A Manual of the Dhamma

Dhamma Dīpanī

Translated by U Han Htay

Download the » PDF file (585 K) to print your own booklets.

Contents

• Editor’s Foreword
• Translator’s Preface
• A Manual of the Dhamma
• The Thirteen Questions
• The Three Types of Monks Defined
• Should One Avoid Shameless and Immoral Monks?
• Should One Honour Shameless and Immoral Monks?
• Should One Worship Shameless and Immoral Monks?
• Should One Criticise Shameless and Immoral Monks?
• Can A Shameless Monk Become Scrupulous?
• Should Lay Persons Learn the Vinaya?
• The Four Purifying Moralities
• What Are the Effects of Transgressing Morality?
• What Are the Factors of Saṅghikadāna?
• Cultivating A Skilful Attitude

Editor’s Foreword

As the translator says, the purification of the Saṅgha is now an urgent matter, as the neglect of the Vinaya rules is commonplace. Also, as the Sayādaw says, “If a monk, who is well-trained in the Vinaya, accumulates many followers and great material wealth, he can do much damage to the Buddha dispensation, unlike an ignorant monk.” So books like this are vital.

In the absence of the Buddha, maintaining acceptable standards of conduct for monks is hard, even if there is wide agreement on what acceptable standards are. The monks most in need of restraint are those least amenable to advice. At the first Buddhist Council, even five hundred Arahants could not agree on which offences were lesser and minor (Vin. ii. 288). The Milindapañha says that offences of wrong doing (dukkaṭa) and wrong speech (dubhāsita) are lesser and minor offences. This is reasonable since offences requiring confession (pācittiya), or confession with forfeiture (nissaggiyā pācittiya) include: killing animals, drinking intoxicants, telling deliberate lies, abusing monks, hitting monks, eating in the afternoon, and using money. All these things are contrary to the precepts observed by lay people or novices. So we cannot regard them as minor, except in comparison to the major offences such as sexual misconduct, stealing, or killing human beings. We could regard telling jokes, making sarcastic remarks, or talking with the mouth full while eating as minor offences, but scrupulous monks will observe even these minor rules out of respect for the Buddha.

Books like this are vital. Due to lack of knowledge, unwise lay people will slander monks, shameless monks will abuse scrupulous monks, scrupulous monks will have ill-will towards shameless monks, and many may fall into hell.

As the Sayādaw points out, there are skilful ways to criticise the wrong conduct of shameless monks without making unwholesome kamma. Wise lay people can make merit by donating allowable requisites and paying respect to shameless monks. If asked for unallowable things, they can politely ask, “Is this allowable?” to remind a shameless monk of his remissness without criticising him directly. There are so many rules to observe, that even the most scrupulous monk is likely to overlook some offences. A lay person can give money to a lay attendant, inviting a monk to ask for whatever he needs. If a lay person gives money or other unallowable things to a monk, he or she will make only demerit.¹ An attendant is living in dependence on the monk, so he should obey the monk’s instructions, but a lay person does not have to.

Regarding one’s own conduct one should not tolerate the slightest fault, but regarding others’ conduct one should cultivate boundless compassion and tolerance, or practise detachment. When associating with fools, which means all those who do not observe basic morality, one should guard one’s mind and speech very carefully, otherwise one will be sure to make unwholesome kamma. Diamonds, rubies, and emeralds are extremely valuable due to their great rarity. If one is unable to find such precious jewels, one must make do with quartz or marble for ornaments — and even sandstone can be used for grinding knives!

These are very special rare times that we live in. The Buddha’s dispensation is extremely precious, but it is decaying year by year. All Buddhists should strive to maintain the true Dhamma, but they need sufficient knowledge and wisdom to discriminate between true Dhamma and corrupt Dhamma. From corrupt Vinaya comes corrupt Dhamma; from corrupt Dhamma comes corrupt Vinaya. Therefore, they should read books such as this carefully, and reflect deeply on their own moral and mental purity. They should practise tranquillity and insight meditation to gain control of the passions. If lay Buddhists have a mature knowledge of Dhamma and Vinaya, it can only help to prolong the Buddha’s dispensation. With great compassion they should urge and encourage the monks to promote the essential practices of scriptural study or insight meditation, instead of giving them money or asking them to practise astrology.

The translator’s preference was to leave technical terms untranslated, but in my experience most readers find Pāḷi words a barrier to understanding. If one insists on one different English word for each Pāḷi term, being consistent is very difficult. The key terms here are few, but their meaning varies according to context. Three very similar Pāḷi terms — susīla, lajjī, and sīlavanta — could all be translated as “moral” or “virtuous.” To show that “lajjī” has the opposite meaning to “alajjī” — shameless, I have used the translation “scrupulous,” but in some contexts “moral” or “virtuous” is more appropriate. In the Vinaya, “dussīlo — immoral” has the specific meaning of defeated, no longer a monk due to commission of the gravest offence, so one should not use it loosely.

As the Vinaya rules only relate to verbal and physical misdeeds, a scrupulous monk could lack virtue or goodness. It depends on his intention for observing the Vinaya rule. If it is only for the sake of praise and gain, it will not amount to much. However, if he reveres the Buddha and follows the rule out of respect for the Buddha’s command, then he rightly deserves to be called a virtuous monk, not just “scrupulous.” He certainly should not be called “fussy” or “difficult” just because he is not weak-willed and shameless. A virtuous monk may break rules sometimes due to unmindfulness or strong defilements, but when he realises his offence, or if his fellow monks remind him of it, he readily admits his fault and duly makes amends according to the Vinaya procedure prescribed.

A shameless monk, on the other hand, may be wise in the sense of being learned in Abhidhamma, Sutta, and Vinaya, but he lacks any genuine virtue. He frequently breaks the rules knowingly and deliberately, without any moral scruples or sense of shame. Though he knows his offences clearly, he does not admit that there is any fault in breaking the Buddha’s injunctions. If his fellow monks point out his offences, he either retorts by accusing them of other offences, evades the issue, or follows the rule only while others are looking. Such completely shameless monks lack virtue and moral integrity. They are not just weak or heedless, but truly wicked.

Many modern monks, due to lack of proper training, do not clearly know what is an offence, and what is not. They just follow what their preceptors, teachers, and fellow monks do. Such monks are shameless as well as foolish, though they may sometimes be good-natured. Having become a bhikkhu, one should understand the training that one has undertaken. If one reads just the basic Pātimokkha rule, one will soon realise if one’s teacher or preceptor is shameless. A newly ordained monk is not in a position to correct a shameless preceptor or teacher. He will either have to disrobe and seek re-ordination elsewhere, or ask to study with a famous teacher or meditation master. If he is negligent, he will inevitably become shameless like his teacher.

What the Sayādaw says here applies to lay people too. Lay Buddhists can also be classified as moral or immoral, wise or foolish, good or bad. The texts contain plenty of guidelines for lay Buddhists to become moral, wise, and good devotees. As monks have a duty to study and train in the monastic discipline, lay Buddhists have a duty to study and train in the lay person’s discipline. Detailed guidance can be found in the Siṅgālovada, Maṅgala, and Sāleyyaka Suttas. They should also undertake regular courses in insight meditation, since insight is indispensable to moral purity. If both lay Buddhists and monks strive hard to study and practise the Dhamma and Vinaya, the Buddha’s dispensation will be preserved in its pristine purity. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing.

Translator’s Preface

The Dhamma Dīpanī, written in Burmese by the late Venerable Ledi Sayādaw, a famous scholar and meditation master, is, I think, the best of his many expositions (Dīpanī). This work concerns the Vinaya. The survival of the Buddha’s Dispensation depends on the survival of the Vinaya. The Sayādaw answered thirteen questions asked by devoted lay persons in 1901. All lay supporters want to see virtuous monks guiding the people and serving the dispensation effectively, for the Saṅgha is the mainstay of the Buddha’s teachings. To prolong the Buddha’s dispensation, all well-wishers want to purify the Saṅgha by suppressing immoral monks. Nowadays, the purification of the Saṅgha is an urgent matter, as neglect of the Vinaya rules is commonplace.

Moreover, the monks who scrupulously observe the Vinaya are the best ones to guide the laity in the attainment of the highest merit. It is hardly surprising that lay disciples do not want sham monks to prosper and wield influence among ignorant lay Buddhists. Thus the regulations of the Saṅgha, especially the guidelines for lay-monk relationships, are of universal interest. All Buddhists should ponder the questions and answers in this book. Because they are subtle, they should contemplate them very deeply.

Since these problems are of practical and fundamental importance for both the laity and Saṅgha, an expositor must possess genuine insight and a comprehensive knowledge of Vinaya. Fortunately, the Sayādaw fulfilled these qualifications. All his expositions display not only his academic mastery, but also his practical inclination. Though knowledge is important, mere learning leads us nowhere. His well-reasoned answers, with relevant quotations from the texts, reveal his many-faceted ability.

In the affairs of monastic discipline, partial knowledge and facile solutions will only harm the Buddha’s dispensation, in which the Saṅgha plays the central role. It is due to monks who respect the Vinaya that the true Dhamma and the correct way to salvation still exist. Some think that the Vinaya is unimportant, maintaining that many rules should now be amended. Such people lack the correct understanding of the authority of the Buddha in prescribing the discipline. They fail to appreciate the profound nature of the Buddha’s command and its sanctity. If they study the five books of Vinaya and their Commentaries in detail, a strong faith in the Vinaya will emerge. Confidence is fundamental for monks, and wide-ranging knowledge is essential for scholars.

