Том 2. Глава 20. Дисциплинарные санкции

Опубликовано khantibalo от 16 мая, 2017 - 18:05
Отображение колонок
русский khantibalo
<<Назад
Том 2. Глава 15. Упосатха
Оглавление Далее>>
Том 2. Глава 21. Раскол
english - Thanissaro Bhikkhu русский - khantibalo Комментарии
Chapter 20 Disciplinary Transactions ¶ Глава 20. Дисциплинарные санкции ¶
There are cases where the standard penalties are not enough to prevent a bhikkhu from committing repeated offenses. Бывают случаи, когда обычные наказания недостаточны для того, чтобы остановить монаха повторять совершать проступки.
Either he does not cooperate with the penalty procedures or, even when cooperating, cannot bring himself to change his ways. Либо он не выполняет процедур наказаний, либо, даже выполняя их, он не может изменить свои поступки.
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. Также бывают случаи, когда монах навредил мирянину, либо мирянин навредил монаху, и в таких случаях Общине монахов приходится вмешаться и предпринять действие, чтобы предотвратить дальнейший вред. Здесь и далее лучше написать "община" в смысле "община монахов". Слово "сообщество" мы используем для сообщества благородных, в которое могут входить ...
Все комментарии (1)
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. ¶ Для того, чтобы разбираться с подобными случаями, Будда уполномочил Общину налагать дисциплинарные санкции на нарушителей сверх обычной системы наказаний. ¶
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. Некоторые писатели рассматривали подобные дисциплинарные воздействия, как буддийский прототип юридического правосудия, при этом они либо восхваляли их за проницательный вклад в юридическую философию, либо критиковали за изъяны в юридических процедурах.
Both the praise and the criticism miss the point. Но и те, и другие упускали сути.
Unlike most modern judicial procedures, these measures do not function as retributive justice. В отличие от большинства современных юридических процедур, данные меры не являлись карательным правосудием.
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. Они не являлись карательными, поскольку они не представляли собой способ заставить нарушителя "заплатить" за свои проступки (принцип каммы позаботится об этом); и, рассматривая их в качестве карательных мер, они не являются справедливыми (или, по-крайней мере, беспристрастными), поскольку они не регламентировали, что монахи, совершившие одинаковые проступки, понесут одинаковое наказание.
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. За единственным исключением "дополнительного наказания" (см. ниже), каждое допущение для наложения дисциплинарной меры гласит, что Сообщество, если оно хочет, может наложить дисциплинарную меру на монаха, наделенного определенными качествами.
Only in the case of that exception do the texts say that it must do so. ¶ Только в описании данного исключения текст указывает, что Сообщество _обязано_ так поступить. ¶
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. Фрагмент из Бхаддали сутты (МН 65) подчеркивает, что дисциплинарные меры действовали не как наказание, а служили в первую очередь, как средство обучения и восстановления: указывая нарушителю на всю серьезность проступка и давая ему дополнительную мотивацию исправить своё поведение.
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. Если рассматривать это с точки зрения обычного правосудия, то подобные меры относятся к справедливости распределения: раздавая разные инструкции людям пропорционально тому, что им нужно и что пойдет им на пользу.
As with any form of instruction, different people need to learn different lessons in different ways. ¶ Как и при любом обучении, разные люди нуждаются в различных уроках и различных способах обучения. ¶
Here is the passage from the sutta: ¶ Вот фрагмент из сутты: ¶
Bhaddāli: "Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason, why there are cases where, with repeated pressure, they take action against a bhikkhu? Бхаддали спросил: "Учитель, в чём условие, в чём причина, почему в отношении некоторого монаха предпринимают меры посредством постоянного делания ему замечаний?
And what is the cause, what is the reason, why there are cases where they don't, with repeated pressure, take action against the same sort of bhikkhu? " И в чём условие, в чём причина, почему в отношении некоторого монаха не предпринимают меры посредством постоянного делания ему замечаний?"
The Buddha: "Bhaddāli, there is the case where a certain bhikkhu is one with frequent offenses, many offenses. Будда ответил: "Бхаддали, бывает так, когда некий монах является постоянным нарушителем с многочисленными нарушениями [монашеских правил].
When the bhikkhus speak to him (about his offenses), he prevaricates, leads the talk astray, shows anger, aversion, and bitterness; does not behave properly, does not lower his hackles, does not mend his ways, does not say, 'I will act so as to satisfy the Community.' Когда монахи его поправляют, он отвечает уклончиво, переводит обсуждение на другую тему, выражает беспокойство, ненависть, и горечь. Он не поступает правильно, не склоняет голову, не выполняет указаний, не говорит: "Я буду поступать так, чтобы Община монахов была удовлетворена"
In that case, the thought occurs to the bhikkhus, 'Friends, this bhikkhu is one with frequent offenses, many offenses. В таком случае мысль посещает монахов: "Друзья, этот монах является частым нарушителем с многочисленными нарушениями [монашеских правил].
