DISCIPLINARY TRANSACTIONS

There are cases where the standard penalties are not enough to prevent a bhikkhu from committing repeated offenses. Either he does not cooperate with the penalty procedures or, even when cooperating, cannot bring himself to change his ways. There are also cases where a bhikkhu has wronged a lay person, or a lay person has wronged a bhikkhu, to the point where the Community must take action to prevent further damage. To deal with cases such as these, the Buddha authorized the Community to impose disciplinary measures on wrong-doers above and beyond the standard system of penalties.

Some writers have described these disciplinary measures as a Buddhist prototype for legal justice, either praising them for their insightful contribution to legal philosophy or criticizing them for their shortcomings as legal procedures. Both the praise and the criticism miss the point. Unlike most modern judicial procedures, these measures do not function as retributive justice. They are not retributive in that they are not ways of making the offender “pay” for his wrong doings (the principle of kamma will see to that); and, viewed in terms of retribution, they are unjust (or at least not necessarily fair) in that there is no concern that bhikkhus with equal offenses will undergo equal penalties. With the one exception of “further punishment” (see below), each allowance for imposing a disciplinary measure states that a Community if it wants to may impose the measure on a bhikkhu endowed with certain qualities. Only in the case of that exception do the texts say that it must do so.

A passage from the Bhaddāli Sutta (MN 65) indicates that, instead of functioning as retribution, the disciplinary measures serve primarily as means of instruction and rehabilitation: notifying the offender of the seriousness of his wrong doings and providing him with added motivation to mend his ways. If we were to look for the standard of justice operating here, it would have to be distributive justice: handing out different instructions to people in proportion to what they need and are capable of using to their benefit. As with any form of instruction, different people need to learn different lessons in different ways.

Here is the passage from the sutta:

In other words, the bhikkhus imposing any of these disciplinary transactions on an offender must take into consideration not only the external facts of the case but also the offender’s mental state. Does he need to be taught to take the Community seriously? If so, then even if his offenses are slight he may deserve harsher treatment than a bhikkhu with more offenses but more respect for the Community. On the other hand, is his faith in the practice so weak that a disciplinary transaction would drive him out of the Community? If so, the bhikkhus would be wise to put the matter of his offenses aside and work in other ways to strengthen his faith in the practice.

There are two reasons why these transactions cannot be taken as a guide to legal philosophy in general: (1) The penalties prescribed by these transactions—various levels of ostracism—have force only within the context of the Buddha’s teachings. As the Buddha observed to Ven. Ānanda, “Having admirable people as friends, companions, and colleagues is actually the whole of the holy life” (SN 45:2). Anyone who approaches the Dhamma seriously should realize that without the opportunity of associating with and learning from people who are experienced on the path, progress is extremely difficult. The bhikkhus are thus expected to respect the well-behaved members of the Community and to want to stay in good standing with them. The system of penalties imposed by these disciplinary transactions assumes that respect, for it revolves entirely around affecting the offender’s status in relation to the Community. For a person who did not value his standing vis-à-vis the Community, the penalties would have no effect.

(2) These penalties are intended only for bhikkhus who show some signs that they will respond favorably to them. As many have noted, the procedures for imposing these penalties make no provision for the case where a bhikkhu is known to have committed an act that constitutes an offense but denies having done it. This is a case of an out-and-out lie, and systems of retributive justice have procedures for making the offender pay for his wrong doing even when he is lying through his teeth. In fact, the underlying assumption of a great deal of legal procedure is that a wrong-doer, unless pressured, will rarely admit to doing wrong. Within the Community of bhikkhus there are procedures for applying pressure to an offender who denies his actions, but if he does not respond to such pressures he is considered beyond the pale, and no amount of disciplinary action will make him respect the Community or mend his ways. As the suttas point out, a person who feels no shame at telling a lie is totally devoid of the quality of a contemplative (MN 61), and there is no evil he might not do (Iti 25; Dhp 176). The only recourse is to leave him alone, in hopes that someday his conscience will get the better of him. As for the disciplinary transactions, they are designed to cover cases where the bhikkhu in question will at least admit to his actions even if he may not see them as offenses. When there is at least this much truth to him, he can be taught.

These disciplinary measures are thus designed for bhikkhus who have offenses in their past and present, but who show promise for reform in the future.

The following discussion divides the disciplinary transactions into two classes. The first are those disciplining an individual bhikkhu for his offenses. The second are those dealing with relations between the bhikkhus and the laity.

