Should One Criticise Shameless and Immoral
Monks?
“When a person, knowing a monk to be shameless or
immoral, speaks ill of him or condemns him, either directly
or indirectly, does he attract the ten evil results?1 By doing so, is he free from evil or
not?”
Those who slander or condemn others with harsh words
commit serious evil only if a Buddha, Pacceka Buddha or Noble
One are objects of their condemnation. In the Dhammapada it
says:
“Whoever offends a blameless man, pure and
guiltless,
upon that very fool, the evil recoils
like fine dust thrown against the wind.” (Dhp. v
125)
The blameless, pure persons are of three types:
Omniscient Buddhas, Pacceka Buddhas, and Noble Ones. So
abusing or slandering them attracts serious evil consequences
for the speaker. Abusing or slandering ordinary persons does
not bring any of the ten serious results since their qualities
are different.
Nevertheless, one does get a fault by accusing others
as immoral since this is one form of abuse. If one abuses
others or condemns them with harsh criticism, one is not free
from fault. One becomes associated with evil and error. Even
if one blames or slanders an immoral monk, knowing him to be
such a one, one is not free from fault. Every word spoken in
condemnation amounts to unwholesome speech
(pharusavācā).
In their question the laymen have mentioned that there
will be cases when others know for certain that others are
immoral, and they may utter disparaging words to suppress this
type of monk. However, it is very difficult to know for sure
whether a monk is immoral or not. There are profound and
subtle points of Vinaya that should be considered. In cases
dealing with offences of defeat before the Sangha’s courts,
the monastic judges find great difficulties, and must consider
numerous aspects to deliver a correct judgement. Even monks
learned in Vinaya find it difficult to pronounce a monk as
immoral in such legal cases.
The five Vinaya books and their commentaries give
numerous guidelines to ensure that an innocent monk will
escape wrong judgements. When a case of defeat appears before
the courts, Vinaya judges must hear and examine the words of
both parties very carefully. If the charges are false, they
must declare a monk to be innocent. They must not say they are
guilty if there is any reasonable doubt. Suspicion is no
substitute for proof. In the courts, suspects are adjudged
innocent in the absence of convincing proof.
In pronouncing judgement, the monastic judges are
enjoined to seek mitigating or extenuating circumstances for
an accused monk. Only when these factors are lacking, must
they pronounce the decision of ‘defeated.’ Then a monk
definitely becomes immoral according to the Vinaya rules.
Three judges must separately study the case, examining the
witnesses and the evidence. If one judge cannot find
extenuating or mitigating circumstances to clear an offence of
defeat, he must send the accused to another judge for further
examination. The second judge, if he finds only guilty
factors, must not pronounce him guilty, but must send him to a
third judge. The aim is to find factors of innocence and
extenuating circumstances because the judgement of defeat
calls for grave responsibility on their part. The accused, if
guilty of defeat, has broken the highest law of the courts. So
such cases entail grave responsibilities for all involved. If
the judges find no extenuating circumstances, they should
asked the accused to stay in a quiet place to practise calm
and insight meditation. They should then ask about the state
of mind of the accused. Emotional disturbances, if any, should
be calmed by meditation. After this practice, the judge must
praise this moral deed of the monk with kind words and release
him for further moral conduct. All should rejoice in this work
of moral calm or the effort of concentration.
The decision of defeat is both subtle and difficult.
Even after close examination, Vinaya experts find many
borderline cases that they are unable to decide clearly. To
burden a monk with an offence of defeat and thereby assign to
him the status of an immoral monk is a grave act. So judges
are reluctant to make unequivocal declarations. Why? If they
pass judgement on a defeated monk correctly they escape blame
and grave evil, but if they declare an undefeated monk to be
defeated, they destroy the millions of precepts maintained by
the accused. Even a shameless one still retains these
remaining training rules. So the judges commit a grave offence
themselves.
However, the judges escape a grave evil in declaring a
monk to be innocent of defeat, in good faith, though the monk
has indeed committed this offence. If the judges think that a
monk is not guilty of the charges, they must pass judgement
accordingly. In good faith and honesty, they must declare what
they believe after careful examination. This procedure is
described clearly in the Vinaya commentary.
