Posted by: Dhammañāṇa
« on: April 11, 2018, 05:04:07 PM »Since it is "the daily hard beard" of any Bhikkhu, Bhikkhuni, but also for Samanera/i, my person gives him leave to progress this issue, and trusts that it is of benefit for every Ven. in front and fellows, not to speak for the long existence of the Sangha in this world.
The most "outpointing" rule in this regard is pc-67 (147 for Bhikkhunis)
- Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa -
Should any bhikkhu knowingly commune, affiliate, or lie down in the same dwelling with a bhikkhu professing such a view who has not acted in compliance with the rule, who has not abandoned that view, it is to be confessed.
This rule reinforces the suggestion made under the preceding rule, that a bhikkhu who refuses to respond to the rebuke imposed by that rule should immediately be suspended. There are three factors for the full offense here.
1) Object: a bhikkhu who has been suspended by a Community transaction and has not yet been restored.
2) Perception: One knows that he has been suspended and has not yet been restored—either from knowing on one’s own, from having been told by the bhikkhu, or from having been told by others.
3) Effort: One communes with him, affiliates with him, or lies down in the same dwelling with him.
Object
According to Cv.I.25-35, a bhikkhu may be suspended for any one of three reasons:- He refuses to relinquish an evil view, as in the preceding rule;
- he refuses to see an offense (i.e., he admits to having performed an action forbidden by the rules, but refuses to concede that it is an offense); or
- he refuses to make amends for an offense (again, he admits to having performed an action forbidden by the rules, but refuses to undergo the attendant penalty).
Once a bhikkhu has been suspended, it is his duty to change his ways and reject the view or position that led to his suspension, so that he may be restored to normal status.
According to the Vibhaṅga, the factor of object here is fulfilled by a bhikkhu who has been suspended for the first of these three reasons and has yet to be restored. However, because the rules governing the way in which a suspended bhikkhu is to be treated by other bhikkhus are the same for all three cases (see Cv.I.27, Cv.I.31, Cv.I.33), the Commentary argues that a bhikkhu suspended for either of the other two reasons would fulfil this factor as well. The Vibhaṅga’s non-offense clauses add, though, that if the bhikkhu was suspended for holding an evil view and has come to relinquish that view, he does not fulfill this factor even if the Community has yet to restore him to normal status. This allowance would apparently apply to bhikkhus suspended for other reasons as well.
Perception
There is no offense in communing, etc., with a suspended bhikkhu if one perceives him as unsuspended; a dukkaṭa for communing, etc., with an unsuspended bhikkhu if one perceives him as suspended; and a dukkaṭa for communing, etc., with a bhikkhu if one is in doubt as to whether he has been suspended. This last penalty holds regardless of whether he has actually been suspended.
None of the texts mention the matter, but a similar principle would also seem to apply to one’s perception of the transaction whereby the bhikkhu was suspended. Thus, there would be no offense in communing, etc., with him if one perceived a valid transaction as invalid; a dukkaṭa for communing, etc., with him if one perceived an invalid transaction as valid; and a dukkaṭa for communing, etc., with him if one was in doubt as to the transaction’s validity, regardless of whether it was actually valid or not.
Effort
Effort here covers any one of three sorts of action:
1) One communes with the bhikkhu. Communion takes one of two forms: sharing material objects, i.e., giving material objects to the bhikkhu or receiving them from him; or sharing Dhamma, i.e., reciting Dhamma for him or getting him to recite Dhamma. The penalties for sharing Dhamma are, if one recites line-by-line or gets the other to recite line-by-line, a pācittiya for each line; if syllable-by-syllable, a pācittiya for each syllable.
2) One affiliates with the bhikkhu, i.e., one participates in a transaction of the Community along with him. An example would be sitting in the same assembly with him to listen to the Pāṭimokkha.
3) One lies down in the same dwelling with him. “Same dwelling” here, unlike Pc 5 & 6, means one with the same roof. Thus, as the K/Commentary notes, if one is lying under the same roof with the bhikkhu, one falls under this factor even if one is lying in a room that is not connected by any entrance with the one he is lying in. And, we might add, one falls under this factor regardless of whether the dwelling is walled or not. Whether one lies down first, the suspended bhikkhu lies down first, or both lie down at the same time, is not an issue here. As under Pc 5, if both parties get up and then lie down again, one incurs another pācittiya.
