COMMUNITY TRANSACTIONS

In Chapter 11 of BMC1, Adhikaraṇa-samatha, we discussed the four types of issues (adhikaraṇa)—dispute-issues, accusation-issues, offense-issues, and duty-issues—along with the seven means for their settlement. The fourth type of issue—duty-issue (kiccādhikaraṇa)—treated only briefly in that discussion, is the topic of this chapter and all the remaining chapters in this section.

Cv.IV.14.2 defines a duty-issue as “any duty or business of the community:

This definition refers to the four types of statements that can constitute a formal Community transaction (saṅgha-kamma), in which the Community meets and issues a statement that it is taking an action as a group. In this, duty-issues are substantially different from the other three types of issues. Other issues are problems that have to be settled in a formal way. Duty-issues, however, are formal ways of settling problems. They themselves, as Community transactions, are problems only in the sense that they have to be conducted strictly according to the correct formal pattern. If they aren’t, they are invalid, open to question, and have to be conducted again.

When a Community performs a transaction, it is in effect acting in the name of the Saṅgha as a whole. This means that it is not the ultimate authority in judging the validity of its transactions, for other Communities do not have to accept its transactions simply on its say-so. Because it is acting in their name, they have the right to question whether its transactions are fit to stand. When a Community adheres to the correct forms in its transactions, it is showing that—on that level at least—it deserves the trust of its fellow Communities. Thus, adherence to the correct forms is not a mere formality. It is one of the ways in which Communities earn one another’s trust.

Because some duty-issues function as means of settling other types of issues, this section will cover not only duty-issues pure and simple but also a few of the major duty-issues used in settling other issues. In particular, these include (1) the transactions involved in settling the most complicated offense-issues—(a) saṅghādisesa offenses and (b) the disciplinary transactions used to settle offense-issues following on accusation-issues—and (2) those for ending the most serious dispute-issue, a schism. The duty-issues used to settle issues aside from these have already been discussed in BMC1, Chapter 11.

The standard pattern for a Community transaction is that the Community meets and one of its members recites a transaction statement (kamma-vācā), while the other members of the Community show their assent by remaining silent. If a regular bhikkhu in common affiliation with the Community speaks up to register protest during the recitation, that aborts the transaction. The length of the statement, measured in the number of times the proclamation must be repeated, is a rough indication of the importance of the relevant act. The more repetitions, the more time the members of the Community have to deliberate, and the more chance they have to speak up.

In certain cases, the issuing of the transaction statement must follow on certain preliminary actions, some of which—as in the case of full Acceptance—may involve transaction statements of their own. Often the transaction statement itself constitutes the act of the Community: Simply in issuing the statement, the Community gives full Acceptance, imposes a disciplinary transaction, rehabilitates an individual who has been disciplined, authorizes an individual to perform a certain act, etc.

Cv.IV.14.34 states that a duty-issue (and, by definition, a Community transaction) is settled by means of one principle: “face-to-face.” The Khandhakas’ discussion of what constitutes a valid transaction divides this principle into two broad factors: The transaction must be in accordance with the Dhamma—in other words, the Community follows the proper procedure in issuing the statement; and it must be united—the Community issuing the statement is qualified to do so.

We can follow the Vinaya-mukha in borrowing terms from the Parivāra to divide each of these two factors into two “consummations” (sampatti). Acting in accordance with the Dhamma requires two consummations:

The unity of the Community requires two further consummations:

To conform with English usage, our discussion will render the word consummation as “validity.” (For a further discussion of these terms, see Appendix V.)

A transaction valid in all four of these ways is fit to stand. A transaction lacking validity in any one of them is not. Another Community may meet at a later time and redo the transaction or reverse it. Meanwhile, whatever the first Community announced that it was doing does not legitimately count as done.

