Due to the small number of bhikkhus at the beginning (of the Sàsana) rules and regulations for the control of the Sangha were not much needed. All the sàvakas practised and followed the Teacher’s way of conduct, knowing full well the teaching of the Exalted Buddha. When bhikkhus increased in numbers and were scattered here and there, then rules for their control became more necessary. Men living in society cannot live as individuals without connection to others because men have different dispositions and strengths, the rough and the strong bullying the others so that the polite but weak people have no happiness, hence (living like this) society will be disordered.
Therefore the king must establish laws preventing people from doing evil and punishing the guilty. Besides this, individual groups have established traditions and rules for themselves, as for instance the polite behaviour followed in a well-bred family. There must also be rules and regulations in the bhikkhu-community in order to prevent wrong behaviour and to instigate bhikkhus to behave properly. The Master has been established both in the position of the King of Dhamma (Dhammaràja) whose duty is to govern, and as the Father of Sangha (Saïghapità) who takes care of the bhikkhusangha.
He has carried out both these two duties, that is, as King of Dhamma he has established the rules and laws called Buddhapa¤¤atti to prevent wrong behaviour and warn bhikkhus who would commit such offences of the penalties, and that in some cases these would be heavy and in some they would be light, just as the King issues decrees and laws. Secondly, the Master as Father of the Sangha has set up the traditions of good conduct which are called Abhisamàcàra urging bhikkhus to behave properly, just as the revered father of a family who has trained his children to follow the traditions of their family.
Both Buddhapannatti and Abhisamàcàra are called Vinaya and this Vinaya is compared to the thread through a garland connecting together the flowers; in the same way Vinaya helps to establish firmly the bhikkhusangha. Again, those who have been ordained come from high, middle and some from low-class families and are different in character and different in taste. If there was not a Vinaya to control them, or if they did not follow the Vinaya, they would be a bad community of bhikkhus and such would not be conducive to the arising of saddhà and pasàda (wise faith and serene clarity in other people). If they follow the Vinaya however, they would be a good community which is conducive to the arising in others of saddhà and pasàda, just as with different kinds of flowers piled upon a tray, though some are fragrant and beautiful in form, they become unattractive because they are mixed together. But if those flowers are threaded together by a skilled worker, they become beautiful and even the plain flowers look nice, not to speak of the beautiful and fragrant blossoms. The Vinaya rules do indeed make bhikkhus beautiful.
The Root-cause of Pannatti
The Vinaya was not laid down before (some event necessitating a ruling) but came into existence according to causes know as nidàna and pakaraõa (both meaning origin-story). Whenever blameworthy conduct occurred through the wrongdoing of some bhikkhu, then the Exalted Buddha laid down the rule of training accordingly. For example, the proclamation issued by King Bimbisàra, who following royal tradition, on the day of his coronation said: ‘Grass, wood and water are given to samaõas and brahmins by me’. This led Phra Dhaniya to understand that he might take royal timber to build his kuñã, quoting this statement (as his authority to receive) a royal gift.
When this had occurred, the Exalted Buddha laid down the training-rule on ’taking what is not given’. Even abhisamàcàra have been laid down by this same method. When the rule of training has been established but somehow is unsuitable, that is, loosely formulated and thus unable to prevent the wrongdoing, the Exalted Buddha has further laid down a stricter rule. For example, first He laid down the rule against the destruction of human beings’ lives but that, rule did not cover prevention of those who would speak in praise of death or those who persuaded others to suicide. Therefore, He had to supplement the above rule with additions. On other occasions, He laid down first a strict rule which later, (seeing the need for) leniency, He relaxed. For example, the Exalted Buddha laid down the rule upon one who speaks about states of superhuman attainment as though these are won by himself but which he has not experienced.
This rule of training at first included in its scope those who understood that they had won too superhuman attainments but later the Exalted Buddha added the clause ‘unless it was through over-estimation’. He did not withdraw rules of training which were already laid down being found to be unsuitable but supplemented them with anupannatti (afterregulations), changing the original purpose so that perhaps it spoilt the original aim. For example, He laid down the rule of training that bhikkhus should not sleep in the same place as those without upasampadà.