So a monk or lay person who accuses a monk of defeat,
burdens himself with the gravest responsibility and serious
consequences. If a monk commits an offence of defeat, he
becomes immoral. So to speak ill of him in terms such as
“immoral” or “defeated” is like bearing the whole earth upon
one’s head. By condemning a monk as immoral, one is making a
serious charge against him and taking a grave responsibility
for oneself too. Therefore such accusations and slander should
be controlled by mindfulness.
The seriousness of such an accusation or condemnation
will be apparent from the following case. Whether one abuses
or slanders a truly defeated monk, a shameless monk, or a
scrupulous monk, one gets the unwholesome deed called
“pharusavācā kammapathā.” This evil deed leads to rebirth in
one of the four lower realms. Speaking harsh words with anger
against the above three classes of monks will lead one to the
lower realms in the next life.
If a person speaks harshly and angrily not only to
condemn the monks just mentioned, but intending to drive them
out of the Sangha, his evil is of the gravest kind.
Technically he is charging, abusing, accusing with the aim of
assigning immoral status to them. It is graver than a mere act
of abusing. The important point is this: to accuse someone as
immoral amounts to taking a grave responsibility for
oneself.
For further clarification the cases of Kondadhāna Thera2 and Cittahatthaka Thera should be
considered.
The Story of Kondadhāna Thera
During the dispensation of Kassapa Buddha, Kondadhāna
Thera was born as a tree spirit. To test the friendship of two
friendly monks he transformed himself into a beautiful woman
and created suspicion between them. When one of the monks went
into a grove to answer the call of nature, the woman
accompanied him and came out together. When the other monk saw
this, he got angry and suspicious. So he left his friend
because he judged him to be immoral. When the Uposatha
ceremony had to be performed, the friend refused to conduct it
together with the alleged immoral monk. Even when the accused
monk protested his innocence, his friend did not believe him.
He said that he saw the beautiful woman coming out of the
grove with him.
Thereupon the tree spirit, seeing the seriousness of
his misdeed, appeared before the two friends and explained his
conduct. The spirit’s aim was merely to test the strength of
their friendship, but the effects were dire. Disunity arose
between the two friends and one accused the other of an
offence of defeat.
When the tree spirit died he was reborn in hell and
suffered for his evil kamma. So to accuse a scrupulous monk as
immoral, gives a result as bad as the five heinous crimes, the
worst evils one can commit.
The Buddha said:
“Monks, these two individuals, if they do not correct
themselves, will certainly suffer in hell as surely as one who
carries a burden to his house, puts it down. Which two? One
who claims to be a monk, though he is not, and one who accuses
an innocent monk of an offence of defeat.” (Itivuttaka,
Āpāyika Sutta).
Such a false accusation, being very serious, brings
certain suffering in hell for the accuser, just as a burden
carried on one’s head, will certainly be put down when one
reaches one’s house. One who maintains a wrong view, and one
who unjustly accuses an innocent monk of defeat will, after
death, fall into hell. Unless the wrong view is renounced, a
person will suffer in hell. Likewise, if one does not ask for
forgiveness from a monk one has unjustly accused of defeat,
one will fall into hell.
Note that in this context the term “sīlavanta” refers
to both a scrupulous monk and a shameless monk. If a monk is
not immoral, here he is classified as a moral monk, that is,
the same as a scrupulous monk at the time of Gotama Buddha.
The tree spirit became a monk in the time of the Buddha, but
due to his past misdeed, wherever he travelled, a woman always
accompanied him. Although he did not see this shadowing woman
following after him, others saw her. So people became
suspicious, abusing him as immoral repeatedly. He finally
reached Arahantship, but the resultant bad kamma had to be
paid off until he attained parinibbāna. This case can be
studied in detail in the Dhammapada and Anguttaranikāya
Commentaries.
The key point to note is that the tree spirit had no
intention to stigmatise or to attach fault. His aim was merely
to test the bond of friendship. He had no anger against the
monk. Yet the results for his evil deed were serious, bringing
evil results in his succeeding lives. His evil deed in this
case was that of presenting a scrupulous monk as
immoral.
The Story of Cittahattha Thera
Another case concerns Cittahattha Thera.3 During the time of Kassapa Buddha there
were two monks. One wished to return to lay life, but the
other restrained his companion saying that being a monk was a
rare opportunity. Later, however, he thought that if his
friend disrobed he would get his requisites. So he persuaded
his friend to return to lay life in every conceivable way
until his friend renounced monkhood. When he became a monk in
the dispensation of the Buddha Gotama, due to his evil deeds,
he suffered shame by returning to lay life seven times, and
the people blamed him. Hence his kammic results were grave
indeed (see the Dhammapada Commentary for details).
