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

Some writers have described these disciplinary measures as a Buddhist prototype for legal justice, either praising them for their insightful contribution to legal philosophy or criticizing them for their shortcomings as legal procedures. Both the praise and the criticism miss the point. Unlike most modern judicial procedures, these measures do not function as retributive justice. They are not retributive in that they are not ways of making the offender "pay" for his wrong doings (the principle of kamma will see to that); and, viewed in terms of retribution, they are unjust (or at least not necessarily fair) in that there is no concern that bhikkhus with equal offenses will undergo equal penalties. In each case, the 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. Nowhere do the texts say that it must do so.

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

Here is the passage from the sutta:

Bhaddali: "Lord, what is the cause, what is the reason, why there are cases where, with repeated pressure, they take action against a bhikkhu? 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?"

The Buddha: "Bhaddali, there is the case where a certain bhikkhu is one with frequent offenses, many offenses. 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.' In that case, the thought occurs to the bhikkhus, 'Friends, this bhikkhu is one with frequent offenses, many offenses. When the bhikkhus speak to him, he prevaricates, leads the talk aside, 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.' 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.' And the bhikkhus investigate the issue involving him in such a way that it is not quickly settled.

"Then there is the case where a certain bhikkhu is one with frequent offenses, many offenses. When the bhikkhus speak to him (about his offenses), he does not prevaricate, does not lead the talk astray, does not shows anger, aversion, or bitterness. He behaves properly, lowers his hackles, mends his ways, says, 'I will act so as to satisfy the Community.' 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.' And the bhikkhus investigate the issue involving him in such a way that it is quickly settled.

"Then there is the case where a certain bhikkhu is one with occasional offenses, few offenses. 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.' 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.' And the bhikkhus investigate the issue involving him in such a way that it is not quickly settled.

"Then there is the case where a certain bhikkhu is one with occasional offenses, few offenses. 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.' 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.' And the bhikkhus investigate the issue involving him in such a way that it is quickly settled.

"Then there is the case where a certain bhikkhu keeps going with (only) a modicum of conviction, (only) a modicum of love. In that case, the thought occurs to the bhikkhus, 'Friends, this bhikkhu keeps going with (only) a modicum of conviction, (only) a modicum of love. If we, with repeated pressure, were to take action against him, he would lose that modicum of conviction, that modicum of love. Don't let that happen.' Just as if a man had only one eye, his friends and companions, kinsmen and relatives, would look after his eye, (thinking,) 'Don't let him lose his eye.' 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 love. Don't let that happen.'

"Bhaddali, this is the cause, this is the reason, why there are cases where, with repeated pressure, they take action against a bhikkhu. And this is the cause, this is the reason, why there are cases where they don't, with repeated pressure, take action against the same sort of bhikkhu."

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

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

(2) These penalties are intended only for bhikkhus who show some signs that they will respond favorably to them. As many have noted, the procedures for imposing these penalties make no provision for the case where a bhikkhu is known to have committed an act that constitutes an offense but denies having done it. This is a case of an out-and-out lie, and systems of retributive justice have procedures for making the offender pay for his wrong-doing even when he is lying through his teeth. In fact, the underlying assumption of a great deal of legal procedure is that a wrong-doer, unless pressured, will rarely admit to doing wrong. Within the Community of bhikkhus there are procedures for applying pressure to an offender who denies his actions, but if he does not respond to such pressures, he is considered beyond the pale, and no amount of disciplinary action will make him respect the Community or mend his ways. As the suttas point out, a person who tells lies without compunction is totally devoid of the quality of a contemplative (M.61), and there is no evil that such a person might not do (Iti.25; Dhp.176). The only recourse is to leave him alone, in hopes that someday his conscience will get the better of him. As for the disciplinary transactions, they are designed to cover cases where the bhikkhu in question will at least admit to his actions even if he may not see them as offenses. When there is at least this much truth to him, he can be taught.

