Глава 2. Взаимоотношения
|
<<Назад Глава 1. Ненасилие |
Оглавление |
Далее>> Глава 3. Имущество и подношения |
| Перевод | Таблица | Оригинал |
(II) Relationships
Bhikkhus cannot live in complete isolation from lay people, for the mutual support relationship is intrinsic to their way of life. However, it should never become an intimate relationship for this goes against the whole purpose of leaving the 'family life' with its endless 'enclosed' complications. The 'Holy Life' or Brahmacariya is one that checks the display of any form of sexual desire through the actions and speech of the bhikkhu. (In fact restraint from gross sexual misconduct is already part of the Five Precepts [see End Note 4]. The Eight and Ten Precepts immediately refine this and then the Vinaya manages it with even greater subtlety.) One's Dhamma life can then advance towards the ending of all desire through mind development and meditation. The most potent object for such sexual desire, that which the mind is most tenaciously grasping after, is usually associated with the opposite sex, so many rules involve this relationship.
Sexual Intercourse
º The first offence of all the 227 listed rules of the Paa.timokkha concerns a bhikkhu engaging in sexual intercourse. It remains a hot issue, perhaps even more so today, going by the number of sexual scandals that rock the Buddhist religious world in both the East and the West. As Venerable Thiradhammo writes:
"While some of the guidelines may seem somewhat rigid or prudish, it is important to reflect upon the volatility and durability of rumour, even if untrue. The incessant sex-scandals in religious circles may provide a sufficient incentive to encourage the greatest measure of prevention and discretion." (HS ch.13)
The rule was originally laid down because of Venerable Sudinna. He was the son of a rich merchant, who left home to become a bhikkhu only after great opposition from his family. He went away to practice Dhamma and when he came back to visit sometime later, his parents were overjoyed to see him and plotted to lure him back into the lay life again. They invited him for a meal and then laid out their wealth in front of him, piled up in two huge heaps of gold, while the wife he had left behind dressed herself in her most irresistibly alluring way. Venerable Sudinna remained unmoved by all of this. After telling them to throw the gold away in the river, he called his former wife, "Sister." Nevertheless, when his elderly mother pleaded with him at least to give them an heir, he foolishly gave in and had sexual intercourse with his former wife.
This First Defeater Offence is summarized:
"A bhikkhu who engages in any form of sexual intercourse is Defeated." (Paar. 1; See BMC p.45)
Every form and variety of sexual intercourse with sexual penetration — whether genital, oral or anal, whether with woman, man or animal — is forbidden. The penalty is the heaviest one of Paaraajika or Defeat.
Intimacy — Touching
º The modern West has stories of sexual harassment, so the ways that the Buddha dealt with such matters should not seem so very strange.
If a bhikkhu touches a woman in a sexual way, he commits a very serious offence requiring formal meetings of the Community and probation (Sa"nghaadisesa). The scrupulous bhikkhu wants to remain above suspicion so, if he can, he will avoid all physical contact. (Hence his attitude to shaking hands. This also explains why in Thailand a receiving cloth is used to receive offerings from women. (See EN 85)
The rule was first set down by the Buddha after a brahman and his wife had gone to inspect Ven. Udaayin's fine dwelling. As Ven. Udaayin was showing them around, he came up behind the lady and "rubbed up against her limb by limb." After they had left, the husband praised Ven. Udaayin but the wife was critical and explained what had happened. The brahman then complained, "Isn't it even possible to take one's wife to a monastery without her being molested?" This rule was then set down:
"Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community."(Sa"ngh. 2; BMC p.100)
To be at fault, the bhikkhu must usually do some action to bring contact with a woman while lust overcomes his mind. If he accidentally stumbles and bumps into a woman or vice-versa, or if he is accosted by a woman, as long as there is no intention to come into lustful contact there is no offence. However, the average bhikkhu's mind tends to be so quick and unruly — he is, after all, still in training and therefore unenlightened — that he may prefer to be super-cautious about such situations.