These three actions touch on only a few of the observances a suspended bhikkhu must follow, but they are the only ones that entail a pācittiya for a regular bhikkhu who has dealings with him while he is suspended. For further details, see Cv.I.25-35 and BMC2, Chapter 20.
Non-offenses
There is no offense in communing, affiliating, or lying down in the same dwelling with another bhikkhu if one knows that—he has not been suspended;
he was suspended but has been restored; or
he has abandoned the evil view that led to his suspension.
The Vibhaṅga states explicitly that the first of these three exemptions holds regardless of whether one’s perception is correct, and the same principle would seem to apply to the remaining two as well.
Summary: Communing, affiliating, or lying down under the same roof with a bhikkhu who has been suspended and not been restored—knowing that such is the case—is a pācittiya offense.
Yet, there is often the case that a whole Sangha has actually fallen into transgression, does not put efforts into it to confess and relinquish such, in most cases propably seen as "simply" other affliction. In such cases, the whole territory might be seen as "dwelling".
Also here, ones "innocent assuming" without reasons of doubt, may not be of hindrence. In regarding of time to prove, which is actually required, time span as if looking for if one may function as Nissaya, might be proper. If the might be a hindrence to leave, such as sickness for example, there is no offense.
How ever, in such cases where it can not be avoided to make certain use, its good to stay very remote to others at this place, like a guest in a household, sometime even redard it as if dwelling under householders.
In such way, also places, if given from those using it, may be used for better or as a stop on the way.
As from personal experiances, and as seen in many others behaviour, it's neither of benefit for a certain group or a single contemplative, nor toward the gift given by faith toward the Savaka Sangha, to totally avoid it, aside of the matter that any travel, even in SEAsians enviroment of monasteries near each other, would be possible.
One should not forget that gifts as well as receiving, if even only one side has a state or tendency of integrity (e.g. for Bhikkhus: is formal pure) may purify the giving/receiving. Yet of course it's not easy to decide right with such a thought, till certain stage in the training or if beyond. So till the time one is beyound training, it's propably good and also understanable if certain extreme, to dwell just there of what the elders of ones affliction might approve and stay very remote, even like if visiting householders, geting dwelling from them.
Since most monasteries are actually possessed by householders, in such cases, if such is observed, it's good to do not dwell with formost the householders invitation to stay, or their allowance, and in such cases, dwelling with dangers is not required, as if been given another room in a guesthouse, it is no dwelling together.
From experiance, there are cases like that, which may allow also little longer stay, as for the most respect toward those "walking right" is given at large and bad acting by dwelling groups of monks, very seldom (at leat here, where most are aware of their situation but do not find ways or effort to solve it).
Probably best definition of alajji:
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato sammā-sambuddhassa
Be careful of the proper procedure being intent on what
was done with skill by him of discernment,
Of what was well spoken in conformity with the rules of
training, not destroying a bourn in a future state.
[165] Ignorant as to subject, falling away, offence, provenance, kind,
He does not know the earlier and the later (speech) nor
likewise what was and was not done.
And he is ignorant too as to formal act and legal question
and decidings, Impassioned, corrupted and astray, he proceeds from fear,
from confusion, And he is not skilled as to layings down and is not versed in pacifying,
One who has obtained a faction, conscienceless, (of) dark
deed, disrespectful :
A monk such as this is called one who should not be shown
deference.
Knowledgeable as to subject, falling away, offence,
provenance, kind,
He comprehends the earlier and the later (speech) and
likewise what was and was not done, I
And he is knowledgeable as to formal act and legal
question and decidings,
Unimpassioned, uncorrupt, not astray, he proceeds not
from fear, from confusion,
And he is skilled as to layings down and is knowledgeable
as to pacifying,
One who has obtained a faction, conscientious, (of) bright
deed, respectful:
A monk such as this is called one who should be shown
deference.
May it be of use.