistische ====== | ||
+ | <span hide> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Einsiedler I: Kapitel 5 | ||
+ | |||
+ | Summary: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div #h_meta> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div navigation></ | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div alphalist> | ||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.intro|Einleitung]] | [[bmc1.ch01|1]] | [[bmc1.ch02|2]] | [[bmc1.ch03|3]] | [[bmc1.ch04|4]] | 5 {{de: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.ch08-6|8.6]] | [[bmc1.ch08-7|8.7]] | [[bmc1.ch08-8|8.8]] | [[bmc1.ch08-9|8.9]] | [[bmc1.ch09|9]] | [[bmc1.ch10|10]] | [[bmc1.ch11|11]] | [[bmc1.ch12|12]] | [[bmc1.glossary|Glossar]] | [[bmc1.biblio|Literaturverz.]] | [[bmc1.rule-index|Regeln]] | [[bmc1.addendum|Anhang]] </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ====== Saṅghādisesa ====== | ||
+ | |||
+ | This term means " | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | The origin story to this rule is as follows: | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So then Ven. Seyyasaka ate as he liked and slept as he liked... and when dissatisfaction arose and lust assailed his mind, he would emit semen having attacked with his hand. Then it wasn't long before he became attractive, with rounded features, a clear complexion, and very bright skin. So the bhikkhus who were his friends said to him, ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | This rule, in its outline form, is one of the simplest to explain. In its details, though, it is one of the most complex, not only because the subject is a sensitive matter but also because the Kommentar deviates from the Vibhaṅga in its explanations of two of the three factors that constitute the full offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The three factors are result, intention, and effort: emission of semen caused by an intentional effort. When all three factors are present, the offense is a saṅghādisesa. If the last two — intention and effort — are present, the offense is a thullaccaya. Any single factor or any other combination of two factors — i.e., intention and result without making a physical effort, or effort and result without intention — is not grounds for an offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | It may seem strange to list the factor of result first, but I want to explain it first partly because, in understanding the types of intention and effort covered by this rule, it is necessary to know what they are aimed at, and also because result is the one factor where the Vibhaṅga and Kommentar are in basic agreement. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Result.** The Vibhaṅga states that semen can come in ten colors — a classification derived from a diagnostic practice in ancient Indian medicine in which a doctor would examine his male patients' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Although the Vibhaṅga adds that semen is discharged when it "falls from its base," it does not discuss this point in any detail. The Kommentar discusses three opinions as to precisely when this happens in the course of sexual stimulation. Although its discussion is framed in terms of the physiology of ejaculation as understood at the time, its conclusion is clear: Semen moves from its base when " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Although some sub-sub-commentaries have ventured a more cautious opinion than the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Intention.** The Vibhaṅga defines // | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * for the sake of health, | ||
+ | * for the sake of pleasure, | ||
+ | * for the sake of a medicine, | ||
+ | * for the sake of a gift (to insects, says the Kommentar, although producing semen as a gift to one's partner in a tantric ritual would also come under this category), | ||
+ | * for the sake of merit, | ||
+ | * for the sake of a sacrifice, | ||
+ | * for the sake of heaven, | ||
+ | * for the sake of seed (to produce a child — a bhikkhu who gave semen to be used in artificial insemination would fit in this category), | ||
+ | * for the sake of investigating (e.g., to diagnose one's health), or | ||
+ | * for the sake of playfulness or fun. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Each of these motives, the Vibhaṅga says, fulfills the factor of intention here. Thus for the Kommentar to limit the question of " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Given the way intention is defined, there is no offense for a bhikkhu who brings on an emission of semen — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * // | ||
+ | * //not knowing that he is making an effort// — e.g., when he is dreaming or in a semi-conscious state before fully waking up from sleep; | ||
+ | * //not conscious that his efforts are bringing about an emission of semen// — e.g., when he is so engrossed in applying medicine to a sore on his penis that he doesn' | ||
+ | * or when his efforts are //motivated by a purpose other than that of causing an emission —// e.g., when he wakes up, finds that he is about to have a spontaneous ejaculation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The Vibhaṅga defines four types of effort that fulfill this factor: A bhikkhu causes an emission making an effort (1) at an internal object, (2) at an external object, (3) at both an internal and an external object, or (4) by shaking his pelvis in the air. It then goes on to explain these terms: The internal object is one's own living body. External objects can either be animate or inanimate objects. The third type of effort involves a combination of the first two, and the fourth covers cases when one makes one's penis erect (" | ||
+ | |||
+ | The extremely general nature of these definitions gives the impression that the compilers of the Vibhaṅga wanted them to cover every imaginable type of bodily effort aimed at arousing oneself sexually, and this impression is borne out by the wide variety of cases covered in the Vinita-vatthu. They include, among others, a bhikkhu who squeezes his penis with his fist, one who rubs his penis with his thumb, one who rubs his penis against his bed, one who inserts his penis into sand, one who bathes against the current in a stream, one who rubs his preceptor' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vinita-vatthu also includes a case in which a bhikkhu, desiring to cause an emission, orders a novice to take hold of his (the bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | In discussing the factor of effort, though, the Kommentar adds an additional sub-factor: that the effort must be directed at one's own penis. If this were so, then a bhikkhu who succeeded in causing an emission by stimulating any of the erogenous zones of his body aside from his penis would incur no penalty. The Kommentar itself actually makes this point, and the Sub-commentary seconds it, although the V/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | At any rate, the Kommentar in adding this last factor runs up against a number of cases in the Vinita-vatthu in which the effort does not involve the penis: the bhikkhu warming his belly, the bhikkhu rubbing his preceptor' | ||
+ | |||
+ | As stated in the Introduction, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The question then is why the commentators added the extra factor in the first place. An answer may be found in one of the cases in the Vinita-vatthu: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The issue here is whose semen was emitted. Pali syntax, unlike English, doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | If the bhikkhu was the one who emitted semen, then perhaps there is a contradiction in the Vibhaṅga, and the Kommentar is justified in saying that the effort must involve one's penis, for otherwise the case would seem to fulfill the Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, however, the novice was the one who emitted, there is no inconsistency at all: The bhikkhu incurs his dukkaṭa for making lustful bodily contact with another man (see the discussion under [[bmc1.ch05# | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus, inasmuch as the second reading — the novice was the one who had an emission — does no violence to the rest of the Vibhaṅga, it seems to be the preferable one. If this was the case that led the commentators to add their extra factor, we can see that they misread it and that the Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | One case that does //not// fulfill the factor of effort is when one is filled with lust and stares at the private parts of a woman or girl. In the case dealing with this contingency, | ||
+ | |||
+ | As we will see under the non-offense clauses, there is no offense in a nocturnal emission. The Kommentar, however, discusses the question of conscious efforts made prior to sleep aimed at a nocturnal emission, and arrives at the following verdicts: If a bhikkhu, " | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Consent.** A special contingency covered by this rule occurs in two nearly identical cases in the Vinita-vatthu for [[bmc1.ch04# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Derived offenses.** As stated above, a bhikkhu who fulfills all three factors — result, intention, and effort — incurs a saṅghādisesa. One who fulfills only the last two — intention and effort — incurs a thullaccaya. | ||
+ | |||
+ | In discussing the case of a bhikkhu with fat thighs who develops an erection simply by walking along, the Kommentar mentions that if one finds sensual " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Aside from the thullaccaya, | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** In addition to the cases already mentioned — the bhikkhus who bring about emissions accidentally, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar notes that some interpreters had taken the idiomatic term in the rule translated as, "while dreaming (// | ||
+ | |||
+ | In making the exception for what happens while asleep, the Buddha states that even though there may be the intention to cause an emission, it doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | //<span anchor # | ||
+ | |||
+ | This rule has sometimes been viewed as a sign of prejudice against women. But, as the origin story makes clear, the Buddha formulated the rule not because women are bad, but because bhikkhus sometimes can be. | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Then, after exchanging pleasantries with Ven. Udāyin, te brahman left. Delighted, he burst out with words of delight: 'How grand are these Sakyan contemplatives who live in the wilderness like this! And how grand is Ven. Udāyin who lives in the wilderness like this!' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "When this was said, his wife said to him, 'From where does he get his grandeur? He rubbed up against me limb by limb just the way you do!' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the brahman criticized and complained and spread it about: ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are two ways in which a bhikkhu can come into contact with a woman: either actively (the bhikkhu makes the contact) or passively (the woman does). Because the Vibhaṅga uses different terms to analyze these two possibilities, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **//Active contact.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object:// a living woman — "even one born on that very day, all the more an older one." Whether she is awake enough to realize what is going on is irrelevant to the offense. | ||