Since sàmaõeras had no kuñã (lodging) to live in, the Exalted Buddha relaxed the rule — so that bhikkhus could sleep in the same place as non-upasampadà persons, but only for three nights. As a result, bhikkhus can sleep in the same place as householders, and so on. The rule first laid down by Lord Buddha, is called the målapan¤¤atti (the root-regulation) while the supplement added later by Him is the anupa¤¤atti (the auxiliary regulation). Both of these together are known as sikkhàpada, the rule of training.
Some training-rules have many anupa¤¤atti, for example, that one governing ‘eating in a group’ meaning accepting an invitation to eat in a group (gaõa) in which the names of the dishes to be served are mentioned. But leniency upon some occasions was allowed by the Exalted Buddha as in the times of sickness, when giving new robes, when making robes, when going on a journey, when embarking on a boat, in time of scarcity, or when at the invitation of samaõas.
When the original cause occurred upon which was laid down the rule of training, the Exalted Buddha convened a meeting of the bhikkhus and asked the original wrong-doer to tell the truth and then pointed out the disadvantage of wrong behaviour and the advantages of restraint and laid down the training-rule preventing, bhikkhus from further wrongdoing, adding for those who infringed the rule, light or heavy penalties accordingly.
âpatti (offences)
The action of transgressing the rules of training and the falling of the penalty (upon the guilty bhikkhu) is called àpatti which means ‘reaching, attaining, committing.’ The àpatti consist of three grades of penalties: the heavy offence (garukàpatti) which causes one committing it to fall from the state of bhikkhuhood; the middle (majjhimàpatti) causing the offender to live on probation, that is to practise in a certain way making it difficult for oneself; and the light offence (lahukàpatti) which causes the offender to confess in front of a bhikkhu (or bhikkhus) so that having carried out the prescribed discipline, he will be free from the offence. In another way of reckoning there are two grades of àpatti: atekicchà which are incurable offences that is the heavy àpatti.
(as pàràjika-defeat), and satekicchà, or curable offences covering the middle and light àpatti. Again, according to categories, there are seven àpattis, viz., pàràjika (heavy); saïghàdisesa (middle); thullaccaya, pàcittiya, pàñidesanãya, dukkaña, and dubbhàsita (five grades of light offences). âpatti is not committed in the mind, that is, only thinking that ‘I shall do this and that’ is not called breaking the training-rules and is not known as trying to break the training-rules. âpatti is committed through the body or by speech or sometimes it is together with intention, sacittaka but sometimes without mind, that is, when one does or speaks without intention, acittaka.
For instance, an àpatti may be committed through the body as when a bhikkhu drinks intoxicants, even though he does not know it is an intoxicant yet he still breaks the rule. An àpatti is commit-ted by speech, for example the pàcittiya involved in teaching Dhamma by reciting together with one not having upasampada and though a bhikkhu is careful not to recite together with such a person still he commits an àpatti, whether it is by accident or not. âpatti can be committed both by body and mind as when a bhikkhu commits a pàràjika having stolen by himself. âpatti is committed by speech and mind in the case of a bhikkhu who in speaking, orders another to steal.
Accordingly, the direct root-causes for the arising of àpatti consist of four means: body alone, speech alone, body and mind, speech and mind. But in Pàli there are another two means: body and speech together, body, speech and mind together. So altogether there are six root-causes for the rising of àpatti. The explanation regarding the above Pàli is that body and speech are the root-cause of àpatti which is brought about either by body or by speech and mind but a proper example is not found. Thus I shall not give an example in this book. Body, speech and mind together are the root-cause of àpatti which is brought about either by body and mind or speech and mind, for example: a bhikkhu commits pàràjika because he stole as mentioned above.
The example of àpatti which has arisen through body and mind will be seen in the pàràjika offence of committing sexual intercourse, while the àpatti arising through speech and mind may be illustrated by the dukkaña àpatti of teaching Dhamma to one who is not respectful and not ill. Therefore, in the Atthakathà the commentator classified the origin of àpatti into thirteen categories by counting the àpattis which have arisen through one and through many originations but I am sure that this is superfluous and unclear and so it will not be given here. Those who want to consult the detail of this may look in the book “Pubbasikkhàvanõanà” of Phra Amaràbhirakkhita (Amara Gert).