The point to note here is that mere persuasion to
forsake monkhood caused a monk, in the time of the Gotama
Buddha, to suffer humiliation due to his capricious behaviour.
His evil act was praising the status of a lay life to
encourage a monk to leave the Sangha. Thus one can understand
the weight attached to being a member of the Sangha. No one
should speak to a novice or monk in praise of returning to lay
life. One should not even urge one’s sons and grandsons to
leave the Sangha if they become novices or monks. One should
not speak in favour of lay life.
Many lessons can be learnt. Blaming or accusing a
scrupulous monk with evil intent, charging him with
immorality, etc., are deeds that bring serious bad results in
the present and future. The Buddha’s dispensation and Vinaya
are unique and powerful. So one suffers greatly by living
outside the dispensation for many thousands of lives.
Moreover, even if one attains monkhood, one has to bear the
burden of shame and difficulties. One should note the basic
and consequential effects too.
Abusing or accusing a monk with charges of defeat
means the evil deed of abusive speech. This evil deed is
similar to holding firm heretical views, and has serious
effects. One will suffer in various ways throughout a series
of lives.
There is a supplementary question to this one, “If one
blames, criticises, or condemns a monk either directly or
indirectly, what results will one get?”
There are two ways in which the blameworthy actions of
a person can be stated: directly to the individual concerned,
or regarding facts of a general natural in impersonal
terms.
Blaming Individuals Directly
In the matter of blaming an individual directly, there
are two ways: speaking directly to the person concerned, or
speaking indirectly. Such blame or accusation, whether direct
or indirect, brings fault to oneself if one has the intention
to harm or attack others. One therefore obtains demerit in
either case. So in criticising or blaming, one must avoid
slander and other harmful speech, such as disparaging others
and praising oneself. If the mind is free from anger, malice,
jealousy, and divisiveness, and if the criticism is based on
mutual benefits, one can blame others. In making remarks,
oneself and others should be treated impartially. Honest
criticism must be made within these guidelines.
If these factors are present in one’s criticism of
others, one is free from fault and evil. Moreover, one is
following the instruction of the Buddha which says: “He
praises the praiseworthy. He blames the blameworthy.”
So it is commendable if the good factors are present
in the mind and if the facts are correct.
Criticising in General Terms
To criticise in general terms, without reference to
anyone in particular, is exposing of faults. One must attack
or criticise unwholesome states only, such as greed, hatred,
or delusion. In this correct way of criticism the four right
efforts should be cultivated.
-
The effort to prevent unarisen unwholesome
states.
-
The effort to eradicate arisen unwholesome
states.
-
The effort to arouse unarisen wholesome
states.
-
The effort to develop arisen wholesome
states.
Unwholesome states that may arise in oneself in the
future are called “unarisen unwholesome states.” Future evil
that may be committed by oneself must be prevented with one’s
own moral effort. Evil deeds one has already done are “arisen
unwholesome states.” Among the ten unwholesome deeds, killing
is mentioned, but this relates to killing of sentient beings
generally. The discourses of the Buddha specifically mention
five heinous acts (pañcānantariya kamma), such as
killing one’s own father or mother, which are the gravest
evils with immediate consequences.
In this infinite round of rebirth, existences in which
an ordinary person knows the true Dhamma are very few. One
must undergo many lives in which ignorance and delusion
predominate. The lives in which an ordinary person holds wrong
views are innumerable. So the evil act of killing can be done
many times even within a single lifetime, let alone the number
of such acts in countless previous lives. If a person commits
one heinous unwholesome deed in the present life, it will give
definite results in hell. The misdeeds done in countless past
lives will then give their results too.
In this present life, too, many persons have committed
acts of killing several times while young, which will be clear
to each individual. Others have done past misdeeds of killing
though they refrain from killing in this present life. Most
people have done evil deeds such as killing in both the past
and present lives.