When the bhikkhus speak to him, he prevaricates, leads the talk astray, shows anger, aversion, and bitterness; does not behave properly, does not lower his hackles, does not mend his ways, does not say, 'I will act so as to satisfy the Community.' Когда монахи его поправляют, он отвечает уклончиво, переводит обсуждение на другую тему, выражает беспокойство, ненависть, и горечь; он не поступает правильно, не склоняет голову, не выполняет указаний, не говорит: "Я буду поступать так, чтобы Община монахов была удовлетворена".
It would be good if the venerable ones were to investigate the issue involving this bhikkhu in such a way that it wouldn't be quickly settled.' Было бы хорошо, если бы достопочтенные изучали этого монаха так, чтобы эта тяжба против него не разрешилась бы быстро". Я бы сказал "расследовали дело в отношении этого монаха"
Все комментарии (1)
And the bhikkhus investigate the issue involving him in such a way that it is not quickly settled. ¶ И монахи изучают его дело так, чтобы тяжба против него не разрешилась бы быстро. ¶
"Then there is the case where a certain bhikkhu is one with frequent offenses, many offenses. Но бывает так, когда некий монах является частым нарушителем с многочисленными нарушениями [монашеских правил].
When the bhikkhus speak to him (about his offenses), he does not prevaricate, does not lead the talk astray, does not show anger, aversion, or bitterness. Когда монахи его поправляют, он не отвечает уклончиво, не переводит обсуждение на другую тему, не выражает беспокойство, ненависть, и горечь.
He behaves properly, lowers his hackles, mends his ways, says, 'I will act so as to satisfy the Community.' Он поступает правильно, склоняет голову, выполняет указания, говорит: "Я буду поступать так, чтобы Община монахов была удовлетворена".
In that case, the thought occurs to the bhikkhus, 'Friends ... it would be good if the venerable ones were to investigate the issue involving this bhikkhu in such a way that it would be quickly settled.' В этом случае мысль посещает монахов: "Друзья ... Было бы хорошо, если бы достопочтенные изучали дело этого монаха так, чтобы тяжба против него разрешилась бы быстро".
And the bhikkhus investigate the issue involving him in such a way that it is quickly settled. ¶ И монахи изучают его дело так, чтобы тяжба против него разрешилась бы быстро. ¶
"Then there is the case where a certain bhikkhu is one with occasional offenses, few offenses. "Бывает так, когда некий монах является нечастым нарушителем без многочисленных нарушений.
When the bhikkhus speak to him (about his offenses), he prevaricates, leads the talk astray ... does not say, 'I will act so as to satisfy the Community.' Когда монахи его поправляют, он отвечает уклончиво… не говорит: "Я буду поступать так, чтобы Община монахов была удовлетворена".
In that case, the thought occurs to the bhikkhus, 'Friends ... it would be good if the venerable ones were to investigate the issue involving this bhikkhu in such a way that it wouldn't be quickly settled.' В таком случае мысль посещает монахов: "Друзья ... Было бы хорошо, если бы достопочтенные изучали этого монаха так, чтобы эта тяжба против него не разрешилась бы быстро".
And the bhikkhus investigate the issue involving him in such a way that it is not quickly settled. ¶ И монахи изучают его дело так, чтобы тяжба против него не разрешилась бы быстро. ¶
"Then there is the case where a certain bhikkhu is one with occasional offenses, few offenses. "Но бывает так, когда некий монах является нечастым нарушителем без многочисленных нарушений.
When the bhikkhus speak to him (about his offenses), he does not prevaricate... He behaves properly, lowers his hackles, mends his ways, says, 'I will act so as to satisfy the Community.' Когда монахи его поправляют, он не отвечает уклончиво... Он поступает правильно, склоняет голову, выполняет указания, говорит: "Я буду поступать так, чтобы Община монахов была удовлетворена".
In that case, the thought occurs to the bhikkhus, 'Friends ... it would be good if the venerable ones were to investigate the issue involving this bhikkhu in such a way that it would be quickly settled.' В этом случае мысль посещает монахов: "Друзья ... Было бы хорошо, если бы достопочтенные изучали дело этого монаха так, чтобы тяжба против него разрешилась бы быстро".