The validity of the object

The object of the transaction may be either a person (such as the candidate for Acceptance) or a physical item (such as the site to build a dwelling) or both (as when the Community gives a kaṭhina-cloth to one of its members). Different transactions, of course, have different requirements for their objects. However, four general comments can be made. (1) If the object fulfills the requirements for one type of transaction but the Community performs another transaction for which the object does not fulfill the requirements, the transaction is invalid in terms of its object. (2) If the object is a person, then if that person is a bhikkhu he must be present in the gathering of the Community performing the transaction. If the person is not a bhikkhu, he/she does not need to be present—examples being when the Community “overturns its bowl” to a lay person who has harmed bhikkhus or when it ordains a bhikkhunī through a messenger. (3) The object of the transaction cannot be an entire Community. At most, only three people can be the object of any one transaction. (4) If the procedure set out for the transaction requires that the object, a bhikkhu, be interrogated prior to the transaction about an offense and acknowledge having done the offense, then if these preliminary procedures have not been done, the transaction is invalid in terms of its object.

The validity of the transaction statement

The transaction statement must follow the pattern given in the Canon, with none of the parts left out. If, for instance, the pattern calls for a motion and three proclamations, a transaction in which the statement is given as four motions or a motion and one proclamation is invalid. Also, the parts of the statement must be given in the proper order. If the pattern calls for a motion followed by one proclamation, and the announcing bhikkhu gives the proclamation first, that is called a transaction “having a semblance of the Dhamma,” which invalidates the proceeding. The texts, however, do not forbid stating any of the parts of the statement more than the required number of times. For instance, if the pattern calls for a motion and one proclamation, there is nothing wrong with giving a motion followed by three proclamations.

The customary practice is to recite the transaction statement word-for-word as given in the Canon, inserting the name of the transaction’s object and other relevant individuals where necessary. Pv.XIX.1.3-4, however, allows for some variation in the wording as long as the following points are not omitted from either the motion or the proclamation(s): the object of the transaction, the fact that the Community is the agent of the transaction, and—where applicable—the individual member of the Community who is playing a special role in the transaction, such as the preceptor when giving full Acceptance. This allowance is especially relevant for the statements used in disciplinary transactions (Chapter 20), for in these instances the Canon gives only the statement tailored to the particular case that inspired the first instance of each of these transactions, and not to any of the other cases for which the transactions are also valid. If there were no leeway in wording these statements, the transactions could not be applied to any other cases. See Appendix IV on this point.

Mv.I.74.1 allows for the transaction statement to mention a bhikkhu by his clan name, rather than his given name. This allowance dates to the time when bhikkhus had Pali clan names, and the formality of referring to a bhikkhu by his clan name was a sign of respect. Now that bhikkhus no longer have Pali clan names the allowance is moot.

Every description of a transaction statement stipulates that the bhikkhu reciting it must be experienced and competent. According to the Commentary to Mv.I.28.3, this means that at the very least he is able to memorize the transaction statement and recite it with proper pronunciation. Also, the Canon invariably refers to the reciter of the transaction statement in the singular—i.e., a single bhikkhu making the statement. However, at present it is common, especially in transactions where lay people will be present—such as Acceptance or the kaṭhina—for two bhikkhus to recite the transaction statement(s) in unison, as a way of guarding against errors.

Announcement-transactions differ from the other three types of Community transactions in that the Canon gives no set pattern for the transaction statement. Thus the validity of the statement is not at issue in cases of this sort. In some instances, the Commentary recommends ways to phrase the announcement, but its recommendations are not binding.

To streamline communal business in matters not likely to be controversial, the Commentary to Cv.IV.14.2 contends that the following motion-with-one-proclamation transactions may be done as simple announcements: an authorization to lay claim to a dwelling (apparently this refers to the transaction for giving building responsibility—see Chapter 18), the act of giving a robe or bowl as an inheritance (see Chapter 22), and all authorizations aside from: authorizing a territory (sīmā), revoking a territory, giving kaṭhina cloth, ending kaṭhina privileges, and pointing out an area for building a hut or dwelling (under Sg 6 & 7). In making this contention, however, the Commentary is in conflict with the principle set forth in Mv.IX.3.3 and discussed above, that if a shorter format is used for a transaction requiring a longer format, the transaction is invalid.

