Should Lay Persons Learn the Vinaya?
“Should lay persons learn the Vinaya? Does this
agree with the Mangala Dhamma that advises one to be
well-trained in discipline (vinayo ca susikkhito)?
What are the good or bad results of this act? Kindly give
evidence or examples to prove a definite point.”
In the Mangala Sutta the Buddha teaches that one
should be well-trained in Vinaya. The meaning of this Mangala
Dhamma is that laity should learn a lay person’s discipline
properly, that is, to learn it wisely. For laity there are
disciplinary rules to learn civility and gain prosperity, such
as the characteristics of a good man, the universal code of
ethical conduct, the rules of a householder, etc. They should
be learnt and practised wisely.
For monks, too, there are Vinaya rules to know and
observe so that the factors of a scrupulous and good monk will
be achieved in full. The aim of learning discipline is to make
one a scrupulous, modest, and good monk. So the monks’ code of
conduct is for homeless persons, but it is different from the
homeless lay person’s code of conduct (Anāgārika
Vinaya). Each group must follow the appropriate code of
conduct. Householders must follow their rules to become moral
and good, and monks must follow their Vinaya without
transgressing any rule, whether partially or completely. No
taint should be overlooked. This means the correct and full
observance of Vinaya so that the benefits in this life and
hereafter are achieved in full. Since blessings arise for
monks it is called a blessing. The text does not mean that
laity should learn monks’ Vinaya to obtain blessings.
The term “well-trained in discipline” is explained in
the commentary on the Mangala Sutta as follows: “There are two
kinds of Vinaya, one for laity and the other for monks. The
lay Vinaya means avoidance of the ten unwholesome kammas. A
lay person shuns these ten evil kammas with a pure heart and
humble attitude. With the aim of not spoiling his morality he
respectfully observes the training in full. This is the
meaning of the term ‘well-trained’.”
Regarding the monks’ Vinaya, the commentary explains
that a monk must observe the seven classes of rules with
complete confidence. If he has no defects he gets the honour
of practising well. Moreover he becomes truly learned by this
means. Besides the seven classes of offences, the rules for
monks include the morality of fourfold purification. By
observing these four trainings a monk can reach the highest
stage of sanctity, the perfect purity called Arahantship. If
one diligently practises the rules to reach this noble aim,
one is called “well-trained.”
So the commentary clearly shows that a lay person must
learn a lay person’s Vinaya. For monks there is the code of
conduct described in the Vinaya Pitaka. If lay people and
monks both learn and practise their respective codes of
conduct they are called “well-trained in discipline.” The
advice in the Mangala Sutta does not convey the sense that
laity should learn the monks’ Vinaya. The term “well-trained”
does not mean mere academic study. Academic knowledge is
useless in this sphere. What “well-trained” means here is that
a monk diligently follows the Vinaya rules in practice. So “to
be well-trained” also means “to be learned.” The main point is
that without following the Vinaya rules devotedly one does not
deserve to be called “learned.” Mere academic knowledge
becomes useless if it is not put into practice.
The discipline for lay people is clearly mentioned in
the Sutta Pitaka. In brief, a lay person must shun ten
unwholesome kammas and cultivate ten wholesome kammas. The ten
unwholesome kammas are called “dasa akusala
kammapathā.” The ten wholesome kammas are called “dasa
kusala kammapathā.” Here the words “well-trained in
discipline” encompass two factors: purification of
defilements, and devoted practice of moral discipline. These
two essential factors should be learned and practised by the
laity.
As regards the factor of “purification of defilements”
one should study the Book of Tens in the Gradual Sayings to
know the practical significance in detail. The Pāli text in
the Anguttaranikaya explains the four factors of defilement
for breaking the first precept. “One kills by oneself. One
advises, urges, or incites others to kill. One speaks in
praise of killing. One consents to the act of killing.” The
first two factors are obvious and need no
explanation.
I will explain the factor “One speaks in praise of
killing.” In Buddhism, every ethical precept and moral duty is
a profound matter to know and practise with wisdom and
insight. An ordinary person, seeing how riches increase for
those who make their livelihood by selling meat often speaks
in praise of these men becoming rich. Some may utter words in
support of killing. Such praise of killing amounts to two
defilements of his morality. The person breaks the non-killing
precept and defilements also arise. If another person, on
hearing praise spoken, follows the occupation of a fisherman
or slaughterman, one who praises their actions transgresses
the precept that says “I undertake to abstain from killing
living beings.” Even though he does not actually do the
killing, he has expressed approval of killing, and his motive
is to prompt others to kill. So, like the killer himself, the
supporter is also guilty of killing.