And the bhikkhus investigate the issue involving him in such a way that it is quickly settled. ¶ И монахи изучают его дело так, чтобы тяжба против него разрешилась бы быстро. ¶
"Then there is the case where a certain bhikkhu keeps going with (only) a modicum of conviction, (only) a modicum of affection. "Бывает так, когда некий монах совершенствуется (лишь) за счёт некоторой доли убежденности, (лишь) за счет некоторой доли привязанности.
In that case, the thought occurs to the bhikkhus, 'Friends, this bhikkhu keeps going with (only) a modicum of conviction, (only) a modicum of affection. В этом случае мысль посещает монахов: "Друзья, этот монах совершенствуется (лишь) за счет некоторой доли убеждений, (лишь) за счет некоторой доли привязанности.
If we, with repeated pressure, were to take action against him, he would lose that modicum of conviction, that modicum of affection. Если мы продолжим делать ему постоянные замечания и предпринимать другие действия, он утратит эту некоторою долю убежденности, некоторую долю привязанности.
Don't let that happen.' Пусть этого не случится."
Just as if a man had only one eye, his friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives, would look after his one eye, (thinking,) 'Don't let him lose his one eye, too.' Как если бы у человека был бы только один глаз. Тогда его друзья, товарищи, родственники и родня охраняли бы его глаз, думая: "Пусть он не потеряет этот свой единственный глаз".
In the same way ... the thought occurs to the bhikkhus, 'Friends ... if we, with repeated pressure, were to take action against him, he would lose that modicum of conviction, that modicum of affection. И точно также ... мысль посещает монахов: "Друзья... если бы мы предпринимали меры в отношении него посредством постоянного делания ему замечаний, он бы утратил эту убежденность, утратил свою привязанность".
Don't let that happen.' ¶ Пусть это не случится." ¶
"Bhaddāli, this is the cause, this the reason, why there are cases where, with repeated pressure, they take action against a bhikkhu. "Бхаддали, в этом условие, в этом причина почему бывают случаи, когда против монаха предпринимают меры посредством постоянного делания ему замечаний.
And this is the cause, this the reason, why there are cases where they don't, with repeated pressure, take action against the same sort of bhikkhu." ¶ И это причина, это условие почему бывают случаи, когда против такого же рода монаха не предпринимают меры посредством постоянного делания ему замечаний." ¶
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. Другими словами, монахи, налагая какие-либо дисциплинарные санкции на нарушителя, обязаны принимать во внимание не только внешние факты дела, но и психологическое состояние нарушителя.
Does he need to be taught to take the Community seriously? Нужно ли ему преподать урок, чтобы он относился к Общине монахов серьезно?
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. Если так, тогда, даже если его проступки незначительны, он может заслужить более суровое наказание, нежели другой монах, у которого больше нарушений, но и больше уважения к Общине.
On the other hand, is his faith in the practice so weak that a disciplinary transaction would drive him out of the Community? С другой стороны, не является ли его убежденность в практику столь слаба, что дисциплинарные санкции могут изгнать его из Общины монахов?
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. ¶ Если так, то монахам будет мудро отложить рассмотрение его нарушений в сторону и работать другими методами, чтобы укрепить его убежденность в практике. ¶
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. По следующим двум причинам данные дисциплинарные санкции нельзя рассматривать в качестве руководство по юридической философии: 1) Наказания, предписываемые данными санкциями - различные меры остракизма - имеют силу лишь в контексте Учения Будды.
As the Buddha observed to Ven. Ānanda, "Having admirable people as friends, companions, and colleagues is actually the whole of the holy life" (SN XLV.2). Как Будда заметил Дост. Ананде: "Хорошие друзья, хорошие спутники, хорошие товарищи - таковая вся святая жизнь целиком" (СН 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. Любому, кто серьезно относится к Дхамме, должно быть ясно, что без возможности взаимодействовать и обучаться с людьми, которые практикуют путь, прогресс будет чрезвычайно сложным.
The bhikkhus are thus expected to respect the well-behaved members of the Community and to want to stay in good standing with them. Поэтому, как ожидается, монахи будут уважать добропорядочных членов Общины монахов и будут желать оставаться в хороших отношениях с ними.
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. Система наказаний, налагаемых данными дисциплинарными санкциями, учитывает это уважение, поскольку она полностью построена вокруг изменения статуса нарушителя в Общине монахов.
For a person who did not value his standing vis-à-vis the Community, the penalties would have no effect. ¶ Наказания не будут иметь эффекта для человека, кто не ценит своё положение в Общине. ¶
(2) These penalties are intended only for bhikkhus who show some signs that they will respond favorably to them. 2) Данные наказания предназначены только для монахов, которые смогут положительно отреагировать на них.
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. Как отмечали многие, процедуры наложения этих наказаний не предусматривают случая, когда известно, что монах совершил акт, который представляет собой нарушение, но отрицает его совершение.