Personality view opens the way to commit evils of the
gravest kind, such as killing one’s father or mother, or
harming the Buddha. If one still believes in a soul, and
entertains doubts about the Three Gems, in future existences
one might kill one’s mother or father, getting the gravest
evil and the worst result. So besides killing living beings,
there may be heinous misdeeds too. If a detailed analysis is
made of one’s own various misdeeds, one cannot safely declare
that there is a cessation of the act of killing, in the matter
of ordinary or extraordinary types. If a person does not kill
any sentient being today, he may commit this evil tomorrow,
next month, next year, or next life. So please ponder like
this: “Due to wrong view and doubt I could certainly kill my
mother or father, cause schism in the Sangha, harm the Buddha,
or kill Arahants.”
This is, of course, the “unarisen evil” mentioned
above. Future evil deeds and past or present evil deeds are
classified as “unarisen evil” and “arisen evil”
respectively.
Why does a person perpetrate these various types of
evil, pertaining to the past, present, and future? It is due
to the existence of personality view. With this wrong view one
will certainly do small and great evil. What is personality
view? It is the belief that one’s own five aggregates are a
soul, a person, a self, or an entity. This sense of “I” gives
rise to the worst kammas. Both arisen and unarisen unwholesome
kammas will not lose their power if personality view still
exists. They are bound to increase due to wrong understanding
of the nature of the five aggregates. So if circumstances are
favourable, one will commit various crimes, great or small,
propelled by wrong view. When personality view is eradicated,
all past evil deeds and their potential results are destroyed
totally. Countless evil actions cease. The ten evil deeds and
the five heinous crimes are based on personality view.
Personality view is their leader. Evil deeds are its
followers, and its consequences.
Can one entertain any hope of cessation of evils or
deliverance? If one encounters the Buddha’s dispensation in
this life and practises insight meditation, one is delivered
from personality view, root and branch. All past evils are
wiped away, and countless effects of past evil that were due
to mature also cease. Total eradication of evil is possible in
this dispensation only because correct methods have been
given. Human beings possess the rarest chance to overcome this
appalling predicament. During this dispensation, good and rare
chances are available for the destruction of countless new
evils that are bound to arise in the future. All latent evils
are uprooted by mindfulness as taught by the Buddha. If these
methods and rare opportunities exist, it is called the
Buddha’s dispensation. The dispensation is said to disappear
when such opportunities no longer exist. Everyone should note
that if death occurs today and life continues in an existence
where these opportunities don’t exist, the dispensation
disappears today. In this case the opportunities of this
dispensation are lost as soon as one dies.
This rare opportunity and grave danger should be
appreciated by everyone. Moral dread, together with farsighted
trepidation (samvega), must be cultivated while one is
alive and the dispensation still prevails. One must practise
concentration and insight daily with great urgency. To get rid
of personality view and doubt is the noblest aim in life
according to the teaching of the Buddha. Morality and insight
practice are essential to eradicate mental defilements and
evil deeds. When one practises morality and insight
meditation, mental purity and skilful deeds arise. By these
means one obtains the four great moral efforts. Wholesome
deeds, both arisen and unarisen, must be done in this present
life.
The Essence of the Tipitaka
There are only three essential points in the three
Pitakas:
-
The higher training in morality
(adhisīlasikkhā).
-
The higher training in concentration
(adhicittasikkhā).
-
The higher training in wisdom
(adhipaññāsikkhā).
The essence of the teaching means morality,
concentration, and wisdom. Keeping the five, eight, or ten
precepts is called morality. Concentration means neighbourhood
concentration (upacāra samādhi), and absorption
concentration (appanā samādhi). Wisdom means insight
knowledge (vipassanā-ñāna), path knowledge
(magga-ñāna), and fruition knowledge
(phala-ñāna).
Among these three essential practices, morality is of
the arisen type because it is already done or presently kept.
However, concentration and wisdom belong to the unarisen type
of wholesome states. Although many people practise
concentration such as recollection of the virtues of the
Buddha (Buddhānussati), or mindfulness of the body
(kāyagatā sati), they usually reach only the initial
stage with the aim of getting merit. Their efforts are not
sincere, not mature, so not even neighbourhood concentration
is attained. The firm type of concentration necessary for
liberation is still an unarisen wholesome deed. Many Buddhists
count their rosaries chanting suttas, or reciting “anicca,
dukkha, anatta,” but they fail to win insight knowledge.
Although they accumulate merit, their insight knowledge is a
sham as it cannot eradicate the perception of and belief in a
person, a being, a self, or a soul. They fail to gain insight
into psychophysical phenomena, or ultimate truths. Genuine
insight, which means the complete, well-developed stage, is
not attained by slack effort and weak wisdom. Therefore their
wisdom is also of the unarisen wholesome type.