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

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

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

Discipline for offenses. There are five transactions in this class:

censure (tajjaniya-kamma),
(penalty for) further misconduct (tassa papiyasika-kamma),
demotion (niyasa-kamma — in some texts this is called dependence (nissaya-kamma),
banishment (pabbajaniya-kamma), and
suspension (ukkhepaniya-kamma).

Censure. The origin story here is as follows:

Now at that time, the followers of Panduka and Lohitaka — 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! You are wiser and more competent and more learned and more clever than he. 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.

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

a) He is a maker of strife, quarrels, disputes, dissension, issues in the Community; he is foolish and inexperienced, full of offenses, and has not undergone the penalty for them; he lives in the company of householders, in unbecoming association with householders.

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.

c) He speaks in dispraise of the Buddha; speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma; speaks in dispraise of the Sangha.

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

Cv.I.1.4 states that before giving him a censure transaction, the Community must meet to charge him with his offense. He must then be "made to remember" — i.e., to testify that he did in fact commit the offense — and formally found guilty. Cv.I.2 adds that these steps are valid only if the bhikkhu actually has committed the offense and the offense is one entailing confession. (As the Commentary notes, this rules out parajika and sanghadisesa offenses.) As with all transactions, censure is valid only if the accused is present in the meeting, and the transaction is harmonious and in accord with the Dhamma.

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

he should not give Acceptance;
he should not give dependence;
a novice should not be made to attend to him;
he should not consent to an authorization to exhort the bhikkhunis;
even when authorized, he should not exhort bhikkhunis;
whatever offense he was censured for, he should not commit that offense, or one of a similar sort, or one worse than that;
he should not criticize the censure transaction;
he should not criticize those who did the transaction;
he should not cancel a regular bhikkhu's uposatha;
he should not cancel the Invitation;
he should not get into a debate with a bhikkhu who has threatened to level an accusation against him;
he should not function in a position of authority within the monastery;
he should not get someone else to give him leave;
he should not make a formal charge;
he should not make another bhikkhu testify;
he should not join bhikkhus in disputing with bhikkhus.

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

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

Further misconduct. This transaction is discussed in Volume One, Chapter 11. In terms of formal procedure, it differs from censure on only two points:

1) The offender must formally confess his offense, and not simply testify to having done it.
2) The wording of the transaction statement (see Appendix IV) is slightly different.

Demotion. The origin story here is as follows:

Now at that time Ven. Seyyasaka (see the origin story to Sg 1) was foolish, incompetent, full of offenses for which he had not made amends. 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 sanghadisesa 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 makes medicine], 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 vicinity, 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 sanghadisesa 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 having committed an offense, refuses to make amends for it; or who holds to evil views (as in the origin story 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 misconduct.

The Commentary adds that suspension for holding an evil view should be imposed on a bhikkhu only if he uses that view to create strife, etc., in the Community.

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 Sangha. 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 ("flag") of a householder or of the member of another sect; he should not associate himself with members of other sects; 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 upbraid a regular bhikkhu inside or out (of the monastery, says the Commentary).

If the suspended bhikkhu abides by these restrictions, the Community may rescind his suspension on his request. The Canon adds one special note under the case of a bhikkhu suspended for holding an evil view: if he disrobes while under suspension, the Community should rescind the suspension.

Relations with the laity. There are two disciplinary acts dealing with this area:

reconciliation (patisaraniya-kamma) and
"overturning the bowl" (patta-nikkujja-kamma).