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. Это случай абсолютной лжи, при котором системы карательного правосудия имеют процедуры, заставляющие нарушителя заплатить за свои проступки, даже когда он откровенно лжет.
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. На самом деле, основное предположение судебных процедур в том, что нарушитель, если на него не надавить, редко когда признается в своих проступках.
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. В Сообществе монахов также есть меры, оказывающие давление на нарушителя, который отрицает свои действия, однако, если он не отвечает на оказанные меры, он считается перешедшим все допустимые нормы и никакие дисциплинарные меры не заставят его уважать Общину монахов или исправить свои действия.
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). Как отмечают сутты, человек не имеющий стыда лгать совершенно лишен свойств отшельника (МН 61), и не такого зла, которого он не мог бы сотворить (Ити.25, Дхп.176)
The only recourse is to leave him alone, in hopes that someday his conscience will get the better of him. Единственное средство - оставить его в покое, надеясь, что когда-нибудь его совесть одолеет его.
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. Что касается дисциплинарных санкций, они предназначены для рассмотрения случаев, когда рассматриваемый монах, по крайней мере, признает свои действия, даже если он не считает их проступками.
When there is at least this much truth to him, he can be taught. ¶ Когда есть хоть столь немного истины, которую он может признать. ¶
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. ¶ Эти дисциплинарные меры, таким образом, предназначены для монахов, которые имеют проступки в своем прошлом и настоящем, но которые подают надежды на исправление. ¶
The following discussion divides the disciplinary transactions into two classes. Следующее обсуждение разделяет дисциплинарные санкции на два класса.
The first are those disciplining an individual bhikkhu for his offenses. Первый класс - это наказание отдельного монаха за его проступки.
The second are those dealing with relations between the bhikkhus and the laity. ¶ Второй класс - это разбирательство между монахами и мирянами. ¶
With regard to the first class, there are two separate discussions in the Khandhakas, in Mv. IX and Cv. I. Относительно первого класса существует два отдельных обсуждения в Кхандаках Mv. IX и 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 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. Обсуждение в Mv. IX предлагает каждое дисциплинарную санкцию для конкретного вида нарушителя: порицание для сеятеля раздора и ссор в Общине; понижение статуса для того, кто имеет множество нарушений за проживание в неподобающей связи с домохозяевами; изгнание для монаха, развращающего семьи (см. Сангхадисеса 13); приостановление статуса для монаха, который признает совершение действия, являющегося нарушением, но при этом отказывающимся: а) признавать это нарушением или б) исправить его; или для того, кто не желает отказаться от злых взглядов.
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. Обсуждение в Cv. I дает значительно большие списки провинностей, которые определяют монаха под каждую дисциплинарную санкцию, при этом списки значительно перекрывают друг друга.
The Commentary takes the second discussion as authoritative and re-writes the first (not very convincingly) to fit with the second. Комментарий принимает второе обсуждение как более авторитетные и переписывает первое (не очень убедительно) для соответствия второму.
A better interpretation might be to regard the first discussion simply as a short-hand reference to the second. Будет правильнее считать первое обсуждение просто краткой справкой ко второму.
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. Эффект следования второму обсуждению - это дать монахам большую самостоятельность в разбирательстве с нарушителем: если он не реагирует будучи подвержен порицанию, они могут попробовать более строгие наказания, вплоть до приостановления статуса, для того чтобы увидеть, что может сработать в конкретном случае.
In the following discussion, we will follow Cv. I. Далее мы будем разбирать обсуждение в Cv. I
The transaction statements for imposing and rescinding these transactions are given in Appendix IV. Формулировка наложения и отмены санкций приведена в Приложении IV
Discipline for offenses. Санкции за нарушения.
There are five transactions in this class: ¶ В данном классе пять санкций: ¶
censure (tajjanīya-kamma), ¶ Порицание (tajjanīya-kamma), ¶
further punishment (tassa pāpiyasikā-kamma), ¶ Дополнительное наказание (tassa pāpiyasikā-kamma), ¶
demotion (niyasa-kamma — in some editions of the Canon this is called dependence (nissaya-kamma)), ¶ Понижение статуса (niyasa-kamma - в некоторых редакциях Канона это называется Зависимостью (nissaya-kamma)), ¶
banishment (pabbājanīya-kamma), and ¶ Изгнание (pabbājanīya-kamma) и ¶
suspension (ukkhepanīya-kamma). ¶ Приостановка статуса (ukkhepanīya-kamma). ¶
Censure. Порицание.
