Arguments 1

  • Sg 10, Schismatic group
  • Sg 11, Supporting a schismatic group
  • Sg 12, Not accepting admonishment
  • Sg 13, Not accepting a rebuke or banishment
  • Pc 9, Telling an unordained person about serious offense
  • Pc 12, Evasive reply
  • Pc 13, Criticising community official

Sg 10, Schismatic group

A schismatic group forms when bhikkhus, who would previously observe the Pāṭimokkha recitation and conduct community meetings together when living in the same territory, conduct them separately.

Origin: The Kosambī dispute (Mv.X) and Devadatta's schism (Cv.VII).

When a bhikkhu is agitating for a schism, it is the duty of the other bhikkhus to reprimand him. If they don't, they incur a dukkaṭa. If he is not reprimanded, he is free to continue without incurring a penalty.

The protocol:

  • reprimand him 3 times, informally
  • admonish him 3 times at a formal community meeting
  • recite a rebuke with one motion and three announcements

He only incurs the saṅghādisesa after the last announcement.

The same protocol of reprimand, admonishment and rebuke applies to Sg 11, 12, 13.

Note: discuss the procedure and valid reasons for declaring a bhikkhu persona non grata (a person who is not welcome). One might call the police and refer to laws of breaching one's peace, invading property or trespassing.

Sg 11, Supporting a schismatic group

Dealing with bhikkhus who begin to support one who is agitating for a schism, before their group grows to four.

A Sangha can not carry out a transaction against another Sangha (group of four bhikkhus).

Sg 12, Not accepting admonishment

Dealing with a bhikkhu who is 'impossible to speak to' regarding his conduct.

Sg 13, Not accepting a rebuke or banishment

Dealing with a bhikkhu who is a 'corrupter of families', causing them to stop supporting bhikkhus of good conduct.

Origin: Members of the group-of-six train their lay supporters in a corrupt culture. As a result they favoured socializing, easy-going, frivolous and chatty monks, and withdrew support from bhikkhus behaving with restraint.

Pc 9, Telling an unordained person about serious offense

Serious offense: pārājika or saṅghādisesa.

Reporting on other offenses are a dukkaṭa offense.

The purpose of the rule is to protect both ordained and unordained people.

An unordained person's offenses are a dukkaṭa offense to report on, such as breaking the Five Precepts.

The community may authorize informing the lay people, if that might to improve a difficult situation, by unanimous agreement through apalokana-kamma.

Perception is not a mitigating factor.

Effort: The statement has to include both the action and the class of offense: 'He had his meal past midday, which is a pācittiya offense'.

Discrediting a fellow bhikkhu is grounds for Pc 13. When lay people ask why is a community member standing at the end of the line, it is better to say 'he is undergoing a procedure defined in the monastic code'.

Pc 12, Evasive reply

A bhikkhu wants to hide his offenses when being formally questioned, by responding evasively. He might try changing the topic, keep asking questions, or making unrelated statements.

Perception is not a mitigating factor. ('I just said what I thought, I didn't want to confuse anyone.')

An evasive reply or remaining silent when questioned is a dukkaṭa. The community then may make a formal charge of evasive speech. If he continues, the offense is pācittiya.

It is not an offense to remain silent when:

  • not understanding what is being said
  • too ill to speak
  • feeling that speaking will create conflict or turn people against each other
  • feeling that the community is not going to act fairly or according to the rule

Pc 13, Criticising community official

The Buddha gave allowance for the bhikkhu community to organize their duties by appointing officials by saṅghakamma in roles such as:

  • distributing food
  • assigning lodgings
  • keeping meal invitation rosters
  • kitchen liaison
  • etc.

The official should conduct his duties without bias (desire, anger, confusion, fear).

Since we don't appoint duties by saṅghakamma, they can't technically be the object of this rule, but the principle applies.

In Thailand, the abbot is appointed by the state.

Perception is not a factor, e.g. as to the whether he was authorized properly or not, whether he is biased or not.

If one criticises a community official as being unfair, but it turns out that he was fair (following established procedure), and it was the complainer who was acting out of disappointment (didn't get what he wanted), the offense is incurred.

One's Intention is to make him lose face, status, or feel embarrassed.

Effort is criticizing or complaining to another bhikkhu with this intention.

Insulting him face-to-face is Pc 2, whether he is biased or not.

Non-offenses

It is not an offense to voice criticism when the official is habitually acting out of bias -- desire, aversion, delusion or fear.

Such as favouritism when assigning the best dwellings to bhikkhus he likes, or regular confusion when communicating with lay supporters who bring food offerings.

Notes: Bad Arguments

The following responses in an argument are logical fallacies, which distract and redirect the discussion from the original topic.

A useful corrective measure is to re-state the issue at hand, supported by direct observations.

Personal Attack, ad hominem

'You are only one Vassa and you think you know better? Who do you think you are?'

Attacking the person bringing up an issue, avoiding the issue being discussed. A type of Red Herring argument.

Appeal to Hypocrisy, tu quoque, 'whataboutism'

'What about when you did X? Given that, your opinion can't be worth much.'

Avoiding the issue by directing attention to the faults of the accuser.

Two Wrongs Make a Right

'That man has already injured these animals, the damage is done, so we should kill them quickly.'

Pointing to another's guilt to justify one's wrong action.

Redefinition

'But if we define it as X, it is not wrong any more.'

Avoiding the issue by debating the definition of terms instead.

Not Invented Here

'I have done it several times like this. It's better than following messed up ideas from the X sect.'

Preferring the idea which originates from oneself, or from one's own group, instead of discussing the action and its merits.

The opposite bias is 'Appeal to Authority', where preference is placed apart from oneself, such as an influential authority, or their group.

Appeal to Authority

'Jesus emphasised love and compassion, not finicky rules.'

Avoiding discussing one's directly observed actions by defending oneself with a source of authority (which may be irrelevant).

Appeal to Nature, loaded language

'It is an unnatural product, so good monks shouldn't use it.'

Supporting a conclusion using loaded terms which are ambiguous in their values. (Poisons are also natural, while footwear is unnatural.)

Cherry Picking, one-sided assessment

'An Xbox is not specifically in the Vinaya but it's a huge discount so it's okay to get one.'

Ignoring or downplaying evidence which undermines one's opinion.

Texas Sharpshooter, jumping to conclusions

'Eating breakfast before the meal is not proper practice. I know many people who disrobed, and several of them used to eat breakfast.'

Grasping at particular cases which support the conclusion one wants, even though the results could be due to chance.

Slippery Slope

'Today it's just coffee, but you know how drug addictions start!'

Exaggarating the results of trivial causes.