Even in the matter of morality, which has been
classified as already arisen, many can retain it only for
short periods, so they achieve only temporary morality. They
fail to reach the full, stable stage called “samuccheda
sīla — morality by cutting off defilements.” Only when one
obtains stable moral conduct can one safely be said to be a
truly moral person.
Regarding the precept of refraining from killing, most
attain only momentary morality. The majority of people, if
they observe the five precepts or this single one, achieve
good conduct for a short period like a flash of lightning in
the darkness. They get this moral achievement several times,
but they lose it several times too. So their morality shows
the characteristic of instability.
This is true. In countless past lives the attainment
of momentary morality by restraint from killing has occurred
frequently. One achieved the status of a moral person in many
past lives. Yet these achievements in morality, being
temporary, do not give real security and complete safety. This
type of temporary moral conduct is superficial and unreliable.
For example, today one may possess moral conduct, but tomorrow
one may become shameless and immoral due to breaking a
precept. Morality is achieved for one month only to be lost in
the next. This uncertainty applies after death to. In this
life one may be scrupulous, but in the next life one may be
shameless. So a scrupulous monk, a good man, a moral person in
this life may become a robber, a murderer, a thief, a hunter,
or a wicked person in the next.
Even famous saints who have attained jhana, and can
fly in the air with their psychic powers, may become robbers,
murderers, thieves, hunters, or wicked persons in their next
lives. Though they encounter this rare dispensation, they fail
to appreciate the significance of the unique opportunities now
available. If they remain satisfied with temporary morality,
they will be reborn as ghosts, animals, robbers, murderers,
etc. They will suffer in hell due to the fallibility of their
moral conduct, which is the characteristic of temporary
morality.
This fallible, temporary morality is available even
outside the Buddha’s dispensation. It exists naturally just
like the world and its environment. It is common everywhere,
and at all times. It even exists in other universes where no
Buddhas ever arise, where the Buddha’s teaching can never be
heard. In countless universes, many human beings, deities, and
brahmas live without the benefit of the Buddha’s teaching. Yet
they achieve the status of human beings, deities and brahmas
as a result of this temporary morality. However, their moral
conduct is impermanent, so they can fall down in moral status.
The important point is that this common, temporary morality
cannot be classed as true morality, which is available only
during the Buddha’s dispensation. Temporary morality is not
the true dispensation. Only the unique morality called
“samuccheda sīla — morality by cutting off defilements”
is the true, stable morality belonging to the Buddha’s
dispensation. It means infallible morality, genuine
morality.
The Folly of Ignorant Persons
Common, superficial, and temporary morality must not
be overvalued, since it is unstable, and not genuine. To
illustrate, the folly of ignorant persons may be cited. Those
with mystic powers are very rare, it is hard to meet such a
person even once in a lifetime. Once, an ignorant, foolish
person met such an adept, and was granted a boon. He asked for
the purgative medicine that is commonly available in every
household. Thus he lost his precious opportunity to get rare,
precious things.
One day a foolish villager met Sakka, the king of the
gods. When Sakka granted him a boon, the foolish man asked for
a match and a matchbox that would light fire immediately.
Sakka gave him these things, but matches are common things in
the world. The man received nothing of any value.
In Ava, during the sixteenth century, a king, while
hunting, met a powerful adept who granted him a request. So
the king asked for a nymph so that he could enjoy the greatest
sensual pleasures. He achieved his desire, but the enjoyment
of sensual pleasure is commonplace. Moreover, the king got
lost and the nymph disappeared. He got his satisfaction only
once and then died in the forest with a deranged mind, longing
for the nymph.
The above stories clearly show that this rare chance
must be grasped with knowledge and wisdom so that it is
advantageous. When the Buddha has appeared and his very rare
dispensation still exists, a disciple must not rest content
with common and inferior temporary morality, which is
unreliable. A wise person must strive for the rare and
precious stable morality, which is priceless and unique. Those
who think too highly of momentary and unstable morality are
like those foolish persons who asked for common things when
granted a boon. The defect of temporary morality must be
appreciated.
What is Stable Morality?
