The Three Types of Monks Defined
The lay people asked this question in the following
sense: different kinds of Buddhist monks can now be found:
scrupulous monks (lajjī), who possess moral conscience;
shameless monks (alajjī), who possess no moral
conscience, and immoral monks (dussīlo), who are
depraved and evil. They want to know the essential
characteristics of each type for classification according to
the Pāli texts, commentaries, and subcommentaries.
The three types of monks have been mentioned in the
Parivāra Pāli (Vinaya Pitaka) as follows:
“Sañcicca āpattim nāpajjati, āpattim na
parigūhati.
Agatigamanañca na gacchati, ediso vuccati
lajjī puggalo.”
The meaning is this: “They are aware of the Vinaya
rules and, with no thought of transgression, refrain from
breaking them. If they transgress some rules due to human
weakness, they never conceal their offences. Moreover they do
not follow the four wrong courses (agati).1 Such monks are called
scrupulous individuals (lajjī puggala) — monks with
moral conscience.” (From now on they will be called scrupulous
monks.) These are the three factors or characteristics of a
scrupulous monk. The clarification is as follows:
-
When a scrupulous monk knows that any action is a
transgression of the Vinaya rules, he refrains from
it.
-
However, he might sometimes break some Vinaya rules
knowingly or unknowingly due to his untamed mind. He never
hides the facts and always purifies his morality according
to the rules within a day.
-
When he has to distribute property or decide cases,
he avoids the four wrong courses, i.e. he always acts or
decides justly and impartially.
A monk having these three factors or characteristics
is called scrupulous. This is the meaning of the text quoted
above.
The three factors or characteristics of a shameless
monk are stated in the Parivara as follows:
“Sañcicca āpattim āpajjati, āpattim
parigūhati.
Agatigamanañca gacchati, ediso vuccati alajjī
puggalo.”
This text says that a shameless monk is one who, with
the knowledge of the Vinaya rules, transgresses them and
commits evil. Having committed evil, he then conceals his
actions. Moreover, he follows the four wrong courses. Such a
monk is called shameless.
The meaning is as follows:
-
A shameless monk, knowing that any action is
contrary to the Vinaya rule, breaks the precepts
wilfully.
-
Whether by his awareness of Vinaya or by his
transgression through ignorance, he conceals his faults,
though he knows he has broken the Vinaya rule. That is, he
does not attempt to purify his faults in the way
prescribed.
-
When distributing property among monks, or in
deciding cases, he follows the four wrong
courses.
If even one of these factors is present, such a monk
is shameless.
Here, a detailed explanation is necessary. The Vinaya
Commentary says: “One who is shameless from the start does not
exist.” So shamelessness is impermanent. In other words no
such individual as a permanently shameless monk exists. The
commentary says that at the time of ordination a monk cannot
be classified as shameless, but he may become shameless
according to his mental attitude at any given moment. No monks
are permanently scrupulous or shameless based on social class,
religion, nationality, etc. A monk may become shameless ten
times, or scrupulous ten times within a few minutes. It is
possible that within a single sitting a monk may become
shameless or scrupulous ten times alternately.
How is this possible? Several Vinaya rules can be
broken repeatedly within a short time, so a monk may be
classified as shameless more than ten times. Even within a
short period, thousands of precepts may have to be observed,
which some monks do no know about. Due to his wrong attitude
or carelessness, a monk may break them very often. So for that
duration he must be classified as shameless. On the other hand
if he becomes ashamed whenever he transgresses the rules,
realises his fault, confesses it, and determines not to repeat
it, he becomes a scrupulous monk again.
Clearly, scrupulous and shameless categories cannot be
associated with race, religion, or culture, nor can any monk
be permanently classified as scrupulous or shameless.
Nevertheless, if a monk does not follow the principles of the
monastic discipline throughout his life he should definitely
be classified as a shameless monk.
The Vinaya Commentary says that a shameless monk
remains shameless only when shamelessness appears in him, and
when he possesses one of three factors without confession and
purification. As soon as he does these things, he immediately
regains the status of a scrupulous monk. In the Sāratthadīpanī
subcommentary the following important explanation is
found:
“Ādito patthāya hi alajjī nāma nātthi’ti iminā
ditthāditthesuyeva asankhā na kātabbati
dasseti.”
“Herein: ‘One who is shameless from the start does
not exist’ means that one must not cast doubt or suspicion
on a monk whenever one sees him, thinking that he is
shameless. This attitude should not be taken.” This is the
advice of the subcommentary.
