CHAPTER TEN Sekhiya This term, as an adjective qualifying a duty, means "to be practiced" or "to be trained in". As the name of a training rule, it means "to be followed". There are 75 training rules in this category, divided by subject into four groups: etiquette in dressing and behaving when in inhabited areas; etiquette in accepting and eating alms food; etiquette when teaching the Dhamma; and etiquette in urinating, defecating and spitting. The rules themselves do not impose a direct penalty. They simply say, "(This is) a training to be observed." The Vibhanga, though, says that to violate any of these rules out of disrespect incurs a dukkata. To violate them unintentionally, unthinkingly or unknowingly, or to disobey them when there are dangers or (in most cases) when one is ill, incurs no penalty. The Commentary adds that "unknowingly" in this case does not mean not knowing the rule. For a new bhikkhu not to make the effort to know the rules, it says, would qualify as disrespect. So "unknowingly" here means not knowing that a situation has developed which would be contrary to the rules. For instance, if one does not know that one's robes have gotten out of kilter, that would not count as a breach of the relevant rule. One: The 26 Dealing with Proper Behavior The Canon contains several stories in which a bhikkhu's behavior causes another person to become interested in the Dhamma. The most famous example is the story of Ven. Sariputta's first encounter with Ven. Assaji. "Now at that time the wanderer Sanjaya was residing in Rajagaha with a large company of wanderers--250 in all. And at that time Sariputta and Moggallana were practicing the holy life under Sanjaya. They had made this agreement: Whoever attains the Deathless first will inform the other. "Then Ven. Assaji, arising early in the morning, taking his robe and bowl, entered Rajagaha for alms: Gracious in the way he approached and departed, looked forward and behind, drew in and stretched out his arm; his eyes downcast, his every movement consummate. Sariputta the wanderer saw Ven. Assaji going for alms in Rajagaha: gracious...his eyes downcast, his every movement consummate. On seeing him, the thought occurred to him: 'Surely, of those in this world who are arahants or have entered the path to arahantship, this is one. What if I were to approach him and question him: "On whose account have you gone forth? Who is your teacher? In whose Dhamma do you delight?"' "But then the thought occurred to Sariputta the wanderer: 'This is the wrong time to question him. He is going for alms in the town. What if I were to follow behind this bhikkhu who has found the path for those who seek it?'" Even though the following rules deal with minor matters, a bhikkhu should remind himself that the minor details of his behavior can often make the difference between sparking and killing another person's interest in the Dhamma. 1. [2]I will wear the lower robe [upper robe] wrapped around (me): a training to be observed. To wear the lower robe wrapped around means to wear the upper edge circling the waist, covering the navel, and the lower edge circling the knees. The Commentary states that when standing, the lower edge should be not more than eight fingerbreadths below the knees, although if one's calves are disfigured, it is all right to cover them more than that. To wear the upper robe wrapped around means, according to the Vibhanga, keeping both ends of the top and bottom edges level. The bottom edge of the upper robe, though, does not have to be level with the bottom edge of the under robe. Given the size of the upper robe in the Buddha's time, it would have been impossible for it to have extended down that far. Intentionally to wear either robe hanging down in front or in back is a breach of these rules. The Commentary states that the purpose of this rule is to prevent bhikkhus from wearing their robes in any of the various ways that lay people in those days wore theirs--e.g., pleated "with 100 pleats", tied up or tucked up between the legs. It also comments that since these rules are not qualified, as the follow-ing ones are, with the phrase, "in inhabited areas", they should be followed in the monastery and wilderness areas as well. As a prac-tical matter, though, if one is working on a high ladder or in a tree, it is a wise policy to tuck one's lower robe up between the legs for decency' sake. 3. [4]I will go [sit] well-covered in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. The Vibhanga does not define inhabited areas in this or any of the following rules. The term thus probably has the same meaning as under Patidesaniya 1: in the homes of lay people, or along the streets and alleys of villages, cities or towns. This does not include, however, monasteries located in inhabited areas, although many such monasteries make it a rule that bhikkhus living with them observe many of these rules when outside of their personal quarters, even though they are still within the monastery grounds. Well-covered, according to the Commentary, means not exposing one's chest or knees. One should have the upper edge of the upper robe around the neck, and the lower edge covering the wrists. The lower edge of the lower robe, as stated above, should cover the knees. When seated, only one's head, hands and legs from the calves on down should show. Rule #4 here has an added non-offense clause: There is no offense if one sits not "well-covered" within one's residence. () According to the Vinaya Mukha, this means within one's room if one is staying overnight in a lay person's home. It makes the point that when one is outside of one's room, though, one should follow the rule. 5. [6]I will go [sit] well-restrained in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. Well-restrained, according to the Commentary, means not playing with the hands or feet. This would include such things as dancing, cracking one's knuckles, wiggling one's fingers or toes. 7. [8]I will go [sit] with eyes lowered in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. The Vibhanga says that a bhikkhu should keep his gaze lowered to the ground the distance of a plow's length ahead of him--this equals two meters, according to the Commentary. The purpose of this rule, it adds, is to prevent one from gazing aimlessly here and there at the sights as one walks along. There is nothing wrong, though, in looking up when one has reason to do so. An example given in the Commentary is stopping to look up and see if there are dangers from approaching horses or elephants. A more modern example would be checking the traffic before crossing a road. 9. [10]I will not go [sit] with robes hitched up in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. According to the Commentary, to hitch up one's robes means to lift them so as to expose either side or both sides of the body. Rule #10 here, like Sekhiya 4, does not apply when one is sitting in one's dwelling in an inhabited area. 11. [12]I will not go [sit] laughing loudly in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. According to the Vibhanga, if there is any reason for amusement, one should simply smile. 