+ | * //2) Perception:// | ||
+ | * //3) Intention:// | ||
+ | * //4) Effort:// He comes into physical contact with her. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Of these four factors, only two — intention and effort — require detailed explanation. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Intention.** The Vibhaṅga explains the term //overcome with lust// as meaning " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds a piece of Abhidhamma analysis at this point, saying that //altered// refers to the moment when the mind leaves its state of pure neutrality in the // | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar also tries to limit the range of passion to which this rule applies, saying that it covers only desire for the enjoyment of contact. As we noted under [[bmc1.ch04# | ||
+ | |||
+ | This system, though very neat and orderly, flies in the face of common sense and, as we noted under [[bmc1.ch04# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The Vibhaṅga illustrates the effort of making physical contact with a list of activities: rubbing, rubbing up against, rubbing downwards, rubbing upwards, bending down, pulling up, drawing to, pushing away, seizing hold (restraining or pinning down — // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Derived offenses.** Each of the factors of an offense allows a number of permutations that admit for different classes of offenses. Taken together, they form a complex system. Here we will consider each factor in turn. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Object.// Assuming that the bhikkhu is acting with lustful intentions and is perceiving his object correctly, he incurs a thullaccaya for making bodily contact with a // | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) An //āsitta// (literally, a " | ||
+ | * 2) A voyeur — a man whose sexual desire is allayed by watching other people commit sexual indiscretions. | ||
+ | * 3) A eunuch — one who has been castrated. | ||
+ | * 4) A half-time paṇḍaka — one who is a paṇḍaka only during the waning moon. (! — The Sub-commentary' | ||
+ | * 5) A neuter — a person born without sexual organs. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This passage in the Kommentar further states that the last three types cannot take the Going-forth, | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, in the context of this rule, and other rules in the Pāṭimokkha where paṇḍakas enter into the calculation of an offense, the Kommentar does not say whether // | ||
+ | |||
+ | As for //female yakkhas,// the Kommentar says that this also includes female devas. There is an ancient story in Chieng Mai of a bhikkhu who was visited by a dazzling heavenly maiden late one night while he was meditating alone in a cave at Wat Umong. She told him not to touch her, but he did — and went immediately out of his mind. The moral: This is one thullaccaya not to be taken lightly. | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is one exception to the dukkaṭa for lustful contact with an animal: Mv.V.9.3 states that a bhikkhu who touches the genitals of cattle incurs a thullaccaya. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Other information from the Kommentar: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) The thullaccaya for lustfully touching female corpses applies only to those that would be grounds for a full offense under [[bmc1.ch04# | ||
+ | * 2) The dukkaṭa for lustfully touching wooden dolls (mannequins) applies also to any female form made out of other materials, and even to any picture of a woman. | ||
+ | * 3) Female animals include female nāgas as well as any female offspring of a union between a human being and an animal. | ||
+ | |||
+ | For some reason, male yakkhas and devas slipped out of the list. Perhaps they should come under //men.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu who strikes a woman — or anyone else — out of anger would be treated under [[bmc1.ch08-8# | ||
+ | |||
+ | Otherwise, the Vibhaṅga does not discuss the issue of bhikkhus who intentionally make active contact with women for purposes other than lust or affection — e.g., helping a woman who has fallen into a raging river — but the Kommentar does. It introduces the concept of // | ||
+ | |||
+ | Where the Kommentar gets the concept of // | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is no offense in touching a being other than a woman if one's intentions are not lustful, although tickling is an offense under [[bmc1.ch08-6# | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Effort.// Acts of lustful but indirect bodily contact with a woman one perceives to be a woman and a paṇḍaka one perceives to be a woman carry the following penalties: | ||
+ | |||
+ | For the woman: Using one's body to make contact with an article connected to her body — e.g., using one's hand to touch a rope or stick she is holding: a thullaccaya. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Using an item connected with one's body to make contact with her body — e.g., using a flower one is holding to brush along her arm: a thullaccaya. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Using an item connected with one's body to make contact with an item connected with her body: a dukkaṭa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Taking an object — such as a flower — and tossing it against her body, an object connected with her body, or an object she has tossed: a dukkaṭa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Taking hold of something she is standing or sitting on — a bridge, a tree, a boat, etc. — and giving it a shake: a dukkaṭa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | For the paṇḍaka one assumes to be a woman, the penalty in all the above cases is a dukkaṭa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | These penalties for indirect contact have inspired the Kommentar to say that if a bhikkhu makes contact with a clothed portion of a woman' | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is a certain logic to the commentators' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Here, however, the nature of the activity is different. If one pushes a woman, it does not matter how many layers of cloth lie between her body and one's hand: One is pushing both the cloth and her. If one squeezes her fully clothed breasts, again, one is squeezing both the cloth and the breasts. To say that one is pushing or squeezing only the cloth is a denial of the true nature of the action. Also, if one stroked a woman' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The question is, does the Vibhaṅga follow this common linguistic usage, and the answer appears to be Yes. In none of the Vinita-vatthu cases concerning physical contact with women does the Buddha ever ask the bhikkhu if he made contact with the clothed or unclothed portions of the woman' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The only cases of indirect contact mentioned in the Vinita-vatthu refer to contact of a much more remote sort: A bhikkhu pulls a cord of which a woman is holding the other end, pulls a stick of which she is holding the other end, or gives her a playful push with his bowl. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus in the context of this rule the Vibhaṅga defines " | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Vibhaṅga, if a bhikkhu feels desire for contact with a woman and makes an effort that does not achieve even indirect contact — e.g., making a squeezing motion in the air near one of her breasts — the penalty is a dukkaṭa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **//Passive contact.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Agent:** either a woman the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, or a paṇḍaka he perceives to be a woman. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The agent' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The bhikkhu either makes a physical effort or he doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Result.** The bhikkhu either detects the contact or he doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The most important factor here is the bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | 'No, venerable sir, I did not.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | 'Then there was no offense, bhikkhu, as you did not consent.'"</ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar mentions another example, in which a bhikkhu not desiring the contact is molested by a lustful woman. He remains perfectly still, with the thought, "When she realizes I'm not interested, she'll go away." He too commits no offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, if the bhikkhu desires the contact, then the offenses are as follows: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The agent is a woman, the bhikkhu makes an effort and detects contact: a saṅghādisesa. He makes an effort but detects no contact: a dukkaṭa. He makes no effort (e.g., he remains perfectly still as she grasps, squeezes, and rubs his body): no offense regardless of whether or not he detects contact. One exception here, though, would be the special case mentioned under " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The agent is a paṇḍaka whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, the bhikkhu makes an effort and detects contact: a dukkaṭa. He doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Other derived offenses for passive contact** all deal with cases in which the bhikkhu desires contact and makes an effort. The variables focus on the agent, the agent' | ||
+ | |||
+ | //If the agent is a woman// whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, then if she makes an effort at the bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | If she tosses something at or on his body, something connected with his body, or something he has tossed, then the offense is a dukkaṭa regardless of whether he detects contact or not. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //If the agent is a paṇḍaka// | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Counting offenses.** According to the Vibhaṅga, if a bhikkhu has lustful bodily contact with //x// number of people in any of the ways that constitute an offense here, he commits //x// number of offenses. For example, if he lustfully rubs up against two women in a bus, he incurs two saṅghādisesas. If, out of fatherly affection, he hugs his two daughters and three sons, he incurs two dukkaṭas for hugging his daughters and no penalty for hugging his sons. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds that if he makes lustful contact with a person //x// number of times, he commits //x// number of offenses. For instance, he hugs a woman from behind, she fights him off, and he strikes her out of lust: two saṅghādisesas. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The question of counting saṅghādisesas, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** There is no offense for a bhikkhu who makes contact with a woman — | ||