If a bhikkhu touches his mother out of affection, then this is still an offence but the lesser one of wrong-doing (dukka.ta). While gratitude to parents was strongly emphasized by the Buddha, the bhikkhu having left the home-life and his family should not cling to worldly relationships. The only true way for him to fulfill his filial obligations is by gaining insight into Dhamma and then teaching his parents.
If a bhikkhu is acting with lustful intentions, he incurs a grave (thullaccaaya) offence for making bodily contact with a pa.n.daka ('sex- aberrant') and an offence of wrong-doing for contact with a male. (See BMC p.103)
º The previous rules dealt with the bhikkhu's physical actions, the next two rules are offences — again of the very serious category — that concern his wrong speech towards women.
Flirting
This rule came into being when many women visitors came together to look over Ven. Udaayin's dwelling. He spoke to them in a lewd, flirtatious way so that some of them said, "It is improper. Even from our husbands we wouldn't like to hear this sort of thing." Therefore, the Buddha laid down this rule:
"Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, address lewd words to a woman in the manner of young men to a young woman alluding to sexual intercourse, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community." (Sa"ngh. 3; BMC p.110)
Propositioning
º The following rule is very relevant today when some misguidedly believe that submitting to sex with spiritual teachers can help in their spiritual development.
Again, it was originally a lustful Ven. Udaayin who was the cause of this offence. This time, he suggested to a beautiful and devout woman follower that she make a 'special offering' to him, that of sexual intercourse. The Buddha then set forth this rule:
"Telling a woman that she would benefit from having sexual intercourse with oneself is [an offence requiring initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.]" (Summary[47] Sa"ngh. 4; BMC p.117)
Matchmaking
º The major issue today seems more to center around divorce and the breakdown of marriage rather than arranging marriages. However one should note how these affairs can involve the bhikkhu and how he should guard against becoming too drawn in. (It is also noteworthy that this is considered one of the most serious offences.)
Ven. Udaayin caused this rule to be set down because he involved himself in arranging many marriages and liaisons. When some of these failed, they blamed him for the failure. The offence is summarized:
"Should any bhikkhu engage in conveying a man's intentions to a woman or a woman's intentions to a man, proposing marriage or paramourage — even if only for a momentary liaison — it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community."(Sa"ngh. 5; BMC p.117)
A bhikkhu should not officiate at weddings,[48] except perhaps to chant a blessing afterwards and encourage the newly married couple to lead virtuous and faithful lives together based in generosity, virtue and meditation. He also has to be circumspect when counselling couples. (There is no offence in reconciling a married but estranged couple as long as they are not yet divorced.)
Alone with a Woman
º A bhikkhu not only has to be impeccable but also must be seen to be so. He sets an example for everyone and therefore must be beyond reproach. Any doubtful situations have to be clarified, which is how the next rules came about. Some knowledge of these rules may also help to explain the sometimes seemingly antisocial attitude of some bhikkhus. (When bhikkhus are reluctant to enter into too private a conversation, it may reflect the unsuitability of the time and place for such a meeting.)
There are two aspects to these particular rules: physical closeness and private conversation (see below Talking Privately). If a woman sees a monk who is sitting alone and she wants to sit close to him, or she wants to have a one-to-one conversation with him, the following rules have to be taken into account.
First, the rules dealing with intimate proximity:
The Two Aniyata, Indefinite or Undetermined Cases, were formulated after Ven. Udaayin went to visit a recently married young woman. He sat privately with her, in a secluded place, just the two of them, talking about worldly affairs. The respected female lay-follower, Visaakhaa, saw them sitting there and said to Ven. Udaayin, "This is improper, Ven. Sir, and unsuitable, that the master should sit in private like this. Although, Ven. Sir, the master may have no desire for sexual intercourse, there are unbelieving people who are difficult to convince."