13. [14]I will go [sit] (speaking) with a lowered voice in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. The Commentary defines a lowered voice as follows: Three bhikkhus are sitting in a row at intervals of three meters. The first bhikkhu speaks. The second can hear him and clearly catch what he is saying. The third can hear his voice, but not what he is saying. If the third can clearly catch what he is saying, it maintains, the first bhikkhu is speaking too loudly. As the Vinaya Mukha notes, though, when one is speaking to a crowd of people, there is nothing wrong in raising one's voice provided that one does not shout. And as the non-offense clauses shows, there is nothing wrong in shouting if there are dangers--e.g., someone is about to fall off a cliff or be hit by a car--or if one's listener is partially deaf. 15. [16]I will not go [sit] swinging the body in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. This means that one should keep one's body straight. Rule #16, like Sekhiya 4, does not apply when one is sitting in one's dwelling in an inhabited area. 17. [18]I will not go [sit] swinging the arms in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. According to the Commentary, this means that one should keep one's arms still, although as the Vinaya Mukha points out, there is nothing wrong in swinging one's arms slightly to keep one's balance as one walks. Rule #18 does not apply when one is sitting in one's residence in an inhabited area. 19. [20]I will not go [sit] swinging the head in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. This refers to swinging the head from side to side or letting it droop forward or back. Of course, there is no offense if one is dozing off, and like Sekhiya 4, Rule #20 does not apply when one is sitting in one's residence in an inhabited area. 21. [22]I will not go [sit] with arms akimbo in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. Akimbo means with the hand on the hip. This rule, the Commen-tary says, forbids having one arm or both arms akimbo. As with Sekhiya 4, Rule #22 does not apply when one is sitting in one's residence in an inhabited area. 23. [24]I will not go [sit] with my head covered in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. Covered, here, means covered with a robe, a scarf or other similar piece of cloth. As with Sekhiya 4, Rule #24 does not apply when one is sitting in one's residence in an inhabited area. And the allowance for "one who is ill" under both rules means that one may cover one's head when the weather is unbearably cold or the sun unbearably hot. 25.I will not go tiptoeing or walking just on the heels in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. This translation of the rule follows the Commentary. 26.I will not sit holding up the knees in inhabited areas: a training to be observed. This, the Vibhanga says, refers to sitting cross-legged hugging the knees with the arms or hands, or binding them with a strip of cloth. () The author of the Vinaya Mukha reports, "I have seen (this latter method) only in ancient pictures. It was widely used among fat people as a way of holding the body erect." *** In addition to the rules listed here, there are others in the Khandhakas concerning behavior in inhabited areas. These include-- A bhikkhu entering an inhabited area must wear all three of his basic set of robes unless-- He is ill. It is during the four months of the rains. It is during the period when his kathina privileges are in effect. He is going to have to cross a river. He has a secure dwelling (or other hiding place, the Commentary says, such as a hollow in a tree or a rock) in which to place the robe he leaves behind. (Mv.VIII.23.2) He should also wear his waistband. The bhikkhu who instigated this rule had the unforgettable experience of having his lower robe slip off in front of a group of people who thoroughly enjoyed the spectacle. (Cv.V.29.1) A bhikkhu entering an inhabited area, though, should not spread out his outer robe to sit on (Cv.VIII.4.3); and unless he is ill he should not wear footwear--shoes, sandals, boots, etc.--(Mv.V.12) or use an umbrella or sunshade (Cv.V.23.3). The Commentary to the umbrella rule includes physical or mental discomfort under "ill" in this case, and says that one may also use the umbrella to protect one's robes from the rain. Two: The 30 Dealing with Food 27.I will receive alms food appreciatively: a training to be observed. This rule was formulated in response to an incident in which some group-of-six bhikkhus accepted alms food unappreciatively, as if--to quote the Vibhanga--"they wanted to throw it away." The Commen-tary explains appreciatively as "with mindfulness established." One should also remind oneself of the trouble and expense the donors went to in providing the food. 28.I will receive alms food with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed. The purpose of this rule is to prevent one from looking at the donor's face or gazing aimlessly in other directions while he/she is placing food in the bowl. However, the Cullavagga (VIII.5) includes a number of "duties to be observed on alms round," one of which is that one should not stand too long or turn away too soon. This means that one should glance at what the donor has prepared to give, so that one will not stand waiting for more when the donor has finished giving, or turn away when he/she has more to give. 29.I will receive alms food with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be observed. This rule refers specifically to eating habits at the time of the Buddha. Bean curry means sauces made with gram, pulses, vetch, etc., thick enough that they can be placed in the bowl by the hand. In proper proportion, according to the Commentary, means no more than one-quarter of the total food. The Vinaya Mukha tries to interpret this rule as covering curries and soups of all kinds, but the Vibhanga and commentaries state unequivocally that it covers only bean curries. Other gravies, soups, stews and sauces are exempt. This rule probably refers to situations in which bhikkhus were offered food from a serving dish from which they helped themselves--as was the custom when they were invited to homes in the Buddha's time, and still is the custom when they are invited to homes in Sri Lanka and Burma--for the Vibhanga states that there is no offense in receiving more than the proper proportion if one is invited to accept more than that. There is also no offense in taking more than the proper proportion if one is accepting it from relatives, for the sake of another, or if one has obtained the food through one's own resources. (This interpretation follows the Commentary. The K/Commentary, for some reason, maintains that all of these non-offense situations--accepting from one's relatives, from people who have offered an invitation, for the sake of another, or from food obtained through one's own resources--apply only to dishes which are not bean curries, but this interpretation does not seem to be supported by the Vibhanga.) 30.I will receive alms food level with the edge (of the bowl): a training to be observed. Iron bowls in the past had a hoop approximately 1 cm. wide around the inside of the mouth: According to the Commentary, "edge" here means the bottom edge of this hoop. A bhikkhu is prohibited from accepting more than this, although of course there is nothing against accepting less. The Commentary contains a long discussion of what does and does not come under alms food in this rule, and concludes that it covers only staple and non-staple foods. Thus if one receives a sweet, the "tail" of whose wrapper extends above the edge of the bowl (such sweets are still common in Asia today), it would not count as an infraction of this rule. The same holds true if one receives foods which do not fill the bowl, but extend above the edge--such as a length of sugar cane--or if the donor places on top of one's bowl another vessel containing food, such as a box of sweets or a bag of fruit. 31.I will eat alms food appreciatively: a training to be observed. According to the Vinaya Mukha, this rule forbids doing other things--such as reading--while eating one's food. The Recollection at the Moment of Using One's Requisites requires that one reflect that one is eating "not playfully, nor for intoxication, nor for fattening, nor for beautification; but simply for the survival and continuance of this body, for ending its afflictions, for the support of the chaste life, (thinking) 'I will destroy old feelings of hunger without creating new feelings from overeating: Thus will I maintain myself, be blameless and live in comfort.'" One should also remind oneself of the effort and expense the donors went to in providing the meal. 32.I will eat alms food with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed. The purpose of this rule is to prevent one from gazing aimlessly about while eating. The Vinaya Mukha notes, though, "To look elsewhere in ways related to one's eating--e.g., looking with the thought of providing a nearby bhikkhu with whatever he is lacking--is not prohibited." (See Sekhiya 38, below.) 