Only when one sees a monk doing an immoral deed, can
one classify him as shameless at that time and place, and at
no other. Moreover, one can doubt this monk’s behaviour then
only, and so entertain suspicion. If one does not really see a
monk’s act of immorality, no suspicion should be entertained.
This is the meaning of the Pali text, commentary, and
subcommentary.
Four Kinds of Transgression
The phrase “sañcicca āpattim āpajjati” means
intentional transgression of the Vinaya rules (that is, with
knowledge of the discipline). In detail, four classifications
cover all types of offence:
-
Transgression with knowledge of the
rule.
-
Transgression without knowledge of the
rule.
-
Transgression with knowledge of the object (things
or matter to be transgressed).
-
Transgression without knowledge of the object
(things or matter to be transgressed).
The explanation is as follows: In the Vinaya Pitaka,
the Buddha prohibited monks from eating ten types of meat.2 If a monk breaks this Vinaya rule, he
commits an offence. He breaks this prohibition proclaimed by
the Buddha for all monks. If a monk knows this Vinaya rule, he
achieves the status of one who knows discipline. If he does
not know this Vinaya rule, he is classified as one who is
ignorant of the Buddha’s prohibition. Both concern the rule in
the sphere of “knowing” or “not knowing.” When a monk fails to
understand whether any particular meat is allowable, the case
is concerned with the object (vatthu). Then he has
knowledge or ignorance of the object.
Likewise, regarding the acceptance of gold, silver,
and money, a monk may or may not know the rule concerned.
Thus, he may be knowledgeable or ignorant regarding the
Vinaya. Similarly, regarding the object that should be
shunned, classification calls for two cases: knowledge of
object and ignorance of the object.
In Vinaya the technical term ‘āpatti’ means
fault, offence, committing, and transgressing. Herein, two
classes of offence can be found: an offence according to the
world, and an offence against the Vinaya rule.
The first type of fault includes killing sentient
beings, stealing, and so on. These misdeeds are regarded as
unwholesome everywhere so this transgression is known as a
fault according to worldly ethical principles.
Regarding the second type of offence, it relates to
the breaking of Vinaya rules such as not digging the ground,
cutting trees and grass, etc. Such offences, though not evil
in the moral sphere of the everyday world, are offences
against the Vinaya. The rules for monks taught by the Buddha
belong to the faults according to the Vinaya rules for
ordained monks.
A detailed examination is necessary for each of these
two types.
A monk who has transgressed the worldly prohibition
with knowledge and volition becomes a shameless monk. If he
breaks a moral principle without knowing it, sometimes he
falls into an offence against the Vinaya rule as he knows the
object of his transgression. Then he becomes shameless too.
Examples of these shameless offences are killing, taking
liquor, drugs, etc. He is guilty on both counts, a worldly
offence and a Vinaya offence.
However, breaking some training rules occasionally
does not amount to a Vinaya offence. Since a monk is free from
any offence mentioned in the Vinaya, he cannot be classified
as shameless.
Most training rules (sekhiyā) and prohibitions
in the Mahāvagga and Cūlavagga Vinaya texts are not offences
if one is unaware of them, even if one transgresses the rule.
If one knows the rule, but one is ignorant concerning the
object, it is an offence against some rules, but not all. In
breaking a rule while ignorant of the object, though an
offence is sometimes committed, a monk is not thereby
shameless. An example of this is a monk drinking liquor. If a
monk does not know that he has taken liquor, thinking it to be
medicine, it is an offence. However, he cannot be called
shameless even though he commits an offence. If a monk kills a
sentient being not knowing it has life, he destroys life
unintentionally. In this case he does not transgress the
Vinaya rule, and he is not shameless either.
A monk becomes shameless only when knowledge of the
rule and knowledge of the object are both present. In breaking
the rule with knowledge of the rule, but ignorant of the
object, he is not shameless. Likewise, a monk remains
scrupulous if knowledge of the object is present, but he is
unaware of the rule. He does not become a shameless monk. If
he knows neither the rule nor the object, and commits an
offence, he cannot be called shameless.
The above explanation is given to clarify the meaning
of “intentional transgression of the Vinaya rules,” and to
show the characteristics of a shameless monk.
The second factor is “āpattim parigūhati,”
which means that when transgressing the Vinaya rules a
shameless monk conceals his fault. Concealing is characterised
by ten factors as follows:
-
Transgression of the Vinaya rule or
prohibition.
-
Knowledge of transgression or guilt.
-
Presence of a well-wisher (a monk)
nearby.
-
Presence of a companion monk among
them.
-
Absence of any danger.