The readers will find profound thoughts in each answer expressed by the Venerable Sayādaw. Though profound, the explanations are clear. The Sayādaw explains the classification of all types of monks, past and present. The reader will gain much useful information and wise guidance from this book as it deals with the laity’s difficulties too. Ignorance of the Vinaya among the laity hastens the decline in the moral standards of the monks. Intelligent lay people should promote good standards by skilful actions as explained herein.

Because of the great significance of the thirteen questions, the Primate of the Shwegyin sect, the most Venerable Mahāvisuddhārāma Sayādaw of Mandalay, asked Venerable Ledi Sayādaw to answer them. After examining the Vinaya texts, Commentaries, and Subcommentaries, the Venerable Sayādaw gave comprehensive answers correctly and wisely, for he had analysed the problems in great depth. Those who adopt unskilful attitudes towards scrupulous monks (lajjī), shameless monks (alajjī), and immoral monks (dussīlo) will adjust their views after carefully reading this exposition.

The great merit of this book consists in its sound advice, caution, and warning. Moreover, skilful ways to deal with all types of monks are given for the benefit of the laity. The most important point lies, I think, in the well-defined classification of monks, along with the factors and characteristics required to evaluate a monk in question. The profundity and sacredness of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha are also clearly explained for ordinary lay people. Monks, too, will gain new insights if they appreciate the intrinsic power of Vinaya, which displays the supreme authority of the Buddha himself. Then their behaviour and outlook will improve.

As the book deals with Vinaya matters, some technical terms are difficult to translate. To avoid misunderstanding, I have purposely retained some original Pāḷi terms and Vinaya categories. After repeated study I hope these basic terms will become familiar and meaningful, like the Pāḷi words kusala, akusala, Dhamma, Saṅgha, or kamma, which are now in common usage. They have gained wide currency in many countries and retain their original meanings without any need for explanation.

I have tried to follow the original Burmese text closely so that the author’s profound answers, warnings, remarks, and guidelines will remain faithful in the translation. In a technical book like this some inaccuracies of translation can occur for which I crave the indulgence of the reader. Polishing is an endless job, but one has to stop somewhere. I have tried to make the work both readable and accurate. The ordinary reader can consult other translations of the Vinaya texts, but scholars may wish to study further. For them the Vinaya Commentaries will be helpful.

I have to thank James Ross for his urgent and repeated request to translate this most important work of the international scholar-monk. The staff of the library department of the Religious Affairs Directorate at Kabā-Aye, Rangoon, gave me vital assistance in checking references and quotations. I owe them a deep debt of gratitude.

I am sure that the dispensation will continue to shine in many countries with the spread of the original Vinaya texts and explanatory books like this. Buddhism has attracted many students and scholars everywhere. Scientists especially are researching Buddhism as it conforms with scientific principles and methods. A deep sense of joy arising from sublime, noble conduct will result if they develop morality, concentration, and wisdom.

—————————–

Bài viết được trích từ cuốn A Manual Of The Dhamma, tác giả Tỳ Khưu Ledi Sayadaw 

Link  cuốn A Manual Of The Dhamma
Link  tải sách ebook A Manual Of The Dhamma
Link  video cuốn A Manual Of The Dhamma
Link  audio cuốn A Manual Of The Dhamma
Link  thư mục tác giả Tỳ Khưu Ledi Sayadaw
Link  thư mục ebook Tỳ Khưu Ledi Sayadaw
Link  giới thiệu tác giả Tỳ Khưu Ledi Sayadaw
Link  tải app mobile Phật Giáo Theravāda 

Dhamma Dīpanī

On July 1901 seven laymen from Okkan village put thirteen questions, to which I will give answers. They are devoted laymen, namely, Taka Circle Headman Maung Po O, Rest House Donor Maung Shwe La, Pagoda Builder U Baw, Monastery Donor Saya Saing, Monastery Donor Maung Htut, Pagoda Spire Donor Maung Shwe Ye, and Supporter Maung Nge. They, and some villagers, asked these thirteen questions regarding the problems of monkhood and its relationship with the laity. I will now give a concise answer to each question.

The Thirteen Questions

1. Nowadays in the Buddha’s dispensation there are three different types of monks, namely: lajjī (one with a moral conscience, a scrupulous monk), alajjī (one with no moral conscience, a shameless monk), and dussīlo (without ethical conduct, a bad, fallen, immoral monk). So we wish to know the factors or characteristics embracing each type as mentioned in the Pāḷi texts, Commentaries, and Subcommentaries. Kindly give the factors to classify each type.
2. Should those who know the truth about shameless and immoral monks refrain from associating with and paying respect to them? Does this agree with the verse in the Maṅgala Sutta that advises one to avoid the foolish (asevanā ca bālānaṃ)? Is a lay person who shows disregard by shunning bad monks following the injunction of the Maṅgala Dhamma? We would like to know of scriptural evidence and examples regarding the good or bad results from this action.
3. Should those who know the truth about shameless and immoral monks continue to pay respect and offer requisites? Are they following the Maṅgala Dhamma that advises us to associate with the wise (paṇḍitānañca sevanā)? Is this behaviour following the advice given in the Maṅgala Sutta or not? Kindly give evidence and case histories regarding good or bad results from this act.
4. If a person offers the four requisites such as almsfood, knowing a monk to be shameless or immoral, does this amount to the Maṅgala Dhamma that says one should honour the worthy (pūjā ca pūjaneyyānaṃ), or is this contrary to that advice? Kindly let us know the good or bad results with appropriate case histories and evidence.
5. If a person pays respect and shows deference by greeting, bowing, etc., knowing a monk to be shameless or immoral, does he fulfil the Maṅgala Dhamma that says that one should pay respect to the worthy or honourable ones (gāravo)? Does his behaviour agree with the text that says one should pay respect only to those who possess good conduct? The text referred to is in the Kosala Saṃyutta. By worshipping bad monks does one accomplish a reliable refuge? Kindly give evidence or examples to show the right way in this matter of honouring bad monks.
6. If one speaks ill of a monk or condemns him, either directly or indirectly, knowing him to be shameless or immoral, does one attract ten evil punishments or not? Is one free from evil with this act?
7. If a shameless monk becomes afraid of suffering in saṃsāra, or if he acquires moral dread, how can he become a scrupulous monk? Is it possible for him to become a scrupulous monk?
8. Should lay persons learn the Vinaya? Does this kind of learning agree with the Maṅgala Dhamma that advises one to be well-trained in discipline (vinayo ca susikkhito)? What are the good or bad results of this act? Kindly give evidence or examples to prove a definite point.
9. Should a monk teach the monastic discipline to a lay person? What are the good or bad results of this? Please give some evidence.
10. Kindly give the detailed factors or characteristics of each of the four purifying moralities (pārisuddhi sīla). You may give each its characteristic, function, manifestation, and proximate cause.
11. Among the four purifying moralities, what are the bad effects if a monk transgresses basic monastic restraint (Pātimokkha saṃvara sīla). What are the good effects if a monk observes it? Kindly explain the remaining three types of purifying morality, which may have good or bad effects according to observance or non-observance.
12. What are the factors of offerings made to the whole Saṅgha (saṅghikadāna)? How can we perform this type of donation?
13. Of the two types of donation, offerings to the Saṅgha and offerings to the Enlightened One, which has greater merit?

The lay people asked this question in the following sense: different kinds of Buddhist monks can now be found: scrupulous monks (lajjī), who possess moral conscience; shameless monks (alajjī), who possess no moral conscience, and immoral monks (dussīlo), who are depraved and evil. They want to know the essential characteristics of each type for classification according to the Pāḷi texts, Commentaries, and Subcommentaries.

The three types of monks have been mentioned in the Parivāra Pāḷi (Vinaya Piṭaka) as follows:

“Sañcicca āpattiṃ nānāpajjati, āpattiṃ naparigūhati.
Agatigamanañca nagacchati, ediso vuccati lajjī puggalo.”

The meaning is this: “They are aware of the Vinaya rules and, with no thought of transgression, refrain from breaking them. If they transgress some rules due to human weakness, they never conceal their offences. Moreover they do not follow the four wrong courses (agati).² Such monks are called scrupulous individuals (lajjī puggala) — monks with moral conscience.”³ These are the three factors or characteristics of a scrupulous monk. The clarification is as follows:

1. When a scrupulous monk knows that any action is a transgression of the Vinaya rules, he refrains from it.
2. However, he might sometimes break some Vinaya rules knowingly or unknowingly due to his untamed mind. He never hides the facts and always purifies his morality according to the rules within a day.
3. When he has to distribute property or decide cases, he avoids the four wrong courses, i.e. he always acts or decides justly and impartially.

A monk having these three factors or characteristics is called scrupulous. This is the meaning of the text quoted above.

The three factors or characteristics of a shameless monk are stated in the Parivāra as follows:

“Sañcicca āpattiṃ āpajjati, āpattiṃ parigūhati.
Agatigamanañca gacchati, ediso vuccati alajjī puggalo.”

This text says that a shameless monk is one who, with the knowledge of the Vinaya rules, transgresses them and commits evil. Having committed evil, he then conceals his actions. Moreover, he follows the four wrong courses. Such a monk is called shameless.

The meaning is as follows:

1. A shameless monk, knowing that any action is contrary to the Vinaya rule, breaks the precepts wilfully.
2. Whether by his awareness of Vinaya or by his transgression through ignorance, he conceals his faults, though he knows he has broken the Vinaya rule. That is, he does not attempt to purify his faults in the way prescribed.
3. When distributing property among monks, or in deciding cases, he follows the four wrong courses.

If even one of these factors is present, such a monk is shameless.