+ | |||
+ | * // | ||
+ | * // | ||
+ | * // | ||
+ | * //when he doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | For some reason, the non-offense clauses omit the non-offenses the Vibhaṅga lists under passive contact — i.e., there is no offense if: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //the bhikkhu does not desire contact// or | ||
+ | * he does desire contact and yet makes no effort. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The K/Kommentar lists five factors for a full breach of this rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object:// a woman, i.e., any female human being experienced enough to know what is properly said and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd. | ||
+ | * //2) Perception:// | ||
+ | * //3) Intention:// | ||
+ | * //4) Effort:// He makes remarks praising, criticizing, | ||
+ | * //5) Result:// The woman immediately understands. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The only factors requiring detailed explanation here are object, intention, effort, and result. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** As the Kommentar notes, a woman who does not know what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd, may either be too young to know or, if she is an adult, too innocent or retarded to know. A woman who does not know the language in which one is speaking would also not fulfill the factor of object here. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Intention.** The minimum level of desire required to fulfill this factor means that this rule covers cases where a bhikkhu simply gets a charge out of referring to a woman' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga makes clear that this rule does not cover statements made in anger. Thus any insults a bhikkhu may direct at a woman out of anger rather than out of desire — even if they refer to her genitals, etc. — would come under [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The Vibhaṅga states that to incur the full penalty here when speaking to a woman, one must refer to //her// genitals, anus, or performing sexual intercourse (§). | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar goes further and asserts that to incur the full penalty one must make direct mention of one of these three things, or accuse her of being sexually deformed in a way that refers directly to her genitals. Otherwise, if one refers lustfully to these matters without directly mentioning them, there is no saṅghādisesa, | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, these assertions from the commentaries contradict the Vibhaṅga. After listing the ways of referring to the woman' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Thus the Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The K/Kommentar notes that a hand gesture denoting the genitals, anus, or sexual intercourse of the person to whom it is directed would fulfill the factor of effort here as well. | ||
+ | |||
+ | None of the texts mention the case in which a bhikkhu talks to one person about another person' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Result.** The K/Kommentar insists that the factor of result is fulfilled only if the woman immediately understands. As the Vibhaṅga points out, if she does not understand, the bhikkhu incurs a lesser offense, which will be discussed below. If she understands only later, that does not turn the lesser offense into a saṅghādisesa. The examples from the Vinita-vatthu indicate that the woman' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Derived offenses.** The factors of effort, object, perception, and result permit a number of permutations that yield lesser offenses. As for the permutations of intention, see the section on non-offenses, | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Effort.// A bhikkhu speaks to a woman he perceives to be a woman and refers lustfully to parts of her body — aside from her private parts — below her collarbone and above her knees, such as her breasts, buttocks, or thighs: a thullaccaya. He refers to parts of her body outside of that area, such as her face or hairdo, or to clothing or jewelry she is wearing: a dukkaṭa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Object.// A bhikkhu speaks to a paṇḍaka (in this and the following cases we are assuming that he perceives his object correctly) and refers lustfully to his private parts or to his performing sexual intercourse: | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu speaks to a man (or boy) and refers lustfully to any part of his listener' | ||
+ | |||
+ | For some reason the PTS edition of the Canon omits these derived offenses related to object under this rule. The Burmese and Sri Lankan editions are non-committal on the topic, for the relevant paragraphs are filled with ellipses that have been read in two ways. The PTS edition of the K/Kommentar reads the ellipses as including the thullaccaya and dukkaṭa for speaking lustfully to a paṇḍaka, | ||
+ | |||
+ | None of the texts make any mention of speaking lustfully to a woman/girl too inexperienced to understand what is and is not lewd. Using the Great Standards, though, we might argue from the cases included in the Vinita-vatthu — where bhikkhus make punning references to women' | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Result.// As mentioned above, the Vinita-vatthu contains a number of cases where bhikkhus speaking to women make punning references to the women' | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is, however, a pattern to the Vinita-vatthu cases. The thullaccaya case is the only one in which the bhikkhu actually mentions a word for genitals or anus (//magga,// which also means road, the meaning the woman understood). In the dukkaṭa cases, bhikkhus either use euphemisms for sexual intercourse (" | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Counting offenses.** A bhikkhu making a remark of the sort covered by this rule to //x// number of people commits //x// number of offenses, the type of offense being determined by the factors discussed above. Thus for a lustful remark to two women referring to their breasts, he would incur two thullaccayas; | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** The Vibhaṅga states that there is no offense for a bhikkhu who speaks aiming at (spiritual) welfare //(attha —// this can also mean the " | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu who without intending to be lewd makes innocent remarks that his listener takes to be lewd commits no offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the woman criticized and complained and spread it about... 'How can this monk Udāyin, when he himself begged me for sexual intercourse, | ||
+ | |||
+ | At first glance this rule might seem redundant with the preceding one, for what we have here is another case of a bhikkhu advising, begging, or imploring a woman to perform sexual intercourse. The Sub-commentary, | ||
+ | |||
+ | A more likely explanation for the need for this rule derives from some facts about language and belief in the Buddha' | ||
+ | |||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Because the preceding rule gives exemptions for bhikkhus speaking " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The K/Kommentar lists five factors for the full offense here, but only four of them have a basis in the Vibhaṅga: object, perception, intention, and effort. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object:** a woman experienced enough to know what is properly or improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Perception.** The bhikkhu perceives her to be such a woman. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Intention.** He is impelled by lust. According to the K/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The bhikkhu speaks to the woman in praise of her ministering to his sensual needs, referring to sexual intercourse as a meritorious gift. The Kommentar maintains that his remarks must directly mention sexual intercourse for this factor to be fulfilled, but the examples in the rule itself and in the Vibhaṅga contradict its assertion. Some of the examples in the Vibhaṅga state simply, "This is foremost. This is best. This is the utmost. This is highest. This is excellent." | ||
+ | |||
+ | Also, the Vinita-vatthu contains a number of cases in which bhikkhus simply tell women to give the highest gift, sexual intercourse — and one in which a bhikkhu simply tells a woman that sexual intercourse is the highest gift — without explicitly saying to whom it should be given. The bhikkhus all earn saṅghādisesas for their efforts, which shows that the reference to oneself need not be explicit, either. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Both the Kommentar and the K/Kommentar state that a physical gesture — this would include writing a letter — can fulfill the factor of effort here as well. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The K/Kommentar adds result as a fifth factor, saying that the woman must immediately understand one's remark, but there is no basis for this in the Canon. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Derived offenses.** The only factors with permutations leading to lesser offenses are object and perception. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Object.// A bhikkhu, correctly perceiving his object and impelled by lust, makes such a remark to a paṇḍaka: | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Counting offenses.** Offenses are counted by the number of people to whom one makes such a remark. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** The non-offense clauses in the Vibhaṅga, in addition to the blanket exemptions mentioned under [[bmc1.ch04# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are two factors for a full offense under this rule: effort and object. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The Kommentar says that to //engage in conveying// means to take on the role of a go-between. This includes helping to arrange not only marriages and affairs but also " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga sets the component factors of a go-between' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) accepting// the request of one party to convey a proposal; | ||
+ | * //2) inquiring,// | ||