Reconciliation. The origin story here is rather long. However, BD misses some of its implications — as the Commentary points out, the name of the sesame sweet 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 Macchikasanda — 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. Sariputta, Ven. Maha Moggallana, Ven. Maha Kaccana, Ven. Maha Kotthita, Ven. Maha Kappina, Ven. Cunda, Ven. Anuruddha, Ven. Revata, Ven. Upali, Ven. Ananda, Ven. Rahula — wandering through Kasi, reached Macchikasanda. Citta heard, "They say that elder bhikkhus have arrived at Macchikasanda." 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. Sariputta instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged him with a talk on Dhamma. Then Citta — instructed, urged, roused, and encouraged with Ven. Sariputta's talk on Dhamma — said to the elder bhikkhus, "Venerable sirs, may the elder bhikkhus acquiesce to tomorrow's new-comers-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, insensitive to 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, 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."

"Sir, I am not insulting you. I am not reviling you. May master Sudhamma stay on in the delightful mango grove at Macchikasanda. 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 Macchikasanda. 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 Savatthi, householder, to see the Blessed One."

"In that case, 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 Macchikasanda 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 Macchikasanda 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 the following qualities:

a) he strives for the non-gain of householders, for the non-benefit 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 Sangha 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 at peace (or: I am friendly/amicable)." If the lay person forgives him, well and good.

(2) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, "Forgive this bhikkhu, householder. He is at peace." If the lay person forgives him, well and good.

(3) If not, the companion bhikkhu should say, "Forgive this bhikkhu, householder. I am at peace." 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 Bhummajaka incite Vaddha the Licchavi to accuse Ven. Dabba Mallaputta of having raped his wife. (They show no imagination, and instruct him to phrase his accusation in the same terms they taught Mettiya Bhikkhuni in the story to Sg 8: "The quarter without dread, without harm, without danger, is (now) the quarter with dread, with harm, with danger. Where there is calm, there is a windstorm. 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 Vaddha, so that none of the bhikkhus are to associate with him. (This, according to the Commentary, means that none of the bhikkhus are to accept offerings from his household.) Ven. Ananda, on his alms round the following day, stops off at Vaddha's house to inform him that the Community has overturned its bowl to him. On hearing this news, Vaddha falls down 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 Vaddha, 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' loss,
strives for the bhikkhus' harm,
strives for the bhikkhus' non-residence (i.e., so that they can't live in a certain place),
insults bhikkhus,
causes bhikkhus to split from bhikkhus;
speaks in dispraise of the Buddha,
speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma,
speaks in dispraise of the Sangha.

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 association between him/her and the Community. (The word for association, here, 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 insists that the person should state the request three times and then leave the hatthapasa of the Community's meeting while the transaction statement uprighting the bowl is recited. After the recitation, the bhikkhus may again accept offerings at the person's house. Although none of the texts mention this point, 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. Sariputta to inform the people of Rajagaha 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 (pakasaniya-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, D.16 tells the story of how the Buddha, shortly before passing away, imposed a brahma-punishment (brahma-danda) 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. Ananda to request that his brahma-punishment revoked, but the latter informed him that the punishment had been automatically lifted at the moment of his attaining arahantship. The version in S.XXII.90, however, tells of how Channa, after learning of his punishment, sought instruction from other bhikkhus and finally gained Awakening on hearing the Kaccanagotta Sutta (S.XII.15) from Ven. Ananda. 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 Kandakaputta visits Vesali, 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 abusing 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 bhikkhu in Vesali, 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 parinibbana, 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.

Rules

Mx.IX.7: Lists bhikkhus who deserve specific disciplinary transactions:

He is a maker of strife, quarrels, disputes, dissension, issues in the Community: Censure.
He is foolish and inexperienced, full of offenses, has not undergone the penalty for them; lives in the company of householders, in unbecoming association with householders: Demotion.
He is a corrupter of families, a man of depraved conduct: Banishment.
He curses and uses abusive speech with householders: Reconciliation.
He has committed an offense but refuses to see it: Suspension.
He sees his offense but refuses to make amends: Suspension.
He holds an evil view: Suspension.