Here, a detailed explanation is necessary. The Vinaya Commentary says: “One who is shameless from the start does not exist.” So shamelessness is impermanent. In other words no such individual as a permanently shameless monk exists. The Commentary says that at the time of ordination a monk cannot be classified as shameless, but he may become shameless according to his mental attitude at any given moment. No monks are permanently scrupulous or shameless based on social class, religion, nationality, etc. A monk may become shameless ten times, or scrupulous ten times within a few minutes. It is possible that within a single sitting a monk may become shameless or scrupulous ten times alternately.

How is this possible? Several Vinaya rules can be broken repeatedly within a short time, so a monk may be classified as shameless more than ten times. Even within a short period, thousands of precepts may have to be observed, which some monks do no know about. Due to his wrong attitude or carelessness, a monk may break them very often. So for that duration he must be classified as shameless. On the other hand if he becomes ashamed whenever he transgresses the rules, realises his fault, confesses it, and determines not to repeat it, he becomes a scrupulous monk again.

Clearly, scrupulous and shameless categories cannot be associated with race, religion, or culture, nor can any monk be permanently classified as scrupulous or shameless. Nevertheless, if a monk does not follow the principles of the monastic discipline throughout his life he should definitely be classified as a shameless monk.

The Vinaya Commentary says that a shameless monk remains shameless only when shamelessness appears in him, and when he possesses one of three factors without confession and purification. As soon as he does these things, he immediately regains the status of a scrupulous monk. In the Sāratthadīpanī Subcommentary the following important explanation is found:

“Ādito paṭṭhāya hi alajjī nāma natthīti iminādiṭṭhadiṭṭhesuyeva āsaṅkhā na kātabbāti dasseti.”

“Herein: ‘One who is shameless from the start does not exist’ means that one must not cast doubt or suspicion on a monk whenever one sees him, thinking that he is shameless. This attitude should not be taken.” This is the advice of the Subcommentary.

Only when one sees a monk doing an immoral deed, can one classify him as shameless at that time and place, and at no other. Moreover, one can doubt this monk’s behaviour then only, and so entertain suspicion. If one does not really see a monk’s act of immorality, no suspicion should be entertained. This is the meaning of the Pāḷi text, Commentary, and Subcommentary.

The phrase “sañcicca āpattiṃ āpajjati” means intentional transgression of the Vinaya rules (that is, with knowledge of the discipline). In detail, four classifications cover all types of offence:

1. Transgression with knowledge of the rule.
2. Transgression without knowledge of the rule.
3. Transgression with knowledge of the object (things or matter to be transgressed).
4. Transgression without knowledge of the object (things or matter to be transgressed).

The explanation is as follows: In the Vinaya Piṭaka, the Buddha prohibited monks from eating ten types of meat.⁴ If a monk breaks this Vinaya rule, he commits an offence. He breaks this prohibition proclaimed by the Buddha for all monks. If a monk knows this Vinaya rule, he achieves the status of one who knows discipline. If he does not know this Vinaya rule, he is classified as one who is ignorant of the Buddha’s prohibition. Both concern the rule in the sphere of “knowing” or “not knowing.” When a monk fails to understand whether any particular meat is allowable, the case is concerned with the object (vatthu). Then he has knowledge or ignorance of the object.

Likewise, regarding the acceptance of gold, silver, and money, a monk may or may not know the rule concerned. Thus, he may be knowledgeable or ignorant regarding the Vinaya. Similarly, regarding the object that should be shunned, classification calls for two cases: knowledge of object and ignorance of the object.

In Vinaya the technical term ‘āpatti’ means fault, offence, committing, and transgressing. Herein, two classes of offence can be found: an offence according to the world, and an offence against the Vinaya rule.

The first type of fault includes killing sentient beings, stealing, and so on. These misdeeds are regarded as unwholesome everywhere so this transgression is known as a fault according to worldly ethical principles.

Regarding the second type of offence, it relates to the breaking of Vinaya rules such as not digging the ground, cutting trees and grass, etc. Such offences, though not evil in the moral sphere of the everyday world, are offences against the Vinaya. The rules for monks taught by the Buddha belong to the faults according to the Vinaya rules for ordained monks.

A detailed examination is necessary for each of these two types.

A monk who has transgressed the worldly prohibition with knowledge and volition becomes a shameless monk. If he breaks a moral principle without knowing it, sometimes he falls into an offence against the Vinaya rule as he knows the object of his transgression. Then he becomes shameless too. Examples of these shameless offences are killing, taking liquor, drugs, etc. He is guilty on both counts, a worldly offence and a Vinaya offence.

However, breaking some training rules occasionally does not amount to a Vinaya offence. Since a monk is free from any offence mentioned in the Vinaya, he cannot be classified as shameless.

Most training rules (sekhiya) and prohibitions in the Mahāvagga and Cūḷavagga Vinaya texts are not offences if one is unaware of them, even if one transgresses the rule. If one knows the rule, but one is ignorant concerning the object, it is an offence against some rules, but not all. In breaking a rule while ignorant of the object, though an offence is sometimes committed, a monk is not thereby shameless. An example of this is a monk drinking liquor. If a monk does not know that he has taken liquor, thinking it to be medicine, it is an offence. However, he cannot be called shameless even though he commits an offence. If a monk kills a sentient being not knowing it has life, he destroys life unintentionally. In this case he does not transgress the Vinaya rule, and he is not shameless either.

A monk becomes shameless only when knowledge of the rule and knowledge of the object are both present. In breaking the rule with knowledge of the rule, but ignorant of the object, he is not shameless. Likewise, a monk remains scrupulous if knowledge of the object is present, but he is unaware of the rule. He does not become a shameless monk. If he knows neither the rule nor the object, and commits an offence, he cannot be called shameless.

The above explanation is given to clarify the meaning of “intentional transgression of the Vinaya rules,” and to show the characteristics of a shameless monk.

The second factor is “āpattiṃ parigūhati,” which means that when transgressing the Vinaya rules a shameless monk conceals his fault. Concealing is characterised by ten factors as follows:

1. Transgression of the Vinaya rule or prohibition.
2. Knowledge of transgression or guilt.
3. Presence of a well-wisher (a monk) nearby.
4. Presence of a companion monk among them.
5. Absence of any danger.
6. Awareness that there is no danger.
7. Physical possibility exists to cure or purify the offences by confession and following the procedures laid down for that offence.
8. Awareness that physical competence in making confession exists.
9. Presence of an attitude to cover up the fault until after dawn.
10. Hiding the fault until after the next dawn.

If the above ten factors are present until the following morning, a new offence of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa) is committed, adding to the previous offence. Moreover, a monk thereby becomes shameless. However, if one of the ten factors is lacking, a monk should not be called shameless.

Note that if a monk has all the necessary factors to confess his offence, but fails to do so, he becomes shameless until the confession is made. So a monk may remain shameless for one day, one month, one year, ten years, etc., unless he confesses the offence and follows the prescribed procedure voluntarily. This is a significant point.

The second factor, which says “he knows he has transgressed the rules,” applies to those who do not know the Vinaya rules. Among untrained, ignorant monks, many will not be aware of their faults even if they break the rules. A few monks may not be aware of transgressions at all, while the majority may not know the rules in detail. The reason is a lack of training in Vinaya. Transgressions without awareness are not offences for such monks. So no charges of shamelessness should be made against them.

This is the explanation of the term “āpattiṃ parigūhati.”

For the third factor the text mentions four features: he does not take a wrong course through desire, ill-will, delusion, or fear.

These four wrong courses must be considered, especially in the matter of the distribution of communal property and alms (saṅghika). Scrupulous monks should be free from these four faults as explained in the commentarial literature. However, one should note that partiality, prejudice, bribery, and corruption relate to offences only. The Vinaya teachers say that these four faults arise only when one first breaks a rule, then follows a wrong course due to bias.

However, the arising of this guilt is very subtle. In cases requiring a decision of guilty or not guilty, both sides try hard to win the case, quoting Vinaya, Sutta, and Abhidhamma. However, it often happens that one side, though knowing the correctness of the other, does not admit it and continues to argue to establish the fault of the opposite party. This unfortunate behaviour arises due to pride, conceit, and attachment. One side, lacking humility, claims its views to be according to Dhamma, though this is unwarranted. Similarly, the other side, due to pride, argues that an offence is no offence. Some proclaim no offence to be an offence. By doing so, each side commits the evil of false speech, or lying. This is the offence of taking a wrong course. This fault often arises when one quotes Vinaya, Sutta, and Abhidhamma for one’s own ends in dispute, disregarding the truth. So false speech is classified as a wrong course. This explanation concerns the phrase “agatigamanañca gacchati” — taking a wrong course, the third factor mentioned above.

When it comes to classifying as scrupulous or shameless, those who lack knowledge of the Vinaya keep only a few precepts. So these monks have little chance of becoming shameless.

Those who are well-versed in the Vinaya, attain eminence or conscientiousness in morality. However, if non-observance prevails among monks well-educated in the Vinaya, the likelihood of becoming shameless is great. If a monk, who is well-trained in the Vinaya, accumulates many followers and great material wealth, he can do much damage to the Buddha dispensation, unlike an ignorant monk. This well-educated monk is like an armed robber or thief who enters a treasure-house and steals its contents.

Here ends the section on the characteristics of scrupulous and shameless monks in brief.