+ | * //3) reporting// what one has learned to the first party. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The penalties for these actions are: a dukkaṭa for performing any one of them, a thullaccaya for any two, and a saṅghādisesa for the full set of three. Thus a bhikkhu acting on his own initiative to sound out the possibility of a date between a man and a woman would incur a thullaccaya for inquiring and reporting. A bhikkhu planning to disrobe who asks a woman if she would be interested in marrying him after his return to lay life would incur a dukkaṭa for inquiring. If, on the way to inquire about a woman after accepting a man's request to inquire about her, a bhikkhu asks people along the way of her whereabouts, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The penalties are the same if the bhikkhu, instead of acting as a go-between himself, gets someone else to act for him. Thus a bhikkhu who agrees to convey such a proposal but then gets a lay follower or another bhikkhu to do the inquiring and reporting would incur a saṅghādisesa all the same. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a bhikkhu agrees to a man's request to inquire about a woman, gets his student (§) to do the inquiring, and then the student of his own accord reports to the man, both the original bhikkhu and his student — assuming that he, too, is a bhikkhu — incur thullaccayas. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a group of bhikkhus are asked to act as go-betweens and they all accept, then even if only one of them performs any or all of the actions of a go-between, all the bhikkhus in the group incur the penalty for his actions. | ||
+ | |||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** The full offense is for acting as a go-between between a man and a woman who are not married to each other. If, instead of dealing directly with the man and woman, one deals with people speaking on their behalf (their parents, a pimp), one incurs the full penalty all the same. | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is no offense for a bhikkhu who tries to effect a reconciliation between an estranged couple who are not divorced, but a full offense for one who tries to effect a reconciliation between a couple who are. " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Elsewhere, in its discussion of the five precepts, the Kommentar includes couples who live as husband and wife without having gone through a formal ceremony under its definition of // | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu incurs a thullaccaya for acting as a go-between for a paṇḍaka; | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** The Vibhaṅga states that, in addition to the usual exemptions, there is no offense if a bhikkhu conveys a message from a man to a woman or vice versa dealing with " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Sub-commentary adds that any similar errand — i.e., not involving any sort of romantic liaison — is also exempt from penalty as long as it is not a form of subservience to lay people (see [[bmc1.ch05# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are three factors for a full offense under this rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //Effort:// One completes, or gets someone else to complete, through begging for its materials, | ||
+ | * //Object:// a hut that exceeds the standard mentioned in the rule or whose site has not been designated by the Community. | ||
+ | * // | ||
+ | |||
+ | We will discuss these factors in reverse order. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Intention.** The Canon repeatedly refers to two arrangements for the ownership of dwellings used by bhikkhus: They belong either to the Community or to an individual (or group of individuals). From the point of view of Community governance, the prior arrangement is preferable, for the Community can then allot the dwelling as it sees fit (see [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga to this rule defines //destined for himself// as "for his own use." On the surface this could mean that one plans to use the hut after handing ownership over to the Community, but the Kommentar states that this is not so. To dedicate something for one's own use, it says, is to claim ownership over it: In this case, one regards the dwelling as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** This factor is divided into two main sub-factors: | ||
+ | |||
+ | //The hut.// The Vibhaṅga defines a //hut// as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar goes on to stipulate that the plastering mentioned in the Vibhaṅga refers to a plastered //roof,// that the plaster must be either clay or white lime (plastering with cow dung or mud doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Sub-commentary treats the question raised by the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The commentaries' | ||
+ | |||
+ | At another point in its discussions, | ||
+ | |||
+ | //The maximum size of the hut,// as the rule states, is no more than twelve spans long and seven spans wide, or approximately 3 x 1.75 meters. For some reason the Vibhaṅga states that the length of the hut is measured from the outside (excluding the plastering, says the Kommentar), while the width is measured from the inside. Neither of these measurements may be exceeded even by the breadth of a hair. Thus a hut measuring ten by eight spans, even though it has less floor area than a twelve-by-seven-span hut, would exceed the standard width and so would be a violation of this rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //The procedures.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | — //The site// must be free of disturbances and have adequate space. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga gives a long list of " | ||
+ | |||
+ | (3) The site is not near any places that will disturb the bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Adequate space// means that there is enough room on the site for a yoked wagon or a man carrying a ladder to go around the proposed hut. The question arises as to whether this means that all trees within that radius of the hut must be cut down or simply that there must be enough land around the hut so that if the trees were not there it would be possible to go around the hut in the ways mentioned. The Sub-commentary states that the stipulation for adequate space is so that the hut will not be built on the edge of a precipice or next to a cliff wall, and the Vinaya-mukha notes that the Vibhaṅga here is following the Laws of Manu (an ancient Indian legal text) in ensuring that the dwelling not be built right against someone else's property. Both of these statements suggest that there is no need to cut the trees down. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vinaya-mukha deduces further from the Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | — //Clearing the site.// Before notifying the local Community, the bhikkhu must get the site cleared — so says the Vibhaṅga, and the Kommentar adds that he should get it leveled as well. In both cases, he should arrange to have this done in such a way that does not violate [[bmc1.ch08-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | — //Getting the site inspected.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | The inspectors then visit the site. If they find any disturbances or see that the site has inadequate space, they should tell the bhikkhu not to build there. If the site passes inspection, though, they should return and inform the Community that the site is free of disturbances and has adequate space. | ||
+ | |||
+ | — //Getting the site approved.// The bhikkhu returns to the Community and formally asks it to approve the site. The transaction statement involves a motion and one announcement. Once this has passed, the bhikkhu may start construction. | ||
+ | |||
+ | // | ||
+ | |||
+ | * an oversized hut — a saṅghādisesa; | ||
+ | * a hut on an unapproved site — a saṅghādisesa; | ||
+ | * a hut on a site without adequate space — a dukkaṭa; | ||
+ | * a hut on a site without adequate space — a dukkaṭa; | ||
+ | * a hut on a site with disturbances — a dukkaṭa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | These penalties are additive. Thus, for example, an oversized hut on an unapproved site would entail a double saṅghādisesa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The wording of the training rule, though, suggests that building a hut without a sponsor, for one's own use, on a site with disturbances and without adequate space would entail a saṅghādisesa; | ||
+ | |||
+ | Usually, if a Community transaction has been improperly performed, it is invalid and unfit to stand even if the bhikkhus involved think that they are following the proper procedure. In other words, in the case just mentioned, the site would strictly speaking not count as approved, and the hut would involve a saṅghādisesa. However, the Vibhaṅga seems to be making a special exemption here in assigning only a dukkaṭa, perhaps so as not to punish unduly a bhikkhu who went to all the trouble to follow, as best he and his fellow bhikkhus knew how, the proper procedures prior to building his hut. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The Vibhaṅga allots the derived penalties related to the factor of effort under this rule as follows: If the hut is such that when finished it will entail a saṅghādisesa or two, each act in its construction entails a dukkaṭa, until the next to the last act, which entails a thullaccaya. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a bhikkhu, intending it for his own use, completes a hut that others have started, he is still bound by the stipulations given in this rule. In other words, the offenses here do not apply only to the original initiator of the hut's construction. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar mentions a special case in which two bhikkhus, building a hut for their own use but not to the stipulations under this rule, complete it without having decided which part of the hut will go to which bhikkhu. Because of their indecision, the Kommentar states that neither of them incurs the full offense until he has laid claim to his part of the hut. | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Getting others to build the hut.// The Vibhaṅga states that if, instead of building the hut himself, a bhikkhu tells others, "Build this hut for me," he must inform them of the four stipulations mentioned in this rule. If he neglects to inform them, and they finish the hut in such a way that it does not meet any or all of the stipulations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, while the builders are still building the hut, he hears of what they are doing, he must either go himself or send a messenger to tell them of the stipulations he neglected to mention. If he does neither, he incurs a dukkaṭa, and when the hut is finished he incurs all the relevant offenses for the stipulations that he neglected to mention and that the builders violated. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, while the hut is still unfinished, he returns to the site and discovers that the stipulations he neglected to mention are being violated, he must either have the hut torn down (to the ground, says the Kommentar) and have it rebuilt in line with the stipulations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | If the bhikkhu originally mentions the proper stipulations but later learns that the builders are ignoring them, he must go himself or send a messenger to reiterate the stipulations. Not to do so incurs a dukkaṭa. If, having been reminded of the stipulations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Begging.** The Vibhaṅga to this rule does not go into any great detail on the issue of begging for construction materials. However, the Kommentar contains a long discussion of what a bhikkhu may and may not beg for when building any kind of building, even those not covered by this rule. Because the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu may ask for people to give labor in any situation (although this point seems to conflict with the spirit of the origin story to this rule). Thus he may ask stone masons to carry stone posts to his construction site, or carpenters to carry boards there. If, after he has asked them to help with the labor, they volunteer to donate the materials as well, he may accept them without penalty. Otherwise, he has to reimburse them for the materials. | ||