With regard to the first class, there are two separate discussions in the Khandhakas, in Mv.IX and Cv.I. The discussion in Mv.IX suggests that each disciplinary transaction is for a specific sort of offender—censure, for a maker of strife and quarrels within the Community; demotion, for a person with many offenses who lives in unbecoming association with householders; banishment, for a bhikkhu who corrupts families (see Sg 13); and suspension, for a bhikkhu who admits to an action that constitutes an offense but refuses to (a) recognize it as an offense or (b) make amends for it, or who refuses to relinquish an evil view. The discussion in Cv.I gives much longer lists of faults that would qualify a bhikkhu for each disciplinary transaction, with considerable overlap among the lists. The Commentary takes the second discussion as authoritative and re-writes the first (not very convincingly) to fit with the second. A better interpretation might be to regard the first discussion simply as a short-hand reference to the second. The effect of following the second discussion is to give the bhikkhus more latitude in dealing with an offender: If he does not respond to being placed under censure they can try more stringent penalties, up to suspension, to see what works in his particular case. In the following discussion, we will follow Cv.I. The transaction statements for imposing and rescinding these transactions are given in Appendix IV.

Discipline for offenses

There are five transactions in this class:

Censure

The origin story here is as follows:

According to Cv.I, a Community—if it wishes—may impose a censure transaction on a bhikkhu endowed with the following qualities:

The Commentary notes that a bhikkhu endowed with any one of these qualities qualifies for censure. There is no need for him to be endowed with all nine or a full sub-set of three.

Cv.I.1.4 states that, before giving him a censure transaction, the Community must meet to charge him with an offense. He must then be “made to remember”—i.e., interrogated about the events in question—and then to disclose the offense. Cv.I.2-3 adds that these steps are valid only if the bhikkhu actually has committed the offense, the offense is one entailing confession (as the Commentary notes, this rules out pārājika and saṅghādisesa offenses), and the bhikkhu has not confessed the offense. As with all transactions, censure is valid only if the accused is present in the meeting and the transaction is done in unity, conducted in accord with the Dhamma.

A bhikkhu who has been censured must observe the restrictions listed in section 2A of the restrictions placed on a bhikkhu undergoing penance and probation. In other words,

For the commentaries’ remarks on these restrictions, see Chapter 19.

If a censured bhikkhu oversteps any of these restrictions, his censure is not to be rescinded. The Commentary to Pv.V.3 adds that if he shows no willingness to abide by them, the Community may suspend him. (The allowance for the Community to do this applies to bhikkhus who refuse to abide by the restrictions imposed by transactions of demotion, banishment, etc., as well.) If, however, the censured bhikkhu abides by the restrictions (for at least ten to twenty days, the Commentary says), he may ask to have it rescinded, and the Community may rescind it for him.

Further punishment

This transaction is discussed in BMC1, Chapter 11. In terms of formal procedure, it differs from censure in only three respects:

Demotion

The origin story here is as follows:

The traits that qualify a bhikkhu for demotion and the procedures for imposing it on him are identical with those for censure, although Cv.I.9.1 indicates that this transaction is for a bhikkhu who repeatedly commits saṅghādisesa offenses even when undergoing probation, etc. The restrictions he must observe, once demoted, are the same as those for a censured bhikkhu, with one addition: He must return to live in dependence under a mentor. If he adheres to his restrictions, the demotion may be rescinded. The commentaries are silent on the issue of the minimum length of time the restrictions should be imposed, but in this case ten to twenty days seems altogether too short. A wise policy would be to make sure that the dependence has had an effect and that the offender will not return to his old ways when released from dependence. If, when the demotion is rescinded, he does return to his old ways, he may be demoted again and placed under dependence for an indefinite length of time.

Banishment

The origin story here is identical with the origin story to Sg 13. The list of qualities that would qualify a bhikkhu for banishment is the same as the list for censure with the following additions:

The procedures for banishing a bhikkhu are identical with those for censure; and the restrictions he must observe, once banished, are the same as those for a censured bhikkhu, with one addition: He must not live in the same place he was living before banishment. According to the Commentary, this means that he has to leave not only the monastery but also its neighborhood, and must not associate with the lay people in the area.