The moral conduct that culminates in the attainment of
path consciousness is called stable morality. Morality is a
supporting condition for the path. With the attainment of the
path, morality becomes stable and irreversible. From this time
onwards, a person will not kill any sentient being, great or
small, under any circumstances. He or she always maintains
morality with steadfast confidence and wisdom. The precept to
abstain from killing living beings becomes stable, so he or
she is totally free from suffering in lower realms. In future
lives too he or she will never be shameless or immoral. The
Noble One is firmly established in natural morality and
natural goodness, so can never become a robber, a murderer, a
hunter, or a thief. A Noble One cannot be reborn in hell, as
an animal, hungry ghost, or demon. Due to stable morality, a
Noble One avoids these inferior existences. These are the
power and benefit of stable morality, which is only achievable
in this dispensation.
This stable morality becomes known only when a Buddha
appears in the world for the unique benefit and welfare of
all, and remains only during the Buddha’s dispensation. It is
the essence of the Omniscient Buddha’s teaching, so those who
claim to follow the Buddha’s teaching, whether they are lay
persons or monks, must emulate this rare type of morality.
Only stable morality is worthy of respect. One should not rest
content with temporary morality nor should one emulate it. Why
not? Even those who keep the millions of bhikkhus’ precepts,
still live under the sway of temporary morality if they fail
to attain the path. Even very pious and venerable monks also
suffer from the effects of temporary morality. Sooner or
later, they will become robbers, murderers thieves, liars,
etc. Moreover, possessors of temporary morality will have to
suffer in hell. These so-called holy men are not so much
different to others regarding their destinies. All of them
value and maintain temporary morality. All of them are
fallible, and all are subject to life’s vicissitudes due to
loss of their morality.
Therefore a disciple of the Buddha, while this unique
dispensation still exists, should appreciate the defect of the
commonplace arisen wholesome deed of refraining from killing,
which means temporary morality. One should not be satisfied
with this state of affairs as it lacks any genuine or lasting
value. Common morality is like a piece of sodium in water, it
flares brightly for a moment, then dies instantly. What each
person urgently needs is the unique, stable morality so that
true, secure moral purity will be established. The real taking
of refuge is in stable morality. Everyone has a duty to
transcend the unreliable temporary restraint, and to eradicate
the possibility of becoming shameless or immoral due to the
bad roots in the heart. To attain stable morality one must
make great efforts so that complete liberation from
shamelessness and immorality is gained in this
life.
Nowadays good moral conduct is only momentary.
Everywhere, good people observe the five precepts and some
good monks train themselves in the millions of Pātimokkha
rules. Both these householders’ and monks’ moral conduct are
just temporary morality. However if they develop wisdom to
achieve stable morality, they get a wholesome deed that has
never arisen before. Each precept can be classed as
“temporary” or “stable.” So one should reflect deeply on the
true nature of the good deeds that have already arisen in
oneself.
The Most Urgent Task
Today, every ordinary person possesses the five mental
hindrances to a great extent. Due to their power, many people
break rules of discipline and universal moral principles, as
they did in the past. These are symptoms of modern times. The
majority of Buddhists, though believers who acknowledge the
importance of insight, still maintain the hindrances in their
hearts. Even most Dhamma teachers, though they teach the true
Dhamma regarding life’s three characteristics, cannot
eradicate these five hindrances completely. Defilements still
arise in their hearts, so they lack insight into impermanence,
unsatisfactoriness, and not-self. The only way to overcome
these moral failures and inherent weaknesses, is to practise
concentration (samatha) according to the teaching of
the Buddha. With this mental discipline, the wavering mind and
distracting thoughts are inhibited. Then the mind can be
turned towards insight practice, which reveals the universal
characteristics of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and
not-self.
The troublesome mental hindrances should be suppressed
by means of kasina meditation, contemplation on the foulness
of the body, or some other meditation. This moral effort to
suppress evil thoughts is called concentration or tranquillity
(samatha). Tranquillity of mind fixed on a single
object is the goal at this stage of mental development. The
next stage aims to penetrate the true nature of the five
groups of existence, or the mind and body. This wisdom can see
the impermanent, unsatisfactory, and insubstantial nature of
existence with insight.
