BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Saṅghādisesa Chapter 5accused is guilty of a pārājika, or (c) that the accused is no longer a true bhikkhu. Ifone simply says or does something that might imply that the accused is no longer abhikkhu — e.g., refusing to show him respect in line with his seniority — that doesnot yet count as a charge.The Commentary adds that charging a bhikkhu with having committed an equivalentor derived pārājika, as discussed in the conclusion to the preceding chapter, wouldfulfill this factor as well. For instance, if one makes an unfounded charge accusingBhikkhu A of having killed his father before his ordination, that would constitute afull offense here. The Vibhaṅga makes no mention of these equivalent pārājikasunder this rule, but the Great Standards can be used to justify their inclusion here.All of the charges given as examples in the Vibhaṅga are expressed directly to theaccused — "I saw you commit a pārājika offense," "I heard you commit a pārājikaoffense" — and the Commentary concludes from this that the full offense occursonly when one makes the charge in the accused's presence, in line with the patternfor admonition discussed above. To make an unfounded charge behind theaccused's back, it states, incurs a dukkaṭa.There is nothing in the Vibhaṅga to indicate that the Commentary is wrong here,aside from the consideration that — because the charge is unfounded — it couldentail a pācittiya for deliberate lying. Some people, however, have objected to theCommentary's position here, saying that a dukkaṭa or even a pācittiya is a very lightpenalty for backhanded character assassination. Nevertheless, we should rememberthat the correct procedures for making an accusation require that an earnest chargebe made in the presence of the accused. If a bhikkhu spreads gossip about anotherbhikkhu, accusing him of having committed a pārājika, he should be asked whetherhe has taken up the matter with the accused. If he hasn't, he should be told tospeak to the accused before he speaks to anyone else. If he says that he doesn'tfeel qualified or that he fears the accused will retaliate, he should be told to take thematter up with the bhikkhus who will be responsible for calling a meeting of theCommunity. If he refuses to do that, he shouldn't be listened to.For some reason, the Commentary maintains that a charge made in writing does notcount, although a charge made by gesture — e.g., pointing at the accused whenone is asked who committed the pārājika — does. Perhaps in those days writtencharges were regarded as too cowardly to take seriously.The rule seems to require that the accuser confess that he was acting out ofdepraved impulses, although the Vibhaṅga states that this means simply that headmits the charge was a lie. The Commentary states further that here the rule isshowing the point where the rest of the Community knows that the bhikkhu makingthe charge is guilty of a saṅghādisesa: He actually committed the offense when hemade the charge.The K/Commentary adds "result" as a further factor to the offense under this rule,saying that the accused must immediately understand the charge — but nothing inthe Vibhaṅga supports this added factor.119