Should One Avoid Shameless and Immoral
Monks?
Questions two and three will be answered together as
they are related. Let us recapitulate the two
questions:
“Should those who know the truth about shameless and
immoral monks refrain from associating with and paying
respect to them? Does this agree with the verse in the
Mangala Sutta that advises one to avoid the foolish? Is a
lay person who shows disregard by shunning immoral and
shameless monks following the Mangala Dhamma? We would like
to hear evidence and case histories from the scriptures
regarding good or bad results from this
act.”
“Should those who know the truth about shameless and
immoral monks continue to pay respect and offer requisites?
Are they following the Mangala Dhamma that advises us to
associate with the wise? Is this behaviour following the
advice given in the Mangala Sutta or not? Kindly give
evidence and case histories regarding good or bad results
from this act.”
To answer these questions one should understand the
nature and characteristics of shameless and immoral monks. The
famous Mangala Sutta emphasises the nature of foolish or wise
persons. In the injunction calling for associating only with
the wise, the nature of good and bad persons is stressed. Here
the Buddha taught the nature of the pious and the impious. In
this subtle matter one must make distinctions to know the
respective basis of each type.
-
Moral (susīla) and immoral
(dussīla).
-
Foolish (bāla) and wise
(pandita).
-
A good man (sappurisa) and a bad man
(asappurisa).
Thus there are three pairs of persons with respect to
their nature and characteristics.
In the Sarabhanga Jātaka (Cattālīsa Nipāta) the Buddha
distinguishes three types. Sakka, the king of the gods, asks
in detail regarding the nature of each personal characteristic
as follows:
-
Who is called moral (sīlavantam) by the
wise?
-
Who is called wise (paññavantam) by the
wise?
-
Who is called good (sappurisam) by the
wise?
-
Who will never lose honour and
respect?
These were the bodhisatta’s answers to Sakka’s
questions:
-
Those who control their senses, avoiding any kind of
physical, verbal, or mental evil, who refrain from lying
even at the risk of their life, are called moral persons by
the wise.
-
Those who, possessing profound wisdom, can answer
philosophical questions with their innate wisdom, having no
selfish regard for themselves or others, who refrain from
abusive words and coarse actions that harm oneself and
others, but work for the welfare of humanity, are called
wise by the wise.
-
Those who are grateful, have a steady mind, possess
the attributes of a good friend, respect the worthy, and
diligently fulfil the duties of a friend, are called good by
the wise.
-
Those who possess morality, wisdom, and piety, gain
confidence, show humility, share their possessions
unselfishly with others, understand the words of the alms
seeker, help others according to just principles, practice
truthfulness and show civility, will never lose honour and
respect.
We can summarise the above classifications on the
basis of avoidance of immoral deeds or offences. These persons
are moral persons as they possess the characteristics of a
moral person.
Regarding the nature and characteristics of a wise
person, we must consider three factors:
-
The ability to answer deep questions effectively and
directly.
-
Avoidance of physical and vocal misconduct,
especially harsh words that harm the welfare of oneself and
others.
-
Whenever the opportunity arises one can work for the
welfare of oneself and others.
Regarding the nature and characteristics of a good
person, we must consider four factors:
-
The ability to know and acknowledge the gratitude
due to others.
-
Possession of the qualifications of a good
friend.
-
Ability to associate with the wise.
-
Willingness to help the poor and the needy, with the
necessary skill to perform appropriate duties
energetically.
Regarding the nature and characteristics of a pious
and honourable person we must note the above factors, with the
addition of confidence and humility.
Then Sakka asked again:
“Which is the best among morality, honour, goodness,
and wisdom?”
The bodhisatta answered:
“The sages declare that just as the moon is the
brightest among the stars, among morality, honour, goodness,
and wisdom, wisdom is the chief and best of all, because all
good conduct, honour, and good character must follow its
lead.”
In other words all must follow the lead of a wise man.
In the text are other questions and answers regarding how to
gain wisdom, etc., but we omit them here as they are not
relevant.