33.I will eat alms food methodically: a training to be observed. The purpose of this rule is that a bhikkhu work steadily across his food while eating, from one side to another, and not pick at it here and there. Special treats, though, may be passed over--either as a form of self-denial, or to save them for the end of the meal. Also, there is no offense in picking here and there when taking food from one's bowl to give to another person. () 34.I will eat alms food with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be observed. The non-offenses here are the same as under Sekhiya 29: This rule does not apply to foods which are not thick bean curries, or to situa-tions where one has received the food from relatives, from people who offered an invitation to take more, for the sake of another or from one's own resources. 35.I will not eat alms food taking mouthfuls from a heap: a training to be observed. This refers to the rice in one's bowl. The Commentary translates from a heap as from the top or from the middle. The Vinaya Mukha notes that is a custom among bhikkhus before eating to level off the rice in their bowls so that its surface is even. One would then work from one side, as under Sekhiya 33. The no-offense clauses state that if a little food remains scattered in one's bowl, there is no offense in gathering it together in a small heap and eating from that. () The Vinaya Mukha adds that if one is served other foods--such as sweets--stacked on a platter, it would be impolite to level them off, so in cases such as this one may take from the top of the heap. 36. I will not hide bean curry and foods with rice out of a desire to get more: a training to be observed. Some donors, if they see that a bhikkhu has nothing but rice in his bowl, will go out of their way to provide him with extra food. This rule is to prevent bhikkhus from taking advantage of their kind intentions. According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense if donors cover the food in one's bowl with rice, or if one covers it with rice oneself if one is not doing it out of a desire for more. The Commentary notes that there is no exception here for a bhikkhu who is ill. 37.Not being ill, I will not eat rice or bean curry which I have requested for my own sake: a training to be observed. The Commentary to Pacittiya 39 says that rice or bean curry here covers all foods not covered in that rule. There is no offense in requesting these foods from relatives, from people who have offered an invitation to request, or if one is ill (weak from hunger would be included here). There is also no offense in obtaining these foods by means of one's own resources. 38.I will not look at another's bowl intent on finding fault: a training to be observed. The K/Commentary defines finding fault as taking note of the fact that the other bhikkhu or novice has something: What this probably means is that he has some especially nice food that he is not sharing. The Vinaya Mukha provides an alternative suggestion, that this rule refers to finding fault with another's sloppy manner of eating. Sloppi-ness, though, is something about which bhikkhus may admonish one another, so the K/Commentary's interpretation seems more to the point. The Vibhanga states that there is no offense in looking at another's bowl if one is not meaning to find fault or if one wants to provide him with whatever he may be lacking. Here again, the Commentary notes that there is no exception for a bhikkhu who is ill. 39.I will not take an extra-large mouthful: a training to be observed. According to the Commentary, a mouthful the size of a peacock's egg is too large, while one the size of a chicken egg is too small. (!) One midway between these two sizes is just right. This seems hard to fathom, unless chicken eggs in those days were much smaller than they are now. According to the Vibhanga, this rule does not cover fruits, solid foods such as roots, and special confections (sandwiches at present would fit here). Apparently, if these items are somewhat largish, it is all right to stick them whole into the mouth, although if they are very large, it would be better to take bites out of them (see Sekhiya 45). 40.I will make up a rounded mouthful: a training to be observed. People at that time ate food with their hands, and formed mouth-fuls of the food with their fingers before taking them to the mouth. This rule, like the preceding one, does not cover fruits, solid foods such as roots, and special confections such as sandwiches. In other words, one does not have to mash these things up and form them into rounded mouthfuls before eating. 41.I will not open the mouth when the mouthful has yet to be brought to it: a training to be observed. 42.I will not put the whole hand into the mouth while eating: a training to be observed. The Commentary and K/Commentary are in agreement that this is the proper translation for this rule. The Sub-commentary insists that it should be "any part of the hand" rather than "the whole hand", but according to the Commentary the act of sticking a finger in one's mouth while eating comes under Sekhiya 52. 43.I will not speak with the mouth full of food: a training to be observed. According to the Commentary, if the amount of food in one's mouth is not enough to effect the clarity of one's pronunciation, it is all right to speak. 44.I will not eat from lifted balls of food: a training to be observed. What this means is that one should not lift food from the bowl in one hand and then use the other hand to take parts of that handful to put in the mouth. According to the Vibhanga, this rule does not cover fruits, solid foods and special confections. Thus, for example, it is all right to pick up a bunch of grapes in one hand, and then take the grapes one by one with the other hand and put them in the mouth. This rule is often translated as, "I will not eat tossing up balls of food," but since it seems unlikely that there would be an allowance for tossing fruit, etc., into the air and catching it in the mouth, the above translation is probably more correct. 45.I will not eat nibbling at mouthfuls of food: a training to be observed. After forming a mouthful of food (see Sekhiya 39 & 40), one should place it into the mouth at once, rather than biting it off bit by bit. Again, this rule does not cover fruits, solid foods and special confections. i.e., there is nothing wrong in taking bites from any of these foods that are too large to fit into the mouth, although the etiquette in many Asian countries at present frowns on taking bites even out of things such as these. 46.I will not eat stuffing out the cheeks: a training to be observed. In other words, one should swallow one's food before putting another mouthful in the mouth. This is another rule which does not cover fruits, solid foods and special confections. Apparently this allowance covers cases where the fruits, etc., would make up a largish mouthful, as mentioned under Sekhiya 39. 47.I will not eat shaking (food off) the hand: a training to be observed. According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense in shaking dust or dirt off the hand while eating. () 48.I will not eat scattering rice about: a training to be observed. If one happens to be shaking dirt off the hand, and a few rice grains on the hand happen to get scattered in the process, there is no offense. 49.I will not eat sticking out the tongue: a training to be observed. 50.I will not eat smacking the lips: a training to be observed. 51.I will not eat making a slurping noise: a training to be observed. In the origin story to this rule, a certain Brahmin prepared a milk drink for the bhikkhus, who drank it making a hissing or slurping sound. One of the bhikkhus, a former actor, made a joke about the fact: "It's as if this entire Sangha were cooled." (This of course, is a pun on the higher meaning of the word "cooled".) Word got to the Buddha, who in addition to formulating this rule, also imposed a dukkata on the act of making a joke about the Buddha, the Dhamma or the Sangha. 52.I will not eat licking the hands: a training to be observed. According to the Commentary, this rule also covers the act of sticking a finger into the mouth. There are times, though--it says--when one is eating a semi-liquid food with one's hand, in which case it is all right to stick the tips of the fingers into the mouth so as to get as much of the food as possible into the mouth without spilling it. 53.I will not eat licking the bowl: a training to be observed. The Commentary shows that the verb lick here also means scrape, in that it says it is a breach of this rule to scrape the bowl even with one finger. The Commentary is surely correct here, for otherwise there is no making sense of the Vibhanga's allowance that if there are a few scattered crumbs left in the bowl, one may gather them into one last mouthful, scrape them up and eat them. 54.I will not eat licking the lips: a training to be observed. 