Banishment differs from the other disciplinary measures in this chapter in that it has an entire saṅghādisesa rule—Sg 13—devoted to it, treating the case of a bhikkhu under banishment who criticizes those who imposed the transaction on him. For details, see the discussion under that rule.

If the banished bhikkhu adheres to his restrictions, the banishment may be rescinded on his request. The Commentary adds that, if he was banished for corrupting families with his behavior, then even after the revoking of the banishment he must refuse gifts from the families he had corrupted. If they ask him why, he may tell them. If they then explain that they are giving the gifts not because of his former behavior but because he has now mended his ways, he may then accept them.

Suspension

Suspension may be imposed on a bhikkhu who admits to an action that constitutes an offense but refuses to recognize it as an offense; who, admitting to an action that constitutes an offense, refuses to make amends for it; or who refuses to relinquish an evil view (under the conditions described in the Vibhaṅga to Pc 68). The procedures for suspending a bhikkhu are the same as those for censure. The question arises as to what, in this context, making him admit means: that the bhikkhu at first admits to his action and later, only after pressure from the Community, recognizes it as an offense? Or that even after pressure he will only admit to the action and not to the offense? The origin story indicates the latter alternative, for there is no mention of the bhikkhu in question (Ven. Channa—see Sg 12) admitting to an offense. This observation is confirmed by Mv.IX.5.6, which says that if a bhikkhu recognizes an act as an offense but then is suspended for not recognizing the offense, the transaction is not in accordance with the Dhamma. As for the former alternative—where the offender recognizes his offense only under pressure—it comes under the transaction for further punishment.

The Commentary to Cv.I.33 states that being a maker of strife under the prerequisites for this transaction applies to cases where the bhikkhu in question uses his unrelinquished view as a basis for making strife.

The restrictions placed on a suspended bhikkhu are the same as those for a censured bhikkhu except that he is told that he can have no communion (sambhoga) with the Bhikkhu Saṅgha. In terms of specific added restrictions, this means:

Pc 69 expands on the meaning of being in communion by stating that any bhikkhu who communes with a suspended bhikkhu by sharing Dhamma or material things with him incurs a pācittiya offense. It also states that a regular bhikkhu who joins a suspended bhikkhu in a Community transaction incurs a pācittiya offense. This implies—and the point is made explicit in Mv.X.1.10—that a suspended bhikkhu, for the duration of the suspension, has no common affiliation with other bhikkhus. In other words, he may not participate in any Community transactions.

If the suspended bhikkhu abides by the above restrictions, the Community may rescind his suspension at his request. The Canon adds one special note under the case of a bhikkhu suspended for not relinquishing an evil view: If he disrobes while under suspension, the Community should rescind the suspension.

Suspension is the most serious disciplinary transaction in that it not only removes the suspended bhikkhu from communion, but it can also put him in the position where—if he can gain followers—he can form the nucleus for a more lasting separate affiliation within the Saṅgha (see Appendix V). Because suspension touches directly on the grounds for disputes—what is and is not Dhamma, what is and is not an offense—it may prolong the strife that led to it, and even lead to schism. Therefore it should not be performed lightly. Mv.X.1.5-8 tells of how the Buddha, on learning that a bhikkhu suspended for not seeing an offense had gained a following, went first to the bhikkhus who had suspended him and told them to reflect on the dangers of suspending a bhikkhu: Not only would they be deprived of communion with him, but the act of suspension might be the cause of strife or schism in the Community. Then he went to the partisans of the suspended bhikkhu and told them to reflect in a similar way, adding that one who senses the gravity of schism (§—BD mistranslates this as “bent on schism”) should confess an offense “even if just out of faith in others” so as to avoid the dangers that suspension would entail both for himself and for the Community at large.

Relations with the laity

Reconciliation

The origin story here is rather long. However, BD misses some of its implications—the name of the sesame sweet apparently contains a low-grade insult—so the story is worth re-translating in full. Here I follow the Thai edition, which differs in some details from the PTS:

The Community, if it wants to, may impose a reconciliation transaction on a bhikkhu endowed with any of the following qualities:

The procedure for imposing a reconciliation transaction is the same as for imposing censure. Once a bhikkhu has had the transaction imposed on him, he must follow the same duties as a censured bhikkhu, with one important addition: He must go to the lay person (or lay people) he has wronged and ask his/her/their forgiveness. The procedure for this is as follows. First another bhikkhu who has agreed to take on the role of companion is authorized to go with the offending bhikkhu to the lay person’s residence. None of the texts mention this point, but a wise policy would be to choose as the companion a bhikkhu who is on friendly terms with the lay person (or people).

