BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1race, class, or nationality (You nigger! You bum! You Frenchman!);name (You really are a Dick!);family or lineage (You bastard! You son of a bitch!);occupation (You pimp! You capitalist pig!);craft (What would you expect from a guy who crochets?);disease or handicap (Hey, Clubfoot! Spastic!);physical characteristics (Hey, Fatty! Beanpole! Shrimp! Hulk!);defilements (You control freak! Fool! Queer! Breeder!);offenses (You liar! You thief!); orusing an abusive form of address, such as, "You camel! You goat! You ass! Youpenis! You vagina!" (§) (All five of these come from the Vibhaṅga.)(The category of "offense" — which literally means "falling" — contains aninteresting sub-category, in that the noble attainment of stream-entry is, literally,"falling into the stream." Thus an insult along the lines of, "Some stream-winner youare!" would also fit under this category as well.)These ten topics are called the akkosa-vatthu — topics for abuse — and appear inthe following training rule as well.As the examples in the Vibhaṅga show, the remark that fulfills the factor of efforthere must touch on one of these topics for abuse and must be made directly to thelistener: "You are X." It may be phrased either as sarcastic praise or as out-and-outabuse. The Commentary and Sub-commentary say that any insulting remark notlisted in the Vibhaṅga would only be grounds for a dukkaṭa, but the Vibhaṅgadefines the topics for abuse in such a general way that any term related to them inany way would fulfill this factor here.Remarks made in an indirect or insinuating manner, though, would not fulfill thisfactor. Indirect remarks are when the speaker includes himself together with thetarget of his insult in his statement ("We're all a bunch of fools.") Insinuatingremarks are when he leaves it uncertain as to whom he is referring to ("There arecamels among us"). Any remark of this sort, if meant as an insult, entails a dukkaṭaregardless of whether the target is a bhikkhu or not.All of the insults mentioned in the Vibhaṅga take the form of remarks about theperson, whereas insults and verbal abuse at present often take the form of acommand — Go to hell! F--- off! etc. — and the question is whether these toowould be covered by this rule. Viewed from the standpoint of intent, they fit underthe general definition of an insult; but if for some reason they would not fit underthis rule, they would in most cases be covered by Pc 54.Insulting remarks made about someone behind his/her back are dealt with under Pc13.236