The technical term “immoral (dussīlo)” means a totally depraved monk who commits an offence of defeat (pārājika). The Duṭṭhadosa Sikkhāpada states “If a monk, being angry, and wanting to make another monk disrobe, falsely accuses him of defeat, he commits an offence requiring a formal meeting of the Saṅgha.” He commits a serious evil by his accusations against an immoral monk who has committed an offence of defeat. If a monk, without the aim of expelling an immoral monk, merely accuses or belittles him so that his honour and power will be extinguished, he commits an offence requiring confession (pācittiya āpatti). Even if he abuses or speaks ill of an immoral monk, he transgresses the pācittiya rule.

Accusation with Charges of Defeat

Words spoken against an immoral monk with the following charges mean “speaking ill or accusation.”

“You have committed an offence of defeat.”

“You possess no moral conduct.”

“You are not a monk at all.”

“You are not a son of the Sakyan clan.”

Such expressions used against a monk are charges of defeat as mentioned in the Commentary.

The term “shameless” (alajjī) includes an immoral monk who has fallen into an offence of defeat. However, the text says that a shameless one transgresses minor offences (dukkaṭa). So the term “shameless” covers both great and small offences. Therefore if a monk speaks ill of someone only as “shameless” he escapes the serious offence of Saṅghādisesa. As the Vinaya texts and Commentaries give precise examples, only those monks who have committed an offence of defeat should be classified as “immoral.”

Those monks who do not commit any offence of defeat, but who occasionally break other precepts are not immoral monks, though they are shameless if the requisite factors are present. Apart from offences of defeat, other offences do not confer immoral status, so “shameless” and “immoral” monks are clearly quite different. The way to distinguish them has been explained already.

In the Vinaya Commentary the term “dummaṅkū — wicked” is used in the phrase “Dummaṅkūnaṃ puggalānaṃ niggahāya — for the restraint of wicked men.” So a shameless monk can also be called “wicked.” Among shameless monks two distinct types can be defined: immoral and shameless (dussīla alajjī) and ordinary shameless monks (samanya alajjī).

In the matter of offences of defeat one must classify a monk as immoral and shameless. In cases dealing with other offences only the ordinary shameless (samanya alajjī) classification appears, which is called “wicked.” For a defeated monk is definitely an immoral monk, not just a shameless one.

The term “wicked” has been explained in two ways in the Vimati Ṭīkā, a Vinaya Subcommentary. It says that after committing an offence of defeat a monk becomes a totally bad one — that is completely without moral conduct. If a monk breaks only the other rules, partially he is good. Total depravity cannot be assigned to him. He is immoral only to some extent. So he is partially moral and partially immoral. Even those monks who commit light offences of wrong-doing or wrong speech, fall into the category of immoral (dussīla).

It is clear, according to this Subcommentary, that a monk can more easily become immoral than shameless. So this explanation is unreasonable. This explanation is contrary to the teaching of the great Commentaries and famous Subcommentaries, which unanimously declare that an immoral monk lacks morality — “dussīlassāti nissīlassa dussīlo’ti” (Commentary on ‘nissīlo’). All the great Vinaya Commentaries agree in commenting on the words “asamaṇo asakyaputtiyo” from the Duṭṭhadosa Saṅghādisesa precept that an immoral monk lacks all morality. So the Vimati Ṭīkā’s words are against the spirit of the great Commentaries and Subcommentaries. It is not surprising that competent Vinaya masters reject this exposition of the Vimati Ṭīkā.

The term “dussīla puggala — an immoral individual,” means one who has transgressed a Pārājika rule and so lacks all disciplinary virtues — a defeated monk. As long as this defeated monk does not admit his offence and still associates with genuine monks, accepting food and other alms, he is automatically classified as immoral. If he confesses his fault, he immediately escapes from the category of immoral, and also from a monk’s status.

An immoral monk, at the time of his confession, becomes free from the stigma of “immoral” by renouncing his monkhood. However, an immoral monk may refuse to admit his guilt, and continue to live as a monk. Is he still a monk? Is this immoral person still a monk before the time of admission of guilt? The answer is that he retains the appearance of monkhood, but with the stigma of immorality. He is still a monk, though in appearance only.

The answer is correct. Evidence can be found in the Vinaya Piṭaka. In the Saṅghādisesa rules an immoral monk may claim that he is still a monk, although he has committed an offence of defeat. If he does not confess his fault he is still in possession of “paṭiññā,” that is, he retains the idea “I am a monk.” If a monk accuses him of defeat, without seeing, hearing, or suspecting anything, he is just as guilty as if accusing a scrupulous monk, and falls into a Saṅghādisesa offence. If a monk makes such accusations regarding an immoral novice, he falls into an offence of wrong doing. This is the first proof of the correctness of the answer.

If a monk dwells under the same roof for more than three nights with a layman or a novice, he is guilty of an offence of pācittiya. However, if he lives in the same dwelling with a fallen monk there is no offence, so it as if he were a genuine monk. The reason is that the outward sign of monkhood is still present in the immoral monk. This is the second proof for the correctness of the answer.

If a monk abuses a layman or novice, it is an offence of wrong-doing. If a monk abuses a fallen monk, who has not confessed his guilt, the abuser falls into an offence of pācittiya. In this case abusing a fallen monk is equivalent to abusing a genuine monk. This is further proof of the effect of an immoral monk claiming a monk’s status.

Neither a layman nor a novice fulfils the requirements for conveying one’s purity to the Saṅgha (chanda-parisuddhi),⁵ but a fallen monk does because the outward appearance of monkhood is present. This is yet another proof.

So it is clear that although he not a true monk, an outward sign (liṅga), or idea (paṭiññā) exists because of the power of Vinaya.

Although an immoral, fallen monk has committed one of the gravest faults, if he still claims that he is a monk, his status is just like a true monk. How is this possible? This monk receives the power and command of the Buddha’s Vinaya when, at the time of his ordination, he asks for and receives the robes from his preceptor. This itself is a Vinaya power of the Buddha. Secondly, he has gone through the five Vinaya procedures, such as declaration by the Saṅgha (ñatti) following rules laid down by the Buddha. So, despite breaking the gravest rule, he retains the outward appearance of monkhood due to the two features he received from the Vinaya procedure, and they retain their power until his voluntary confession.

This is surprising, but correct. Once a layman asks for and receives robes from his preceptors according to the Vinaya rules, he immediately transcends the lower status of a layman. Upon taking the three refuges and accepting the robes in the way prescribed by the Vinaya, he immediately becomes a novice. This is due to the power of the Buddha’s command. Just asking for and receiving robes elevates him to a higher status than a layman, even if he fails to receive the three refuges for lack of a suitable preceptor. If he remains in this position, he is more honourable than a layman because by this one procedure he attains the features and status of one gone forth.

For bhikkhu ordination, four kammavācā recitations⁶ are mandatory to achieve the full status of a bhikkhu. Yet even a single kammavācā recitation is sufficient to raise the candidate to the status of a novice. He now achieves, under the power of the Vinaya procedure and ceremony, the status of one gone forth. As the kammavācā recitations are completed up to the fourth round, his gone-forth status is repeatedly established. If the preceptors, for unavoidable reasons, stop their ordination procedure at the third recitation, this person is much higher in status than a novice although he lacks full bhikkhu ordination. He now receives the features or honours of a homeless life praised by the Buddha. If the fourth kammavācā recitation is completed, it raises him up to the full status of one gone forth, as a full bhikkhu in the Saṅgha.

If a novice breaks one of the ten training rules for novices, he destroys both the maintenance of three refuges and his status of a novice. However, while retaining the robes, he cannot be classified as a layman. He remains in the position of a novice. Once he discards the robes, he is deemed to be a layman.

An offence of defeat committed by a monk destroys him as a genuine monk, but he does not fall into the category of a novice or a layman yet. His monk status remains if he retains the appearance of this status. Once he renounces the appearance then he must be classified as a layman. All traces of monkhood now disappear, even the outward sign of wearing the robe.

An analogy is given here. If a scrupulous monk renounces his Vinaya obligations before the Saṅgha in the proper way, he becomes a layman again. Similarly, a fallen monk renounces his monk status by discarding his robes, thereby becoming a layman in the full sense. Due to the power of the Buddha’s command, this fallen monk maintains his monk status if he retains the outward appearances of a monk. However, he is an immoral, fallen monk due to his serious fault. When he confesses his offences and renounces his outward appearance, he becomes a layman. As a layman, he now escapes from the charge of being an immoral, depraved monk. The main point here is that if he does not discard his robes, even if he confesses his offence, we cannot classify him as a layman yet.

According to the Vinaya, if a monk abuses a fallen monk without just cause, it is just like abusing a scrupulous monk. The resulting offence is the same as abusing a scrupulous monk, and the accuser commits a serious (saṅghādisesa) offence. By understanding this subtle point, it is clear that slandering a fallen monk is worse than slandering a scrupulous layman. This is because the accused still claims to be a monk. Retaining the outward sign of a monk keeps him under the power of kammavācā; thus he is still under the power of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha too. It is not because of his serious misdeeds, but because of the power of his ordination kammavācā, which is under the sublime influence of the Triple Gem. His acceptance of this declaration and his retention of the robe give him these powerful refuges. He retains a certain status.

However, these powerful refuges cannot save him from serious evil kamma, and the resultant suffering. By his commission of an offence of defeat, and his disgraceful claim to be a monk, he gathers evil kamma day by day. In other words, his evil kamma increases if he remains in these sacred shelters. Moreover, those who abuse an immoral monk accumulate serious evil effects themselves, due to this awkward situation. Those who appreciate the power of Vinaya show respect to an immoral, fallen monk, getting great merit. These three effects must be noted carefully.