55.I will not accept a water vessel with a hand soiled by food: a training to be observed. According to the Commentary, this rule applies to anything from which one would drink water, whether it belongs to oneself or to others. If one's hand is partially soiled, it says, it is all right to pick up a water vessel with the unsoiled part. The Vibhanga says that if one's hand is soiled, one may take the water vessel with the thought that, "I will wash it or get it washed," although this allowance might be qualified with the consideration that one should make sure it gets washed before someone else uses it. 56.I will not, in an inhabited area, throw away bowl-rinsing water which has grains of rice in it: a training to be observed. The custom in those times, when bhikkhus were invited to eat at a lay person's home, was for the donor to offer water to the bhikkhus to rinse out their bowls before the meal and again at the end. In both cases, each bhikkhu was to hold his bowl in both hands, receive the water into the bowl, swish it around without scraping it (against the ground or floor), and pour it into a receptacle if there was one--or on the ground if not--taking care not to splash any nearby people or one's own robes. (Cv.VIII.4-6) This rule applies to the after-meal rinsing. The Vibhanga says that there is no offense in throwing away bowl rinsing water if the rice grains are removed, if they are squashed so as to dissolve in the water, or if the water is poured into a receptacle and later thrown outside. () *** In addition to the above rules, the duties observed on alms round and in eating at a lay person's home include the following points of etiquette: While on alms round. One should go unhurriedly, and stand neither too close to nor too far from the donor. (Cv.VIII.5.2) While eating in a home. One should select a seat which does not encroach on the senior bhikkhus' spaces, but which also does not deprive the junior bhikkhus of a place to sit. (Cv.VIII.4.3) If there are any special foods, the most senior bhikkhu should tell the donor to make sure that everyone gets equal portions. He should also not begin eating until everyone is served, nor should he accept water for rinsing his bowl until everyone is finished eating. (Cv.VIII.4.5) *** The Vinaya Mukha notes that some of the rules and allowances in this section outline "table manners" which would be regarded either as excessively fussy or as messy and impolite by polite modern standards. Thus wherever ancient and modern codes of etiquette are at variance, the wise policy would be to adhere to whichever code is more stringent on that particular point. Three: The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma The Canon records that the Buddha himself had the highest respect for the Dhamma he had discovered; that, as others might live under the guidance of a teacher, honoring and revering him, the Buddha lived under the Dhamma, honoring and revering it. He enjoined his followers to show the same respect for the Dhamma not only when listening to it, but also when teaching it, by refusing to teach it to a person who shows disrespect. The following set of rules deals with situations in which a listener, in terms of the etiquette at that time, would be regarded as showing disrespect for a teacher or his teaching. As the Vinaya Mukha notes, a few of these cases--such as those concerning footwear--are not considered disrespectful under certain circumstances at present, although here the exceptions given for listeners who are "ill" might be stretched to cover any situation where the listener would feel inconvenienced or awkward if asked to comply with the etiquette of the Buddha's time. On the other hand, there are many ways of show-ing disrespect at present which are not covered by these rules, and an argument could be made, reasoning from the Great Standards, that a bhikkhu should not teach Dhamma to a person who showed disrespect in any way. Dhamma here is defined as any statement spoken by the Buddha, his disciples, seers or devatas connected with the teaching or with its goal. See Pacittiya 7 for a more detailed discussion of this point. 57.I will not teach Dhamma to a person with an umbrella in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. An umbrella or sunshade, at that time, was considered a sign of rank. According to the Commentary, this rule applies regardless of whether the umbrella is open or closed, and as long as one's listeners has his/her hand on it. If, however, the umbrella is on the listener's lap, resting against his/her shoulder, or if someone else is holding it over the listener's head, there is no offense in teaching him/her any Dhamma. 58.I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a staff in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. According to the Vibhanga, a staff is a pole two meters long. For some reason, any pole shorter or longer than that would not come under this rule. 59.I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a knife in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. The term knife here includes anything with a blade. According to the Commentary, if the knife is not in the listener's hand--e.g., it is in a sheath attached to the belt--there is no penalty in teaching him/her the Dhamma. 60.I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a weapon in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. The Vibhanga defines weapon as a bow, and the Commentary includes arrows here as well. The Vinaya Mukha adds guns; and in fact any weapon which does not have a blade would seem to fall under this rule. Again, if the weapon is not in the listener's hand--e.g., it is in a holster attached to the belt--there is no penalty in teaching him/her the Dhamma. 61.[62] I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing leather [non-leather] footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed. The Pali terms for leather and non-leather footwear--paduka and upahana--cover all forms of shoes, sandals and boots. (See Mv.V.1.30-8.3) Wearing means one of three things: placing one's feet on top of the footwear without inserting the toes; inserting the toes, without fastening the footwear; or fastening the footwear with the toes inside. 63. I will not teach Dhamma to a person in a vehicle and who is not ill: a training to be observed. The Commentary makes the point that if the vehicle is large enough to seat two or more, then the bhikkhu may sit together with his listener and teach Dhamma without penalty. The same holds true if the bhikkhu and his listener are in separate vehicles, as long as the bhikkhu's vehicle is the same height or higher than his listener's, and is not following along behind it. 64. I will not teach Dhamma to a person lying down who is not ill: a training to be observed. The Commentary goes into great detail on this rule, listing the various permutations of the bhikkhu's position and his listener's, and saying which ones are allowable and which ones not: A bhikkhu lying down may teach any listener who is standing or sitting down. He may also teach a listener lying down on a piece of furniture, a mat or on the ground, as long as the bhikkhu's position is on an equal level or higher than his listener's. A bhikkhu sitting down may teach a listener who is standing or sitting down (see also Sekhiyas 68 & 69), but not one who is lying down, unless the listener is ill. A bhikkhu standing may teach a listener who is also standing, but not one who is sitting or lying down, again unless the listener is ill (see Sekhiya 70). 65. I will not teach Dhamma to a person who sits holding up his knees and who is not ill: a training to be observed. As under Sekhiya 26, the position of holding up the knees here includes hugging the knees with the arms, or tying them in a similar position with a strap or a piece of cloth. 