When the offending bhikkhu has received the lay person’s forgiveness through any of the steps 1-4, or has confessed his offense in the lay person’s presence in step 5, and has observed his other restrictions properly, then at his request the Community may rescind the reconciliation transaction.

Overturning the bowl

Overturning the bowl is a symbolic phrase signifying the refusal to accept offerings from a particular person. The origin story for this transaction is a variation on the origin story for Sg 8. The followers of Mettiya and Bhummaja incite Vaḍḍha the Licchavi to accuse Ven. Dabba Mallaputta of having raped his wife. (They show no imagination at all and instruct him to phrase his accusation in the same terms they taught Mettiyā Bhikkhunī in the story to Sg 8: “The quarter without dread, without harm, without danger, is (now) the quarter with dread, with harm, with danger. From where there was calm, there is (now) a storm-wind. The water, as it were, is ablaze. My wife has been raped by Master Dabba Mallaputta.”) The Buddha convenes a meeting of the Community, at which Ven. Dabba—who attained arahantship at the age of seven—states truthfully that, “Ever since I was born, I am not aware of having engaged in sexual intercourse even in a dream, much less when awake.” The Buddha then instructs the Community to overturn its bowl to Vaḍḍha, so that none of the bhikkhus are to have communion with him. (This, according to the Commentary, means that none of the bhikkhus are to accept offerings from his household.) Ven. Ānanda, on his alms round the following day, stops off at Vaḍḍha’s house to inform him that the Community has overturned its bowl to him. On hearing this news, Vaḍḍha collapses in a faint. When he recovers, he goes with his relatives to confess his wrong doing to the Buddha. The Buddha accepts his confession and tells the Community to turn its bowl upright for Vaḍḍha, so that the bhikkhus may associate with him as before.

The Community, if it wants to, may overturn its bowl to a lay person endowed with the following eight qualities: He/she

The Commentary adds that a lay person who has done any one of these things qualifies to have the bowl overturned. There is no need for him/her to have done all eight.

Unlike other disciplinary transactions (and unlike most Community transactions in general), the object of the transaction does not need to be present in the meeting at which the transaction is performed. This is apparently what the Commentary means when it says that the transaction may be performed within or without the territory. In other words, the lay person does not need to be in the same territory where the meeting is held.

The procedure is this: The Community meets and agrees to the transaction statement, which—in a motion and proclamation—explains the lay person’s wrong doing and announces that the Community is overturning its bowl to him/her, that there is to be no communion between him/her and the Community. (The word for communion, here as elsewhere, is sambhoga, which literally means “consuming together” or “sharing wealth.” An interesting anthropological study could be written on the implications of this word’s being used to describe a bhikkhu’s accepting alms.) The Commentary adds that the Community should then inform other Communities that they, too, are not to accept alms or offerings from the household of the lay person in question. And, as the origin story shows, the lay person should be informed of the transaction.

If the lay person mends his/her ways—in other words, stops doing the action for which the bowl was overturned in the first place and does not start doing any of the other actions that are grounds for overturning the bowl—the Community may then turn its bowl upright. The procedure here is that the person in question dresses respectfully, goes to the Community, bows down, and with hands palm-to-palm over the heart makes a formal request to have the bowl turned upright. The Commentary adds that the person should state the request three times and then leave the hatthapāsa of the Community’s meeting while the transaction statement uprighting the bowl is recited, although there is nothing in the Canon to indicate that this last step is necessary. After the recitation, the bhikkhus may again accept offerings at the person’s house. None of the texts mention this point, but the Community would seem honor bound to notify any of the other Communities who were informed of the bowl’s original overturning that the bowl has now been set upright.

Other disciplinary measures

Cv.VII.3.2-3 tells the story of how the Buddha, after having rebuked Ven. Devadatta for asking to be placed in charge of the Community, had the Community authorize Ven. Sāriputta to inform the people of Rājagaha that Devadatta was now a changed man whose actions no longer reflected the will of the Community. Although the passage contains the transaction statement for the Community’s authorization—called an information-transaction (pakāsanīya-kamma)—it contains none of the other necessary explanations that would allow for the transaction to become a generalized pattern. In other words, there is no list of the qualities with which the object should be endowed, no description of how he should behave, and no allowance for revoking the transaction. Thus it seems to have been intended as a one-time event and cannot be included in a Community’s repertoire of disciplinary measures.