The Buddha therefore set this down:
"Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman in a seat secluded enough to lend itself (to the sexual act), so that a female lay follower whose word can be trusted,[49] having seen (them), might describe it as constituting any of the three cases — involving either Defeat, [Community Meetings], or [Confession] — then the bhikkhu, acknowledging having sat (there), may be dealt with for any of the three cases... or he may be dealt with for whichever case the female lay follower described. This case is undetermined."(Aniyata 1; BMC p.157)
The Second Indefinite Offence is similar to the first, except that the place is less secluded and therefore not suitable for sexual intercourse although it could still be grounds for the other sexual offences, such as "addressing a woman with lewd words."
º When a bhikkhu intentionally sits alone with a woman in a secluded or private place (as in the above two rules) it can lead on to more intimate behavior or at least to misunderstandings from unexpected onlookers. To preclude such problems a bhikkhu needs a companion or 'chaperone.'[50]
A 'secluded place' is where a monk and women can sit (or lie down) on a seat together in a place that is hidden from view and out of earshot, for example, a private room or behind a wall or hedge. In such circumstances, a man or boy old enough to understand what is inappropriate conduct must be also present as chaperone.
Therefore, if a woman — or women, for according to this particular rule (Aniyata 1) it does not matter how many there are — sees a bhikkhu sitting alone in such a very secluded place, she should remember about this rule and not go and sit with him but await a more suitable time or find a male to act as chaperone. A less secluded but still 'private place' (Aniyata 2) would be, for example, a bench in a deserted park or a glassed-in porch or any other place that is private but not secluded enough for sexual intercourse. (BMC p.389) In this case, the Commentary allows the chaperone to be either male or female but they must be someone who knows 'what is and what is not lewd' and they must be 'within sight.' However if the monk and woman talk together the chaperone must be male because of the relevant rule about that. (See Talking Privately below.)
º The following 'Confession Rules' connect with the above 'Indefinite Rules.' (See explanations above for definitions of a 'secluded' and a 'private place.')
The forty-fourth Confession Offence originated when the husband of a woman denounced Ven. Upananda for sitting alone in a 'secluded place' with his wife. The ruling: "Sitting or lying down with a woman or women in a private, secluded place with no other man present is [an offence of Confession.]"(Summarized Paac. 44; BMC p.385)
The next Confession Offence follows on with Ven. Upananda, this time, being caught sitting alone with the man's wife in a 'private place.' This time the ruling is:
"Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman,[51] it is [an offence of Confession.]"(Paac. 45; BMC p.389)
Therefore as with the Indefinite Offences above there needs to be a chaperone present.
Talking Privately
º The previous rules dealt with physical proximity whereas this next rule concerns a bhikkhu and woman talking alone. It might appear strange that a rule should completely forbid confidential interviews with a bhikkhu alone. Yet if one reflects on how things have regularly gone wrong with such private spiritual counselling, it is easier to see that being safe is better than sorry — for the sake of everyone involved. Even if their conduct is completely pure, it still may lead to rumour and criticism.[52]
The seventh Confession offence arose when Ven. Udaayin went to visit lay supporters. He sat close to the mother of the family at the front door, teaching her Dhamma in a quiet, confidential manner, and then approached the daughter-in-law who was by the side door and spoke to her in the same way. Both women mistakenly thought that he was flirting with the other, and criticized him, saying that Dhamma should be given in a clear and open way. As a result the Buddha eventually laid down that:
"Teaching more than six sentences [vaacaa] of Dhamma to a woman, except in response to a question, is [an offence of Confession] unless a knowledgeable man is present." (Summarized Paac. 7; BMC p.285)
There are different interpretations as to exactly what is meant by 'six sentences,' for the Paali word vaacaa can mean 'word,' 'saying' or 'speech.' Even if there are many women, but no other man, it is still considered an offence.
º One can see from the origin of this rule that the point (again) is not that women cannot be taught Dhamma but that it should be done in a way that is completely open and above misinterpretation.
Staying Together
º The next rule deals with the proximity of bhikkhus and women at night. There are different interpretations of this rule and as it is a frequently asked question extra translations with some discussion will be included.