66. I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not ill: a training to be observed. This rule applies only to headgear--such as turbans or hats--which hide all of the hair. If the hat/turban does not hide all of the hair, or if the listener adjusts it so as to expose some hair, it would not come under this rule. 67. I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed. There is no offense in teaching if the listener adjusts the robe or scarf to uncover his/her head. 68.Sitting on the ground, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. According to the Commentary, a seat here includes even a piece of cloth or a pile of grass. 69.Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a high seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. The Commentary states that this rule also covers cases where the bhikkhu and his listener are both sitting on the ground, but the listener is sitting on a higher piece of ground than the bhikkhu. 70.Standing, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting who is not ill: a training to be observed. 71.Walking behind, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking ahead who is not ill: a training to be observed. There is no offense, the Commentary says, if the bhikkhu and his listener are walking side by side; or if two bhikkhus are walking along, one in front of the other, and they practice reciting a passage of Dhamma together. 72.Walking beside a path, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking on the path and who is not ill: a training to be observed. Four: The 3 Miscellaneous Rules 73.Not being ill, I will not defecate or urinate while standing: a training to be observed. Arguing from the Commentary's allowance under the following rule, it would seem that a bhikkhu who needs to urinate, finds himself in a public restroom, and can no longer hold himself in while waiting for a toilet, would qualify as "ill" here and so would be able to use a urinal without penalty. 74.Not being ill, I will not defecate, urinate or spit on living crops: a training to be observed. The Vinaya Mukha says that crops here includes all plants that are tended--such as in gardens, farms or lawns--but not plants growing wild. The Commentary includes roots of living trees which appear above ground, in addition to green plants running along on top of the ground. It also quotes the MahaPaccari, one of the ancient commen-taries on which it is based, as including blowing the nose under the term spitting in this rule and the next. According to the Vibhanga, there is no offense using plants to cover up feces, urine or saliva; and the Commentary states that a bhikkhu looking for a place without crops to do his business, can't find one and is unable to hold himself in any longer, would qualify as "ill" under this rule. 75.Not being ill, I will not defecate, urinate or spit in water: a training to be observed. According to the Commentary, water here includes water fit for drinking or bathing, but not water unfit for such use--e.g., salt water, stagnant water--or water in a toilet. If there is a flood with no dry ground available, then there is no offense in relieving oneself in the water. As under the preceding rule, the Vibhanga says that there is no offense using water to cover up or to wash feces, urine or saliva away. *** The Cullavagga (VIII.10) contains a series of rules concerning etiquette in using a restroom. Among them: --The restroom should be used in order of arrival, rather than in order of seniority. ("Now at that time, bhikkhus used the restroom in order of seniority. Newly-ordained bhikkhus, having arrived first in dire need to go, had to wait and keeled over stiff from holding themselves in.") --One should not go bursting into the restroom. (According to the Vinaya Mukha, this means not only that one should not go rushing in, but also that one should not go in with one's lower robe open or pulled up.) Before entering, one should cough or clear one's throat; if a bhikkhu is inside, he should cough or clear his throat in answer. --One's robes should be hung up on a line or rod before entering. This, according to the Vinaya Mukha, refers to one's upper and outer robe. --One should not make grunting noises while relieving oneself. --If the toilet or restroom is dirty, one should clean it for the next person. --One should not go bursting out of the restroom when finished--again, taking care not to have one's lower robe pulled up or open. Cv. VIII.9 adds that after one has defecated--inside a restroom or not--one should always rinse oneself if water is available. CHAPTER ELEVEN Adhikarana-Samatha This term means, "the settlement of issues." The seven rules in this section are actually principles and procedures for settling the four sorts of issues mentioned under Pacittiya 63: disputes, accusations, offenses and duties. The Canon's explanations of these procedures are given not in the Vibhanga, but in Cullavagga IV, which starts with a sketch of the procedures, followed by a detailed explanation of how to apply them to each of the four types of issues. We will follow the same presentation here. For the settling, the resolution of issues which arise: 1. A verdict "in the presence of" should be given. This means that the formal act settling the issue must be carried out in the presence of the Sangha, in the presence of the individuals, and in the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya. In the presence of the Sangha means that the group of bhikkhus which has gathered is competent to carry out the formal act under question. In other words, it contains the minimum number of bhikkhus required, all the bhikkhus in the designated area (sima) either are present or have sent their consent, and none of the bhikkhus in the meeting makes protest against having the matter settled by the group--although as we noticed under Pacittiya 80, if a formal act is being carried out against a bhikkhu, his protest does not invalidate the act; any protest made by any other member of the group though, would invalidate it, even if he only informs the bhikkhu sitting next to him. (Mv.IX.4.8) In the presence of the individuals means that all the individuals involved in the matter are present. For instance, in a dispute, both sides of the dispute must be in the meeting; when the Sangha is carrying out a formal act against one of its members, the accused must be there; in an ordination, the bhikkhu-to-be must be present. There are a few cases where this factor is not followed--such as the ordination of a bhikkhuni by messenger, and the act of turning the bowl upside down (refusing to accept donations from a lay person who has mistreated the Sangha)--but these are rare. In the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya means that all the proper procedures laid down in the Vinaya are followed, and that bhikkhus who advocate what is not truly Dhamma or Vinaya are not holding sway over the group. 2. A verdict of mindfulness may be given. This is the verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused remembers fully that he did not commit the offense in question. A verdict of this sort is valid only if: 1) The bhikkhu is pure and without offense; 2) He is accused of an offense. 3) He asks for the verdict. 4) The Sangha gives him the verdict. 5) It is in accordance with the Dhamma, the assembly of bhikkhus being complete and competent to give it. (Cv.IV.4.11) According to the Commentary, factor (1) here--the bhikkhu is pure and without offense--applies only to arahants, but the Canon makes no mention of this point. There are other places in the Khandhakas where the phrase "pure and without offense" is used to refer to any bhikkhu who has not committed the offense of which he is accused (e.g., Mv.IX.1.7; Mv.IX.4.9), with nothing to indicate that he would have to be an arahant. If the Commentary's interpretation were correct here, there would be no way that a bhikkhu in his right mind who is not an arahant could be declared innocent of an offense at all, since the only three verdicts which may settle an accusation are this one, the verdict of past insanity (for a bhikkhu who was insane when he committed the offense in question), and the act of (punishment for) further misconduct, for a bhikkhu who committed the offense in question when he was in his right mind. The fourth rule below--acting in accordance with what is admitted--which is sometimes assumed to cover cases of innocence, actually applies only to cases where the bhikkhu admits to having committed an offense before the matter goes to interrogation, and not to cases where he is innocent and asserts his innocence. Thus we will follow the general usage in the Khandhakas and say that the factor "pure and without offense" is fulfilled by any bhikkhu--arahant or not--who has not committed the offense in question. 