The validity of the assembly

Most transactions require a quorum of four bhikkhus. However, three transactions—Acceptance, Invitation, and rehabilitation—require more. Acceptance outside of the Middle Ganges Valley requires five, with the stipulation that at least one of the five be expert in the Vinaya. Invitation (pavāraṇā) requires five; Acceptance in the Middle Ganges Valley, ten; and rehabilitation after observing penance for a saṅghādisesa offense, twenty.

To fill a quorum, a bhikkhu who is to be the object of the transaction (e.g., a bhikkhu receiving a kaṭhina-cloth, a bhikkhu being given probation) cannot be counted. Also, the quorum cannot be filled by:

If the meeting contains such people but the quorum is filled without counting them, the validity of the assembly is still fulfilled. If such people need to be counted to complete the quorum, it is not.

Some Communities are very strict in not allowing anyone who is not a bhikkhu in common affiliation and in good standing to sit within hatthapāsa of their transaction meetings, but the Canon requires this sort of strictness only for two transactions: the uposatha (see Chapter 15) and the Invitation (see Chapter 16). For other transactions—such as Acceptance, the kaṭhina, etc.—there is no offense in allowing other individuals to sit within hatthapāsa, and their presence does not invalidate the proceedings. (This point is nowhere directly stated in the Canon, but it can be inferred from the ruling in Mv.IX.4.7 that even if such a person within the meeting protests the transaction, the protest does not count. If the protest does not invalidate the transaction, the presence of the person making the protest would not invalidate it, either.)

The validity of the territory

This factor is fulfilled when all the qualified bhikkhus in the valid territory in which the meeting is held are present at the meeting, or their consent has been conveyed to the meeting, and no one qualified to do so protests the transaction while it is being carried out.

The territory

The territory may either be one correctly authorized by a Community transaction or one defined by natural or political boundaries. This topic will be discussed in detail in the following chapter.

Unqualified bhikkhus

The Canon gives one explicit exception to the requirement for the consent or attendance of all the bhikkhus in a territory, and that is the case of a bhikkhu who is insane. Mv.II.25.1 cites two types of insanity: one in which the insane person has periods of sanity during which he remembers and comes to the uposatha and other Community transactions, alternating with bouts of insanity during which he doesn’t; and another, who is continually insane, never remembering or coming to these transactions at all. In the first case, the Canon allows for the Community to meet and, by means of a formal transaction consisting of a motion and proclamation, to identify the insane bhikkhu as insane and to authorize the unity of the Community as valid with or without his presence or consent (see Appendix I). As for the other type of insane bhikkhu, the Commentary states that there is no need for an authorization. His absence or lack of consent does not invalidate any Community transactions.

In addition, two passages in the Canon—Mv.II.34.10 and Mv.X.1.9-10—allow bhikkhus of separate affiliations to perform separate Community transactions within the same territory, which implies that the presence of a bhikkhu of a separate affiliation within the territory but not at the meeting does not invalidate a transaction, so there is no need to obtain his consent. Because a suspended bhikkhu is considered to be of a separate affiliation (see Mv.X.1.10 and Pc 69), there is no need to obtain his consent, either.

Because a bhikkhu levitating over the territory through his psychic powers does not count as legitimately present in the territory, his consent is also not required.

In short, consent does not have to be brought from any bhikkhu whose protest would not invalidate a Community transaction (see below).

