BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1such a proposal but then gets a lay follower or another bhikkhu to do the inquiringand reporting would incur a saṅghādisesa all the same.If a bhikkhu agrees to a man's request to inquire about a woman, gets his student(§) to do the inquiring, and then the student of his own accord reports to the man,both the original bhikkhu and his student — assuming that he, too, is a bhikkhu —incur thullaccayas.If a group of bhikkhus are asked to act as go-betweens and they all accept, theneven if only one of them performs any or all of the actions of a go-between, all thebhikkhus in the group incur the penalty for his actions."Result" is not a factor here, so the Commentary mentions that whether thearrangements succeed has no bearing on the offense."Intention" is also not a factor, which leads the Sub-commentary to raise the issueof a man who writes his proposal in a letter and then, without disclosing thecontents, gets a bhikkhu to deliver it. Its conclusion, though, is that this case wouldnot qualify as an offense under this rule, in that both the Vibhaṅga and theCommentary define the action of conveying as "telling": Only if the bhikkhu himselftells the proposal — whether repeating it orally, making a gesture, or writing a letter— does he commit an offense here. Simply carrying a letter, not knowing itscontents, would not fulfill the factor of effort under this rule.Object. The full offense is for acting as a go-between between a man and a womanwho are not married to each other. If, instead of dealing directly with the man andwoman, one deals with people speaking on their behalf (their parents, a pimp), oneincurs the full penalty all the same.There is no offense for a bhikkhu who tries to effect a reconciliation between anestranged couple who are not divorced, but a full offense for one who tries to effecta reconciliation between a couple who are. "Perception" is also not a factor here,which inspires the Commentary to note that even an arahant could commit anoffense under this rule if he tried to effect a reconciliation between his parentswhom he assumed to be separated when they were actually divorced.Elsewhere, in its discussion of the five precepts, the Commentary includes coupleswho live as husband and wife without having gone through a formal ceremony underits definition of married, and the same definition would seem to apply here.A bhikkhu incurs a thullaccaya for acting as a go-between for a paṇḍaka; and,according to the Commentary, the same penalty for acting as a go-between for afemale yakkha or peta (!).Non-offenses. The Vibhaṅga states that, in addition to the usual exemptions, thereis no offense if a bhikkhu conveys a message from a man to a woman or vice versadealing with "business of the Community, of a shrine, or of a sick person." TheCommentary illustrates the first two instances with cases of a bhikkhu conveying a102