This rule originally arose when Ven. Anuruddha — one of the most highly accomplished disciples of the Buddha — was traveling and asked the woman who owned a travelers' rest house if he could stay the night. She readily agreed and when more travelers arrived and Ven. Anuruddha let them share the room, she invited him to come and sleep inside instead. She had, however, become infatuated with him and tried to seduce him. When she saw that Ven. Anuruddha was completely unmoved, she came to her senses and asked his forgiveness. Ven. Anuruddha then gave her a Dhamma talk which so delighted her that she took refuge in the Triple Gem.
Here are several translations:
"If a bhikkhu sleeps in a place where there is a surrounding wall and under the same roof with a woman, even for one night, it is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 6; Nv p.14)
"A monk who lies down with a female in the same building under the same roof and within walls, which are complete or almost complete, commits [a Confession Offence.]" (Paac. 6; BBC p.120)
"Lying down at the same time in the same lodging with a woman is [an offence of Confession.]" (Paac. 6; BMC p.280)
There are complications concerning how this rule should be applied to modern conditions, for example:
"Houses in tropical climates are often constructed without the system of doors and rooms found in colder climates, hence the importance of this rule. Bhikkhus obliged to stay in a Western-type house with lockable rooms in places where no [monastery] exists, as must sometimes happen during Dhammaduta [Spreading-Dhamma] work, will hardly be included here." (Paat. 1966 Ed.; p106)
"The Commentary (Samantapaasaadika) further explains that when there are many rooms in a single building — such as in a block of flats or apartments — the 'same sleeping place' is only those rooms which have a common 'entrance' (upacaara). It continues by explaining that an 'entrance' is where one washes one's feet before entering a set of rooms. Now each flat/apartment usually has a doormat on which one wipes one's feet before entering the flat/apartment and therefore, following the Commentary, the doormat marks the 'entrance' (upacaara) of a single 'same-sleeping-place.' In other words, separate flats/apartments become separate sleeping places for the purposes of this rule."(AB)[55]
So there are different interpretations as to exactly what is meant by 'same place.' For example, does a locked door make a room a separate place? The Commentary suggests that if a building is divided into units that are not connected and each has a separate entrance, then each unit counts as a 'place.' Therefore apartment blocks would be allowable. And hospitals?
In the West, where there are few monasteries, visiting bhikkhus have to decide how to follow these rules. It is not just a question of being strict but also about how it looks to lay people. Will they be suspicious about a bhikkhu staying too close to women? How will they feel if he stays in an expensive hotel room? A good standard is probably:
"...since the Canon gives no clear guidance on this point, the wise policy for an individual bhikkhu is to follow the views of the Community to which he belongs." (BMC p.274)
Traveling Together
The next point to deal with is that of a bhikkhu traveling with a woman. This is also a very practical question and is often asked about.
In the Buddha's time, a bhikkhu was about to set out on a journey when he met a woman who has just quarreled with her husband. She asked where he was going and if she could accompany him. He agreed. The husband then appeared, searching for his wife. He heard that she had gone off with a monk and assumed that they were lovers, so when he caught up with the pair he thrashed the bhikkhu before explanations could be made. When the husband realized his mistake, he apologized to the bhikkhu. Therefore this rule was set down:
"Traveling by arrangement with a woman from one village to another is [an offence of Confession.]" (Summarised Paac. 67; BMC p.434)
º Modern practice differs according to the Community so lay women should bear this rule in mind when arranging transport for bhikkhus, or going to the same place as them. Reluctance by a bhikkhu to arrange such journeys might also be explained by this rule.
"...it seems reasonable, as there is some uncertainty [as to whether it applies to more than just one monk and one woman,] to be more lenient allowing a journey with one or more women as long as there is at least one male accompanying the monk and the journey is not long. For example, a woman driving two monks in her car to an invitation in the next village seems no more reprehensible than two monks sitting down talking Dhamma to the women, but two women driving across Australia with two monks could be a cause for concern." (AB)
|
<<Назад Глава 1. Ненасилие |
Оглавление |
Далее>> Глава 3. Имущество и подношения |
Редакция перевода от 20.12.2014 17:30