+ | |||
+ | As for tools, vehicles, and other things he will use in the process of construction, | ||
+ | |||
+ | This means that unless a bhikkhu is going to build his dwelling out of reeds, etc., or out of thrown-away scraps, he may not ask people in general for any of the materials that will actually go into the dwelling. Keep in mind that these rules were made during a period when wilderness was still plentiful, and solid building materials such as timber and stones were free for the taking. At present, unless a bhikkhu has access to unclaimed wilderness of this sort, to unclaimed garbage, or has enough funds on deposit with his steward (see [[bmc1.ch07-1# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar notes that while hinting is not allowed with regard to food or cloth, it is allowed with regard to construction materials (although again, this point seems to conflict with the spirit of the origin story). One example it gives is asking, "Do you think this is a good place to build a hut? An ordination hall?" Another example is staking out a construction site in hope that someone will ask, "What are you planning to do here?" If people get the hint and offer the materials, the bhikkhu may accept them. If they don't, he may not ask directly for any materials except the "light articles" | ||
+ | |||
+ | From this it should be obvious that even in cases not covered by this rule — i.e., the dwelling he is building doesn' | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** The Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Further restrictions and allowances** concerning the construction of dwellings are discussed under [[bmc1.ch08-2# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga defines // | ||
+ | |||
+ | None of the texts define //sponsor// aside from the Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is evidence in the Canon, though, that the word //sāmika// can have another meaning aside from " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Given the way the Kommentar defines //destined for oneself,// if the sponsor maintained ownership of the finished hut, the case would not fall under this rule. If a sponsor is building a dwelling to give to a bhikkhu, and the bhikkhu is not involved in any way in building it or getting it built, this rule does not apply. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "This upset the householder with fine food. Thinking, 'How can these evil bhikkhus eat in our house?' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Then the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja said to one another, ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Early the next morning... they went to the home of the householder with fine food. The female slave saw them coming from afar. On seeing them, and having prepared them a seat in the gatehouse, she said to them, 'Have a seat, honored sirs.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "The thought occurred to the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja, 'No doubt the food isn't ready yet, which is why we're being made to sit in the gatehouse.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Then the female slave presented them with unhusked rice porridge with pickle brine and said, 'Eat, honored sirs.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Then the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja said to one another, ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | "Then Mettiyā Bhikkhunī approached them... and said to them, 'I salute you, masters.' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is just the heart of the origin story to this rule, which is one of the longest and most controversial accounts in the Vinaya. After Mettiyā Bhikkhunī made her charge, the Buddha convened a meeting of the Saṅgha to question Ven. Dabba Mallaputta. The latter, who had attained arahantship at the age of seven, responded truthfully that he could not call to mind ever having indulged in sexual intercourse even in a dream, much less when awake. The Buddha then told the Saṅgha to expel Mettiyā Bhikkhunī and to interrogate (§) her instigators, | ||
+ | |||
+ | < | ||
+ | |||
+ | "' | ||
+ | |||
+ | "So the bhikkhus criticized and complained and spread it about, 'How can the followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja charge Ven. Dabba Mallaputta with an unfounded case entailing defeat?'"</ | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the centuries after the Canon was composed, however, many people have criticized and complained more about the Buddha' | ||
+ | |||
+ | At any rate, what concerns us here is that at some point after this rule was formulated, the Buddha put the Saṅgha in charge of judging accusations of this sort and gave them a definite pattern to follow to ensure that their judgments would be as fair and accurate as possible. Because the Vibhaṅga and Kommentar to this rule are based on this pattern, we will discuss the pattern first before dealing with the special case — unfounded charges — covered by this rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Admonition.** As the Buddha states in [[bmc1.ch05# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The pattern here is this: Before admonishing the bhikkhu, one must first make sure that one is qualified to admonish him. According to Cv.IX.5.1-2, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) One is pure in bodily conduct. | ||
+ | * 2) One is pure in verbal conduct. | ||
+ | * 3) One is motivated by good will, not vindictiveness. | ||
+ | * 4) One is learned in the Dhamma. | ||
+ | * 5) One knows both Pāṭimokkhas (the one for the bhikkhus and the one for the bhikkhunīs) in detail. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Furthermore, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) I will speak at the right time and not at the wrong time. | ||
+ | * 2) I will speak about what is factual and not what is unfactual. | ||
+ | * 3) I will speak gently and not harshly. | ||
+ | * 4) I will speak what is connected with the goal (//attha//) and not what is unconnected with the goal (this can also mean: what is connected with the case and not what is unconnected with the case). | ||
+ | * 5) I will speak from a mind of good will and not from inner aversion. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Cv.IX.5.7 and Pv.XV.5.3 add that one should keep five qualities in mind: compassion, solicitude for the other' | ||
+ | |||
+ | If one feels unqualified in terms of these standards yet believes that another bhikkhu has committed an offense for which he has not made amends, one should find another bhikkhu who is qualified to handle the charge and inform him. Not to inform anyone in cases like this is to incur a pācittiya or a derived offense under [[bmc1.ch08-7# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The next step, if one is qualified to make the charge, is to look for a proper time and place to talk with the other party — for example, when he is not likely to get embarrassed or upset — and then to ask his leave, i.e., to ask permission to speak with him: "Let the venerable one give me leave. I want to speak with you — //Karotu āyasmā okāsaṃ. Ahan-taṃ vattukāmo."// | ||
+ | |||
+ | As for the other party, he may give leave, or not, depending on his assessment of the individual asking for leave, for it is possible that someone might ask for leave without any real grounds, simply to be abusive. (This interpretation follows the Burmese edition on the relevant passage, Mv.II.16.3. In other editions, the same passage says that one is allowed to make another bhikkhu give leave after having assessed him. However, in the context of the allowance — some group-of-six bhikkhus ask leave of bhikkhus they know are pure — there seems no need to allow a bhikkhu to reflect on whether the person he plans to accuse might be pure. That is one of the accuser' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pv.XV.4.7 gives further support to the Burmese reading here by suggesting that one should not give leave to a bhikkhu who: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) is unconscientious, | ||
+ | * 2) is ignorant, | ||
+ | * 3) is not in regular standing (e.g., he is undergoing penance for a saṅghādisesa offense or has been placed under a disciplinary transaction), | ||
+ | * 4) speaks intent on creating a disturbance, | ||
+ | * 5) is not intent on rehabilitating the bhikkhu he is accusing. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Pv.XV.5.4 suggests further that one should not give leave to a bhikkhu who: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) is not pure in bodily conduct, | ||
+ | * 2) is not pure in verbal conduct, | ||
+ | * 3) is not pure in his livelihood, | ||
+ | * 4) is incompetent and inexperienced, | ||
+ | * 5) is unable to give a consistent line of reasoning when questioned. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If the bhikkhu is not unqualified in any of these ways, though, one should willingly give him leave to speak. Cv.IX.5.7 says that, when being admonished or accused, one should keep two qualities in mind: truth and staying unprovoked. The Pāṭimokkha also contains a number of rules imposing penalties on behaving improperly when one is being admonished formally or informally: [[bmc1.ch05# | ||
+ | |||
+ | If both sides act in good faith and without prejudice, accusations of this sort are easy to settle on an informal basis. If an accusation can't be settled informally, it should be taken to a meeting of the Community so that the group as a whole may pass judgment. The procedures for this sort of formal meeting will be discussed under the aniyata and adhikaraṇa-samatha rules. If the issue is to be brought up at a Community meeting for the uposatha, there are extra procedures to be followed, which are discussed in [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Abuse of the system.** As shown in the origin story to this rule, a bhikkhu making a charge against another bhikkhu might be acting out of a grudge and simply making up the charge. This rule and the following one cover cases where the made-up charge is that the other bhikkhu has committed a pārājika. [[bmc1.ch08-8# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The full offense under this rule involves four factors. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Object:// The other bhikkhu is regarded as ordained. | ||