-
Awareness that there is no danger.
-
Physical possibility exists to cure or purify the
offences by confession and following the procedures laid
down for that offence.
-
Awareness that physical competence in making
confession exists.
-
Presence of an attitude to cover up the fault until
after dawn.
-
Hiding the fault until after the next
dawn.
If the above ten factors are present until the
following morning, a new offence of wrong-doing
(dukkata) is committed, adding to the previous offence.
Moreover, a monk thereby becomes shameless. However, if one of
the ten factors is lacking, a monk should not be called
shameless.
Note that if a monk has all the necessary factors to
confess his offence, but fails to do so, he becomes shameless
until the confession is made. So a monk may remain shameless
for one day, one month, one year, ten years, etc., unless he
confesses the offence and follows the prescribed procedure
voluntarily. This is a significant point.
The second factor, which says “he knows he has
transgressed the rules,” applies to those who do not know the
Vinaya rules. Among untrained, ignorant monks, many will not
be aware of their faults even if they break the rules. A few
monks may not be aware of transgressions at all, while the
majority may not know the rules in detail. The reason is a
lack of training in Vinaya. Transgressions without awareness
are not offences for such monks. So no charges of
shamelessness should be made against them.
This is the explanation of the term “āpattim
parigūhati.”
For the third factor the text mentions four features:
he does not take a wrong course through desire, ill-will,
delusion, or fear.
These four wrong courses must be considered,
especially in the matter of the distribution of communal
property and alms (sanghikā). Scrupulous monks should
be free from these four faults as explained in the
commentarial literature. However, one should note that
partiality, prejudice, bribery, and corruption relate to
offences only. The Vinaya teachers say that these four faults
arise only when one first breaks a rule, then follows a wrong
course due to bias.
However, the arising of this guilt is very subtle. In
cases requiring a decision of guilty or not guilty, both sides
try hard to win the case, quoting Vinaya, Sutta, and
Abhidhamma. However, it often happens that one side, though
knowing the correctness of the other, does not admit it and
continues to argue to establish the fault of the opposite
party. This unfortunate behaviour arises due to pride,
conceit, and attachment. One side, lacking humility, claims
its views to be according to Dhamma, though this is
unwarranted. Similarly, the other side, due to pride, argues
that an offence is no offence. Some proclaim no offence to be
an offence. By doing so, each side commits the evil of false
speech, or lying. This is the offence of taking a wrong
course. This fault often arises when one quotes Vinaya, Sutta,
and Abhidhamma for one’s own ends in dispute, disregarding the
truth. So false speech is classified as a wrong
course.
This explanation concerns the phrase
“agatigamanañca gacchati” — taking a wrong course, the
third factor mentioned above.
When it comes to classifying as scrupulous or
shameless, those who lack knowledge of the Vinaya keep only a
few precepts. So these monks have little chance of becoming
shameless.
Those who are well-versed in the Vinaya, attain
eminence or conscientiousness in morality. However, if
non-observance prevails among monks well-educated in the
Vinaya, the likelihood of becoming shameless is great. If a
monk, who is well-trained in the Vinaya, accumulates many
followers and great material wealth, he can do much damage to
the Buddha dispensation, unlike an ignorant monk. This
well-educated monk is like an armed robber or thief who enters
a treasure-house and steals its contents.
Here ends the section on the characteristics of
scrupulous and shameless monks in brief.
Characteristics of an Immoral Monk
The technical term “immoral (dussīlo)” means a
totally depraved monk who commits an offence of defeat
(pārājika). The dutthadosa sikkhapada states “If a
monk, being angry, and wanting to make another monk disrobe,
falsely accuses him of defeat, he commits an offence requiring
a formal meeting of the Sangha.” He commits a serious evil by
his accusations against an immoral monk who has committed an
offence of defeat. If a monk, without the aim of expelling an
immoral monk, merely accuses or belittles him so that his
honour and power will be extinguished, he commits an offence
requiring confession (pācittiya āpatti). Even if he
abuses or speaks ill of an immoral monk, he transgresses the
pācittiya rule.
Accusation with Charges of Defeat
Words spoken against an immoral monk with the
following charges mean “speaking ill or
accusation.”
“You have committed an offence of defeat.”
“You
possess no moral conduct.”
“You are not a monk at
all.”
“You are not a son of the Sākyan
clan.”
Such expressions used against a monk are charges of
defeat as mentioned in the commentary.
The term “shameless” (alajjī) includes an
immoral monk who has fallen into an offence of defeat.
