BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1winner. Even if she is not a stream-winner, the Community may choose toinvestigate the case anyway; but if she is, they have to. The texts do not discusscases in which a man is making the charge but, given the low legal status of womenin the Buddha's time, it seems reasonable to infer that if a woman's word was givensuch weight, the same would hold true for a man's. In other words, if he is astream-winner, the Community has to investigate the case. If he isn't, they are freeto handle the case or not, as they see fit.The wording of the rule suggests that once the matter is investigated and thebhikkhu in question has stated his side of the story, the bhikkhus are free to judgethe case either in line with what he admits to having done or in line with thetrustworthy female lay follower's charge. In other words, if his admission and hercharge are at variance, they may decide which side seems to be telling the truthand impose a penalty — or no penalty — on the bhikkhu as they see fit.The Vibhaṅga, however, states that they may deal with him only in line with what headmits to having done. The Commentary offers no explanation for this point asidefrom saying that in uncertain cases things are not always as they seem, citing asexample the story of an arahant who was wrongly charged by another bhikkhu ofhaving broken Pc 44.Actually, the Vibhaṅga in departing from the wording of the rule is simply followingthe general guidelines the Khandhakas give for handling accusations. Apparentlywhat happened was that this rule and the following one were formulated early on.Later, when the general guidelines were first worked out, some group-of-sixbhikkhus abused the system to impose penalties on innocent bhikkhus they didn'tlike (Mv.IX.3.1), so the Buddha formulated a number of checks to prevent thesystem from working against the innocent. We will cover the guidelines in detailunder the adhikaraṇa-samatha rules in Chapter 11, but here we may note a few oftheir more important features.As explained under Sg 8, if Bhikkhu X is charged with an offense, the bhikkhus wholearn of the charge are duty-bound to question him first in private. If he admits tohaving done as charged, agrees that it is an offense, and then undergoes thepenalty, nothing further need be done (Mv.IX.5.6). If he admits that he did the act,but refuses to see that it is an offense or to undergo the penalty, then if the actreally did constitute an offense, the Community may meet and suspend him(Mv.IX.5.8; Cv.I.26). The Khandhakas (Mv.IX.1.3 and Cv.XI.1.10) show that "notseeing an offense" does not mean that one denies doing the act; simply that onedoes not agree that the act was against any of the rules.If, however, X denies the charge, and yet some of the members of the Communitysuspect him of not telling the truth, the issue has to go to a formal meeting. Oncethe case reaches this stage, one of only three verdicts is possible: that the accusedis innocent, that he was insane at the time he committed the offense (and soabsolved of guilt), or that he is not only guilty as charged but — for having draggedout his confession to this point — also deserves a further-punishment transaction(Cv.IV.14.27-29), which is the same as a censure transaction (Cv.IV.11-12).140