By intention, àpatti can be divided into two groups, one arising through the origination with intention sacittaka, while the other has origin without intention and is called acittaka. These two important categories should be remembered (by readers) for knowing types of àpatti. Regarding the last, it is rather severe to inflict a penalty upon one who commits an àpatti without intention but the civil law here provides a comparison. The court does punish persons who do wrong without intention because what is already done is also wrong doing. The way to determine when àpatti is sacittaka or acittaka will be seen in the meaning and word-sequence of individual training-rules, for example, in the section Musàvàdavagga, (the first) of Pàcittiya, the third training-rule deal deals with slander spoken intentionally by a bhikkhu and so is an example of sacittaka. In the training-rule on drinking wines and spirits (Pàcittiya 51) it is pointed out that there is no mention of intention, so àpatti is acittaka.
The terms ‘purposely’ sa¤cicca, or ‘knowingly’ jàõaü, are found in some training-rules and when these are broken this transgression must be classed as sacittaka. An example of this is seen in the 77th Pàcittiya on the subject of “provoking worry in a bhikkhu purposely (sa¤cicca) thinking: thus he will be uncomfortable even for a while.” One other training-rule (Pàcittiya 66) upon setting out on a journey knowingly (jàõaü) and by appointment with a caravan of thieves, may be taken as another example of sacittaka. In whichever training-rules these terms do not occur and the statement is not precise, the àpatti consequent upon breaking those training-rules is acittaka..
We may see an example in the training-rule Pàcittiya 67, ‘arranging to go on the same journey with a woman even to go through one village’ which as there is no mention of sa¤ciccaü or jàõaü is acittaka. The conclusion accordingly is as follows: if there has been omission in the words of the trainingrule from early times, or the reciting bhikkhu remembered wrongly in days before books, my conclusion might perhaps be wrong. This is the cause for the difficult determination of àpatti, whether they are sacittaka or acittaka. Among society in general there are not only the wrongdoings of commission but also those of omission, as when a man is called up to serve in the army but he does not comply, so in the same way there are àpatti of omission.
This is seen in Pàcittiya 84 where a bhikkhu has seen that valuables (belonging to a layman) nave been left behind in his kuñã, sàlà etc., but he does not keep them for the owner. The commentator keeping in mind this explanation gave full comments upon this but his remarks are superfluous. Those who wish to know should look in in the “Pubbasikkhàvaõõanà”. Again, there is àpatti known as lokavajja (worldly faults), that is to say, the common people who are not bhikkhus can also commit such wrongs and the penalties will be borne by them also as when there is a case of stealing, killing human beings and even the lighter wrong-doings of striking, scolding, abusing and so forth.
There are other àpatti which if common people do like actions, they will not be guilty and cannot be punished since the àpatti are peculiar to bhikkhus who have broken the Exalted Buddha’s disciplinary code. Examples of this are seen in digging soil, eating at the ‘wrong time’ and so on. There will be no fault on the part of householders who do such things so that these special bhikkhu rules are called paõõattivajja, (formulated faults). This explanation is my own understanding but in the Atthakathà on the Vinaya, the commentator said that lokavajja àpatti are those committed at the time when the wrong-doer has an unskilful state of mind (akusalacitta). An example of this may be seen in bhikkhus drinking wines and spirits with the knowledge that they are intoxicating. âpatti which are paõõattivajja are (in the Atthakathà) those committed when a bhikkhu has skilled states of mind (kusalacitta) but the commentator did not give an example.
However, a case of this may be seen when a bhikkhu plucks flowers (Pàcittiya 11) with intent to revere the Triple Gem. These two explanations really harmonize in the following way: in the case of lokavajja those bad improper actions whether done by bhikkhus or by lay people (always arise from unskilful states of mind) but in the case of paõõattivajja, faults committed by bhikkhus having their origin in skilful states of mind are not regarded by non-bhikkhus as being faults at all. Regarding these two vajja, the commentator does not explain them clearly so I should like to recommend the following statement to fellow Dhamma-practicers: The àpatti called lokavajja committed by bhikkhus will bring about a great loss (of honour to the sangha) and though the bhikkhu has confessed his offence already, that loss will leave a scar which will not heal over easily.