+ | * //2) Perception:// | ||
+ | * //3) Intention:// | ||
+ | * //4) Effort:// One makes an unfounded charge in his presence that he is guilty of a pārājika offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Object.** The definition of this factor — the other bhikkhu is regarded as ordained — may sound strange, but it comes from the K/ | ||
+ | |||
+ | For example, Bhikkhu X steals some of the monastery funds, but no one knows about it, and he continues to act as if he were a bhikkhu. Bhikkhu Y later develops a grudge against him and makes an unfounded charge that he has had sexual intercourse with one of the monastery supporters. Even though X is not really a bhikkhu, the fact that people in general assume him to be one means that he fulfills this factor. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Perception.** If one perceives the bhikkhu one is charging with a pārājika offense to be innocent of the offense, that is enough to fulfill this factor regardless of whether the accused is actually innocent or not. To make an accusation based on the assumption or suspicion that the accused is //not// innocent entails no offense. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Intention.** The wording of the training rule suggests that this factor would have to be fulfilled by impulse — aversion — together with motive — desiring the other bhikkhu' | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Vibhaṅga, // | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** The act covered by this rule is that of making an unfounded charge of a pārājika in the accused' | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga defines an //unfounded charge// as one having no basis in what has been seen, heard, or suspected. In other words, the accuser has not seen the accused committing the offense in question, nor has he heard anything reliable to that effect, nor is there anything in the accused' | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Seeing// and // | ||
+ | |||
+ | If there is some basis in fact, but one changes the status of the evidence, the penalty is the same. //Changing the status// means, e.g., saying that one saw something when in actuality one simply heard about it or suspected it, or that one saw it clearly when in actuality one saw it indistinctly. | ||
+ | |||
+ | An example from the Kommentar: Bhikkhu X goes into a grove to relieve himself. Ms. Y goes into the same grove to get something there. One sees them leaving the grove at approximately the same time — which could count as grounds for suspicion — but one then accuses Bhikkhu X, saying that one actually saw him having sex with Ms. Y. This would count as an unfounded charge. Another example: In the dark of the night, one sees a man stealing something from the monastery storehouse. He looks vaguely like Bhikkhu Z, but one can't be sure. Still, one firms up one's accusation by saying that one definitely saw Z steal the item. Again, this would count as an unfounded charge. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar states that for an unfounded charge to count under this rule, it must state explicitly (a) the precise act the accused supposedly committed (e.g., having sexual intercourse, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar adds that charging a bhikkhu with having committed an equivalent or derived pārājika, as discussed in the conclusion to the preceding chapter, would fulfill this factor as well. For instance, if one makes an unfounded charge accusing Bhikkhu A of having killed his father before his ordination, that would constitute a full offense here. The Vibhaṅga makes no mention of these equivalent pārājikas under this rule, but the Great Standards can be used to justify their inclusion here. | ||
+ | |||
+ | All of the charges given as examples in the Vibhaṅga are expressed directly to the accused — "I saw you commit a pārājika offense," | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that the Kommentar is wrong here, aside from the consideration that — because the charge is unfounded — it could entail a pācittiya for deliberate lying. Some people, however, have objected to the Kommentar' | ||
+ | |||
+ | For some reason, the Kommentar maintains that a charge made in writing does not count, although a charge made by gesture — e.g., pointing at the accused when one is asked who committed the pārājika — does. Perhaps in those days written charges were regarded as too cowardly to take seriously. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The rule seems to require that the accuser confess that he was acting out of depraved impulses, although the Vibhaṅga states that this means simply that he admits the charge was a lie. The Kommentar states further that here the rule is showing the point where the rest of the Community knows that the bhikkhu making the charge is guilty of a saṅghādisesa: | ||
+ | |||
+ | The K/Kommentar adds " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Whether anyone actually believes the charge is not a factor here. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** If one understands the accused to be guilty of a pārājika and accuses him honestly on the basis of what one has seen, heard, or suspected, then — regardless of whether he is guilty or not — one has not committed an offense. Even in a case such as this, though, one incurs a dukkaṭa if making the charge without asking leave of the accused, and a pācittiya if making the charge so as to insult him. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | Some grudges die hard. This rule is almost identical with the preceding one and involves the same factors except for one of the sub-factors under " | ||
+ | |||
+ | The precise difference between the two rules is this: With an unfounded charge, one has neither seen, heard, nor suspected that an offense has been committed; or if one has, one changes the status of the evidence — e.g., one states something one has suspected as if one has heard it, or something one has heard as if one has seen it. In a charge based on an issue that pertains otherwise, one has seen an action that would be an offense if committed by a bhikkhu, and one does not change the status of the evidence, but one distorts the facts of the case. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga lists ten factors that can be used as a ploy in distorting the facts this way. They are: birth (caste), name, clan (family name), physical characteristics, | ||
+ | |||
+ | 1) An example of using an offense as a ploy: One sees Bhikkhu Y actually committing an offense. Although one perceives it as a lesser offense, one magnifies the charge to a pārājika. For instance, one sees him get into an argument with Bhikkhu Z and in a fit of anger give Z a blow to the head. Z goes unconscious, | ||
+ | |||
+ | 2) An example of using any of the other nine factors as a ploy: X, who may or may not be a bhikkhu, has something in common with Bhikkhu Y — they are both tall, short, dark, fair, share the same name, are students of the same preceptor, live in the same dwelling, use similar looking bowls or robes, etc. One sees X committing an action that, if he were a bhikkhu, would amount to a pārājika offense; on the basis of the similarity between the two, one claims to have seen Bhikkhu Y committing a pārājika. For instance, X and Y are both very tall. Late at night one sees X — knowing that it is X — stealing tools from the monastery storeroom. One has a grudge against Y and so accuses him of being the thief, saying, "I saw this big tall guy stealing the tools, and he looked just like you. It must have been you." For ease of remembrance, | ||
+ | |||
+ | None of the texts mention the scenario of a double ploy — i.e., " | ||
+ | |||
+ | A case that would //not// come under this rule is one based on seeing or hearing Y commit an action that bears some resemblance to an offense but is actually not. For instance, one overhears him teaching Vinaya to some new bhikkhus and quoting, by way of illustration, | ||
+ | |||
+ | The remaining explanations for this rule are exactly the same as those for the preceding rule, except that in the non-offense clauses the Vibhaṅga states that if one makes a charge — or gets someone else to make a charge — against the accused based on what one actually perceives, there is no offense even if the issue turns out to pertain otherwise. For instance, from the examples already given: One sees X stealing tools in the dark and, because of his resemblance to Y, actually thinks Y is the thief. One sees Y give a fatal blow to Z and actually thinks that Y's intention was to kill Z. In either of these cases, if one then accuses Y of a pārājika offense, one incurs no penalty regardless of how the case comes out, although — as in the preceding rule — one should be careful to ask Y's leave before making the charge and to have no intention of insulting him. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | //And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times he desists, that is good. If he does not desist, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Schism.** A schism is a serious division in the Community — so serious that, if achieved in a dishonest way, it ranks with matricide, patricide, killing an arahant, and maliciously shedding the Tathāgata' | ||
+ | |||
+ | To qualify as a schism, the division has to meet five criteria: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) The Community is originally united, which means that it is composed of bhikkhus of common affiliation living in the same territory. | ||
+ | * 2) It contains at least nine bhikkhus. | ||
+ | * 3) It becomes involved in a dispute over any of eighteen grounds for a creating a schism. In other words, one of the sides advocates any of the following positions, explaining: | ||
+ | Dhamma as not-Dhamma; | ||
+ | not-Dhamma as Dhamma;\\ | ||
+ | Vinaya as not-Vinaya; | ||
+ | not-Vinaya as Vinaya;\\ | ||
+ | what was not spoken by the Buddha as having been spoken by him;\\ | ||
+ | what was spoken by the Buddha as not;\\ | ||
+ | what was not regularly practiced by him as having been regularly practiced by him;\\ | ||
+ | what was regularly practiced by him as not;\\ | ||
+ | what was not formulated by him as having been formulated by him;\\ | ||
+ | what was formulated by him as not;\\ | ||
+ | an offense as a non-offense; | ||
+ | a non-offense as an offense;\\ | ||
+ | a heavy offense as a light offense;\\ | ||
+ | a light offense as heavy;\\ | ||
+ | an offense leaving a remainder (i.e., not a pārājika) as an offense leaving no remainder (§);\\ | ||
+ | an offense leaving no remainder as an offense leaving a remainder (§);\\ | ||
+ | a serious offense as not serious; or\\ | ||
+ | a not-serious offense as serious. | ||
+ | * 4) There are at least four bhikkhus on either side. | ||
+ | * 5) The dispute reaches the point where the two sides conduct separate Pāṭimokkha recitations, | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Canon tells of two schisms during the time of the Buddha, one involving the bhikkhus in the city of Kosambī, reported in Mv.X; and the other, Devadatta' | ||
+ | |||