However, the text says that a shameless one transgresses minor
offences (dukkata). So the term “shameless” covers both
great and small offences. Therefore if a monk speaks ill of
someone only as “shameless” he escapes the serious offence of
Sanghadisesa. As the Vinaya texts and commentaries give
precise examples, only those monks who have committed an
offence of defeat should be classified as “immoral.”
Those monks who do not commit any offence of defeat,
but who occasionally break other precepts are not immoral
monks, though they are shameless if the requisite factors are
present. Apart from offences of defeat, other offences do not
confer immoral status, so “shameless” and “immoral” monks are
clearly quite different. The way to distinguish them has been
explained already.
In the Vinaya Commentary the term “dummankū —
wicked” is used in the phrase “Dummankūnam puggalānam
niggahāya — for the restraint of wicked men.” So a
shameless monk can also be called “wicked.” Among shameless
monks two distinct types can be defined: immoral and shameless
(dussīla alajjī) and ordinary shameless monks
(samanya alajjī).
In the matter of offences of defeat one must classify
a monk as immoral and shameless. In cases dealing with other
offences only the ordinary shameless (samanya alajjī)
classification appears, which is called “wicked.” For a
defeated monk is definitely an immoral monk, not just a
shameless one.
The term “wicked” has been explained in two ways in
the Vimati Tīkā, a Vinaya subcommentary. It says that after
committing an offence of defeat a monk becomes a totally bad
one — that is completely without moral conduct. If a monk
breaks only the other rules, partially he is good. Total
depravity cannot be assigned to him. He is immoral only to
some extent. So he is partially moral and partially immoral.
Even those monks who commit light offences of wrong-doing or
wrong speech, fall into the category of immoral
(dussīla).
It is clear, according to this subcommentary, that a
monk can more easily become immoral than shameless. So this
explanation is unreasonable. This explanation is contrary to
the teaching of the great commentaries and famous
subcommentaries, which unanimously declare that an immoral
monk lacks morality — “dussīlassati nissīlassa dussīlo’ti”
(commentary on ‘nissīlo’). All the great Vinaya
commentaries agree in commenting on the words “asamano
asākyaputtiyo” from the Dutthadosa Sanghādisesa precept
that an immoral monk lacks all morality. So the Vimati Tīkā’s
words are against the spirit of the great commentaries and
subcommentaries. It is not surprising that competent Vinaya
masters reject this exposition of the Vimati Tīkā.
The term “dussīla puggala — an immoral
individual,” means one who has transgressed a Pārājika rule
and so lacks all disciplinary virtues — a defeated monk. As
long as this defeated monk does not admit his offence and
still associates with genuine monks, accepting food and other
alms, he is automatically classified as immoral. If he
confesses his fault, he immediately escapes from the category
of immoral, and also from a monk’s status.
Legal Status of Immoral Monks
An immoral monk, at the time of his confession,
becomes free from the stigma of “immoral” by renouncing his
monkhood. However, an immoral monk may refuse to admit his
guilt, and continue to live as a monk. Is he still a monk? Is
this immoral person still a monk before the time of admission
of guilt? The answer is that he retains the appearance of
monkhood, but with the stigma of immorality. He is still a
monk, though in appearance only.
The answer is correct. Evidence can be found in the
Vinaya Pitaka. In the Sanghādisesa rules an immoral monk may
claim that he is still a monk, although he has committed an
offence of defeat. If he does not confess his fault he is
still in possession of “patiññā,” that is, he retains the idea
“I am a monk.” If a monk accuses him of defeat, without
seeing, hearing, or suspecting anything, he is just as guilty
as if accusing a scrupulous monk, and falls into a
Sanghādisesa offence. If a monk makes such accusations
regarding an immoral novice, he falls into an offence of wrong
doing. This is the first proof of the correctness of the
answer.
If a monk dwells under the same roof for more than
three nights with a layman or a novice, he is guilty of an
offence of pācittiya. However, if he lives in the same
dwelling with a fallen monk there is no offence, so it as if
he were a genuine monk. The reason is that the outward sign of
monkhood is still present in the immoral monk. This is the
second proof for the correctness of the answer.
If a monk abuses a layman or novice, it is an offence
of wrong-doing. If a monk abuses a fallen monk, who has not
confessed his guilt, the abuser falls into an offence of
pācittiya. In this case abusing a fallen monk is equivalent to
abusing a genuine monk. This is further proof of the effect of
an immoral monk claiming a monk’s status.
Neither a layman nor a novice fulfils the requirements
for conveying one’s purity to the Sangha
(chanda-pārisuddhi),3 but a fallen monk does
because the outward appearance of monkhood is present. This is
yet another proof.