Bhikkhus should therefore be careful in these matters. Among the paõõattivajja there are offences which bhikkhus abstain from strictly and if transgressed will also prove a loss, but there are others in this group which bhikkhus are not so much concerned with because of changes both in time, and country (kàla-desa) and if such offences are committed then they will not prove a great loss. Bhikkhus should not be taken up with this latter kind of àpatti, making it the standard for their strict practice. I have heard that pious laypeople invited a bhikkhu to give a desanà (sermon) from a Dhamma-seat upon which there was a sitting-mat filled with kapok.
That bhikkhu did not sit down there, but asked the laypeople to remove that mat. According to my view, acting in this way is not polite and not better than sitting upon the mat for a certain time. If bhikkhus want to observe strictly (such training-rules as these), then they should do so only within the bounds of the wat. So that bhikkhus are polite not creating a disturbance the Exalted Buddha often allowed bhikkhus permission (to relax some rule). Those who are not strict, seeing that there are many àpatti which cannot be avoided, become heedless and do not know how to select (rules to be kept strictly) or how to avoid (àpatti which bring loss).
Behaving in this way they are very careless though they should know how to behave in a fitting manner. Those who behave in a manner fitting to the Sàsanadhamma which is the practice of the Middle Way, do not fall into the lax extreme of sensual indulgence (kàma ‘sukhallikànuyoga), nor do they fall into the severe extreme of self-mortification (attakilamathànuyoga). The conditions for the commission of àpatti are six in number: (1) alajjhità done shamelessly (2) a¤àõatà done unknowingly; (3) kukkucca-pakatatà done with doubt but done all the same; (4) akappiye kappiyasa¤¤ità done thinking that something is allowable: though it is not allowable; (5) kappiye akappiyasa¤¤ità done thinking something is not allowable though it is allowable; (6) sati-sammosà done with confused mindfulness.
Bhikkhus who break the rules knowingly, do so with a mind stubborn and shameless, so this is called ‘doing with shamelessness’. Bhikkhus who do not know there are rules laid down by the Exalted Buddha and who break those rules, do so ‘unknowingly’. Bhikkhus who doubt whether in doing such a thing they will break a rule but nevertheless continue (with that action) carelessly, if in fact their actions are against some rules, then the penalty for them will be in accordance with the base but if there is no offence, a dukkaña (wrong-doing) must arise due to ‘doing with doubt but doing all the same’. Bhikkhus are forbidden flesh which should not be used as food but a bhikkhu may eat (one of the 10 forbidden kinds) thinking that it is allowable, which would be an example of ‘having done thinking that something is allowable though it is not allowable’.
Bhikkhus are allowed flesh which is used as food and a bhikkhu may think that it is one of the sorts of forbidden flesh but eat it nevertheless, a case of ‘thinking something not allowable though it is allowable’. Honey is included as medicine and it can be kept by a bhikkhu for seven days but he might forget and keep it longer than that, which would be ‘done with confused mindfulness’
Suppose that the following question arises here: Should the penalty for àpatti also fall upon bhikkhus who break rules unknowingly, failing to understand or doing with confused mindfulness, just as it falls upon those who do so shamelessly and though in doubt nevertheless carry out their intention, or should there be leniency? Though there seems to be some justice in this question, first you should call to mind the civil law and whether there is exception made for those who do not know that law. If such exception was made there would be few people who paid attention to the law. If there was exception for those who misunderstood and forgot the law, then there would be an excuse for wrong-doers. It is the same with the Vinaya: when there is no exception made, newly-ordained bhikkhus must pay attention and learn the Exalted Buddha’s law.
They must carefully observe the practice and have knowledge and mindfulness. This will be then the cause for their progress in the Exalted Buddha’s Teaching, being also the instrument for stopping shameless bhikkhus who seek for a chance to excuse themselves. The Exalted Buddha did not make exceptions where no exception should be made but He did make an exception where it should be made, for example, a newly-ordained bhikkhu does not know how to wear his robes properly and the penalty does not fall upon him who does not know (how to wear them) if he has the intention to study the Vinaya. The penalty falls upon those who know how to wear the robes properly but pay little attention to this.
It is the duty of bhikkhus who commit àpatti arising from the six conditions to confess according to the kind of àpatti, as said above. If a bhikkhu conceals his àpatti and pays little attention to them, it is the duty of other bhikkhus who have learnt (of those àpatti of their friend) to warn the offender out of friendliness (mettà) towards him. If he is still obstinate, it is the duty of the bhikkhus to reprove him and to exclude him from hearing Pàñimokkha. For the sake of progress of the Sàsana, the sangha should take action according to the Dhamma-Vinaya. Therefore, bhikkhus should behave honestly and in accordance with the trust placed in them by the Exalted Buddha. Those actions which do destroy His trust are bad and not proper to the samana.