However, mere praise without inciting others only
amounts to the defilement of morality, even though another
person may follow a wrong occupation or do unwholesome deeds.
In this case, one who praises the act merely defiles the
precept.
The fourth factor is being pleased or expressing
approval when one hears about the killing of murderers, or
robbers after their arrest, or if they are killed while being
arrested. It also means being pleased about the killing of
wild tigers, elephants, snakes, etc. Other cases include:
satisfaction on hearing news about the death of one’s enemies.
Longing for the destruction of bugs, cockroaches, flies, ants,
rats, or other pests also means defilement of one’s precepts.
Some people are pleased when animals are killed, because they
are gluttonous. They willingly express support and pleasure at
the killing of animals. Though this does not amount to
killing, they taint themselves with approval, which spoils the
moral precept.
Some people give an excuse and express enjoyment by
saying that the meat and fish are for almsgiving. One should
analyse each case carefully to know its true nature. One must
consider the state of mind. Those who express approval of
killing for almsfood or a feast should examine their motives.
These grey areas need scrupulous consideration.
For ceremonies and festivals some kill the animals
themselves, some take delight in it, and others praise these
acts. Some monks, who want to eat good food, hope for it. So
killing by indirect orders is done to satisfy the wishes of
monks and guests. Butchers and fishmongers wait for this
indirect sign from the servants of donors who wish to feed
thousands with sufficient meat and fish.
The factors for guilt regarding the precept of not
killing are listed in the commentary. It is stated that one of
the factors of guilt is “giving indirect signs, or hinting.”
So in the above instances, servants of the donors either break
the precept or defile it. As for the commission of evil kamma
(that leads to hell) one must consider all the factors of a
particular case. Some borderline cases are difficult to judge
decisively.
If the servants are guilty of full transgression,
donors cannot be free from evil kamma, and recipient monks and
guests also cannot be free from blame. If meat is doubtful on
three counts: seeing, hearing, or suspecting the act of
killing, monks must not eat it. To be allowable within the
Vinaya rules, meat must be free from all three factors. If a
monk knows that an animal was not killed for him, he has no
doubt, and so this meat is pure in all three ways. Only this
type of meat and fish is allowed by the Buddha. If a monk eats
meat when he is doubtful about its origin, it is a Vinaya
offence. Those who offer such doubtful almsfood, receive mixed
results if they mix good and bad kammas in their meritorious
deeds.
Mixed Kammas Give Mixed Results
As mentioned earlier, one who does deeds with mixed
motives gets mixed results. Due to his generosity he gains
wealth, influence, and power. However, due to the accompanying
unwholesome kamma he suffers untimely death. Kings slay him to
confiscate his immense wealth, his property is stolen
frequently, his house is burnt down, or he suffers from
various diseases. Why is this? When he performed good deeds it
was associated with some unwholesome kamma. So an unblemished
result is not possible for a whole series of lives. This type
of kamma is a mixture of black and white. In other words, such
moral deeds have been planted with poison at their bases, so
to speak. So the four factors of the immoral deed of killing
will be present in such a deed. One should note that if only
one factor is present, morality is stained, which is the
minimum bad effect. Moreover a person destroys the factor of
being well-trained in discipline. That is why the crucial
words, “Well-trained means purification of defilements, and
devoted practise of moral discipline”1 are used in the Mangala Sutta
commentary.
A lay person must observe the five moral precepts to
the best of his or her ability. He or she must know the nature
and factors of evil and good deeds in each case.2 Four factors will amount to either
unwholesome or evil kamma in the first precept. The remaining
nine misdeeds, if transgressed with the four factors,3 amount at least to unwholesome kamma:
stealing, sexual misconduct, lying, slandering, harsh speech,
idle chatter, ill-will, covetousness, and wrong view. So the
ten evil deeds become forty in total, with each factor
promoting unwholesome or evil kamma.
Those who abstain from each evil deed, in all four
aspects, are the practitioners of the Mangala Dhamma
“well-trained in discipline.” They become truly modest,
scrupulous, and good people. The Buddha taught the ten evil
deeds with the four factors and their characteristics. One
must observe them fully to be free from taints and the four
corresponding evils kammas.