Similarly, DN 16 tells the story of how the Buddha, shortly before passing away, imposed a brahma-punishment (brahma-daṇḍa) on Ven. Channa, which he defined by saying, “Channa may say what he wants but he is not to be spoken to, instructed, or admonished by the bhikkhus.” This was in response to Ven. Channa’s prideful unwillingness to accept admonishment from anyone (see the origin stories to Sg 12 and Pc 12). The Canon contains two accounts of how this punishment led to Ven. Channa’s final Awakening. The version in Cv.XI.1.15 states that he fainted on hearing the news of the punishment. Going into seclusion, “heedful, ardent, and resolute, he in no long time reached and remained in the supreme goal of the holy life,” thus becoming an arahant. He then went to Ven. Ānanda to request that his brahma-punishment be revoked, but the latter informed him that the punishment had been automatically lifted at the moment of his attaining arahantship. The version in SN 22:90, however, tells of how Channa, after learning of his punishment, sought instruction from other bhikkhus and finally gained Awakening on hearing the Kaccānagotta Sutta (SN 12:15) from Ven. Ānanda. None of these passages, however, describe the brahma-punishment as a Community transaction. Like the information-transaction, it is thus part of the Buddha’s repertoire but not the Community’s.

Abuse of the system

The Canon reports two instances where Communities wrongly subject bhikkhus to disciplinary transactions. In the first instance (Mv.IX.1), Ven. Kassapagotta goes out of his way to look after the needs of a group of visiting bhikkhus. After they are well-settled, he reflects that they are now able to look after themselves and so discontinues the special services he was performing for them. They, displeased, accuse him of an offense in not keeping up his special services. He does not see that he has committed an offense, and so they suspend him for not seeing an offense.

In the second instance (Cv.XII.1.1-7), Ven. Yasa Kākaṇḍakaputta visits Vesālī, where he finds that the local Vajjiputta bhikkhus have arranged for the lay followers to place money in a bowl, which is then divided up among the members of the Community. Ven. Yasa tries to convince the lay followers that this is wrong, but they do not listen to him. After the money has been donated, the Vajjiputta bhikkhus offer Yasa a share. He refuses to accept it and so the Vajjiputta bhikkhus—accusing him of insulting and reviling the lay followers—impose a reconciliation transaction on him. When he goes to visit the lay followers, though, instead of asking their forgiveness he quotes passages from the suttas and Vinaya showing that the Buddha did not allow bhikkhus to accept money. This time the lay followers are convinced by his arguments and announce that of all the bhikkhus in Vesālī, he is the only true son of the Sakyan. The Vajjiputta bhikkhus are upset and accuse him of an offense in revealing the Vinaya to the lay followers without their permission. As a result, they make plans to suspend him, but he, it turns out, has a few psychic powers at his command and so he levitates out of the city in search of elder bhikkhus who will put a stop to what the Vajjiputta bhikkhus are doing.

In both instances, the bhikkhus wrongly subjected to disciplinary transactions have recourse to higher authorities. In the first instance, Ven. Kassapagotta goes to the Buddha himself, who confirms that he has done no wrong and is not truly suspended. The second instance is more relevant to our situation at present, for it took place after the Buddha’s parinibbāna and so Ven. Yasa had to round up a group of respected elders to settle the issue. The story, which is too long to reproduce here in full, is worth reading for its depiction of the difficulties involved in settling an issue of this sort, especially as the Vajjiputta bhikkhus do their best to fight the case. (Anyone who has had experience with shameless bhikkhus at present will recognize, in the Vajjiputta bhikkhus’ behavior, strategies that have not gone out of date.) In brief, however, the story gives some broad guidelines for a bhikkhu who feels that he has been unjustly subjected to a disciplinary transaction:

If, at the meeting, the bhikkhus respected by both sides declare on the basis of the Dhamma that one was wrongly ostracized, that ends the matter, for a bhikkhu wrongly ostracized never counted as ostracized at all. If the adjudicating bhikkhus agree—again, on the basis of the Dhamma—that the original decision was correct, one should observe one’s proper duties so that the disciplinary transaction will be rescinded. If, however, the adjudicating bhikkhus are swayed by non-Dhamma considerations, one may look for still other respected bhikkhus to reconsider the case.