A. Sampatti: The Validity of Community Transactions

As stated in Chapter 12, the Khandhakas' discussion of what constitutes a valid transaction divides the principle of "in the presence of" into two broad factors: the transaction must be in accordance with the Dhamma — in other words, the proper procedure is followed in issuing the statement; and it must be harmonious — the Community issuing the statement is qualified to do so.

The Parivaara (XIX.1.1) sets the requirements of a valid transaction at five "consummations" (sampatti):

consummation of the object (vatthu-sampatti),
consummation of the motion (ñatti-sampatti),
consummation of the proclamation (anusaavanaa-sampatti),
consummation of the territory (siimaa-sampatti),
consummation of the assembly (parisa-sampatti).

The first three of these consummations fit under the Khandhakas' first factor, that the transaction be in accordance with the Dhamma. The last consummation is the same as the Khandhakas' second factor, that the transaction be harmonious.

The fourth consummation, however, does not fit neatly into either of the Khandhakas' two factors. The Parivaara explains it simply by saying that the territory has been authorized in a valid way. The Commentary further explains that if the territory is not valid in this way, it is not a territory but is instead part of the abaddha-siimaa from which it was originally tied off. Furthermore, any transaction performed in such a territory is invalid.

The Vinaya Mukha objects to this interpretation, on the grounds that a transaction performed in such a territory is not automatically invalidated, for in such a case the original abaddha-siimaa counts as the actual territory of the transaction. If all the bhikkhus in that territory are in harmony with the transaction, the transaction is valid. The issue thus becomes one of how to judge the harmoniousness of the transaction, and this comes down to two questions:

1) What is the extent of the valid territory in which the transaction is held?

2) Are all the bhikkhus in that territory participating in the transaction? (To be participating means that they must either be present at the transaction or have sent their consent, and no one who is qualified to do so protests the transaction while it is being carried out.)

To prevent these questions from overlapping with the questions coming under the consummation of the assembly, the Vinaya Mukha proposes limiting that consummation to one question:

Is the minimum quorum for the transaction fulfilled?

And, for purposes of streamlining the discussion, it proposes combining the consummation of the motion and the consummation of the proclamation into one: the consummation of the transaction statement (kamma-vaacaa-sampatti).

This gives four consummations:

consummation of the object — the person or item forming the object of the transaction fulfills the qualities required for that particular transaction;

consummation of the transaction statement — the statement issued follows the correct form for the transaction;

consummation of the assembly — the meeting contains at least the full quorum of bhikkhus required to perform that particular transaction; and

consummation of the territory — all the bhikkhus in the territory where the meeting is being held are either taking part in the meeting or their consent has been conveyed there, and no one qualified to do so protests the transaction while it is being carried out.

The first two of these consummations come under the principle of acting in accordance with the Dhamma; the last two, under the principle of the harmony of the Community.

This method of analysis seems clearer and more useful than that proposed in the Parivaara, and so it is the method I have adopted in this book.

B. Sa.mvaasa: Separate & Common Communion

Several of the rules refer to bhikkhus of separate communion and of common communion. The basic distinction between the two is fairly simple: bhikkhus of common communion will hold their uposatha together; those of separate communions will not. The Canon mentions that bhikkhus of separate communion have their differences, and that if these differences can be resolved, they can become bhikkhus of common communion. None of the texts explicitly discuss how separate communions can be established without creating a schism, but we may reasonably assume that separate communions can arise from any of the nine bases for disputes mentioned in the Canon: over

what is and is not Dhamma;
what is and is not Vinaya;
what was and was not spoken by the Tathaagata;
what was and was not regularly practiced by the Tathaagata;
what was and was not formulated by the Tathaagata;
what is and is not an offense;
what is a heavy or a light offense;
what is a curable or an incurable offense; and
what is and is not a serious offense.

Thus the separateness between two communions could be settled by the means given for settling disputes mention in Chapter 11 of Volume 1. Meanwhile — because not all separations need to be based on a disagreement over what is and is not Dhamma — Cv.VI.6.5 requires that a bhikkhu show homage to a senior bhikkhu of a separate communion who speaks what is Dhamma. In this case, respect for the Dhamma overrides sectarian issues. If, however, the separation is based on a disagreement over Dhamma, a bhikkhu is forbidden to show homage to a senior bhikkhu of a separate communion who speaks what is not Dhamma. In this case, respect for the Dhamma overrides concern for superficial harmony.