The essential factors according to the teaching
“devoted practise of moral discipline” are explained in the
Sīgalovāda Sutta, which is commonly called “the lay person’s
discipline.” In it one will find a householders’ duties and
virtuous conduct explained in detail. Like the Mangala Sutta,
the Sīgalovāda Sutta is famous.
Therein, the duties of children, parents, teachers,
etc., are taught as disciplines for householders, so it is
called the householder’s Vinaya. If children practise their
five moral duties to their parents they achieve the status of
a good person as well as the Mangala Dhammas. Conversely,
children who fail in these moral duties destroy the Mangala
Dhammas and fail to achieve the status of a good person. The
exposition in the commentary is very clear. Therefore everyone
needs to fulfil their moral responsibilities, and to follow
the path of great and noble virtues based on knowledge and
insight. If customary duties concur with the teaching in the
Mangala and Sīgalovāda Suttas they should be followed with
devotion. Among lay people, few perform these universal moral
duties in full.
This section explains the meaning of the Mangala
Dhamma “well-trained in discipline” in relation to a lay
person’s Vinaya. Lay people have a natural discipline called
“Good conduct” (sucarita vinaya), and “Virtuous
conduct” (ācāra vinaya), which they should try to
maintain in full with faith and diligence. This ethical
conduct was prescribed for the laity by the Buddha, so they do
not need to learn the Vinaya for monks.
However, wise lay persons who want to promote the
Buddha’s teachings, and are well versed in their own
discipline, do need to learn the monks’ Vinaya. Why? Those who
are well-trained in the householder’s discipline become truly
good people, so their minds and motives are good. If they are
well controlled by the lay person’s discipline, after learning
the monks’ Vinaya, they will not use their knowledge unwisely.
They will not defile themselves with impure physical, vocal,
and mental actions. They will not accumulate evil motives and
evil kammas because of this new knowledge. In the commentary
it is mentioned that a wise, learned brahmin, after listening
to the monks’ Vinaya rules in detail, developed a clear mind
and strong faith in the Sangha. He appreciated the power and
significance of the monks’ Vinaya as clear understanding had
revealed its profundity.
One day a devoted brahmin heard the monks reciting
their Vinaya rules. Appreciating the benefits of these
numerous rules he entered the Sangha. Thus one’s own attitude
and motive are crucial to evaluate the knowledge of Vinaya
rules and the diverse conduct of monks.
The way for a lay person to study the Vinaya is first
to learn and practise the lay person’s Vinaya, which gives
culture, wisdom, and knowledge. A lay person must be dedicated
to observing lay ethics with perfect integrity. If integrity
is lacking, a lay person, though learned in ethics, becomes a
hypocrite with sham morality. He or she becomes a bad person.
This type of lay person, who learns the monks’ Vinaya, will
develop a fault-finding attitude. Seeing only the offences and
weaknesses of monks, he or she will blame, slander, and abuse
them. So there is no benefit for such a lay person in learning
the monks’ Vinaya. Since he or she fails to learn and practise
the lay person’s Vinaya well, he or she lacks fundamental
virtues and a skilful mental attitude. So it is futile to
learn the monks’ Vinaya, since he or she will criticise the
conduct of wayward monks, interfering in the affairs of
others. Such a person who quotes the Vinaya texts and blames
the monks, makes evil kamma because he or she lacks the
virtues of a good and moral person. Due to these defects he or
she takes a superior stance, uttering words of condemnation
and slander. Thus, grave evil kammas result from his or her
learning.
Seeing only the bad conduct of a wayward monk, he or
she blames him, but this gives bad effects. Concentrating on
the faults of others, he or she fails to see their virtues. If
the monk has not committed one of the offences of defeat, the
fundamental morality of a monk remains intact, but it is not
seen by his detractor. These remaining precepts are more than
nine billion. An educated lay person sees and blames the
committed offences only, not the fundamental morality, which
still exists. The critic does not see the virtue of this
fundamental morality, but sees the defects of the monk only.
Thus the evil that he or she gets in the act of condemnation
is not due to the defects of the monk concerned, but due to
the monk’s status that still prevails. So a critic gets
numerous evils in speaking against this Dhamma.
Those with an undeveloped mind and a weak character
often see the faults of others. Inevitably they slander,
abuse, and use harsh words against those who commit evil
deeds. They castigate monks who are of poor moral character.