Among the four good factors mentioned above, the first
three are the main points to remember in our discussion of
types of monks. Among the first three, we may further
distinguish those who lack morality as shameless or immoral,
as explained earlier. One lacking goodness can easily
accumulate the characteristics of a shameless and immoral
person too. Due to lack of wisdom one will take on the nature
and characteristics of a fool. Lack of piety and respect will
make one a bad person, taking on the nature and requisite
factors of a bad man. Thus there are three pairs:
-
Moral (susīla) and immoral
(dussīla).1
-
Wise (pandita) and foolish (bāla).
-
Good (sappurisa) and bad
(asappurisa).
Each has its own distinctive nature and
characteristics in a different category.
Among the six types in three opposite pairs, one may
associate with a moral person, a virtuous type, shown in the
first category in the first position. Those having friendship
in paying respect to a moral person can usually become moral
too. Respecting or honouring an immoral or bad person can make
one immoral or bad. Those who show respect and honour to the
wise can usually become wise too. Friendship with a bad person
makes one bad. However, if one makes friends with a pious,
good person one usually becomes good. Obviously, the best
person to associate with and respect is one who possesses all
three virtues: morality, wisdom, and goodness.
If a person honours and respects a moral, foolish, bad
person he gradually becomes likewise. However, the presence of
morality is good, so we must praise him for this aspect while
we should condemn foolishness and badness.
Who is a moral, but foolish and bad monk? Some monks
try their best to keep their precepts and follow the monks’
training. As they are ordinary persons, they sometimes break
some disciplinary rules, falling into offences, but they
purify these offences as soon as possible. They are therefore
classified as moral monks. However, since they fail to study
Dhamma and Abhidhamma, they are ignorant, so they are
classified as foolish. Also, if they do not acknowledge the
benefit received from others, they are bad monks in the
technical sense. So they are coarse and uncultured
persons.
I will now explain in detail the nature of a bad
person. This feature manifests as ingratitude. He is blind to
the benefits received from others, and refuses to pay honour
and respect to the worthy. He breaks the rules of good
friendship by changing his attitude if someone criticises him.
Moreover, a bad person fails to seek knowledge and wisdom, or
to make friendship with the wise. If he sees friends in need,
he acts as if not seeing them, thus he does not acknowledge
their former friendship. So if one of the asappurisa factors
exists, he is classified as “bad” because of this
characteristic. He is not a good monk. This explains the
nature of the moral, but foolish, and bad monk.
With the shameless and bad, but wise monk, those who
pay respect and help him, obtain similar characteristics
themselves. So we must praise a devotee who becomes wise as
his teacher is also wise. However, as the shameless and bad
aspects are present, we must blame both the devotee and the
monk. Herein, the term “wise” only means well-educated in
Sutta, Vinaya, and Abhidhamma. So we call a monk “wise” though
he lacks the other two good qualities. However, since he
breaks the Vinaya rules very often and does not care to
restrain his senses, we also classify him as shameless. As he
fails to acknowledge the benefit he receives from others and
has other characteristics of a bad person, we call him “bad.”
Indeed, he is not a good monk in these aspects. The above
factors show the characteristics of a shameless and bad, but
wise monk.
Following this method of classifying monks, many monks
of mixed triple types can be found for further examination.
One can see that most monks, like most lay persons, are of
mixed triple types — a compound of good and bad features. This
type is common everywhere. To befriend, honour, and support
the moral, wise, and good monk is best, if possible. These are
the best persons in the world, bringing the greatest benefits
and welfare for all. They are worthy of respect and honour in
all essential aspects.
If however, a devotee fails to find this ideal type,
he needs to cultivate foresight and culture in choosing and
helping a particular monk for worship, honour, and almsgiving.
He needs intuitive skill in dealing with monks with mixed good
and bad qualities.
The Simile of the Good House
A man needs to build a house in the forest, and enters
the forest in search of timber. If he can get all beams,
posts, floorboards, planks, and shingles from a single tree,
this is the best, and ideal. If he is unable to find such a
tree, he should not fail to build his house. He must use
whatever timber he can get from various trees that he finds.