Questions two and three will be answered together as they are related. Let us recapitulate the two questions:

“Should those who know the truth about shameless and immoral monks refrain from associating with and paying respect to them? Does this agree with the verse in the Maṅgala Sutta that advises one to avoid the foolish? Is a lay person who shows disregard by shunning immoral and shameless monks following the Maṅgala Dhamma? We would like to hear evidence and case histories from the scriptures regarding good or bad results from this act.”

“Should those who know the truth about shameless and immoral monks continue to pay respect and offer requisites? Are they following the Maṅgala Dhamma that advises us to associate with the wise? Is this behaviour following the advice given in the Maṅgala Sutta or not? Kindly give evidence and case histories regarding good or bad results from this act.”

To answer these questions one should understand the nature and characteristics of shameless and immoral monks. The famous Maṅgala Sutta emphasises the nature of foolish or wise persons. In the injunction calling for associating only with the wise, the nature of good and bad persons is stressed. Here the Buddha taught the nature of the pious and the impious. In this subtle matter one must make distinctions to know the respective basis of each type.

1. Moral (susīla) and immoral (dussīla).⁷
2. Foolish (bāla) and wise (paṇḍita).
3. A good man (sappurisa) and a bad man (asappurisa).

Thus there are three pairs of persons with respect to their nature and characteristics.

In the Sarabaṅga Jātaka (Cattalisa Nipāta) the Buddha distinguishes three types. Sakka, the king of the gods, asks in detail regarding the nature of each personal characteristic as follows:

1. Who is called moral (sīlavantaṃ) by the wise?
2. Who is called wise (paññavantaṃ) by the wise?
3. Who is called good (sappurisaṃ) by the wise?
4. Who will never lose honour and respect?

These were the Bodhisatta’s answers to Sakka’s questions:

1. Those who control their senses, avoiding any kind of physical, verbal, or mental evil, who refrain from lying even at the risk of their life, are called moral persons by the wise.
2. Those who, possessing profound wisdom, can answer philosophical questions with their innate wisdom, having no selfish regard for themselves or others, who refrain from abusive words and coarse actions that harm oneself and others, but work for the welfare of humanity, are called wise by the wise.
3. Those who are grateful, have a steady mind, possess the attributes of a good friend, respect the worthy, and diligently fulfil the duties of a friend, are called good by the wise.
4. Those who possess morality, wisdom, and piety, gain confidence, show humility, share their possessions unselfishly with others, understand the words of the alms seeker, help others according to just principles, practice truthfulness and show civility, will never lose honour and respect.

We can summarise the above classifications on the basis of avoidance of immoral deeds or offences. These persons are moral persons as they possess the characteristics of a moral person.

Regarding the nature and characteristics of a wise person, we must consider three factors:

1. The ability to answer deep questions effectively and directly.
2. Avoidance of physical and vocal misconduct, especially harsh words that harm the welfare of oneself and others.
3. Whenever the opportunity arises one can work for the welfare of oneself and others.

Regarding the nature and characteristics of a good person, we must consider four factors:

1. The ability to know and acknowledge the gratitude due to others.
2. Possession of the qualifications of a good friend.
3. Ability to associate with the wise.
4. Willingness to help the poor and the needy, with the necessary skill to perform appropriate duties energetically.

Regarding the nature and characteristics of a pious and honourable person we must note the above factors, with the addition of confidence and humility.

Then Sakka asked again, “Which is the best among morality, honour, goodness, and wisdom?”

The bodhisatta answered: “The sages declare that just as the moon is the brightest among the stars, among morality, honour, goodness, and wisdom, wisdom is the chief and best of all, because all good conduct, honour, and good character must follow its lead.” In other words all must follow the lead of a wise man.

In the text are other questions and answers regarding how to gain wisdom, etc., but we omit them here as they are not relevant.

Among the four good factors mentioned above, the first three are the main points to remember in our discussion of types of monks. Among the first three, we may further distinguish those who lack morality as shameless or immoral, as explained earlier. One lacking goodness can easily accumulate the characteristics of a shameless and immoral person too. Due to lack of wisdom one will take on the nature and characteristics of a fool. Lack of piety and respect will make one a bad person, taking on the nature and requisite factors of a bad man. Thus there are three pairs:

1. Moral (susīla) and immoral (dussīla).⁷
2. Wise (paṇḍita) and foolish (bāla).
3. Good (sappurisa) and bad (asappurisa).

Each has its own distinctive nature and characteristics in a different category.

Among the six types in three opposite pairs, one may associate with a moral person, a virtuous type, shown in the first category in the first position. Those having friendship in paying respect to a moral person can usually become moral too. Respecting or honouring an immoral or bad person can make one immoral or bad. Those who show respect and honour to the wise can usually become wise too. Friendship with a bad person makes one bad. However, if one makes friends with a pious, good person one usually becomes good. Obviously, the best person to associate with and respect is one who possesses all three virtues: morality, wisdom, and goodness.

If a person honours and respects a moral, foolish, bad person he gradually becomes likewise. However, the presence of morality is good, so we must praise him for this aspect while we should condemn foolishness and badness.

Who is a moral, but foolish and bad monk? Some monks try their best to keep their precepts and follow the monks’ training. As they are ordinary persons, they sometimes break some disciplinary rules, falling into offences, but they purify these offences as soon as possible. They are therefore classified as moral monks. However, since they fail to study Dhamma and Abhidhamma, they are ignorant, so they are classified as foolish. Also, if they do not acknowledge the benefit received from others, they are bad monks in the technical sense. So they are coarse and uncultured persons.

I will now explain in detail the nature of a bad person. This feature manifests as ingratitude. He is blind to the benefits received from others, and refuses to pay honour and respect to the worthy. He breaks the rules of good friendship by changing his attitude if someone criticises him. Moreover, a bad person fails to seek knowledge and wisdom, or to make friendship with the wise. If he sees friends in need, he acts as if not seeing them, thus he does not acknowledge their former friendship. So if one of the asappurisa factors exists, he is classified as “bad” because of this characteristic. He is not a good monk. This explains the nature of the moral, but foolish, and bad monk.

With the shameless and bad, but wise monk, those who pay respect and help him, obtain similar characteristics themselves. So we must praise a devotee who becomes wise as his teacher is also wise. However, as the shameless and bad aspects are present, we must blame both the devotee and the monk. Herein, the term “wise” only means well-educated in Sutta, Vinaya, and Abhidhamma. So we call a monk “wise” though he lacks the other two good qualities. However, since he breaks the Vinaya rules very often and does not care to restrain his senses, we also classify him as shameless. As he fails to acknowledge the benefit he receives from others and has other characteristics of a bad person, we call him “bad.” Indeed, he is not a good monk in these aspects. The above factors show the characteristics of a shameless and bad, but wise monk.

Following this method of classifying monks, many monks of mixed triple types can be found for further examination. One can see that most monks, like most lay persons, are of mixed triple types — a compound of good and bad features. This type is common everywhere. To befriend, honour, and support the moral, wise, and good monk is best, if possible. These are the best persons in the world, bringing the greatest benefits and welfare for all. They are worthy of respect and honour in all essential aspects.

If however, a devotee fails to find this ideal type, he needs to cultivate foresight and culture in choosing and helping a particular monk for worship, honour, and almsgiving. He needs intuitive skill in dealing with monks with mixed good and bad qualities.

A man needs to build a house in the forest, and enters the forest in search of timber. If he can get all beams, posts, floorboards, planks, and shingles from a single tree, this is the best, and ideal. If he is unable to find such a tree, he should not fail to build his house. He must use whatever timber he can get from various trees that he finds. He must build his house anyhow by all means because not having a dwelling place leads to all kinds of trouble and hardship. Every man needs a home for rest, sleep, and comfort. So a wise seeker of building materials must carefully examine each tree he happens to find in the forest. If he finds long logs he must take them for posts. If he finds straight timber that is too short for posts he must take it for planks or shingles. He must ignore unsuitable materials or sizes in each tree that he finds. By selecting only useful logs of appropriate sizes, leaving behind the useless ones, he can build a good, strong house for his benefit with the wood from various trees. By wise discrimination a well-built house results.

By choosing suitable materials for each purpose from various trees, one obtains a beautiful, strong house. He is no different to a person who finds all the suitable material from a single excellent tree. His house is not inferior in any way, because he obtains and dwells in a well-built house made from good materials. His house lasts long enough for his descendants too.

The above simile is a practical illustration for a comfortable life. Following this wise method, a devotee should pay attention to the good features of a moral, but foolish, and bad monk. He should pay respect to the good points in a person, ignoring the lack of the factors required for good and wise status. He should honour the moral features in such a person, thus gaining a clear conscience and much benefit. He should not utter harsh or slanderous words against this monk for his other faults, weaknesses, and failures. They must be totally ignored. One should not lump together all good and bad features of a monk in one’s mind.

If he blames and abuses this monk by lumping together all features, he becomes a foolish and bad person himself. He suffers for his disrespect and for his harsh words. Moreover, he fails to get the benefit of honouring and respecting the aspect of morality in this monk, due to his own foolishness. The wise course for an intelligent, devoted person is to rely on a wise monk for wisdom and to associate with a good monk for his humility and gentleness. One should therefore take heed of these different causes and different effects, being ever vigilant when approaching a monk for almsgiving, and showing respect.

One who helps a moral, but foolish and bad monk, may contradict the Maṅgala Dhamma calling for avoidance of fools because of the foolish aspect. By association with a foolish monk, this may appear to be so. The Maṅgala Sutta enjoins all to avoid foolish persons. Because of the words “to associate with the wise,” one might think this contradicts the advice to follow the wise. However, such a devotee, because of his wise attitude and appropriate choice, does not break these two good rules mentioned in the Maṅgala Sutta and Jātaka. In fact he obtains the blessing of association with the wise for his clear thinking and suitable deeds.