If this type of lay person learns the monastic discipline, he
or she foolishly accumulates evil kammas due to lack of
restraint. Therefore only disadvantages exist for such a
person in studying the Vinaya.
Those who accuse immoral monks with unfounded charges
suffer evil just as if they accused a scrupulous monk. Monks
get an offence of Sanghādisesa, which is very grave. The
Vinaya text declares, “Asuddha hotipuggalo aññataram
pārājikam sammāpanno.” The meaning is that those who
accuse monks of immorality are themselves impure. The term
“immoral” means, in the final analysis, covetousness or greed,
ill-will, and wrong view. Akhantī means impatience or
surliness. Añāna means ignorance or delusion (moha).
Kossajja means laziness or moral slackness.
Mutthasati means lack of mindfulness or lack of clear
comprehension.
The Four Purifying Moralities
“Kindly give the detailed factors or characteristics
of each of the four purifying moralities (pārisuddhi
sīla). You may give each its characteristic, function,
manifestation, and proximate cause.”
1. Pātimokkha Restraint
A monk who is an ordinary person is liable to fall
into offences, and he must confess his offence with the
determination to avoid it in future. The purity of restraint
is re-established by this act of purification, and protects
the monk against future misdeeds. In curing his offences, a
monk sincerely promises, “I will not do this again.” This
decisive mind must be present during confession.
2. Sense Faculty Restraint
The above two factors also co-exist in the morality of
sense-faculty restraint — guarding the six sense-doors. To
purify the faults in the matter of sense-faculty restraint is
very subtle and difficult. One must use mindfulness at the six
sense doors to get moral restraint and moral
purification.
3. Two Factors of Livelihood
Purification
-
Not accepting or using unallowable food and other
requisites. Only allowable food and requisites must be
accepted according to the Vinaya rules.
-
If unlawful food and things are accepted due to
ignorance, a monk must quickly purify his guilt by suitable
Vinaya procedure mentioned in the texts, then purity of
livelihood is restored. Curing this kind of offence involves
the abandonment of unlawful things and making a confession.
In some cases, where breaking purity of livelihood does not
amount to an offence, a monk must abandon the unlawful
things, making a determination to observe restraint in the
future.
4. Morality Concerning Requisites
In the sphere of observance of this morality there are
three aspects: acceptance of four lawful requisites according
to Vinaya rules, using them conscientiously, using them within
the allowable time limit.
A monk must reflect when using food, robes, dwellings,
and medicines with the above three factors. Wise reflection
should be practised so that a skilful attitude and clear
comprehension arise. To practise morality is difficult and
profound. Why? By using a rosary, a monk normally reflects
wisely on the four requisites, thus purity of this morality is
gained. One might therefore think that this is easy. However,
mere counting of beads and recitation of good words and
thoughts are not sufficient to fulfil this morality. Mere
awareness or correct mindfulness on the four requisites,
though necessary, is not enough. For a monk, subtle attachment
or clinging to robes, food, and dwellings are difficult to
eradicate, despite recitations, counting of beads, and right
thoughts. A monk needs very strong mindfulness and insight to
abandon this subtle craving. So whenever he uses the four
requisites he must develop the power of consideration to the
full with complete awareness. Only when the four types of
attachment cease, is this morality satisfactorily attained.
Purity is obtained on the use of things after strenuous noble
efforts. Hence customary counting of beads and mere verbal
repetition cannot fulfil this morality. He must concentrate on
the full meaning and significance of the Pali texts for the
arising of clear knowledge. If this knowledge fails to arise,
morality concerning requisites is not attained. Lacking this
deep insight, four types of attachment prevail in the
heart.
One can know whether this morality is attained or not
by observing the behaviour of a monk. A monk who attains this
moral purity has no attachment or greed. He will not
accumulate possessions, wealth, or property. He will not
exhibit attachment to lay supporters. He will live in any type
of monastery, in every season, under difficult conditions. He
will accept rag robes, alms food, dwellings under a tree, and
putrid medicines, all of which were highly praised by the
Buddha, though they are coarse types of simple living. If a
monk chooses and selects only good monasteries, eats only good
food, hopes for only good dwellings, and longs for them, he
fails to achieve this sublime morality, and is impure in this
respect. So a monk must know the factors leading to the
attainment of this important morality and practise vigorously
and systematically to get the necessary factors of
achievement. |