He must build his house anyhow by all means because not having
a dwelling place leads to all kinds of trouble and hardship.
Every man needs a home for rest, sleep, and comfort. So a wise
seeker of building materials must carefully examine each tree
he happens to find in the forest. If he finds long logs he
must take them for posts. If he finds straight timber that is
too short for posts he must take it for planks or shingles. He
must ignore unsuitable materials or sizes in each tree that he
finds. By selecting only useful logs of appropriate sizes,
leaving behind the useless ones, he can build a good, strong
house for his benefit with the wood from various trees. By
wise discrimination a well-built house results.
By choosing suitable materials for each purpose from
various trees, one obtains a beautiful, strong house. He is no
different to a person who finds all the suitable material from
a single excellent tree. His house is not inferior in any way,
because he obtains and dwells in a well-built house made from
good materials. His house lasts long enough for his
descendants too.
The above simile is a practical illustration for a
comfortable life. Following this wise method, a devotee should
pay attention to the good features of a moral, but foolish,
and bad monk. He should pay respect to the good points in a
person, ignoring the lack of the factors required for good and
wise status. He should honour the moral features in such a
person, thus gaining a clear conscience and much benefit. He
should not utter harsh or slanderous words against this monk
for his other faults, weaknesses, and failures. They must be
totally ignored. One should not lump together all good and bad
features of a monk in one’s mind.
If he blames and abuses this monk by lumping together
all features, he becomes a foolish and bad person himself. He
suffers for his disrespect and for his harsh words. Moreover,
he fails to get the benefit of honouring and respecting the
aspect of morality in this monk, due to his own foolishness.
The wise course for an intelligent, devoted person is to rely
on a wise monk for wisdom and to associate with a good monk
for his humility and gentleness. One should therefore take
heed of these different causes and different effects, being
ever vigilant when approaching a monk for almsgiving, and
showing respect.
One who helps a moral, but foolish and bad monk, may
contradict the Mangala Dhamma calling for avoidance of fools
because of the foolish aspect. By association with a foolish
monk, this may appear to be so. The Mangala Sutta enjoins all
to avoid foolish persons. Because of the words “to associate
with the wise”, one might think this contradicts the advice to
follow the wise. However, such a devotee, because of his wise
attitude and appropriate choice, does not break these two good
rules mentioned in the Mangala Sutta and Jataka. In fact he
obtains the blessing of association with the wise for his
clear thinking and suitable deeds.
What benefits does one gain by respecting a monk of
the type shown above? The reason for getting benefits is that
in the ultimate sense the essence of a wise person is moral
conduct. This is explained in the Abhidhamma (Mātika) in
relation to a pair of terms “bāla dhamma” and “pandita
dhamma.” So morality alone, in the ultimate sense, is wisdom.
If a person pays attention to the characteristic of morality
alone, he gets at least part of the blessing called
“associating with the wise.” If, however, he pays attention to
a monk’s foolishness and badness, he cannot attain this
blessing as his mind mixes all sorts of factors, good and bad.
Because of this, he becomes foolish and bad too.
Regarding the remaining monks of three mixed
qualities, one can probably understand the appropriate
results, because all are similar to the above
example.
Some monks may lack all three good factors, being
known as shameless, foolish, and bad. No one should pay
respect to such a monk or honour him, as he does not possess a
single redeeming virtue. Therefore one should just ignore this
type of monk and refrain from speaking abusive words. If one
relies on or honours this type of monk one is breaking the
injunction of the Mangala Sutta, which enjoins one not to
associate with fools.
In each case one should make a detailed analysis and
appropriate classification, since many combinations of vice
and virtue can be found. The questioners asked about the
classification of shameless and immoral, with the resultant
types of foolish, wise, and bad persons. So in this answer I
have given a detailed analysis and necessary comments for
clarity’s sake.
If one understands the method of classification of
monks in the first answer, one will have clear answers for the
second and third questions. The essential points are the
same.