3. A verdict of past insanity may be given. This is another verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused was out of his mind when he committed the offense in question, and so is absolved of any responsibility for it. Such a verdict is valid only if given to a bhikkhu who: 1) Does not remember what he did while insane; 2) Remembers, but only as if in a dream; or 3) Is still insane enough to believe that his behavior is proper. ("I act that way and so do you. It is allowable for me and allowable for you!") (Cv.IV.6.2) 4.Acting in accordance with what is admitted. This refers to the ordinary confession of offenses, where no formal interrogation is involved. The confession is valid only if in accord with the facts: For instance, a bhikkhu actually commits a pacittiya offense and then confesses it as such, and not as a stronger or lesser offense. If he were to confess it as a dukkata or a sanghadisesa, that would be invalid. 5. Acting in accordance with the majority. This refers to cases in which bhikkhus are unable to settle a dispute unanimously, even after all the proper procedures are followed, and--in the words of the Canon--are "wounding one another with weapons of the tongue." In cases such as these, decisions can be made by majority vote. Such a vote is valid only-- 1) If the issue is major. 2) If the proper procedures have already been followed (in at least two or three monasteries, says the Commentary) and have failed to achieve a result. 3) If those on the side of the Dhamma are in the majority and are perceived to be in the majority. 4) If it is felt that such an act will not divide the Community. 5) If the Community present is competent to settle the issue. 6) If all the bhikkhus present agree to take a vote. 7) If there is no cheating (e.g., one bhikkhu taking two voting tickets); and 8) If each bhikkhu honestly votes in accordance with his views, and not, for example, under fear of intimidation. (Cv.IV.10) 6. Acting in accordance with the accused's further misconduct. This refers to cases where a bhikkhu admits to having committed the offense in question only after being formally interrogated about it. He is then to be reproved for his actions, made to remember the offense and to confess it, after which the Community carries out a formal act of "further misconduct" against him, as a means of further punishment for his being so uncooperative as to require the formal interrogation in the first place. The Cullavagga (IV.11.2-12.2) contains three separate discussions of the conditions that are necessary for the act to be valid. Since the discussions overlap, they can be summarized as follows: The act is essentially the same thing as an act of censure, and as such can be given to a bhikkhu who-- 1) is a maker of strife, quarrels and dissension in the Community; 2) is ignorant, full of offenses and has not undergone the penalty for them; or 3) lives in unbecoming association with lay people. What makes this act special is that it is aimed primarily at a bhikkhu who has committed an offense which requires confession, but he does not confess it until being formally interrogated. This is shown by the following factors which are required for the act to be valid: 1) The accused is impure (i.e., he actually did commit the offense, and it is an offense which requires confession). 2) He is unconscientious (i.e., he didn't voluntarily confess the offense on his own in the first place). 3) A formal meeting has been called in which he is present and has been interrogated: reproved for his actions, made to remember the offense, and formally accused of having committed it. (The Commen-tary translates this word--sanuvada--as meaning argumentative--saupavada--which also fits the context. If the bhikkhu has been accused of the offense but at first denies it, that would fulfill this factor.) 4) He finally admits to having committed the offense and confesses it. 5) The Community carries out the act 6) in accordance with the Dhamma and Vinaya, and with a complete assembly. Once such an act has been carried out against a bhikkhu, he must observe the following rules: 1) He may not act as preceptor or teacher for another bhikkhu, nor is he to have a novice attend to him. 2) He may not assent to being authorized to exhort bhikkhunis; and even if authorized, he is not to exhort them. 3) He should not commit the offense for which he is being punished, a similar offense or a worse one. 4) He should not find fault with the formal act or with those who carried it out. 5) He should not accuse others of offenses, or participate actively in any of the procedures involved in a formal accusation--e.g., sus-pending another bhikkhu's right to join in the Patimokkha recitation, ask leave to accuse, reprove, make remember, etc. 6) He should not quarrel with bhikkhus. (Cv.IV.12.4) If he abides by all these rules, and the community is satisfied that he has seen the error of his ways, they are to rescind the act and restore him to his former status as a full-fledged bhikkhu. 7.Covering over as with grass. This refers to situations in which both sides of a dispute realize that, in the course of their dispute, they have done much that is unworthy of a contem-plative. If they were to deal with one another for their offenses, the only result would be greater divisiveness. Thus if both sides agree, all the bhikkhus gather in one place. (According to the Commentary, this means that all bhikkhus in the sima must attend. No one should send his consent, and even sick bhikkhus must go.) A motion is made to the entire group that this procedure will be followed. One member of each side then makes a formal motion to the members of his faction that he will make a confession for them. When both sides are ready, the representative of each side addresses the entire group and makes the blanket confession, using the form of a motion and one announcement (natti-dutiya-kamma). This clears all offenses except for-- 1) Any heavy offense (parajika and sanghadisesa, says the Commentary) committed by anyone in the group; 2) Any offenses dealing with the laity; 3) Any offenses of any member of either side who does not approve of the procedure; 4) Any offenses of any bhikkhu who does not attend the meeting. (This is the reason for the Commentary's statement that even sick bhikkhus must attend.) Point (3) here is interesting. If any member of either side were to dissent, that would invalidate the whole procedure. This point is thus probably added as a reminder to any bhikkhu who might be vindictive enough to want to deal with his enemies case-by-case, that his offenses will also have to be dealt with case-by-case. This might be enough to discourage him from dissenting. The Commentary explains the name of this procedure by compar-ing the offenses cleared in this way to excrement which has been so thoroughly covered with grass that it can no longer send an oppressive smell. *** According to the Cullavagga, the principle of "in the presence of" applies to all four types of issues: disputes, accusations, offenses and duties. In addition, disputes may be settled "in accordance with the majority"; accusations must be settled either by a verdict of mindfulness, a verdict of past insanity or an act "in accordance with further misconduct"; and offenses may be settled by acting in accordance with what is admitted or by covering them over as with grass. What follows it a more detailed discussion of how these principles and procedures apply in each of the four cases: Disputes are heated disagreements over what the Buddha did and did not teach, or in the words of the Cullavagga, "when bhikkhus dispute, saying: 'It is Dhamma,' or 'It is not Dhamma;' 'It is Vinaya,' or 'It is not Vinaya;' 'It was spoken by the Tathagata,' or 'It was not spoken by the Tathagata;' 'It was regularly practiced by the Tathagata,' or 'It was not regularly practiced by the Tathagata;' 'It was formulated by the Tathagata,' or 'It was not formulated by the Tathagata;' 'It is an offense,' or 'It is not an offense;' 'It is a light offense,' or 'It is a heavy offense;' 'It is a curable offense,' or 'It is an incurable offense;' 