+ | Schism is the result of a dispute, but not all disputes — even when prolonged — will lead to schism. An example is the dispute that led to the Second Council (Cv.XII). Even though it was bitterly fought, there was never a point when either faction thought of splitting off and conducting communal business separately in the same territory. Still, even minor disputes can be potentially schismatic. At the same time, as we will see below, it is possible to act in a divisive way prior to a dispute without yet broaching the questions around which a dispute could develop. This rule and the following one are designed to nip both sorts of behavior in the bud before they can become schismatic. Once a dispute has become a major issue, these rules cannot be used, for at that point the procedures given in Cv.IV.14.16-26 — explained in [[bmc1.ch11|Kapitel 11]] — should be followed. Questions of how to behave once a schism has occurred and how it can be ended are discussed in [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The roots of schism.** According to Cv.IV.14.4, the act of taking a position in a dispute can be rooted either in unskillful mind states (covetous, corrupt, or confused) or in skillful ones (not covetous, not corrupt, not confused). Given the false nature of the grounds for a schism, the mind state of a bhikkhu agitating for schism must be unskillful. However, it is crucial to determine the way in which his impulses and motivations are unskillful, for this question determines his personal fate and the prospects for whether the schism can be successfully resolved. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Cv.VII.5.3 and Cv.VII.5.5-6 explain that a bhikkhu who accomplishes a schism in the following way is automatically consigned to hell for an aeon. The Kommentar to Mv.I.67 adds that as soon as the schism is accomplished he is no longer a bhikkhu and is to be expelled from the Saṅgha. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) The Community, of common affiliation and living in the same territory, is united around a correct understanding of the Dhamma and Vinaya. | ||
+ | * 2) The bhikkhu agitates for a schism, advocating any of the 18 grounds for creating a schism. | ||
+ | * 3) He views his explanations or the act of a schism as not-Dhamma — i.e., he knows that what he is doing is contrary to the Dhamma — or he is doubtful about the matter. | ||
+ | * 4) Nevertheless, | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, however, a bhikkhu advocates any of the 18 grounds for creating a schism with the understanding that he is advocating the Dhamma and that the schism would be in line with the Dhamma, then even if he accomplishes a schism he is still a bhikkhu, he is not automatically consigned to hell, and there is the possibility that he can be reconciled with the Community and the schism resolved. | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Strategies for schism.** The Cullavagga presents two patterns by which a schism may happen. The first pattern, derived from Devadatta' | ||
+ | |||
+ | If any of these qualifications is lacking — the issue goes to a vote in a Community of less than nine bhikkhus, one side or the other gains less than four adherents, or the bhikkhus involved are not on regular standing, are not of common affiliation, | ||
+ | |||
+ | A second pattern — which describes the Kosambī schism but is given in Cv.VII.5.2 (as well as in AN X.35 & 37) — lists two steps by which a group becomes schismatic: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) The members of the group advocate one or more of the 18 grounds for creating schism. | ||
+ | * 2) On the basis of any of these 18 points, they draw themselves apart, performing a separate Pāṭimokkha recitation, a separate Invitation, (or) a separate Community transaction. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Parivāra (XV.10.9), trying to collate these two patterns into one, lists five ways in which a schism can take place: discussion, announcement, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Discussion.// | ||
+ | * //2) Announcement.// | ||
+ | * //3) Vote.// The issue goes to a vote in a Community of at least nine bhikkhus, with at least four on either side. | ||
+ | * //4) Transaction or recitation.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | According to the Kommentar, the actual schism has not taken place until step 4, when the schismatic group conducts communal business separately within the same territory as the group from which it has split. This is in accordance with Cv.VII.5.2 but conflicts with Cv.VII.5.1, so the Kommentar explains that if the vote is taken in a split-off meeting of the Community, steps 3 and 4 happen simultaneously, | ||
+ | |||
+ | However, it's possible that the compilers of the Cullavagga intentionally listed two patterns for a schism because there are two ways in which it can happen: bilaterally and unilaterally. In a bilateral schism, the schismatic group meets with the group from which it is splitting and asks everyone to take sides. This is the pattern presented in Cv.VII.5.1. In a unilateral schism, the schismatic group meets on its own, announces that it has separated from the other bhikkhus in the same territory, and conducts Community transactions separately from them. This is the pattern presented in Cv.VII.5.2. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vinaya-mukha, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **The factors for an offense.** The K/Kommentar analyzes the factors for an offense under this rule as one — effort — dividing it into several sub-factors. However, it also classifies this rule as // | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the first offense, the factors are two. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * //1) Intention:// | ||
+ | * //2) Effort:// \\ | ||
+ | a) one agitates for a schism in a united Community — i.e., one of common affiliation in a single territory — \\ | ||
+ | b) even when rebuked three times in a properly performed Community transaction. | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the second offense, there is only one factor, divided into two sub-factors. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * //1) Effort://\\ | ||
+ | a) One persists in taking up an issue conducive to schism in a united Community — i.e., one of common affiliation in a single territory —\\ | ||
+ | b) even when rebuked three times in a properly performed Community transaction. | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Effort.** According to the Vibhaṅga, to agitate for a schism is to search for a partisan following or to bind together a group, with the above intention. To persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism is to take a stance on any of the 18 positions mentioned above. The two types of effort may overlap — a bhikkhu attempting to split off a schismatic faction could do so based on any of the 18 positions — but not necessarily. A bhikkhu might try to create a faction in other ways — for example, by arranging special meals exclusively for his friends (see [[bmc1.ch08-4# | ||
+ | |||
+ | Note that, unlike the definition of united Community in Cv.VII.5.3, the Vibhaṅga' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Procedure.** The Vibhaṅga states that if the bhikkhus see or hear of a bhikkhu who has begun agitating for a schism or persists in taking up an issue conducive to schism in a united Community, it is their duty to reprimand him three times. Otherwise, if he goes unreprimanded, | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, after being reprimanded three times, the instigator abandons his efforts — i.e., stops agitating for a schism or abandons his position with regard to the 18 issues conducive to a schism — he incurs no penalty and nothing further need be done. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If he is still recalcitrant, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Perception.** The Vibhaṅga states that if the rebuke transaction is carried out properly — i.e., the bhikkhu really is looking for a faction or taking up an issue conducive to schism, and the various other formal requirements for a valid transaction are fulfilled — then if he does not abandon his efforts, he incurs the full saṅghādisesa regardless of whether he perceives the transaction to be proper, improper, or doubtful. If the transaction is improperly carried out, then regardless of how he perceives its validity, he incurs a dukkaṭa for not abandoning his efforts (§). | ||
+ | |||
+ | The fact that the bhikkhu is not free from an offense in the latter case is important: There are several other, similar points in the Vinaya — such as the Buddha' | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Non-offenses.** The non-offense clauses, in addition to the usual exemptions, state that there is no offense if the bhikkhu is not reprimanded or if he gives up his efforts (prior to the end of the third reprimand). | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Further steps.** If the bhikkhu is so stubborn that he refuses to abandon his schismatic efforts even through the third rebuke, he will probably not acknowledge that the Community has acted properly, in which case he will not admit that he has incurred a saṅghādisesa offense or that he has to make amends for it. This gives the Community clear grounds, if it sees fit, for suspending him then and there (see [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Once the offender' | ||
+ | |||
+ | All of this shows why schism is regarded so seriously: As the Buddha states in the second discourse on future dangers ([[de: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | //And should those bhikkhus, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke them up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times they desist, that is good. If they do not desist, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | If the schismatic mentioned in the preceding rule begins to attract adherents, they are to be treated under this rule — and quickly, before the schismatic gains a fourth adherent. The reasons are these: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) One Community cannot impose a penalty on another Community (four or more bhikkhus) in any one transaction (Mv.IX.2). | ||
+ | * 2) Penalties of this sort may be imposed only with the unanimous agreement of all the bhikkhus present in the meeting. If there is a fourth adherent present in the meeting, his protest can invalidate the rebuke. | ||
+ | * 3) As the Sub-commentary points out, once the adherents of a potential schismatic have reached four, they are in a position to go ahead with the schism even if he is observing penance under the preceding rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The procedures for dealing with these partisans — reprimanding them in private, admonishing and rebuking them in the midst of the Community — are the same as in the preceding rule. | ||
+ | |||