Because separate communions are accepted even in the Canon as an accomplished fact, we can assume that the rules referring to this fact were added after the splits in the early schools, such as the split that established the Theravaada (Sthaviravaada) and Mahaasa"nghika schools, which is believed to have occurred soon after the Second Council.

Thus, in the context of the Canon, the term "separate communion" would refer to bhikkhus who follow schools other than the Theravaada. The separateness of their communion was established by the fact that they recited different Paa.timokkhas, some of which have survived to the present day. Historians also assume that the separate communions in early Indian Buddhism maintained separate ordination lineages, which seems a valid assumption, although it is interesting to note that the Pali canon allows for bhikkhus of separate communions to sit in on the Community transactions for ordination in the Theravaada communion as long as they do not have to be counted to complete the quorum. In fact, the only transactions that bhikkhus of separate communions are strictly forbidden from joining are the uposatha and the Invitation.

Since its arrival in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, the Theravaada school has undergone internal splits in which bhikkhus have formed separate communions and yet continue to recite the same Paa.timokkha. These splits have centered, not on any of the nine traditional bases for dispute, but on doubts about the past validity of one another's ordination lineages. These doubts in turn have been based on doubts about one another's present observance of the Vinaya. These splits do not count as schisms, as they do not fulfill the requirements for a schism. But because they do not touch on any of the traditional bases for dispute, and instead deal in questions not susceptible to objective proof, there seems little chance for the type of unanimous agreement required before separate communions can become reunited.

C. Anaamaasa

The Vinaya Mukha contains the following passage on items that are anaamaasa, i.e., not to be touched. As it notes, the basic concept and the list of specific items are not to be found in the Canon, and appear only in the commentaries. However, many Communities adhere to the decision of the commentaries on this matter, and so a wise policy is to know the list.

One is prohibited from touching items that are anaamaasa, i.e., not to be touched — which are classified as follows:

a. Women, their garments, and representations (pictures, statues) of the female form. Female animals would come under this class. Upper and lower garments that they have thrown away — which, for example, could be used as sitting cloths — no longer count as anaamaasa.

b. Gold, silver, and jewels. Here the Commentary mentions eight kinds of jewels by name: pearl, crystal, lapis-lazuli, coral, rubies, topaz, conch-shell, and stones. Together with gold and silver, these are called the ten valuables. Diamonds were known at the time, but I have no idea why they are not mentioned. "Conch" here I understand as meaning conch shells that are decorated with gold and jewels and used to anoint with water, as in brahmanical ceremonies. It may also include conchs used for blowing (as musical instruments), but not ordinary conch shells, as these are allowed for making buttons and fasteners. "Stones" here I understand as meaning items that are classified as rock but considered precious, such as jade or onyx. Perhaps they were used as ornaments from early times, as — for example — jade bracelets in China, or bead bracelets made of red stone alternating with gold beads, which originally were probably made of jade. This category does not include ordinary stones.

c. Weapons of all kinds that are used to hurt the body and destroy life. Sharp tools such as axes would not be included here.

d. Traps for animals, whether used on land or in the water.

e. Musical instruments of all kinds.

f. Grain and fruits still on their original plants.

The prohibition against touching these anaamaasa items does not come directly from the Canon. The compilers of the Commentary extrapolated from various passages in the Vinita Vatthu and other passages (of the Canon) and established this custom. Nevertheless, the custom is still appropriate. For example, a bhikkhu abstains from taking life, so if he were to touch weapons or traps it would look unseemly. He abstains from making music, so if he were to touch musical instruments it would look unseemly as well. So we can conclude that the items classified as anaamaasa were probably forbidden to bhikkhus from the very beginning.

Not all Communities agree with the Vinaya Mukha's conclusions here. Pc 84, for example, gives explicit permission for a bhikkhu to pick up valuables — including gold and silver — that have been left behind in his monastery. Still, many Communities do follow the Vinaya Mukha in general here, so a wise bhikkhu should be notified and sensitive about this issue.

D. Agocara: Improper Range

A standard passage in the discourses (e.g., M.108; A.IV.37; A.IV.181; A.VIII.2) describes a virtuous bhikkhu as follows:

He dwells restrained in accordance with the Paa.timokkha, consummate in his behavior and range. He trains himself, having undertaken the training rules, seeing danger in the slightest faults.