'It is a serious offense,' or 'It is not a serious offense.' Whatever strife, quarreling, contention, dispute, differing opinions, opposing opinions, heated words, abusiveness based on this, is an issue arising from disputes." (Cv.IV.14.2) Thus not all disagreements on these matters are classed as issues. Friendly disagreements or differences of interpretation aren't; heated and abusive disagreements are. The Buddha advises that a bhikkhu who wants to bring up such questions for discussion should first consider five points: 1) whether or not it is the right time for such a discussion; 2) whether of not it concerns something true; 3) whether or not it is connected with the goal; 4) whether or not he will be able to get on his side bhikkhus who value the Dhamma and Vinaya; and 5) whether or not the question will give rise to strife, quarreling, disputes, cracks and splits in the community. If the answer to the first four questions is yes, and to the fifth question no (i.e., the discussion is not likely to lead to strife), he may then go ahead and start the discussion. Otherwise, he should let the matter rest for the time being. (Cv.IX.4) The Cullavagga quotes the Buddha as saying that there are two sorts of mental states which can turn disputes into issues: wholesome and unwholesome. The unwholesome states he lists are covetous, corrupt or confused states of mind; the wholesome ones are states of mind which are not covetous, not corrupt and not confused. He adds, however, that there are six character traits which can lead to issues arising from disputes which will act towards the detriment of many people. They are when a bhikkhu: is easily angered and bears ill will, is mean and spiteful, is jealous and possessive, is scheming and deceitful, has evil desires and wrong views, is attached to his own views, obstinate, unable to let them go. Such a bhikkhu, he says, lives without deference or respect for the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, and does not complete the training. If one should see any of these traits within oneself or others, one should strive for their abandonment. If there are no such traits present, one should make sure that they don't arise in the future. (Cv.IV.14.3) As noted under Sanghadisesa 10, there are two sorts of disputes: those in which one of the parties is aiming at schism, and those in which neither is. Disputes of the first sort are to be dealt with in line with the procedures listed under Sanghadisesas 10 & 11; those of the second sort are to be settled as follows: In the presence of--Step 1: a) The Community meets, with at least four bhikkhus--the minimum to form a quorum--present. All of the bhikkhus in the sima are either present or have sent their consent, and none of the bhikkhus present protests against having the matter settled by the group. b) Both sides of the dispute are present. c) The meeting is carried out in accordance with the procedures the Buddha laid down, and the unanimous decision of the Commu-nity is in line with what the Buddha actually laid down. This point is important: It means that no Community--even if it follows the proper form for the meeting--can legitimately replace the Buddha's teachings with its own preferences on any point. If the Community can settle the manner in this way, it is properly settled and should not be reopened. Step 2: If the Community cannot settle the matter, they should go to a monastery where there are more bhikkhus, and ask them to help settle the matter. If it so happens that the group is able to settle the matter among themselves on the way to the other monastery, then it is properly settled, and they may return home to their own monastery. Step 3: If the matter is still unsettled by the time they reach the second monastery, they should ask the resident bhikkhus there to help settle the matter. The resident bhikkhus should then meet and consider among themselves whether or not they are competent to settle the matter. If they feel that they aren't, they shouldn't take it on. If they feel that they are, they should then ask the incoming bhikkhus how the dispute arose. (The Commentary here adds that the residents should first stall for two or three days--saying that they have to wash their robes or fire their bowls first--as a way of subduing the pride of the incoming bhikkhus.) Once the resident bhikkhus have asked the history of the dispute, the incoming bhikkhus are to say that if the resident bhikkhus can settle the dispute, they (the incoming bhikkhus) will hand it over to them; if they can't settle it, the incoming bhikkhus will still be in charge of the matter. If the resident bhikkhus can then settle the dispute, it is properly settled. Step 4: If they can't settle it in this way--and, in the words of the Canon, "endless disputes arise and there is no discerning the meaning of a single statement"--the disputants should, with a motion and announcement, hand the matter over to a panel of experts. The Commentary recommends a panel of ten. To qualify as a member of the panel, a bhikkhu must have the following qualifications: 1) He is moral, abiding scrupulously by the rules of the Vinaya. 2) He is learned in all things dealing with the holy life. 3) He has memorized both Patimokkhas in detail. 4) He is firm in his knowledge of the Vinaya, and not easily led off-track. 5) He is skilled at reconciling both sides of a dispute. 6) He is skilled at settling an issue. 7) He knows what constitutes an issue. 8) He knows how an issue arises (i.e., through wholesome, unwholesome or neutral states of mind). 9) He knows when an issue is stopped. 10) He knows the way leading to the stopping of an issue. (Notice that these last four qualifications parallel knowledge of the four Noble Truths.) The Commentary notes that while the panel is discussing the issue, none of the other bhikkhus is to speak. If the panel can settle the issue, it is properly settled, and should not be reopened. Step 5: If the panel has trouble in settling the issue, and there are any members of the panel who "hide the Dhamma under the shadow of the letter"--i.e., use the letter of the rules to go against the spirit--they may be removed from the panel through a formal motion. If the panel can then settle the issue, it is properly settled. If not--and by this time, the Commentary says, at least two or three monasteries have become involved--the simple procedure of "in the presence of" has been exhausted, and the dispute must go on to a settlement "in accordance with the majority." In accordance with the majority: A decision by majority vote is valid only when the following factors are present: 1) The issue is important. 2) The procedures of "in the presence of" have all been followed, but have not succeeded in settling the issue. 3) Both sides have been made to reflect on their position. 4) The distributor of voting tickets knows that the majority is on the side of the Dhamma, or 5) that the majority is probably on the side of the Dhamma. 6) The distributor of voting tickets knows that the procedure will not lead to a split in the Sangha, or 7) that the procedure will probably not lead to a split in the Sangha. 8) The tickets are taken in accordance with the rule (e.g., only one ticket per bhikkhu, and the Dhamma side wins). 