What benefits does one gain by respecting a monk of the type shown above? The reason for getting benefits is that in the ultimate sense the essence of a wise person is moral conduct. This is explained in the Abhidhamma (Mātikā) in relation to a pair of terms “bālā dhamma” and “paṇḍita dhamma.” So morality alone, in the ultimate sense, is wisdom. If a person pays attention to the characteristic of morality alone, he gets at least part of the blessing called “associating with the wise.” If, however, he pays attention to a monk’s foolishness and badness, he cannot attain this blessing as his mind mixes all sorts of factors, good and bad. Because of this, he becomes foolish and bad too.

Regarding the remaining monks of three mixed qualities, one can probably understand the appropriate results, because all are similar to the above example.

Some monks may lack all three good factors, being known as shameless, foolish, and bad. No one should pay respect to such a monk or honour him, as he does not possess a single redeeming virtue. Therefore one should just ignore this type of monk and refrain from speaking abusive words. If one relies on or honours this type of monk one is breaking the injunction of the Maṅgala Sutta, which enjoins one not to associate with fools.

In each case one should make a detailed analysis and appropriate classification, since many combinations of vice and virtue can be found. The questioners asked about the classification of shameless and immoral, with the resultant types of foolish, wise, and bad persons. So in this answer I have given a detailed analysis and necessary comments for clarity’s sake.

If one understands the method of classification of monks in the first answer, one will have clear answers for the second and third questions. The essential points are the same.

A note of warning: All devotees and lay persons should maintain an intelligent attitude. A narrow-minded, egoistic devotee will, at first, pay respect to a moral monk, but as familiarity grows, all kinds of attachment and clinging arise, thus diminishing the monk’s status. Intimacy, attachment, and familiarity lead to ignoble deeds that are improper according to the Vinaya. So corruption and decline set in due to intimacy. An unwise lay person can destroy a monk due to intimacy, wrong attitudes, and ulterior motives.

What is the meaning of Maṅgala Dhamma? How does one get it? In the ultimate sense, attitudes and acts that promote wholesome factors or merits are Maṅgala Dhammas. One gets blessings based on one’s meritorious deeds. Conversely, demeritorious attitudes and deeds are misfortunes since they increase unwholesome states. One should understand that both are impersonal states in their ultimate sense and characteristics. Regarding the problem whether one should associate with this or that monk, in the ultimate sense personal factors are absent. The essence of correct behaviour is to associate with wholesome states and not to associate with unwholesome states. This is the crux of the problem and the infallible guide to appropriate action.

Sevitabbāsevitabba Sutta

In the Sevitabbāsevitabba Sutta (the discourse on associating or avoiding) the Buddha declares in the clearest terms:

“Sāriputta, if by associating with a person you develop unwhole­some states, lessening or destroying wholesome states, you should avoid that person. Sāriputta, if by associating with a person you develop wholesome states, lessening or destroying unwholesome states, you should associate with that person.”

The essential point is to choose between wholesome states and unwholesome states objectively.

The Bālapaṇḍita Sutta

A fool is so called because he habitually thinks bad thoughts, speaks bad speech, and does bad deeds. A wise person is so called because he habitually thinks good thoughts, speaks good speech, and does good deeds. So those who are evil in thought, speech, and deeds are depraved or wicked. Those who are virtuous in thought, speech, and deeds are wise and cultured.

Nowadays many lay persons and monks fail to attain complete purity in all three spheres of morality. Some are moral in their bodily actions, but immoral in speech and thought. Others, though moral in speaking the truth, are immoral in their actions and thoughts. Many have good intentions, but cannot speak or behave skilfully. Some are skilful in two spheres, but lack purity in the third. Thus, all kinds of people can be found with mixed physical, verbal, and mental skills.

Most people possess a mix of good and evil in each of the three spheres. In choosing a teacher or a monk for one’s mentor, one should check to see if wholesome states are developing or deteriorating. In other words, all intelligent persons should examine their own moral progress in honouring or associating with others.

The questioners have asked about the good or bad results of associating with or supporting shameless and immoral monks. They want evidence or case histories for the respective effects, good or bad.

It is said, “One shameless monk creates a hundred shameless ones by association and example.” So the bad results of associating with shameless monks are too great to measure.

The Buddha warns us that those who associate intimately with the shameless will take on their characteristics. This is the first bad result. Subsequent bad results are as follows. If one becomes shameless in this life, one is liable to retain this characteristic in thousands of future existences, as one is far removed from moral conduct. Once one becomes bad, one will tend to be bad in a series of future existences too. If one becomes foolish, being without knowledge and insight in this life, one becomes a fool in countless future lives. These are the bad results.

Seeing only bad results and the gravity of each case, one should avoid associating with shameless, bad, and foolish monks. Moreover, these persons, lacking morality, goodness, and wisdom, cannot bring blessings to those who meet them. Association with them usually brings only misfortune. Those who want to obtain blessings in associating with them should first reform their own minds and attitudes. Devotees and donors should concentrate only on some virtue or good aspect of such monks. Great care is needed here.

As for the evidence of good or bad effects, one should study the Commentary on the Suttanipāta that explains the phrase “Āsevanā ca bālānaṃ” in detail. More examples to prove this point can be gleaned from teachers and learned preceptors. Dhamma teachers will give sermons on this matter, relating stories from the Tipiṭaka and its Commentaries.

“If a person, knowing a monk to be shameless or immoral, offers the four requisites, does this amount to the blessing that says that one should honour worthy persons? Or does it contradict this advice? Kindly let us know the good or bad results with suitable evidence and case histories.”

First one should know the persons worthy of honour as mentioned in the Suttanipāta Commentary. They are 1) the Omniscient Buddha, 2) a Pacceka Buddha, 3) a Noble Disciple, 4) one’s mother, 5) one’s father, 6) one’s elder brother, 7) one’s elder sister, 8) the mother of one’s husband, 9) the father of one’s husband, 10) the elder brother of one’s husband, 11) the elder sister of one’s husband.

This Commentary mentions only eleven types who are worthy of honour and respect. The Commentary on the Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅga Sutta further mentions that, for householders who take refuge in the Three Gems, novices, monks, and Noble Ones are worthy of honour and respect. In classifying persons who are worthy of honour we should therefore include the following: 12) an ordinary householder who accepts the three refuges, 13) an ordinary householder who maintains the five precepts, 14) an ordinary novice, 15) an ordinary monk. Thus, fifteen types of worthy persons can be found.

For ordinary novices and monks we can define three further classes: scrupulous (lajjī), shameless (alajjī), and immoral (dussīlo).

Offering almsfood and other requisites to scrupulous novices and monks amounts to the good practice enjoined in the Maṅgala Sutta as “honouring those worthy of honour.” One may doubt whether offerings to shameless or immoral novices and monks fulfil the Maṅgala Dhamma or not. The answer is that offerings to shameless novices and monks do amount to honouring those worthy of honour. The only problem to consider is whether we can classify offerings to immoral novices and monks as an auspicious deed. Many lay supporters find themselves in perplexity here. So I should give the answer in detail for clarification and guidance.

In the Visuddhimagga it says that every monk, once ordained, bears the burden of more than nine billion Vinaya rules.⁸ In the five Vinaya books explaining the Pātimokkha saṃvara sīla, the Omniscient Buddha proclaimed innumerable rules for all monks. So every monk in this dispensation undertakes innumerable precepts and training rules, which he must learn and follow. Once the three refuges and kammavācā recitations have been completed, every monk has accepted the innumerable rules of basic monastic restraint (Pātimokkha saṃvāra sīla).

The Omniscient Buddha’s power of making Vinaya rules and regulations for all monks is based on “Ānādesanā” — his authority or command. So once a layman receives the robes from his preceptor, he automatically transcends a layman’s status and instantly becomes a homeless one. Even at the initial stage of ordination, a candidate is worthy to receive homage and alms from lay donors. This is due to the status received from the mandatory law of the Vinaya. Lay people should show their respect by bowing, though the candidate has not yet undertaken the novice rules and regulations. At the third round of reciting the Three Refuges he automatically undertakes the novice rules and regulations. Then he is a real novice and needs no further taking of precepts as he has undertaken them automatically after the completion of the ordination procedure.

If this fully ordained novice breaks one of ten main rules,⁹ he destroys the status of the Three Refuges, thereby forsaking all rules of one gone forth. What remains are the asking and taking of the robe, so he has not yet reverted to the status of a layman. He is still a novice according to the Vinaya. However, he is not a true novice of the type mentioned above as he lacks the training rules. If, however, he takes the Three Refuges from the Saṅgha again, he undertakes the training rules again. Only if he fails to take the Three Refuges from the Saṅgha can he be classified as immoral, since he falsely claims to be a novice. If he does not take the Three Refuges again, he is an immoral, fallen novice. If he admits his faults, he is not classified as immoral, and he becomes a layman by this act.

Many lay people think that if a novice breaks one of the ten main rules he automatically becomes a layman. This is wrong. If the act of taking up the robes is retained, he cannot be classified as a layman. The matter of disrobing for the transgression is not the responsibility of the preceptors or teachers. The decision rests with the novice concerned. What preceptors and teachers can do is to expel an immoral novice from the Buddha’s dispensation. These explanations are in accordance with the Vinaya text¹⁰ and decisions in the Commentaries. This explains the nature of an immoral novice.