Censure

Procedure — charged (§), made to remember (testify), pronounced guilty of offense (§) — and transaction statement for censure — Cv.I.1.4

Qualities of a censure transaction that is not-Dhamma, not-Vinaya, poorly settled (§) (lists of threes):

a) done not in the presence of, done without an interrogation, done without (the accused's) acknowledgement;
b) done without there having been an offense, there having been an offense not entailing confession, when an offense (entailing confession) has been confessed;
c) without having charged, without having made to testify, without having pronounced the accused guilty of an offense;
d) done not in the presence of, done not in accordance with the Dhamma, factional;
e) done without an interrogation, done not in accordance with the Dhamma, factional;
f) done without (the accused's) acknowledgement, done not in accordance with the Dhamma, factional;
g) done without there having been an offense, done not in accordance with the Dhamma, factional;
h) done for an offense not entailing confession, done not in accordance with the Dhamma, factional;
i) done when an offense (entailing confession) has been confessed, done not in accordance with the Dhamma, factional;
j) without having charged, done not in accordance with the Dhamma, factional;
k) without having made to testify, done not in accordance with the Dhamma, factional;
l) without having pronounced the accused guilty of an offense, done not in accordance with the Dhamma, factional. — Cv.I.2

Qualities of a censure transaction that is Dhamma, Vinaya, well settled (§) (lists of threes):

a) done in the presence of, done with an interrogation, done with (the accused's) acknowledgement;
b) done with there having been an offense, there having been an offense entailing confession, when an offense (entailing confession) has not been confessed;
c) having charged, having made to testify, having pronounced the accused guilty of an offense;
d) done in the presence of, done in accordance with the Dhamma, harmoniously;
e) done with an interrogation, done in accordance with the Dhamma, harmoniously;
f) done with (the accused's) acknowledgement, done in accordance with the Dhamma, harmoniously;
g) done with there having been an offense, done in accordance with the Dhamma, harmoniously;
h) done for an offense entailing confession, done in accordance with the Dhamma, harmoniously;
i) done when an offense (entailing confession) has not been confessed, done in accordance with the Dhamma, harmoniously;
j) having charged, done in accordance with the Dhamma, harmoniously;
k) having made to testify, done in accordance with the Dhamma, harmoniously;
l) having pronounced the accused guilty of the offense, done in accordance with the Dhamma, harmoniously. — Cv.I.3

If a Community so desires, it may carry out a censure transaction against a bhikkhu endowed with (any of) three qualities:

a) he is a maker of strife, quarrels, disputes, dissension, issues in the Community; he is foolish and inexperienced, full of offenses, and has not undergone the penalty for them; he lives in the company of householders, in unbecoming association with householders;
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;
c) he speaks in dispraise of the Buddha; speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma; speaks in dispraise of the Sangha.

If a Community so desires, it may carry out a censure transaction against (any of) three bhikkhus:

a) one who is a maker of strife, quarrels, disputes, dissension, issues in the Community; one who is foolish and inexperienced, full of offenses, and has not undergone the penalty for them; one who lives in the company of householder, in unbecoming association with householders;
b) in terms of heightened virtue, one whose virtue is corrupted; in terms of heightened behavior, one whose behavior is corrupted; in terms of higher views, one whose views are corrupted;
c) one who speaks in dispraise of the Buddha; one who speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma; one who speaks in dispraise of the Sangha. — Cv.I.4

How a bhikkhu should behave if a censure transaction has been done to him:

he should not give Acceptance;
he should not give dependence;
a novice should not be made to attend to him;
authorization to exhort bhikkhunis should not be consented to;
even when authorized, he should not exhort bhikkhunis;
whatever offense he was censured for, he should not commit that offense, or one of a similar sort, or one worse than that;
he should not criticize the (censure) transaction;
he should not criticize those who did the transaction;
he should not cancel a regular bhikkhu's uposatha;
he should not cancel the Invitation (§);
he should not get into a debate with a bhikkhu who has threatened to level an accusation against him (§);
he should not function in a position of authority within the monastery;
he should not get someone else give him leave;
he should not make a formal charge;
he should not make (another) testify;
he should not join bhikkhus in disputing with bhikkhus (§). — Cv.I.5