Being present

None of the Khandhaka texts give a precise definition of what counts as being present at a Community meeting. The Vibhaṅga to Pc 80 defines being present in the meeting as sitting within hatthapāsa of at least one of the other bhikkhus also present in the meeting (see the discussion under that rule). Not being present would thus mean being located outside hatthapāsa. The question has arisen as to whether the Pc 80 definition applies in every case, or only in the case covered by that rule, i.e., that of a bhikkhu hoping to invalidate a meeting by getting up and leaving hatthapāsa, yet staying within the territory. Given that it is the only definition of present and not present provided anywhere in the Canon, and given the need for a clear definition in this area, there seems every reason to assume that the Pc 80 definition would apply by default in all cases. If it did not apply, there would be no logic to that rule, in that there would be no reason for a bhikkhu’s getting up and leaving hatthapāsa to have an impact on the conduct of the meeting.

There may be occasions where a territory is not large enough to accommodate all the bhikkhus attending a meeting. This would not invalidate the territory or the meeting, but the bhikkhus sitting outside the territory would not count as present. They could not be counted toward the quorum; and if any of them protested the conduct of the meeting (see below), the protest would carry no weight. One special exception, however, is that if the bhikkhus are meeting to listen to the Pāṭimokkha (see Chapter 15) and the gathering is so large that not all the bhikkhus can fit in the designated uposatha-hall or area in front of the uposatha-hall, all the bhikkhus within earshot count as having heard the Pāṭimokkha. If, when meeting for other purposes, the assembly wants to count all the bhikkhus as present at the meeting, they may move the meeting outside the territory to an adjacent territory large enough to accommodate everyone. In most cases, this would mean moving out of a small baddha-sīmā (see the following chapter) to the larger abaddha-sīmā surrounding it.

Consent

A bhikkhu too ill to come to the meeting may give his consent as follows: Going to another bhikkhu, he arranges his upper robe over one shoulder, kneels down, performs añjali, and says to the other:

If he makes this understood by physical gesture, by voice, or by both, his consent counts as given. If not, his consent does not count as given. The texts do not mention this point, but it seems reasonable that a bhikkhu too ill to go to another bhikkhu or to get in the kneeling position should be allowed to give his consent from his sick-bed. The Vinaya-mukha adds that if the bhikkhu giving consent is junior to the one conveying his consent, he should change hara to the more formal haratha, and ārocehi to ārocetha.

As for the bhikkhu to whom the consent has been given, his duty is to join the meeting and report the other bhikkhu’s consent when he has arrived. If, however, Bhikkhu Y—instead of going to the meeting—goes away immediately after Bhikkhu X gives him his consent, the consent does not count as given; X must give his consent to another bhikkhu (although none of the texts mention a penalty for not doing so). The same holds true if, at that moment, Y dies, disrobes, admits to not being a true bhikkhu, or admits to being insane, possessed, delirious with pain, or suspended. If, however, any of these things happens while Y is on the way to the meeting, X does not have to re-give his consent, even though it does not count as having been conveyed. (This, however, would still invalidate any action taken at the meeting.) If any of these things happens after Y arrives at the meeting, the consent counts as having been conveyed. If Y arrives at the meeting and unintentionally neglects to report X’s consent either because he is heedless, falls asleep, or enters a meditative attainment, the consent still counts as conveyed, and Y incurs no offense. If, however, Y intentionally does not report X’s consent, the consent counts as conveyed, but Y incurs a dukkaṭa.

The Commentary also notes that if Bhikkhu X gives his consent to Bhikkhu Y, and Y then asks Z to convey X’s consent and his own to the assembly, then when Z tells the assembly, only Y’s consent is conveyed. X’s is called a “leashed-cat consent”—which means that it doesn’t come no matter how hard you pull at it.

Although the relevant passage allows an ill bhikkhu to give his consent in this way, the texts do not define how ill a bhikkhu must be in order to qualify for this allowance. The origin story to Pc 79 describes a case where bhikkhus are too busy making robes to go to the meeting and so send their consent. The transaction carried out by the meeting was considered valid. Thus ill here apparently can mean not only physically ill but also seriously inconvenienced in other ways as well.