Besides the ten main disciplines, a novice has to observe ten punishments and seventy-five training rules, which are classified as “offences” or “punishments.” So if a novice transgresses one in this class, no failure of the Three Refuges arises, there is no destruction of the precepts either. What fault he gets here is the breaking of restraint only. This type of offence can be cured by undergoing punishment, after which he regains his purity of restraint as before.

The principles of Vinaya are subtle. One must think deeply on them before one can pass judgement on a novice or monk.

Let us give an example. During the time of British rule in Burma, the government conferred administrative powers on Township Officers. These officers, after appointment, could try particular cases, pass judgement according to specific rules, and prescribe suitable punishments. If they committed some offences themselves, these officers must, according to government servant conduct rules, lose their offices, while other offences resulted in suspension of duties only. These latter offences could be cured by the payment of fines. The nature of each office, its powers, types of offences and appropriate punishments were published in the Civil Service Act. According to this Act, a Township Officer automatically assumed powers conferred by the Government at his appointment. Regulations that would lead to his dismissal from office only applied when he committed specific offences. When he was dismissed, all his powers disappeared. Some misdeeds, however, caused him to pay fines, but did not lead to his dismissal; so he retained his office and still tried the cases of others. The powers conferred when assuming office, remained intact, though he himself suffered fine-paying punishment for some wrongful acts. This example is to clarify the different types of offences committed by a novice or monk.

In the Vinaya rules two main categories can be seen.

1. Samādāna sīla — One takes vows and makes a determination to observe the numerous precepts. This is called “undertaking morality.” It includes the rules undertaken implicitly by performing the ordination ceremony.
2. Saṃvara sīla — The life of a novice or monk carries a moral duty of restraint. This is called “morality of restraint.” The restraint of the senses from sensuality is a duty of voluntary moral endeavour.

Once a novice takes the three refuges in the proper way, he automatically fulfils “undertaking morality” with this formal act. However, “morality of restraint” needs the effort to observe a precept when a chance to break it occurs. For this type of morality, a novice must cultivate the confidence and will to practise the teaching. Then he must refrain from breaking a particular rule if a chance to break it occurs.

As mentioned already, there are two types of purification or punishment for a novice. If he breaks a rule deserving expulsion, he automatically forsakes the Three Refuges, and all precepts that he had undertaken are thereby given up. Not a single training rule remains intact. If he transgresses a rule that calls for punishment or purification, he retains the virtue of taking the Three Refuges, and he still observes the precepts. Even breaking of a precept in this case does not destroy his undertaking. He retains the novice’s precepts and status. He has only broken and defiled his restraint, not his undertaking. So if he observes the prescribed punishment for purification, his purity of restraint is re-established.

In the case of a monk’s precepts, he receives them all as soon as the fourth kammavācā recitation is completed in the ordination hall. He automatically undertakes the monks’ precepts by following the ordination procedure. As for the purity of restraint, it is the same as for a novice. He must train himself in the morality of restraint.

If a monk breaks one of the four rules of defeat, all the precepts he has undertaken are automatically lost. Not a single precept or discipline remains with him. However, if he breaks any rules other than those of defeat, he has only broken and defiled his restraint of those particular rules — his undertaking of the bhikkhus’ training remains intact. This is the power of the Vinaya.

Thus a clear distinction must be made between breaking his undertaking of the bhikkhus’ training, and the breaking of his restraint. Only then can one clearly know whether a novice or a monk is shameless or immoral. This is a fundamental distinction according to the Vinaya.

Due to the establishment of the Vinaya by the command of the Omniscient Buddha, a monk undertakes more than nine billion precepts on completion of the ordination ceremony. Even if he becomes shameless immediately, since he is still a monk because of the remaining training rules, he is worthy of respect and offerings from the laity. He is clearly an honourable monk who can receive the worship and respect of the laity.

To determine whether a monk becomes immoral, depraved, and fallen, numerous points should be analysed. The rules in this regard are very subtle. The Omniscient Buddha’s Vinaya prohibitions and regulations are based on his incomparable power and boundless compassion, so they are profound and subtle. They are full of surprises too. Great is the nature and scope of the Vinaya discipline, which is very profound.

How deep and subtle the Vinaya is can be understood from the following examples. A lay person, even after eradicating all mental defilements and becoming an Arahant, has to pay respect to and worship an ordinary monk who still has all the mental defilements. This is because a monk enjoys that status by having followed the Vinaya procedure. An ordinary monk must not bow to an Arahant lay person as his own status is higher. The Arahant is still a lay person, while the other is a monk. If the two are compared on the basis of mental purity, this injunction seems unreasonable.

There is a vast difference between a lay Arahant and an ordinary monk. The former has personally achieved nibbāna so his heart is always pure, while the latter’s heart contains many defilements, so he is not free from the suffering of the lower realms. Yet a lay Arahant has to pay respect to a monk who is just an ordinary person. In the matter of status in the Buddha’s dispensation, an ordinary monk, being a member of the Saṅgha, is nobler than an Arahant who is just a lay person. Why does a lay Arahant have to worship an ordinary monk? It is due to the Vinaya proclaimed with the supreme authority of the Omniscient Buddha. One can therefore realise that the power of Vinaya is imponderable and boundless in scope and extent. The Buddha’s supreme power, immeasurable wholesome kamma, and omniscience manifest themselves in laying down these unique Vinaya rules. They have effects for every monk in the Buddha’s dispensation.

Another case should be mentioned in this connection. A junior monk by one hour [or one minute] must show respect to a senior. A junior monk who is an Arahant must pay respect to and worship a senior monk, who is still just an ordinary person. However senior she may be, an Arahant nun must worship a monk who is an ordinary person. Thus a Noble One of sixty rains must revere an ordinary monk. Why? These disciplines and modes of conduct are proclaimed by the Omniscient Buddha with his full authority, which is incomparable. They are known as “ānāpaññatti” — rules made by the supreme authority and boundless compassion of the Buddha.

This power that prevails in the Vinaya, and all other Dhamma powers of the Buddha are unique. The Vinaya and Dhamma take the place of the Buddha after his demise, as he declared in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta:

“Ānanda, after I pass away the Dhamma and Vinaya I have proclaimed and prescribed will be your teachers.”

These prophetic words of the Buddha are profound, and their scope is boundless. So each of the millions of precepts undertaken by a monk during his ordination represents the Buddha himself. The prophetic words of the Buddha dwell in an ordained monk, whoever he may be.

A bhikkhu in this dispensation means a fully ordained monk who has fulfilled five factors: purity of the ordination procedure, purity of the group of monks, purity of the four formal recitations of kammavācā, purity of robes and bowl, and being a qualified candidate for full ordination. Once the ceremonies of taking the three refuges and formal recitations have been done, he instantly receives and undertakes the precepts. So we can say that nine billion Buddhas dwell in his person by the power of the Buddha and efficacy of the Vinaya. He is like a pagoda where the Buddha’s relics are enshrined.

Everyone should know that a pagoda, even if it is made of mud or sand, is a sacred object of worship because the Buddha’s relics are enshrined there. Due respect must be paid to the relics enshrined therein, which represent the Buddha, even if the pagoda is made of unworthy materials. If disrespect is shown even to this type of pagoda, one accumulates unwholesome kamma.

Even if the precincts of a pagoda are littered with dust, garbage, excrement, etc., the pagoda itself remains worthy of deep respect. So everyone should bow their heads in showing due respect to the relics, which are certainly worthy of honour. If one shows disrespect on seeing a pagoda with all sorts of rubbish nearby, one accumulates unwholesome kamma.

Similarly, an ordinary monk possesses millions of Buddhas in his person, though his mind is littered with thousands of mental defilements, like garbage near a pagoda. As long as a single Vinaya precept still exists in his person, he is entitled to be worshipped by a lay Arahant. The innumerable Vinaya precepts that exist in his person represent countless Buddhas. Though he is not free from Vinaya faults, he is like a pagoda. So a lay Arahant must revere him for this reason.

If devotees consider this matter carefully, they will realise the countless Vinaya rules observed by an ordinary monk. Moreover, they will appreciate and revere the power of the Buddha, who is fully entitled to proclaim Vinaya rules and regulations, and appropriate procedures for their purification. The commanding power of the Omniscient Buddha shows its greatest effects in the Saṅgha established by him. The power of the Vinaya is very profound, and is hard to understand by an ordinary devotee or uneducated layman. No one can fully fathom the significance of the Vinaya’s power.

Those laymen who have not yet realised nibbāna, should examine themselves to appreciate their own characteristics and status. If they reflect wisely they will willingly pay due respects to monks, even if they are shameless. All monks ordained properly in the Saṅgha under the authority of the Omniscient Buddha are entitled to receive worship and respect from the laity. So an intelligent layman will pay respect, give almsfood, and show deference, even to a shameless monk. As always, vigilance is essential for the profundity of the Buddha’s rules and their wide-ranging effects to be realised.

Even in an immoral monk, part of the Vinaya’s power and its effects still exist, though he has destroyed his undertaking of the precepts by committing an offence of defeat. If a scrupulous monk accuses him of defeat without proof, or at least circumstantial evidence, it is just like accusing an innocent monk. So one who accuses an immoral monk falls into a serious offence requiring a formal meeting of the Saṅgha. The Vinaya text and its Commentary explain this in detail.

Considering these facts in the Vinaya Piṭaka, one should appreciate the Vinaya’s power that still prevails in an immoral monk. Therefore, in dealing with an immoral monk, one must consider only the power of the Vinaya, focusing on the ordination procedure he has undergone. If these facts and powers of the Vinaya are known and understood, a lay person will be able to obtain the auspicious blessing of honouring the worthy as taught in the Maṅgala Sutta. One should focus one’s mind only on the marvellous power and significance of the Vinaya that prevails among the monks, even in the person of an immoral monk.