The origin story here is as follows: ¶ История возникновения следующая: ¶
Now at that time, the followers of Paṇḍuka and Lohita (§) — who themselves were makers of quarrels, strife, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Community — approached other bhikkhus who were makers of strife, quarrels, disputes, dissension, and issues in the Community, and said, "Don't let this one defeat you! Argue strongly, strongly! You are wiser and more competent and more learned and more clever than he. В то время последователи Пандуки и Лохиты (§) - которые сами являлись разжигателями ссор, раздоров, споров, разногласий и проблем в Общине монахов - пришли к другим монахам, которые также были разжигателями ссор, раздоров, споров, разногласий и проблем в Общине, и сказали: "Не позволяй ему одолеть тебя! Сильнее спорь! Ты мудрее, более компетентен, образован и умнее его!
Don't be afraid of him! We will be on your side!" Because of this, quarrels that had not yet arisen arose, and quarrels that had already arisen rolled on to become bigger and more abundant. ¶ Не бойся его! Мы будем на твоей стороне!" Из-за этого еще не возникшие ссоры возникли, а возникшие становились всё больше и больше. ¶
According to Cv. I, a Community — if it wishes — may impose a censure transaction on a bhikkhu endowed with the following qualities: Согласно Cv. I, Община - если она того пожелает - может наложить порицание на монаха, наделенного следующими качествами:
a) He is a maker of strife, quarrels, disputes, dissension, issues in the Community; he is inexperienced and incompetent, indiscriminately (§) full of offenses; he lives in the company of householders, in unbecoming association with householders. ¶ а) Он разжигатель ссор, раздоров, споров, разногласий и проблем в Общине; он неопытен и некомпетентен, беспорядочен (§) совершил множество нарушений; он живет в компании домохозяев, в неподобающей связи с домохозяевами. ¶
b) In terms of heightened virtue, his virtue is corrupted; in terms of heightened behavior, his behavior is corrupted; in terms of higher views, his views are corrupted. ¶ б) С точки зрения высшей добродетели, его добродетель испорчена; с точки зрения высшего поведения, его поведение испорчено; с точки зрения высших взглядов, его взгляды испорчены. ¶ Нравственность, не добродетель. А так вообще есть три вида обучения: обучение возвышенной нравственности, обучение возвышенному уму, обучение возвышен...
Все комментарии (1)
c) He speaks in dispraise of the Buddha; speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma; speaks in dispraise of the Saṅgha. ¶ в) Он порицает Будду; он порицает Дхамму; он порицает Сангху. ¶
The Commentary notes that a bhikkhu endowed with any one of these qualities qualifies for censure. Комментарий отмечает, что монах наделенный любым из перечисленных качеств подлежит порицанию.
There is no need for him to be endowed with all nine or a full sub-set of three. ¶ Ему не требуется обладать всеми девятью признаками или полностью соответствовать всем признакам одного из трех перечисленных качеств. ¶
Cv. I. 1.4 states that before giving him a censure transaction the Community must meet to reprimand him for an offense. Cv. I. 1.4 отмечает, что перед тем как вынести такому монаху порицание, Община монахов должна собраться для выговора его за совершенное нарушение.
He must then be "made to remember" — i. e. , to testify that he did in fact commit an action — after which the Community formally convicts him — i. e. , declares him guilty — of the offense. Затем его должны заставить "запомнить", к примеру, заставить засвидетельствовать, что он фактически совершил какое-либо действие, - после чего Сообщество официально осуждает его, к примеру, объявляет его виновным в совершении нарушения.
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. Cv. I. 2-3 дополняет, что данные шаги актуальны, только в случае, когда монах совершил нарушение, требующее признания (Комментарий поясняет, что это касается параджики и сангхадисесы), и монах не признался в этом нарушении.
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. ¶ Как и все другие санкции, порицание действительно только в случае, если обвиняемый присутствует на собрании и санкция наложена в единодушном согласии и проведена в соответствии с Дхаммой. ¶
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. Монах, на которого наложили порицание, должен соблюдать ограничения, перечисленные в секции 2А ограничений, налагаемых на монаха, который подвергается покаянию и испытанию.
In other words, ¶ Другими словами, ¶
he should not give Acceptance; ¶ Он не может Принимать в Общину монахов нового члена (Upasampada); ¶ палийское слово здесь upasampadā http://www.theravada.su/node/1127 оно означаёт процедуру приёма кандидата в полноправные члены монашеской общины (б...