These two features, concentration and wisdom, exist
while the Buddha’s dispensation lasts. This practice and its
goal help all devotees to get rid of personality view — the
persistent belief in a soul, the dogma of self-view,
self-centredness, base egoism. All ordinary persons, since
they still believe in a soul or self, are under the influence
of ignorance and craving. By destroying this wrong-view of a
permanent self, one also destroys, in due course, all
ignorance and craving. As long as self-view remains in the
heart, one cannot completely escape from the stigma of being
shameless and immoral. Though one attains morality, one can
maintain it only for a short duration due to self-view. One
fails to attain stable, natural morality due to this
wrong-view. This failure to attain natural and stable morality
is to be feared. Those who, without right view, attain
morality and goodness, will certainly kill an Arahant in
future lives, or commit the gravest evils such as killing
their mother or father. Moreover, due to self-view they will
change their faith in various ways, accepting eternalistic or
nihilistic views. The universal ways of most ordinary persons
are like this. They cannot safely say that they will always
refrain from killing. Their mental processes remain wide open
to various types of good and evil kamma. Both tendencies exist
in every ordinary person who is not a Noble One, and has not
realised the Four Noble Truths.
Therefore the most urgent task for everyone is to
strive for the final liberation from shamelessness and
immorality, to attain stable and natural morality. Starting
from this present life during the Buddha’s dispensation one
must arouse the unarisen wholesome deeds of concentration and
insight with fresh, vigorous moral effort.
This section explains the nature and case of unarisen
wholesome deeds. Here ends the ways to practice the four great
moral efforts (sammāppadhana).
If one wishes to blame or to criticise shameless or
immoral monks in impersonal terms, one must speak within the
meaning of the four great moral efforts.
The correct way to blame a bad monk is as
follows:
When one sees or hears about a shameless or immoral
monk, one must see beyond the personal features to the
unwholesome states in the ultimate sense such as greed, anger,
or delusion. Due to the appearance of shamelessness and
immorality such unwholesome states are seen or heard about. If
one considers carefully, blame should be put only on these
unwholesome states, as shown in the commentary. The correct
method of blaming is to blame shamelessness and immorality
only in general terms. Attacks must be made on the existence
of the root cause of evil, not on the persons who commit
evil.
Attack Only Unwholesome States
One should blame and criticise unwholesome states as
follows: greed is shameful, filthy, wicked, degrading, coarse,
and unskilful. Greed causes only trouble and so is shameful.
In the next existence it will cause one to suffer in hell.
Such criticisms must focus on unwholesome states only.
Shamelessness and immorality certainly deserve to be
criticised, by all means.
The next method must be applied to oneself in relation
to others’ mistakes. Reflection on one’s own mind must be made
as follows: “I have thousands of such unwholesome kammic seeds
from countless past lives and also in this life. I am not
altogether free from shamelessness and immorality. Even if I
accumulate wholesome deeds sometimes, if I become
self-satisfied, I will have to endure the results of countless
past evil deeds, which will certainly produce their effects in
the four lower realms. In past lives I have surely done
various evils that will bear fruit now or hereafter.” Such
reflection on arisen evil is a duty for all.
The next procedure is as follows: “This person has
done evil due to the power and influence of greed, hatred, and
delusion, and has become shameless or immoral. He is very weak
due to these evil forces. Why does anyone commit evil? Because
one retains the root of all evil — self-view, which always
accompanies evil deeds, shameless deeds, and immoral deeds. It
is self-view that gives rise to all these evil things for
ordinary persons. So the real culprits are greed, hatred, and
delusion, headed by self-view. Such latent evils still exist
in me, and will bear fruit sooner or later, so I am in the
same boat as shameless, wicked, and immoral persons. If I am
satisfied with temporary morality, the tendency towards evil
will make me shameless or immoral tomorrow, next week, next
month, or in the next life. These evils will affect me again,
and I may kill my mother or my father in the future due to
self-view. This is the way to reflect on unarisen evil in
oneself.
The third correct procedure for consideration is as
follows: “Why has this monk, who previously maintained
morality, now fallen into immorality? He was self-satisfied as
a good monk with temporary morality, and failed to develop it
to the stable stage. This was the cause of his moral downfall.
Temporary moral achievement is not reliable. This type of
morality soon disappears like a firework display. I must
strive to achieve stable morality. This is my greatest duty.”
Such considerations must be made daily by everyone.
The fourth procedure for consideration is this: “This
monk, while moral, rested content with it and failed to
practise concentration and insight as taught by the Buddha. So
this good, scrupulous monk still accepted self-view, which
made him commit evil, great and small. Although he was good
before, later he did bad things, becoming immoral. Likewise,
if I am satisfied with temporary morality and fail to practise
concentration and insight, this pernicious self-view will make
me do all sorts of evil in the coming days, months, years, and
lives. I will surely become just like this immoral monk.
