BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1factors under motive. Thus all that is needed to fulfill this factor is the desire to seethe other bhikkhu expelled. If one's motive is simply to insult him, the Vibhaṅga saysthat one's actions would come under Pc 2. If one's motive is both to see himexpelled and to insult him, one incurs both a saṅghādisesa and a pācittiya. Thetexts do not explicitly mention this point, but it would appear that if one has astrange sense of humor and is making the false charge as a joke with no intentionof being insulting or taken seriously, one's actions would come under Pc 1.According to the Vibhaṅga, confessing one's aversion simply means admitting thatthe charge was empty or false. Thus the level of malice impelling one's desire tosee the other bhikkhu expelled need not be severe: If one wants to see him expelledjust for the fun of it, that would fulfill the factor of intention here.Effort. The act covered by this rule is that of making an unfounded charge of apārājika in the accused's presence. Whether one makes the charge oneself or getssomeone else to make it, the penalty is the same. If that "someone else" is abhikkhu and knows the charge is unfounded, he too incurs the full penalty.The Vibhaṅga defines an unfounded charge as one having no basis in what hasbeen seen, heard, or suspected. In other words, the accuser has not seen theaccused committing the offense in question, nor has he heard anything reliable tothat effect, nor is there anything in the accused's behavior to give rise to any honestsuspicion.Seeing and hearing, according to the Commentary, also include the powers ofclairvoyance and clairaudience one may have developed through meditation. Thus ifone charges X with having committed a pārājika offense on the basis of what onehas seen clairvoyantly, this would not be an unfounded charge, although one shouldbe careful to make clear from the very beginning what kind of seeing the charge isbased on.If there is some basis in fact, but one changes the status of the evidence, thepenalty is the same. Changing the status means, e.g., saying that one sawsomething when in actuality one simply heard about it or suspected it, or that onesaw it clearly when in actuality one saw it indistinctly.An example from the Commentary: Bhikkhu X goes into a grove to relieve himself.Ms. Y goes into the same grove to get something there. One sees them leaving thegrove at approximately the same time — which could count as grounds forsuspicion — but one then accuses Bhikkhu X, saying that one actually saw himhaving sex with Ms. Y. This would count as an unfounded charge. Another example:In the dark of the night, one sees a man stealing something from the monasterystorehouse. He looks vaguely like Bhikkhu Z, but one can't be sure. Still, one firmsup one's accusation by saying that one definitely saw Z steal the item. Again, thiswould count as an unfounded charge.The Commentary states that for an unfounded charge to count under this rule, itmust state explicitly (a) the precise act the accused supposedly committed (e.g.,having sexual intercourse, getting a woman to have an abortion) or (b) that the118