BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 145. Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman, it is to beconfessed.The full offense here has three factors that differ slightly from those for thepreceding rule.Object. Here woman is defined as a female human being who knows what isproperly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd. Paṇḍakas, female petas,female yakkhas, and animals in the form of a woman are again grounds for adukkaṭa. As under the preceding rule, perception as to whether a person is actuallya woman is not a mitigating factor here (see Pc 4).Effort. One sits with her alone — without another person present — in a placeprivate to the ear and to the eye, but not secluded. Examples of such places wouldbe spots out in the open (e.g., a bench in an open, deserted park), seats in aglassed-in porch or room, or in an open-air pavilion. The Commentary wouldinclude walled-in open areas — such as a park with a fence around it — here aswell, but outside areas screened by a wall or a bush would fall under the precedingrule. Ay 1 & 2 suggest that the distinguishing factor here would be how hidden it is.If it would be convenient for committing sexual intercourse, it would fall under thepreceding rule; if not, it would fall here.Sitting is defined as under the preceding rule.This rule's expression for alone — one man with one woman — implies that theother person whose presence exempts one from this factor can be either a man ora woman. The Commentary states explicitly that this is so, and adds that this personmust also know what is properly and improperly said, what is lewd and not lewd;must be awake; must not be deaf or blind; and must be sitting "within sight," i.e., aradius of six meters. As in the preceding rule, whether or not the man or woman isdistracted or drowsy is of no consequence.Intention. One must be aiming at privacy for this factor to be fulfilled. See thediscussion under the preceding rule.Non-offenses. Strangely enough, the Vibhaṅga's non-offense clauses here areidentical with those for the preceding rule — i.e., they make no mention of the factthat the presence of another woman would exempt one from an offense. TheCommentary seems justified in inferring this fact from the rule, though, for otherwisethere would be no reason to have these two separate rules on the same subject.Summary: When aiming at privacy, sitting or lying down alone with a woman in anunsecluded but private place is a pācittiya offense.346