A note of warning
All devotees and lay persons should maintain an
intelligent attitude. A narrow-minded, egoistic devotee will,
at first, pay respect to a moral monk, but as familiarity
grows, all kinds of attachment and clinging arise, thus
diminishing the monk’s status. Intimacy, attachment, and
familiarity lead to ignoble deeds that are improper according
to the Vinaya. So corruption and decline set in due to
intimacy. An unwise lay person can destroy a monk due to
intimacy, wrong attitudes, and ulterior motives.
What is the meaning of Mangala Dhamma? How does one
get it? In the ultimate sense, attitudes and acts that promote
wholesome factors or merits are Mangala Dhammas. One gets
blessings based on one’s meritorious deeds. Conversely,
demeritorious attitudes and deeds are misfortunes since they
increase unwholesome states. One should understand that both
are impersonal states in their ultimate sense and
characteristics. Regarding the problem whether one should
associate with this or that monk, in the ultimate sense
personal factors are absent. The essence of correct behaviour
is to associate with wholesome states and not to associate
with unwholesome states. This is the crux of the problem and
the infallible guide to appropriate action.
Sevitabbāsevitabba Sutta
In the Sevitabbāsevitabba Sutta (the discourse on
associating or avoiding) the Buddha declares in the clearest
terms:
“Sāriputta, if by associating with a person you
develop unwholesome states, lessening or destroying wholesome
states, you should avoid that person. Sāriputta, if by
associating with a person you develop wholesome states,
lessening or destroying unwholesome states, you should
associate with that person.”
The essential point is to choose between wholesome
states and unwholesome states objectively.
The Bālapandita Sutta
A fool is so called because he habitually thinks bad
thoughts, speaks bad speech, and does bad deeds. A wise person
is so called because he habitually thinks good thoughts,
speaks good speech, and does good deeds. So those who are evil
in thought, speech, and deeds are depraved or wicked. Those
who are virtuous in thought, speech, and deeds are wise and
cultured.
Nowadays many lay persons and monks fail to attain
complete purity in all three spheres of morality. Some are
moral in their bodily actions, but immoral in speech and
thought. Others, though moral in speaking the truth, are
immoral in their actions and thoughts. Many have good
intentions, but cannot speak or behave skilfully. Some are
skilful in two spheres, but lack purity in the third. Thus,
all kinds of people can be found with mixed physical, verbal,
and mental skills.
Most people possess a mix of good and evil in each of
the three spheres. In choosing a teacher or a monk for one’s
mentor, one should check to see if wholesome states are
developing or deteriorating. In other words, all intelligent
persons should examine their own moral progress in honouring
or associating with others.
The questioners have asked about the good or bad
results of associating with or supporting shameless and
immoral monks. They want evidence or case histories for the
respective effects, good or bad.
It is said, “One shameless monk creates a hundred
shameless ones by association and example.” So the bad results
of associating with shameless monks are too great to
measure.
The Buddha warns us that those who associate
intimately with the shameless will take on their
characteristics. This is the first bad result. Subsequent bad
results are as follows. If one becomes shameless in this life,
one is liable to retain this characteristic in thousands of
future existences, as one is far removed from moral conduct.
Once one becomes bad, one will tend to be bad in a series of
future existences too. If one becomes foolish, being without
knowledge and insight in this life, one becomes a fool in
countless future lives. These are the bad results.
Seeing only bad results and the gravity of each case,
one should avoid associating with shameless, bad, and foolish
monks. Moreover, these persons, lacking morality, goodness,
and wisdom, cannot bring blessings to those who meet them.
Association with them usually brings only misfortune. Those
who want to obtain blessings in associating with them should
first reform their own minds and attitudes. Devotees and
donors should concentrate only on some virtue or good aspect
of such monks. Great care is needed here.
As for the evidence of good or bad effects, one should
study the commentary on the Suttanipāta that explains the
phrase “Asevanā ca bālānam” in detail. More examples to
prove this point can be gleaned from teachers and learned
preceptors. Dhamma teachers will give sermons on this matter,
relating stories from the Tipitaka and its
commentaries. |