So it is clear that although he not a true monk, an
outward sign (linga), or idea (patiññā) exists because
of the power of Vinaya.
Although an immoral, fallen monk has committed one of
the gravest faults, if he still claims that he is a monk, his
status is just like a true monk. How is this possible? This
monk receives the power and command of the Buddha’s Vinaya
when, at the time of his ordination, he asks for and receives
the robes from his preceptor. This itself is a Vinaya power of
the Buddha. Secondly, he has gone through the five Vinaya
procedures, such as declaration by the Sangha (ñātti)
following rules laid down by the Buddha. So, despite breaking
the gravest rule, he retains the outward appearance of
monkhood due to the two features he received from the Vinaya
procedure, and they retain their power until his voluntary
confession.
This is surprising, but correct. Once a layman asks
for and receives robes from his preceptors according to the
Vinaya rules, he immediately transcends the lower status of a
layman. Upon taking the three refuges and accepting the robes
in the way prescribed by the Vinaya, he immediately becomes a
novice. This is due to the power of the Buddha’s command. Just
asking for and receiving robes elevates him to a higher status
than a layman, even if he fails to receive the three refuges
for lack of a suitable preceptor. If he remains in this
position, he is more honourable than a layman because by this
one procedure he attains the features and status of one gone
forth.
For bhikkhu ordination, four kammavācā recitations4 are mandatory to achieve the full status
of a bhikkhu. Yet even a single kammavācā recitation is
sufficient to raise the candidate to the status of a novice.
He now achieves, under the power of the Vinaya procedure and
ceremony, the status of one gone forth. As the
kammavācā recitations are completed up to the fourth
round, his gone-forth status is repeatedly established. If the
preceptors, for unavoidable reasons, stop their ordination
procedure at the third recitation, this person is much higher
in status than a novice although he lacks full bhikkhu
ordination. He now receives the features or honours of a
homeless life praised by the Buddha. If the fourth kammavācā
recitation is completed, it raises him up to the full status
of one gone forth, as a full bhikkhu in the Sangha.
If a novice breaks one of the ten training rules for
novices, he destroys both the maintenance of three refuges and
his status of a novice. However, while retaining the robes, he
cannot be classified as a layman. He remains in the position
of a novice. Once he discards the robes, he is deemed to be a
layman.
An offence of defeat committed by a monk destroys him
as a genuine monk, but he does not fall into the category of a
novice or a layman yet. His monk status remains if he retains
the appearance of this status. Once he renounces the
appearance then he must be classified as a layman. All traces
of monkhood now disappear, even the outward sign of wearing
the robe.
An analogy is given here. If a scrupulous monk
renounces his Vinaya obligations before the Sangha in the
proper way, he becomes a layman again. Similarly, a fallen
monk renounces his monk status by discarding his robes,
thereby becoming a layman in the full sense. Due to the power
of the Buddha’s command, this fallen monk maintains his monk
status if he retains the outward appearances of a monk.
However, he is an immoral, fallen monk due to his serious
fault. When he confesses his offences and renounces his
outward appearance, he becomes a layman. As a layman, he now
escapes from the charge of being an immoral, depraved monk.
The main point here is that if he does not discard his robes,
even if he confesses his offence, we cannot classify him as a
layman yet.
According to the Vinaya, if a monk abuses a fallen
monk without just cause, it is just like abusing a scrupulous
monk. The resulting offence is the same as abusing a
scrupulous monk, and the accuser commits a serious
(sanghādisesa) offence. By understanding this subtle
point, it is clear that slandering a fallen monk is worse than
slandering a scrupulous layman. This is because the accused
still claims to be a monk. Retaining the outward sign of a
monk keeps him under the power of kammavācā; thus he is still
under the power of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha too. It is
not because of his serious misdeeds, but because of the power
of his ordination kammavācā, which is under the sublime
influence of the Triple Gem. His acceptance of this
declaration and his retention of the robe give him these
powerful refuges. He retains a certain status.
However, these powerful refuges cannot save him from
serious evil kamma, and the resultant suffering. By his
commission of an offence of defeat, and his disgraceful claim
to be a monk, he gathers evil kamma day by day. In other
words, his evil kamma increases if he remains in these sacred
shelters. Moreover, those who abuse an immoral monk accumulate
serious evil effects themselves, due to this awkward
situation. Those who appreciate the power of Vinaya show
respect to an immoral, fallen monk, getting great merit. These
three effects must be noted carefully. |