If a bhikkhu unable to attend the meeting is too ill to give his consent in the above way, he should be carried into the midst of the Community on a bed or a bench. If he is too ill to be moved—either because his disease would worsen or he could die—the Community should go to where he is staying and carry out the transaction there.

If the transaction is the uposatha observance, a bhikkhu not attending the meeting must send his purity instead of his consent. Similarly, if the transaction is the Invitation, he must send his invitation. If, in addition to the uposatha or the Invitation, the Community is planning to conduct other business at the meeting, he must send his consent as well. (For a full discussion of this point, see Chapter 15.) Again, the texts do not define how ill one must be in order to be allowed to send one’s purity or invitation in this way, but because these meetings are regularly scheduled, the general consensus in most Communities is that only a serious physical illness would be legitimate grounds for taking advantage of this allowance.

One of the issues at the Second Council was whether an incomplete Community could carry out a transaction and then have it ratified by the bhikkhus who came later. The Council’s decision was No.

Protest

If, during a transaction, a bhikkhu is displeased with it—for whatever reason, in line with the Dhamma or not—he has the right to protest. If he wants to, he may speak loudly enough to interrupt the proceedings, but if he feels intimidated by the group he may simply register his protest by informing the bhikkhu sitting right next to him. If his protest carries weight, that invalidates the transaction, and the issue may be reopened at a later time.

The protest of the following people does not carry weight:

If any of these people protest a transaction, that does not invalidate the proceeding, and the transaction is still fit to stand.

If the protest of a regular bhikkhu of common affiliation halts a transaction that would have been in accordance with the Dhamma and fit to stand, he is subject to having his Pāṭimokkha canceled (Cv.IX.3—see Chapter 15), after which the Community would look into his attitude to see if he would benefit from a disciplinary transaction.

Announcements

There is some disagreement as to how the validity of the territory applies to announcement-transactions. The Commentary’s discussion of the “shaving” announcement (Mv.I.48.2—see Chapter 14) recommends gathering all the bhikkhus in the territory and making the announcement or sending word to all of them. In the latter case, it says, the transaction is still valid even if some of the bhikkhus are missed in the latter procedure either because they are meditating or asleep. It does not say whether this option applies to other announcements as well. The Vinaya-mukha, on the other hand, cites another case from the Commentary to Cv.VI.21.1—the announcement when food is being distributed in the meal hall—to put forth the theory that an announcement-transaction does not have to be performed in a territory, the bhikkhus gathered do not have to be within hatthapāsa of one another, and there is no need to have consent conveyed. However, there is the question of whether the announcement mentioned in the Commentary was meant to be a Community transaction. There is no other support for this theory in the texts. Nevertheless, both of these precedents are in agreement in suggesting that the validity of only two factors is at issue in an announcement-transaction: the validity of the object and the validity of the assembly.

Offenses

Any bhikkhu who, knowing that a transaction is valid in terms of all the above factors, nevertheless agitates for it to be reopened incurs a pācittiya under Pc 63. For further details, see the discussion under that rule. For related offenses, see also the discussions under Pc 79-81.

According to Mv.II.16.5, a bhikkhu who participates in a transaction not in accordance with the Dhamma incurs a dukkaṭa. The same passage discusses a case in which some group-of-six bhikkhus conduct a transaction not in accordance with the Dhamma and physically threaten any members of the meeting who protest. In a case like this, there is an allowance for four or five to protest, two or three to voice an opinion, and one to determine silently, “I do not approve of this.” Any bhikkhu who does so is exempt from the offense. However, the silent determination does not count as a protest and so does not invalidate the proceeding. Still, the fact that the transaction is not in accordance with the Dhamma already invalidates it; the fact that one perceives it as such means that one may reopen the issue at a later date.

The penalty for participating in a factional transaction is also a dukkaṭa. This penalty applies even if the only bhikkhus within the territory not participating in the meeting or sending consent are too sick to be carried into the assembly (Mv.II.23.2).

Rules