The Benefits of Vinaya
Vinaya which is correctly observed by the bhikkhu will yield benefits, that is, not to suffer remorse in mind (vippatisàra). Bhikkhus who behave loosely will suffer this remorse and sometimes even will be caught, punished and therefore be blamed by others. When (a remorseful bhikkhu) enters an assembly of well-disciplined bhikkhus, he is afraid of being reproved by them. Even though no one reproves him, the mental disturbance (of having done evil) lingers in his mind. Finally, when he thinks of himself, he will blame himself and joy and happiness will not arise in him. Those bhikkhus who like to follow strictly but who lack a good understanding of Vinaya prefer to follow it blindly according the text, copying the bhikkhupractice of the Buddha-time.
But they have been born in a different time and country and so they will surely find difficulties in their practice of Vinaya, while their behaviour blindly clings to the tradition which was the ancient way of bhikkhu-practice and which moreover does not refer to what is truly important. By practising thus, Vinaya does not yield benefits, instead yielding only troubles. Those who practise Vinaya without mindfulness and knowledge, are proud of their practice thinking that they are stricter than the others — and blame other bhikkhus saying that they are much worse (in Vinaya) than themselves.
This is a blamable action when they have to live together and associate with other bhikkhus who may become disgusted with them and consequently (such wrong practising) bhikkhus bring troubles on themselves. Bhikkhus who behave correctly, on the other hand, will be joyful and happy because they feel that they are behaving properly. Neither will they be caught and punished by others, while they gain only praise, and when they have to enter an assembly of disciplined bhikkhus they are bold and not afraid. Those who want to practise Vinaya to gain success should carefully examine the purposes of Vinaya. Some training-rules and some groups of abhisamàcàra were laid down by the Exalted Buddha to prevent bhikkhus from committing acts of violence such as ‘stealing,’ or ‘killing human beings’, such being heavily punished by the civil law.
(While some were laid down) in order to stop bhikkhus from earning their livelihood through deceitful acts, such as through suggestions of ‘superhuman attainments worthy of the Noble One’s knowledge and vision’. Also, they prevent bhikkhus front actions of ‘striking’ and ‘scolding’ and further stop bad behaviour of ‘lying’, ‘slander’, ‘idle’ and ‘drinking’, prevent impoliteness as with ‘eavesdropping’ or discourage childishness as ‘poking with the fingers’, ‘playing in the water’, or ‘hiding another bhikkhu’s requisites’. Sometimes the Exalted Buddha laid down rules based upon the traditional beliefs of people at that time, as when He declared as àpattis, ‘digging the soil’, or ‘cutting down trees’ which were thought to possess life (soul).
At other times He has laid down rules to be traditions of bhikkhus in accordance with convenience or with the traditions of recluses. For example, He prohibited bhikkhus from ‘taking a meal at the wrong-time’ (vikàla). Another example is that all eatables and drinkables (except water) for the use of bhikkhus must first be formally offered. These are examples pointing out the main purposes of the training-rules laid down by the Exalted Buddha. Moreover, we should be aware of the rules which have been laid down by Him but which proved unsuitable so that He added supplementary clauses later, either leading to the fulfillment of the original purpose or else to a complete change of purpose, though bhikkhus continue to observe these rules as a formal tradition.
Again, bhikkhus should recognize the rules dealing with circumstances of specific time and country, (kàla-desa), for when a long time has elapsed or the country changed those bhikkhus then find difficulty in practising, and no one can alter them. Then the bhikkhus of that changed time and country seek for the way to avoid them or to give them up. By considering the truths outlined above, a bhikkhu should so practise that he gains success in the purpose of Vinaya, that is to say he is joyful because he behaves properly and will have no remorse because of careless or incorrect behaviour and he will not be proud and arrogant, or blame others. Bhikkhus should have friendliness and sympathy in giving advice to fellow Dhamma-practicers who still behave wrongly and carelessly, until they too behave properly.
By Somdet Phra Sangharàja Pussadeva of Wat Ràjapratisñhasthita Mahàsãmàràma.