Все комментарии (2)
he should not give dependence; ¶ он не может давать Зависимость; ¶
a novice should not be made to attend to him; ¶ самарена не должен быть привлечен для помощи ему; ¶
he should not consent to an authorization to exhort the bhikkhunīs; ¶ он не должен соглашаться на позволение увещевать монахинь; ¶ да, увещевание, поучение. на пали ovadati http://tipitaka.theravada.su/term.php?word=ovadati
Все комментарии (2)
even when authorized, he should not exhort bhikkhunīs; ¶ даже, когда такое позволение ему было дано, он не должен увещевать монахинь; ¶
whatever offense he was censured for, he should not commit that offense, or one of a similar sort, or one worse than that; ¶ он не должен совершать повторно нарушение, за которое получил порицание, а также похожие нарушения или другое, еще худшее, чем это; ¶
he should not criticize the censure transaction; ¶ он не должен критиковать наложенную санкцию порицания; ¶
he should not criticize those who did the transaction; ¶ он не должен критиковать тех, кто наложил на него эту санкцию; ¶
he should not cancel a regular bhikkhu's uposatha; ¶ он не должен отменять регулярную Упосатху монахов; ¶
he should not cancel the Invitation; ¶ он не должен отменять Приглашение (Pavarana - церемония по окончанию вассы); ¶ да, приглашение. на пали pavāraṇā http://tipitaka.theravada.su/term.php?word=pav%C4%81ra%E1%B9%87%C4%81 Эта церемония, проводимая по окончании сезон...
Все комментарии (2)
he should not engage in words (prior to setting up an accusation proceeding against another bhikkhu) (§); ¶ он не должен вступаться словами (до установления обвинения в отношении другого монаха) (§); ¶
he should not set up an accusation proceeding (§); ¶ он не должен выступать с обвинением (§); ¶
he should not get someone else to give him leave; ¶ он не должен заставлять кого-то другого снять с него санкцию; ¶
he should not make a formal accusation; ¶ он не должен делать формальное обвинение; ¶
he should not make another bhikkhu testify; ¶ он не должен заставлять другого монаха признаваться в чем-либо; ¶
he should not join bhikkhus in disputing with bhikkhus. ¶ он не должен присоединяться к монахам, спорящим с другими монахами. ¶
For the commentaries' remarks on these restrictions, see Chapter 19. ¶ См. комментарии на эти ограничения в Главе 19. ¶
If a censured bhikkhu oversteps any of these restrictions, his censure is not to be rescinded. Если порицаемый монах, нарушит любое из указанных ограничений, его порицание не будет аннулировано.
The Commentary to Pv. V. 3 adds that if he shows no willingness to abide by them, the Community may suspend him. Комментарий к Pv. V. 3 дополняет, что если он не проявляет желание соблюдать их, Сообщество может приостановить его статус.
(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. ¶ (Это допускается Общине делать и в отношении монахов, которые отказываются соблюдать ограничения, налагаемые санкциями понижения статуса, изгнания и другими). Если же порицаемый монах следует данным ограничениям (как минимум 10-20 дней, со слов Комментария), он может просить Сообщество аннулировать санкцию, и Сообщество может это сделать. ¶
Further punishment. Дополнительное наказание.
This transaction is discussed in BMC1, Chapter 11. In terms of formal procedure, it differs from censure in only three respects: ¶
1) It is primarily intended for a bhikkhu who, when being interrogated about an offense, at first denies doing the action in question and then, only after being pressured, admits to it.
However, it may also be imposed on any bhikkhu who meets the criteria for censure. ¶
2) There is an apparent inconsistency in the Canon as to how mandatory this transaction is in settling an accusation against a bhikkhu actually guilty of the offense of which he is accused.
Cv. IV. 14.27 indicates that this transaction is the only way to settle such a case.
In other words, if the bhikkhu in question is actually guilty of the offense, the Community has to impose this transaction on him.
Cv. IV. 12.3, however, indicates that the Community, if it wants to, may impose this transaction on any bhikkhu who meets the criteria for censure.
This apparent inconsistency can be resolved by saying that the transaction is mandatory when the Community has convicted a bhikkhu of an offense after a formal inquiry into the accusation, but optional in the remaining cases. ¶
3) The wording of the transaction statement differs slightly from the transaction statement for censure (see Appendix IV). ¶
Demotion.
The origin story here is as follows: ¶
Now at that time Ven. Seyyasaka (see the origin story to Sg 1) was inexperienced, incompetent, indiscriminately (§) full of offenses.
He lived in unbecoming association with householders — so much so that the bhikkhus were fed up with giving him probation, sending him back to the beginning, giving him penance, and rehabilitating him. ¶
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: ¶
he is endowed with bodily frivolity, verbal frivolity, bodily and verbal frivolity [C: this means that he plays — see the section on bad habits in Chapter 10]; ¶
he is endowed with bodily misbehavior, verbal misbehavior, bodily and verbal misbehavior [C: he breaks rules]; ¶
he is endowed with bodily injuriousness, verbal injuriousness, bodily and verbal injuriousness; ¶
he is endowed with bodily wrong livelihood [C: e.g., he gives medicinal treatments], verbal wrong livelihood [C: e.g., he takes messages for lay people], bodily and verbal wrong livelihood. ¶
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.