+ | As noted under the preceding rule, the procedures to follow once the schismatics have succeeded in creating a schism are discussed in [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | //And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times he desists, that is good. If he does not desist, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a bhikkhu breaks any of the rules of the Vinaya without undergoing the penalties they entail, the other bhikkhus have the duty of admonishing him, as explained under [[bmc1.ch05# | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar defines //difficult to admonish// as " | ||
+ | |||
+ | A fair number of these traits are exemplified by Ven. Channa — according to tradition, the Buddha' | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The procedures to follow when a bhikkhu is difficult to admonish — reprimanding him in private, admonishing and rebuking him in a formal meeting of the Community — are the same as under [[bmc1.ch05# | ||
+ | |||
+ | If the bhikkhu difficult to admonish carries on as before, even after incurring the full penalty under this rule, the Community may perform a banishment transaction (// | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_definition>< | ||
+ | |||
+ | //And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, say about the bhikkhus, "The bhikkhus are biased through favoritism, biased through aversion, biased through delusion, biased through fear, in that for this sort of offense they banish some and do not banish others," | ||
+ | |||
+ | //And should that bhikkhu, thus admonished by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times he desists, that is good. If he does not desist, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.// | ||
+ | |||
+ | A //corrupter of families// is a bhikkhu who — behaving in a demeaning, frivolous, or subservient way — succeeds in ingratiating himself to lay people to the point where they withdraw their support from bhikkhus who are earnest in the practice and give it to those who are more ingratiating instead. This is illustrated in the origin story of this rule, in which the followers of Assaji and Punabbasu (leaders of one faction of the group of six) had thoroughly corrupted the lay people at Kīṭāgiri. | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div excerpt> | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Vibhaṅga lists the ways of corrupting a family as giving gifts of flowers, fruit, etc., practicing medicine, and delivering messages — although the Kommentar qualifies this by saying there is no harm in delivering messages related to religious activities, such as inviting bhikkhus to a meal or to deliver a sermon, or in conveying a lay person' | ||
+ | |||
+ | //Depraved conduct// the Vibhaṅga defines merely as growing flowers and making them into garlands, but this, the Kommentar says, is a shorthand reference to the long list of bad habits mentioned in the origin story, which includes such things as presenting garlands to women, eating from the same dish with them, sharing a blanket with them; eating at the wrong time, drinking intoxicants; | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Cullavagga, in a section that begins with the same origin story as the one for this rule (Cv.I.13-16), | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) He is a maker of strife, disputes, quarrels, and issues in the Community. | ||
+ | * 2) He is inexperienced, | ||
+ | * 3) He lives in unbecoming association with householders. | ||
+ | * 4) He is corrupt in his precepts, corrupt in his conduct, or corrupt in his views. | ||
+ | * 5) He speaks in dispraise of the Buddha, Dhamma, or Saṅgha. | ||
+ | * 6) He is frivolous in word, deed, or both. | ||
+ | * 7) He misbehaves in word, deed, or both. | ||
+ | * 8) He is vindictive in word, deed, or both. | ||
+ | * 9) He practices wrong modes of livelihood. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This last category includes such practices as: | ||
+ | |||
+ | * a) running messages and errands for kings, ministers of state, householders, | ||
+ | * b) scheming, talking, hinting, belittling others for the sake of material gain, pursuing gain with gain (giving items of small value in hopes of receiving items of larger value in return, making investments in hopes of profit, offering material incentives to those who make donations). (For a full discussion of these practices, see Visuddhimagga I.61-82.) | ||
+ | * c) Practicing worldly arts, e.g., medicine, fortune telling, astrology, exorcism, reciting charms, casting spells, performing ceremonies to counteract the influence of the stars, determining propitious sites, setting auspicious dates (for weddings, etc.), interpreting oracles, auguries, or dreams, or — in the words of the Vibhaṅga to the Bhikkhunīs' | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu banished for indulging in any of these activities is duty-bound to undergo the 18 observances listed in Cv.I.15 (see [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | If a bhikkhu, instead of mending his ways after being banished, criticizes the act of banishment or those who performed it, he is subject to this rule. The procedure to follow in dealing with him — reprimanding him in private, admonishing and rebuking him in a formal meeting of the Community — is the same as under [[bmc1.ch05# | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span bmc_summary> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div bmc_rule> | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu who commits any one of these thirteen saṅghādisesa offenses is duty-bound to inform a fellow bhikkhu and to ask a Community of at least four bhikkhus to impose a six-day period of penance (// | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Penance.** Penance does not begin immediately, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 1) He must not live under the same roof as a regular bhikkhu. | ||
+ | * 2) He must live in a monastery with at least four regular bhikkhus. | ||
+ | * 3) If he goes anyplace outside the monastery, he must be accompanied by four full-fledged bhikkhus unless (a) he is going to escape dangers or (b) he is going to another place where there are regular bhikkhus of the same affiliation and he can reach it in one day's time. | ||
+ | * 4) Every day he must inform all the bhikkhus in the monastery of the fact that he is observing penance and the precise offense for which the penance was imposed. If visiting bhikkhus come to the monastery, he must inform them as well; if he goes to another monastery, he must inform all the bhikkhus there, too. | ||
+ | |||
+ | If, on any day of his penance, the bhikkhu neglects to observe any of these four restrictions, | ||
+ | |||
+ | Once the bhikkhu has completed his penance, he may ask a Community of at least 20 bhikkhus to give him rehabilitation. Once rehabilitated, | ||
+ | |||
+ | **Probation.** If a bhikkhu who commits a saṅghādisesa offense conceals it from his fellow bhikkhus past dawn of the day following the offense, he must observe an additional period of probation (// | ||
+ | |||
+ | The Kommentar sets the factors of concealment at ten, which may be arranged in five pairs as follows: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div biblio> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * 1) He has committed a saṅghādisesa offense and perceives it as an offense (i.e., this factor is fulfilled even if he thinks it is a lesser offense). | ||
+ | * 2) He has not been suspended and perceives that he has not been suspended. (If a bhikkhu has been suspended, he cannot accost other bhikkhus, and thus he cannot tell them until after his suspension has been lifted.) | ||
+ | * 3) There are no obstacles (e.g., a flood, a forest fire, dangerous animals) and he perceives that there are none. | ||
+ | * 4) He is able to inform another bhikkhu (i.e., a fellow bhikkhu suitable to be informed lives in a place that may be reached in that day, one is not too weak or ill to go, etc.) and he perceives that he is able. (According to Cv.III.34.2, | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | * a) in good standing (e.g., not undergoing penance, probation, or suspension himself) and | ||
+ | * b) not on uncongenial terms with the offender. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * 5) He (the offender) desires to conceal the offense and so conceals it. | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | If any of these factors are lacking, there is no penalty for not informing another bhikkhu that day. For instance, the following cases do //not// count as concealment: | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu does not suspect that he has committed an offense and realizes only much later, after reading or hearing about the rules in more detail, that he has incurred a saṅghādisesa. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu lives alone in a forest and commits a saṅghādisesa in the middle of the night. Afraid of the snakes or other wild animals he might encounter in the dark, he waits until daylight before going to inform a fellow bhikkhu. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu lives alone in a forest, but the only other bhikkhu within one day's traveling time is a personal enemy who, if he is informed, will use this as an opportunity to smear the offender' | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu intends to tell another bhikkhu before dawn but falls asleep and either wakes up too late or else wakes up in time but remembers his offense only after dawn has past. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Once all of the first eight factors are complete, though, one must inform another bhikkhu before dawn of the next day or else incur a dukkaṭa and undergo the penalty for concealment. | ||
+ | |||
+ | A bhikkhu who commits a lesser offense that he thinks is a saṅghādisesa and then conceals it, incurs a dukkaṭa (Cv.III.34.1). | ||
+ | |||
+ | The restrictions for a bhikkhu undergoing probation — and the other possible steps in the rehabilitation process — are similar to those for one undergoing penance and are discussed in detail in [[..: | ||
+ | |||
+ | Saṅghādisesas are classified as heavy offenses (// | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div chapter> | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div alphalist> | ||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.intro|Einleitung]] | [[bmc1.ch01|1]] | [[bmc1.ch02|2]] | [[bmc1.ch03|3]] | [[bmc1.ch04|4]] | 5 {{de: | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span hlist> [[bmc1.ch08-6|8.6]] | [[bmc1.ch08-7|8.7]] | [[bmc1.ch08-8|8.8]] | [[bmc1.ch08-9|8.9]] | [[bmc1.ch09|9]] | [[bmc1.ch10|10]] | [[bmc1.ch11|11]] | [[bmc1.ch12|12]] | [[bmc1.glossary|Glossar]] | [[bmc1.biblio|Literaturverz.]] | [[bmc1.rule-index|Regeln]] | [[bmc1.addendum|Anhang]] </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <span # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div showmore> | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div f_zzecopy> | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | Einsiedler I: Kapitel 5", von Thanissaro Bhikkhu. //Access to Insight//, 23 April 2012, [[http:// | ||
+ | < | ||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # | ||
+ | |||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | </ | ||
+ | |||
+ | ---- | ||
+ | |||
+ | <div # |