Self-view must be eradicated by wisdom. In these ways one must
consider the wholesome states not yet arisen. If these
considerations are made, one is partially following the
practice of four right efforts.
The evils of being an ordinary person are too numerous
to count, so innumerable dangers exist too. Seeing the evils
and dangers of an ordinary person, a far-sighted person gets
moral dread and a sense of urgency. His mind always inclines
towards concentration and insight meditation to overcome moral
weaknesses, whenever he sees the faults of others. He uses
these facts for self-examination and self-reform, and strives
earnestly to eradicate these defects in himself. So everything
helps him to obtain earnestness and spurs him to action. This
superior way of self-reform through far-sighted trepidation is
the way of noble persons like bodhisattas, sages, and all
civilized persons. This is the ancient, noble way of
self-analysis.
This path to deliverance is excellent. All
bodhisattas, in their final lives, have to see an old man, a
sick man, and a dead man as universal signs for all. This
gives them a sense of urgency and spurs them to renounce the
world. This noble renunciation is possible because they apply
these hard realities to themselves and reflect on them wisely.
So they obtain great dread of worldly existence, for the world
is full of terror, which can be revealed by
insight.
The case of Venerable Revata thera illustrates this
point very well. Revata, the youngest brother of Venerable
Sāriputta, was persuaded by his parents and relatives to marry
young to avoid becoming a monk. When the marriage ceremony was
about to begin, Revata was told to pay homage to the elders.
The old people blessed him with the customary words of “long
life.” When young Revata saw an old, decrepit lady, he
experienced moral fear as he knew he must meet this fate too.
He applied the hard facts of life to himself based upon the
suffering of others. Gaining far-sighted trepidation, he
renounced the world and became a monk.
Likewise, whenever one sees others’ faults, one should
apply them to oneself to create moral dread and a sense of
urgency. By following these impersonal methods of criticism
and blame, when one hears about or meets shameless or immoral
monks, one practises the four great moral efforts with
attendant benefits.
The Dhamma Samvega Method of Blaming
We have given guidelines for correct criticism of
shameless or immoral persons without personal references. Here
we will also mention the way of blaming even with personal
attacks. In this method one can even mention names when making
condemnation, but two factors must accompany this type of
blaming with personal reference. One is that a person speaking
ill of others by name must possess the attitude called “Dhamma
samvega.” The other mental attitude is called “Moral fear.”
These attitudes, fear of unwholesomeness and moral fear, will
free a person from faults when he condemns others by
name.
An example will clarify this point. If a mother sees
her son playing with foul things such as excrement, she will
instantly run after him to remove these dirty things from his
body. While she hates excrement on the body of her son, she
still loves him and kisses his cheeks several times. She only
washes away the foul things from his body by touching them and
throwing them out. Although touching excrement is not
praiseworthy, out of love and compassion, she does it.
Although she throws away the excrement, she does not throw
away her son. She washes his body, because she hates foul
things only, not her son.
Likewise, if one sees or hears about anyone doing evil
deeds one must think thus, “My relatives have foul, impure
things on their bodies, they are defiled by filth. How
pitiable they are. Due to delusion they are eating excrement
and are contaminated with foul things.” Such loving, helpful
thoughts arise in a good person. All human beings are brothers
and sisters even when they do great or small evils. So a
critic who see others’ serious crimes must reprove the immoral
acts without hatred. With compassion he must help others to
remove their faults if possible. If all one’s efforts are
futile, one must cultivate compassion or equanimity, as a
mother, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to rescue her son
from a well, shows compassion and equanimity until the
end.
Similarly, a teacher or a friend must instruct, guide,
and train a wayward pupil or a bad monk with great compassion
and wisdom. After several attempts fail to produce positive
results, compassion is the best course, then equanimity at
last. The important point is that anger, resentment, ill-will,
or remorse must not be allowed to intrude. One must reprove
the evil acts, or unwholesome states only. One should condemn
bad actions without personal grudge, without hatred. In this
way a critical teacher or a righteous lay person will obtain
wholesome kamma in scolding, admonishing, or reproving others,
even with personal references. Unwholesome motives are absent
in following this method of direct criticism. One should not
get angry because of others’ evil deeds. This explains the
correct way of wise condemnation, which must be made
skilfully. |