The discourses do not explain the phrase, "consummate in behavior and range." However, the second book in the Abhidhamma — the Vibha"nga — defines "consummate in behavior" as avoiding bodily transgression, verbal transgression, and all forms of wrong livelihood. It defines "consummate in range" as follows:

There is (proper) range (gocara), there is improper range (agocara). Which, in this context, is improper range? There is the case where a certain (bhikkhu) has prostitutes as his range. Or he has widows (or divorced women), unmarried women, pa.n.dakas, bhikkhuniis, or taverns as his range. Or he dwells in unbecoming association with kings, kings' ministers, sectarians, or sectarians' disciples. Or he associates with, frequents, and attends to families who are without faith or conviction, who are abusive and rude, who wish loss, harm, discomfort, and no freedom from the yoke for bhikkhus, bhikkhuniis, male lay followers, and female lay followers. This is called improper range. And which is (proper) range? There is the case where a certain (bhikkhu) does not have prostitutes as his range, does not have widows (or divorced women), unmarried women, pa.n.dakas, bhikkhuniis, or taverns as his range. He does not dwell in unbecoming association with kings, kings' ministers, sectarians, or sectarians' disciples. He associates with, frequents, and attends to families who have conviction, who have confidence, who are like clear water, who are radiant with ochre robes, where the breeze of seers blows in and out, who wish profit, well-being, comfort, and freedom from the yoke for bhikkhus, bhikkhuniis, male lay followers, and female lay followers. This is called (proper) range. (Vibha"nga 514)

In this passage, the phrase, "to have x as one's range" seems to mean that one associates that person or place in an unbecoming way. The first five of the individuals who are said to be improper range — prostitutes, widows (or divorced women), unmarried women, pa.n.dakas, and bhikkhuniis — are drawn from the Mahaavagga's list of individuals that a member of another sect, on probation prior to full Acceptance, should avoid (Mv.I.38.5). According to the Sub-commentary to that passage, associates means treating as a friend or intimate. The Commentary adds that it is all right to visit these people as long as one goes with bhikkhus on bhikkhu business. With regard to prostitutes, the Vinaya Mukha remarks: "It's not the case that the Buddha totally abandoned women of this kind. One may accept proper invitations from them, as in the example (in the Commentary) of the bhikkhus who accepted invitations for food in the home of Lady Sirimaa. But one should be mindful and careful so as not to mar one's restraint." The same principle would apply to the other individuals who are said to be improper range: widows, divorced women, unmarried women, pa.n.dakas, and bhikkhuniis.

As for a tavern, this is not mentioned as improper range in the Vinaya or the Suttas, although its inclusion in the Abhidhamma's list is probably drawn from the rule against drinking fermented or distilled liquors (Pc 51). The Vinaya Mukha defines a tavern as any place where alcohol is sold, served, or made, such as a bar, a nightclub, a brewery, or a distillery. It notes that opium dens did not exist in the time of the Buddha, but that such places would fall under the general category of "tavern" as an improper place for a bhikkhu to frequent. At present, when many restaurants serve alcoholic beverages, the line separating proper from improper places to eat is somewhat blurred, and a bhikkhu is left to his own discretion as to what sort of restaurant — defined by its advertising, name, and atmosphere — is appropriate for him to enter. Even in places that are unequivocally taverns, though, there are certain times and situations in which a bhikkhu may enter them, as when the owners wish to make merit and invite a number of bhikkhus for a meal. Still, the bhikkhus must be careful to maintain not only their propriety but also the appearance of propriety, so as to preserve the good reputation of the Sa"ngha.

The second volume of the Vinaya Mukha concludes with the following advice: "A bhikkhu who avoids these six forms of improper range (prostitutes, widows/divorcees, unmarried women, pa.n.dakas, bhikkhuniis, and taverns), who — when visiting other people or places — chooses those people and places wisely, who doesn't go excessively, and who returns at seemly hours, who behaves in such a way that he does not arouse the suspicions of his fellow Dhamma-practitioners, is said to be gocara-sampanno, a person consummate in his range. This is a principle paired with good behavior in the standard passage on virtue, in the compound aacaara-gocara-sampanno, consummate in behavior and range. This is further paired with the principle, siila-sampanno, consummate in virtue. A bhikkhu consummate in his virtue, behavior, and range adorns the religion and makes it shine."