In other words, 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. ¶
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 with the Bhikkhu Saṅgha.
In terms of specific added restrictions, this means: ¶
he should not consent to a regular bhikkhu's bowing down to him, standing up to greet him, performing añjali to him, performing duties of respect, bringing his seat, bringing his bedding, water for foot-washing, a foot stand, a foot wiper; receiving his bowl and robe; scrubbing his back while bathing; ¶
he should not accuse a regular bhikkhu of corrupted precepts, behavior, views, or livelihood; ¶
he should not cause bhikkhus to break with bhikkhus; ¶
he should not wear the distinctive clothing ("emblem") of a householder or of the member of another religion; he should not associate himself with members of other religions; he should associate himself with bhikkhus (in other words, even though he has no communion with the bhikkhus, he should identify himself as a bhikkhu); he should train in the training of the bhikkhus; ¶
he should not stay in a residence or non-residence under the same roof with a regular bhikkhu (residence here apparently means any building built for people to live in; non-residence, any other building); ¶
on seeing a regular bhikkhu he should get up from his seat; he should not accost a regular bhikkhu inside or out (of the monastery, says the Commentary). ¶
Pc 69 expands on the meaning of being in communion by stating that any bhikkhu who communes with a suspended bhikkhu (sharing Dhamma or material things), affiliates with him (joining in a Community transaction with him), or lies down in the same lodging with him incurs a pācittiya offense.
See the discussion under that rule for details. ¶
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 common affiliation, 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.
There are two disciplinary acts dealing with this area: ¶
reconciliation (paṭisaraṇīya-kamma) and ¶
"overturning the bowl" (patta-nikkujja-kamma). ¶
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: ¶
Now at that time Ven. Sudhamma was a dweller in the monastery of Citta the householder in Macchikāsaṇḍa — an overseer of new construction, a receiver of constant meals.
Whenever Citta wanted to invite a Community, a group, or an individual (to a meal), he would not do so without consulting Ven. Sudhamma. ¶
Then many elder bhikkhus — Ven. Sāriputta, Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, Ven. Mahā Kaccāna, Ven. Mahā Koṭṭhita, Ven. Mahā Kappina, Ven. Cunda, Ven. Anuruddha, Ven. Revata, Ven. Upāli, Ven. Ānanda, Ven. Rāhula — wandering through Kāsī, reached Macchikāsaṇḍa.
Citta heard, "They say that elder bhikkhus have arrived at Macchikāsaṇḍa."
So he went to the elder bhikkhus and, on arrival, having bowed down to them, sat to one side.
As he was sitting there, Ven. Sāriputta instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged him with a talk on Dhamma.
Then Citta — instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged with Ven. Sāriputta's talk on Dhamma — said to the elder bhikkhus, "Venerable sirs, may the elder bhikkhus acquiesce to tomorrow's newcomers' meal (§) from me." ¶
The elder bhikkhus acquiesced by silence.
Then Citta the householder, sensing the elder bhikkhus' acquiescence, got up from his seat and, having bowed down to them, circumambulated them — keeping them to his right — and went to Ven. Sudhamma.
On arrival, having bowed down to Ven. Sudhamma, he stood to one side.
As he was standing there, he said to Ven. Sudhamma, "Ven. Sudhamma, may you acquiesce to tomorrow's meal from me, together with the elder bhikkhus." ¶
Then Ven. Sudhamma — (thinking,) "Before, whenever Citta wanted to invite a Community, a group, or an individual to a meal, he would not do so without consulting me.
But now, without consulting me, he has invited the elder bhikkhus.
He is now corrupted, this Citta; he is indifferent, doesn't care about me" — said to Citta, "No, householder, I won't acquiesce." ¶
Then a second time ... A third time, Citta said to Ven. Sudhamma, "Ven. Sudhamma, may you acquiesce to tomorrow's meal from me, together with the elder bhikkhus." ¶
"No, householder, I won't acquiesce." ¶
Then Citta — (thinking,) "What does it matter to me whether Ven. Sudhamma acquiesces or not? " — bowed down to him, circumambulated him, keeping him to his right, and went away.
Then Citta, toward the end of the night, had sumptuous staple and non-staple foods prepared for the elder bhikkhus.
And Ven. Sudhamma — (thinking,) "What if I were to go see what Citta has prepared for the elder bhikkhus? " — put on his robes in the early morning and, taking his bowl and outer robe, went to Citta's home.