A censure transaction should not be rescinded if the bhikkhu:

a) gives Acceptance, gives dependence, has a novice attend to him, consents to an authorization to exhort bhikkhunis, exhorts bhikkhunis even when authorized to do so;
b) commits the offense he was censured for, a similar one, or one worse than that; criticizes the (censure) transaction; criticizes those who did the transaction;
c) cancels a regular bhikkhu's uposatha; cancels his Invitation; is made to testify in the course of settling an issue; functions in a position of authority within the monastery; gets someone else to give him leave, makes a formal charge, makes (another) testify; joins bhikkhus in disputing with bhikkhus. — Cv.I.6

A censure transaction may be rescinded if the bhikkhu:

a) does not give Acceptance, does not give dependence, does not have a novice attend to him, does not consent to an authorization to exhort the bhikkhunis, does not exhort bhikkhunis even when authorized to do so;
b) does not commit the offense he was censured for, a similar one, or one worse than that; does not criticize the (censure) transaction; does not criticize those who did the transaction;
c) does not cancel a regular bhikkhu's uposatha; does not cancel an Invitation; is not made to testify in the course of settling an issue; does not function in a position of authority within the monastery; does not get someone else to give him leave, does not make a formal charge, does not make (another) testify; does not join bhikkhus in disputing with bhikkhus. — Cv.I.7

Transaction statement for revoking censure — Cv.I.8

Further Misconduct

Procedure (charged (§), made to remember (testify), made to confess (the offense)) and transaction statement for a further-misconduct transaction — Cv.IV.11.2

Five requirements for a further-misconduct transaction :

1) He (the bhikkhu in question) is impure;
2) he is unconscientious;
3) he is accused (sanuvada) (§);
4-5) the Community grants him a further-misconduct transaction

— in accordance with the Dhamma,
— in harmony. — Cv.IV.12.1

Qualities of a further-misconduct transaction that is not-Dhamma, not-Vinaya, poorly settled (§) (lists of threes) [ = Cv.I.2-3] — Cv.IV.12.2

Qualities of a bhikkhu against whom a further-misconduct transaction may be carried out [ = Cv.I.4] (§ — BD omits sets (b) and (c), together with the passages indicating that any one of these qualities is enough to qualify for the transaction.) — Cv.IV.12.3

Duties of a bhikkhu against whom a further-misconduct transaction has been carried out [ = Cv.I.5] — Cv.IV.12.4

Demotion

Procedure (similar to that for censure, preceded with the comment, "You are to live in dependence") and transaction statement (including the statement, "You are to live in dependence") for a demotion transaction — Cv.I.9.2

Conditions for imposing demotion, proper behavior when demotion has been imposed, conditions for revoking demotion — all the same as for censure — Cv.I.10-11

Transaction statement for revoking demotion — Cv.I.12

Banishment

Procedure (same as for censure) and transaction statement for banishment (includes the statement that the banished bhikkhu should not remain in x place) — Cv.I.13.7

Poorly settled, well settled banishment transaction (the same as for censure). If it so desires, a Community may impose banishment on a bhikkhu who is ... (identical with those meriting censure, plus) —

he is endowed with bodily frivolity, verbal frivolity, bodily and verbal frivolity;
he is endowed with bodily misbehavior, verbal misbehavior, bodily and verbal misbehavior;
he is endowed with bodily injuriousness, verbal injuriousness, bodily and verbal injuriousness;
he is endowed with bodily wrong livelihood, verbal wrong livelihood, bodily and verbal wrong livelihood — Cv.I.14.1

Any of three bhikkhus who may be banished: One who is ... (the same as for censure, plus the above additions) — Cv.I.14.2

Proper behavior for a bhikkhu who has been banished (the same as for censure) — Cv.I.15 (Cv.I.16 adds that a bhikkhu who has been banished may not stay in same place he was living before banishment.)