9) The assembly is complete; and 10) The bhikkhus take the tickets in accordance with their views (and not, e.g.,, under fear of coercion). When these factors are all present, the group should first ask one of its members to act as a distributor of voting tickets. He should be free of the four kinds of prejudice, and know what does and does not constitute the taking of a voting ticket. Before accepting the role, he should reflect on whether or not the ten qualifying factors are truly present, and should accept only when they are. Once he accepts the role, he is to be authorized by means of a formal motion and announcement. He is then to have voting tickets made--a different color for each side--and conduct the ballot in one of three ways: secretly, by whispering in the ear or openly. In secret balloting, he is to tell each bhikkhu, "This color is for this side and that color for that. Take one, but don't show it to anyone." According to the Commentary, this method is to be used when there are many unconscientious bhikkhus in the assembly. In "whispering in the ear" balloting, he is to whisper to each bhikkhu, "This color is for this side and that color for that. Take one, but don't tell anyone." This method, the Commentary says, is for assemblies in which there are many foolish or trouble-making bhikkhus. In open balloting, the bhikkhus are to take the voting tickets openly. This method is for assemblies where the distributor is certain that the conscientious bhikkhus are in the majority. Once the vote is taken, the distributor is to assess the result before announcing it. If he sees that the non-Dhamma side has won, he is to annul the balloting, and take the vote all over again. According to the Commentary, he may take the vote up to three times. If the anti-Dhamma side is still in the majority, he should announce that the time is not right for a vote, adjourn the meeting, and try to find more bhikkhus on the side of the Dhamma to join the next meeting. These procedures make two interesting assumptions: One side of the dispute is clearly in the right, and the distributor must belong to the right side. If he belongs to the wrong side, the whole balloting is invalid, and the issue may later be reopened without penalty. If neither side is clearly in the right, the composers of the Cullavagga would probably consider the issue unimportant and not worthy of a vote in the first place. If this is true, then even if a vote is taken, it would not be a valid use of the procedure, and the results would not be binding. In all of these steps for settling disputes, the important point to remember is that in no way is a group of bhikkhus to rewrite the Dhamma or Vinaya in line with their views. Even if they attempt it, following the procedures to the letter, the fact that their decision goes against the Buddha's teachings invalidates their efforts, and the issue may be reopened at any time without penalty. *** Accusations. When a bhikkhu has committed an offense, it is his responsibility to undergo the penalty voluntarily so as to make amends for it. If his fellow bhikkhus see, hear or suspect that he has committed an offense without undergoing the penalty, it is their duty to question and admonish him in private, in accordance with the procedures discussed under Sanghadisesa 8. The issue may be settled informally in one of two ways: (1) The accused admits to the act, sees it as an offense and undergoes the penalty; or (2) he is truly innocent, professes his innocence, and can convince his admonishers that their suspicions were ungrounded. If both sides act in good faith and without prejudice, issues of this sort are relatively easy to settle informally in this way. If they can't be settled, they should be taken to a meeting of the Sangha so that the Community as a whole can make an interrogation and give its verdict. When the Community meets, both the accused and the accuser must be present, and both must agree to the case's being heard by that particular group. (If the original accuser is a lay person, one of the bhikkhus is to take up the charge.) The accused is then to be asked if he remembers having committed the offense in question, and is to be dealt with in accordance with what he admits to having done (Mv.IX.6.1-4). The Cullavagga (IV.14.29) shows that the other bhikkhus are not to take his first statement at face value. They should press and cross-examine him until they are all satisfied that he is telling the truth, and only then may they pass one of three verdicts: If he is innocent of the offense, and he can convince the group of his innocence, he is to request a verdict of mindfulness--expressing the request three times--and the Community is to give it to him by means of a formal motion with three announcements. If he committed the offense while insane or possessed, he should request a verdict of past insanity--again, expressing the request three times--and the Community is to give it to him by means of a formal motion with three announcements. If he did commit the offense, but admits to it only after the interrogation has begun, the other bhikkhus are to make him confess the offense, and then give him a verdict of further misconduct by means of a formal motion with three announcements. As we noted above, each of these three verdicts is valid only if in line with the truth. If it so happens that a guilty bhikkhu is given a verdict of mindfulness, a bhikkhu who committed the offense in question while he was in his right mind is given a verdict of past insanity, or an innocent bhikkhu is given a verdict of further mis-conduct, the case may be reopened when new evidence surfaces, and the verdict rescinded or reversed. There are, however, two types of cases in which none of these three verdicts applies, and the accusation--at least for the time being--cannot be considered settled: (1) If a bhikkhu, in the course of an interrogation, admits to an action which is an offense, but either refuses to see it as an offense or refuses to confess it, he is subject to an act of banishment. Though this too may later be rescinded on the basis of good behavior--when he admits that his action was an offense and confesses it--it is a much stronger penalty than the act for further misconduct. (2) If a bhikkhu denies having committed the act in question, and the bhikkhus are not convinced of his innocence, there are various ways to pressure him to tell the truth: The Cullavagga suggests intensive interrogation; the Commentary, long bouts of group chanting. If neither works, and the Community still has doubts about his inno-cence, the issue is to be abandoned for the time being as unsettled: The accused is neither to be punished nor declared innocent. As long as the issue remains unsettled, though, there will be no peace of mind either for the accused or for the Community as a whole. *** Offenses. All offenses are settled by means of the principle of in the presence of. Most are also settled by means of the procedure of in accordance with what is admitted. Rare cases may be settled by covering over as with grass. In accordance with what is admitted: When a bhikkhu has committed an offense requiring confession, and then confesses it truthfully in the presence of another bhikkhu, group of bhikkhus or complete Community, that is called settlement in accordance with what is admitted. It also counts as having been settled in the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya and the individuals--i.e., the bhikkhu making the confession and the bhikkhu(s) witnessing it are face to face. If a bhikkhu has committed a sanghadisesa offense, it is settled only after he has confessed it and undergone penance and probation, both of which require further confessions. Only then, when a Community of at least 20 bhikkhus have met to lift the penalty from him, is the offense considered settled. Here, in the presence of would include not only the Dhamma, Vinaya and individuals, but also the Community--when it imposes the penance and/or probation, and again when it lifts the penalty. If a bhikkhu has committed a parajika offense, it is settled only when he admits that he is no longer a bhikkhu and returns to lay life. Here, in the presence of would have the same factors as under confessable offenses, above. Covering over as with grass: This procedure has already been discussed in detail above, and there is no need to add any further details here. In the presence of, here, means in the presence of the Dhamma, Vinaya, individuals and the Community: In the presence of the individuals means that those who make the blanket confession and those who witness it are face to face. In the presence of the Community means that enough bhikkhus for a quorum (four) have arrived, the assembly is complete (all the bhikkhus in the sima have either joined the meeting or have sent their consent) and none of the bhikkhus, having met, makes any protest. *** Duties are settled in the presence of-- (1) when they are properly carried out in line with the procedures set out in the Dhamma and Vinaya, (2) if the relevant individuals are present (e.g., the ordinand in an ordination, the bhikkhu-to-be-banished in a formal act of banishment, etc.), and (3) the Community that has met to carry them out forms a quorum and a complete assembly, with none of those present--except the bhikkhu against whom a formal act is to be carried out, if such is the case--makes any protest.