There he sat down on an appointed seat.
Citta the householder went to him and, having bowed down to him, sat to one side.
As he was sitting there, Ven. Sudhamma said to him, "Many are the staple and non-staple foods you have prepared, householder, but only one thing is missing: sesame-sucks." ¶
"And so many, venerable sir, are the treasures to be found in the Buddha's words, yet this is all you have mentioned: 'sesame-sucks.'
Once, sir, some merchants from the Deccan went to an eastern district (§), and from there they brought back a hen.
The hen mated with a crow and gave birth to a chick.
Whenever the chick wanted to caw like a crow, it cried 'Cawww-ca-doodle-do!' (§)
Whenever it wanted to crow like a rooster, it cried, 'Cockkk-a-doodle-caw!' (§)
In the same way, sir, so many are the treasures to be found in the Buddha's words, yet this is all you have mentioned: 'sesame-sucks.'"
"You are insulting me, householder.
You are reviling me.
This is your monastery, householder.
I am leaving it." ¶
"Venerable sir, I am not insulting you.
I am not reviling you.
May master Sudhamma stay on in the delightful mango grove at Macchikāsaṇḍa.
I will be responsible for master Sudhamma's robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites." ¶
A second time, Ven. Sudhamma said to Citta the householder, "You are insulting me, householder.
You are reviling me.
This is your monastery, householder.
I am leaving it." ¶
"Sir, I am not insulting you.
I am not reviling you.
May master Sudhamma stay on in the delightful mango grove at Macchikāsaṇḍa.
I will be responsible for master Sudhamma's robes, almsfood, lodgings, and medicinal requisites." ¶
A third time, Ven. Sudhamma said to Citta the householder, "You are insulting me, householder.
You are reviling me.
This is your monastery, householder.
I am leaving it." ¶
"Where will master Sudhamma go? "
"I will go to Sāvatthī, householder, to see the Blessed One." ¶
"In that case, venerable sir, report to the Blessed One everything that was said by you and said by me.
And this will not be surprising: that master Sudhamma will return to Macchikāsaṇḍa once more." ¶
[Ven. Sudhamma then packs his things and goes to see the Buddha. The latter upbraids him for having insulted Citta and tells the Community to impose a reconciliation transaction on him, forcing him to return to Macchikāsaṇḍa to ask Citta's forgiveness.] (Cv.I.18.1-5) ¶
The Community, if it wants to, may impose a reconciliation transaction on a bhikkhu endowed with any of the following qualities: ¶
a) he strives for the material loss of householders, for the detriment of householders, for the non-residence of householders (so they can't live in a certain place); he insults and reviles householders; he gets householders to break with householders; ¶
b) he speaks in dispraise of the Buddha to householders, speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma to householders, speaks in dispraise of the Saṅgha to householders, ridicules and scoffs at householders about something low or vile, does not fulfill a righteous promise made to householders [C: this includes accepting an invitation for the Rains retreat or any other similar promise]. ¶
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). ¶
1) When they arrive there, the offending bhikkhu should ask the lay person's forgiveness, saying, "Forgive me, householder.
I am making peace with you.
(Or: I am amicable with you.)" If the lay person forgives him, well and good. ¶
2) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, "Forgive this bhikkhu, householder.
He is making peace with you."
If the lay person forgives him, well and good. ¶
3) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, "Forgive this bhikkhu, householder.
I am making peace with you."
If the lay person forgives him, well and good. ¶
4) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, "Forgive this bhikkhu, householder, at the request of the Community."
If the lay person forgives him, well and good. ¶
5) If not, then without leaving sight or hearing of the lay person, the offending bhikkhu should arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, kneel down with his hands in añjali, and confess his offense to the companion bhikkhu. ¶
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 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 ¶
strives for the bhikkhus' material loss, ¶
strives for the bhikkhus' detriment, ¶
strives for the bhikkhus' non-residence (i.e., so that they can't live in a certain place), ¶
insults and reviles bhikkhus, ¶
causes bhikkhus to split from bhikkhus; ¶
speaks in dispraise of the Buddha, ¶
speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma, ¶
speaks in dispraise of the Saṅgha. ¶
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 XXII.
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 XII.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.1-7), 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: ¶
Search out senior bhikkhus whose opinion will be respected by both sides of the issue. ¶
Search out enough bhikkhus on the side of the Dhamma to outnumber those opposed to the Dhamma. ¶
Have them meet in the location where the original transaction was imposed. ¶
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.
<<Назад
Том 2. Глава 15. Упосатха
Оглавление Далее>>
Том 2. Глава 21. Раскол

Редакция перевода от 04.02.2018 18:41