Conditions for revoking and not revoking banishment (the same as for censure) — Cv.I.16

Transaction statement for revoking banishment — Cv.I.17

"There are these two expulsions [C: this refers to banishment transactions]. There is the individual who has not been subjected to expulsion (has not been expelled) who, if the Community expels him, in some cases is wrongly expelled and in some cases rightly expelled. And which is the individual who has not been subjected to expulsion who, if the Community expels him, is wrongly expelled? There is the case where a bhikkhu is pure and without offense. If he is expelled by the Community, he is wrongly expelled ... And which is the individual who has not been subjected to expulsion who, if the Community expels him, is rightly expelled? There is the case where a bhikkhu is foolish and inexperienced, with many offense for which he has not made amends, living in the company of householders, in unbecoming association with householders. If he is expelled by the Community, he is rightly expelled." — Mv.IX.4.9

Suspension

"A pure bhikkhu, without offense, is not to be suspended without grounds, without reason. Whoever should suspend him: an offense of wrong doing." — Mv.IX.1.8

A bhikkhu with no offense to be seen, who sees no offense in himself: if suspended for not seeing an offense — a non-Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with no offense for which he should make amends: if suspended for not making amends for an offense — a non-Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with no evil view: if suspended for not abandoning an evil view — a non-Dhamma transaction. — Mv.IX.5.1

Combinations of the above factors — Mv.IX.5.2-5

A bhikkhu with an offense to be seen; sees (admits to) the offense: if suspended for not seeing an offense — a non-Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with an offense for which he should make amends; promises to make amends: if suspended for not making amends for an offense — a non-Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu holding an evil view; promises to abandon it: if suspended for not abandoning an evil view — a non-Dhamma transaction. — Mv.IX.5.6

Combinations of the above factors — Mv.IX.5.7

A bhikkhu with an offense to be seen; refuses to see it as an offense: if suspended for not seeing an offense — a Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with an offense for which he should make amends; refuses to make amends: if suspended for not making amends for an offense — a Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu holding an evil view; refuses to abandon it: if suspended for not abandoning an evil view — a Dhamma transaction. — Mv.IX.5.8

Combinations of the above factors — Mv.IX.5.9

Suspension for not Seeing an Offense

Procedure (the same as for censure) and transaction statement for suspension (includes the statement that the suspended bhikkhu should not share in the life of the Community) — Cv.I.25.2

Poorly settled, well settled suspension transaction (the same as for censure). If it so desires, a Community may impose suspension on a bhikkhu who is ... (the same as those meriting censure). — Cv.I.26

Proper behavior for a bhikkhu who has been suspended — the same as for censure plus (inserted between "he should not criticize those who did the transaction" and "he should not cancel a regular bhikkhu's uposatha"):

he should not consent to a regular bhikkhu's bowing down to him, standing up to greet him, performing añjali, performing duties of respect, bringing his seat, bringing his bedding, water for foot(-washing), foot stand, 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 ("flag") of a householder or of the member of another sect; he should not associate himself with members of other sects; he should associate himself with bhikkhus (i.e., identify himself as a bhikkhu); he should train in the training of the bhikkhus;

he should not stay in a residence under the same roof with a regular bhikkhu; he should not stay in a non-residence under the same roof with a regular bhikkhu; he should not stay in a residence or non-residence under the same roof with a regular bhikkhu;

on seeing a regular bhikkhu he should get up from his seat; he should not upbraid a regular bhikkhu inside or out. — Cv.I.27

Conditions for revoking and not revoking suspension (the same as for censure plus the added conditions mentioned in I.27) — Cv.I.28-29

Transaction statement for revoking suspension — Cv.I.30

Suspension for not making amends for an offense (I.31) and for not abandoning an evil view (I.32-35)

The same as suspension for not seeing an offense, with one added note: if a bhikkhu suspended for holding an evil view disrobes, the suspension transaction is to be rescinded. — Cv.I.34.1

Reconciliation

Procedure (same as for censure) and transaction statement for reconciliation (includes the statement that the named householder should be asked to forgive the errant bhikkhu on whom the transaction is imposed) — Cv.I.18.6

Poorly settled, well settled reconciliation transaction (the same as for censure) — Cv.I.19

If a Community so desires, it may carry out a reconciliation transaction against a bhikkhu endowed with (any one of) five qualities:

a) he tries for the loss of householders, for the harm of householders, for the non-residence of householders (so they can't live in a certain place), he curses and uses abusive speech with 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 Sangha to householders; ridicules and scoffs at a householder about something low/vile; does not fulfill (lit., "make true") a righteous promise made to householders.

If a Community so desires, it may carry out a reconciliation transaction against (any of) five bhikkhus:

a) one who tries for the loss of householders, one who tries for the harm of householders, one who tries for the non-residence of householders, one who curses and uses abusive speech with householders, one who gets householders to break with householders;

b) one who speaks in dispraise of the Buddha to householders; one who speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma to householders; one who speaks in dispraise of the Sangha to householders; one who ridicules and scoffs at a householder about something low/vile; one who does not fulfill a righteous promise made to householders. — Cv.I.20

Proper behavior for a bhikkhu who has been placed under reconciliation (the same as for censure) — Cv.I.21

Procedure and transaction statement for authorizing a companion to go with the bhikkhu when asking for forgiveness (the bhikkhu to be authorized must be asked first) — Cv.I.22.2

Procedure for asking for forgiveness:

Bhikkhu 1 asks forgiveness: "Forgive me, householder. I am at peace/friendly/amicable." If the householder forgives him, well and good.

If not, Bhikkhu 2 says: "Forgive this bhikkhu, householder. He is at peace." If the householder forgives him, well and good.

If not, Bhikkhu 2 says: "Forgive this bhikkhu, householder. I am at peace." If householder forgives him, well and good.

If not, Bhikkhu 2 says: "Forgive this bhikkhu, householder, at the request of the Community." If the householder forgives him, well and good.

If not, then without leaving the sight or hearing of the householder, Bhikkhu 1 should be made to arrange his upper robe over one shoulder, kneel down with hands in añjali, and confess his offense (to Bhikkhu 2). — Cv.I.22.3

Conditions for revoking and not revoking the reconciliation transaction (the same as for censure) — Cv.I.23.2

Transaction statement for revoking the reconciliation transaction — Cv.I.24

Overturning the Bowl

(BD misses the meaning of this section): "The bowl may be overturned for a lay follower endowed with (any of) eight qualities: he/she strives for the bhikkhus' loss, strives for the bhikkhus' harm, strives for the bhikkhus' non-residence, insults bhikkhus, causes bhikkhus to split from bhikkhus, speaks in dispraise of the Buddha, speaks in dispraise of the Dhamma, speaks in dispraise of the Sangha. I allow that the bowl be overturned for a lay follower endowed with (any of) these eight qualities." — Cv.V.20.3

Procedure and transaction statement. There is to be no associating with him/her by the Community. — Cv.V.20.4

"The bowl may be set upright for a lay follower endowed with eight qualities: he/she doesn't strive for the bhikkhus' loss, doesn't strive for the bhikkhus' harm, doesn't strive for the bhikkhus' non-residence, doesn't insult bhikkhus, doesn't cause bhikkhus to split from bhikkhus, doesn't speak in dispraise of the Buddha, doesn't speak in dispraise of the Dhamma, doesn't speak in dispraise of the Sangha. I allow that the bowl be set upright for a lay follower endowed with these eight qualities." — Cv.V.20.6

Procedure (the lay follower goes to the Community and makes the request) and transaction statement — Cv.V.20.7