This is correct. An immoral monk retains the powerful influences of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha even after his downfall. So these three sacred authorities become objects of worship in an immoral monk. Devotees should concentrate on these worthy things only. This proper relationship between the laity and monks accords with other teachings of the Buddha. Therein he exhorts the laity to honour the Dhamma by revering the wise, intelligent, and learned monks as they represent the knowledge of Dhamma, though they may lack some purity in their conduct. So a wise devotee objectively focuses his mind only on the monk’s learning and nothing else.

The case of lay people who do not know that a monk is immoral is interesting. Thinking him to be a scrupulous monk, they offer almsfood and pay him sincere respect. The object of their worship and respect is morality, yet this monk has no morality whatsoever. In this case they obtain suitable merits for their respectful attitude and reverential acts, though the monk, being without morality, cannot symbolise a scrupulous monk at all. So there is no “receiver”, as it were. Even in this case one should not hastily judge such offerings and respect as totally useless.

The reasons for this caution can be known from ancient precedents, like the case of King Saddhātissa in ancient Sri Lanka. Cases like this provide guidance for good deeds by the laity.

Once, King Saddhātissa, knowing a monk to be shameless, controlled his mind and reformed his attitude to perform an act of reverence to this shameless monk. One day he went round the royal city sitting on his elephant. It happened that a shameless monk was fishing in the royal pond when the king and his retinue arrived at that place. As soon as he saw the royal procession, he dropped his hook and line, came up to the bank and sat quietly under a tree. Seeing this behaviour, the king wanted to offer almsfood to the monk. On returning to his palace, before taking his meal, he ordered fine food to be sent to the shameless monk, because he remembered the changed behaviour at the time of his encounter.

When the ministers arrived near the pond to offer the royal food, the shameless monk was fishing again. As soon as the king and his retinue had left, he resumed his fishing. Seeing this, the ministers’ devotion and confidence disappeared. As they saw this evil behaviour in the first place they did not want to offer the almsfood. Knowing that the ministers had seen him, the monk instantly dropped his hook and line and sat quietly under a tree. The ministers had seen that he was shameless and so did not offer the royal almsfood to him. They returned to the palace and reported the matter to the king. The king asked whether they had offered the royal almsfood, they replied that they did not do so as the monk was shameless.

Then the king questioned them about the behaviour of the shameless monk when he saw them approaching. The ministers replied that he instantly dropped his fishing tackle and sat quietly under a tree. The king remarked that the monk had forsaken his shameless behaviour and shown moral shame and dread at that time. These great virtues, moral shame and dread, are two of the seven states possessed by all good persons, and are treasured by the wise. The king asked the ministers the cost of a royal breakfast. After the ministers reported the cost of the food, he said that moral shame, dread, and remorse were more valuable, and were worthy of respect as they were true riches within the heart. He again ordered them to offer the royal food to the shameless monk in view of these essential good factors found in him at one time or another. The ministers then offered the royal food with due respect and honour. They had changed their attitude.

King Saddhātissa, being intelligent and wise, possessed the powers of confidence and wisdom, so he could show respect even to a shameless monk. Somehow he sought and found a few virtues in a shameless monk and his mind was focused on these select noble states, which he revered. By instantly showing shame and dread this shameless monk showed the characteristics of a good monk, thus becoming worthy to receive the royal almsfood. Although the recipient was shameless, the noble attitude and concentration on a few noble virtues raised the king’s offering in status to the blessing of honouring the worthy. The king’s wholesome attitude was a great blessing. Seeking virtues even in a shameless monk he follows this injunction from the Maṅgala Sutta.

“Should a person, knowing a monk to be shameless or immoral, pay respect and show deference by greeting, bowing, etc? Does he or she get the blessing of reverence (gārava maṅgala), which says that one should pay respect to the worthy? Does this behaviour agree with the teaching that one should pay respect only to those who possess good conduct? The text referred to is in the Kosala Saṃyutta. By worshipping shameless and immoral monks does one accomplish a reliable refuge? Kindly give evidence or case histories to prove one way or the other the act of honouring bad monks.”

The methods for distinguishing shameless and immoral monks have already been given. In the matter of showing reverence, the case is the same as the act of honouring the worthy ones. So the fifth question is the same as the fourth.

However, some clarification will be given here in connection with the text in the Kosala Saṃyutta (Dahara Sutta, S.i.170).

“Bhujaṅgamaṃ pāvakañca, khattiyañca yassasinaṃ;
Bhikkhuñca sīlasampannaṃ sammadeva samācare.”

The above text means that to avoid disadvantages now and in the future, one must show due respect towards four types of persons. One must avoid disrespect to live safely. This kind of skilled behaviour is called “sammadeva samācare — civilised manners.”

One must show respect to a poisonous snake, a monarch with his retinue, a monk of good moral conduct, and a fire. By respecting these four, one acts in a civilised manner, that is, by showing due respect.

The essential points for treating each of them properly are as follows:

1. A poisonous snake must be treated with respect to avoid getting bitten.
2. A monarch, being a sovereign power, must be treated with reverence and respect, so that no danger may arise from him.
3. A scrupulous monk, because of his power, must be treated with reverence and respect. If not, danger may arise due to unwise association with him. In the past King Kalabu, King Dandaki, King Nālikera, King Ajjuna, etc. treated such monks with disrespect. So they suffered danger and harm leading to ruin.
4. Everybody must take care with fire because heedlessness may lead to serious accidents. Fire must be given due regard so that one can live safely.

All such wise, respectful attitudes amount to civilised manners. Among the above four, a snake, fire, and a monarch can cause harm at once. A scrupulous monk will not harm others. However, maltreatment and disregard by the laity bring great harm to them in the long term, so a scrupulous monk must be treated with respect.

The above canonical text gives clear guidance for all to be respectful and take heed with those who can cause harm and danger. One must try to avoid danger, and treat these four with circumspection.

The words “harm and danger” and “fear” in this case also convey the meaning of making unwholesome kamma, the arising of evil thoughts in one’s own mind, and a wrong attitude that one may maintain. So in dealing with others, especially immoral monks, if one does not show respect, one will entertain unwholesome thoughts and do unwholesome deeds, and so unwholesome states increase in one’s character. This is a grave danger to be avoided. With this in view one must pay respect to an immoral monk, following the injunction to have civilised manners. So by remembering this text and doing respectful deeds even to an immoral monk, it can be classified as the blessing of worshipping the Dhamma. Paying respect in a proper way, such as treating with civility, greeting with hands held in añjali, thus exhibiting cultured behaviour, are also the good deed of civilised manners.

However, by treating an immoral monk with a skilful attitude and civilised manners, one will not attain the three refuges. This is because an immoral monk is not a genuine member of the Saṅgha, not a true monk. This disadvantage means that a layman fails to get a reliable refuge by worshipping him as an individual. However if the Saṅgha selects an immoral monk to receive alms, and if the lay person’s mind is directed to the Saṅgha, the lay person will obtain the three refuges. In this case the recipient becomes the Saṅgha and the donor is offering his food to the community of monks. So one gets a reliable refuge due to the right motive.

In making offerings to scrupulous or shameless monks, the benefits differ. In paying respects too, the advantages differ. The difference being that one monk is scrupulous while the other is shameless. However, in both cases a layman can obtain the blessings of reverence and honouring the worthy if his motive is noble. This is a good action for him.

Civilised Manners

The behaviour of King Kosala shows that one should follow the advice to show civilised manners to all types of persons. All persons should be treated with due respect.

One day, while King Kosala was attending on the Buddha in the Jetavana monastery, some heretics happened to pass through the precincts. When the king saw them he mentioned his name and made obeisance to them in a proper manner. Why did he, a true disciple of the Buddha, do obeisance and express reverence to the heretics? The Commentary on the Kosala Saṃyutta explains that if the king did not show these civilities, the heretics would have borne a grudge against him. They would have thought that the king paid respects only to the Buddha. Being neglected, they could cause trouble for the king. So the king paid homage to them out of courtesy and to avoid possible harmful effects in his country. This homage paid by the king is in accordance with the Maṅgala Dhamma and the injunction to show civilised manners, which means to treat all with due respect.

The other reason for the king’s conduct was due to State Policy. In his kingdom there were numerous followers of these heretical teachers. If these people knew that the king had neglected and slighted their teachers, they might create disunity or instigate rebellion. To unify his country, the king worshipped these sectarians and heretics for the sake of national unity. This was done to give peace and happiness to a large number of believers of other sects. This is also an auspicious deed.

To criticise in general terms, without reference to anyone in particular, is exposing of faults. One must attack or criticise unwholesome states only, such as greed, hatred, or delusion. In this correct way of criticism the four right efforts should be cultivated.

1. The effort to prevent unarisen unwholesome states.
2. The effort to eradicate arisen unwholesome states.
3. The effort to arouse unarisen wholesome states.
4. The effort to develop arisen wholesome states.

Unwholesome states that may arise in oneself in the future are called “unarisen unwholesome states.” Future evil that may be committed by oneself must be prevented with one’s own moral effort. Evil deeds one has already done are “arisen unwholesome states.” Among the ten unwholesome deeds, killing is mentioned, but this relates to killing of sentient beings generally. The discourses of the Buddha specifically mention five heinous acts (pañcānantariya kamma), such as killing one’s own father or mother, which are the gravest evils with immediate consequences.

In this infinite round of rebirth, existences in which an ordinary person knows the true Dhamma are very few. One must undergo many lives in which ignorance and delusion predominate. The lives in which an ordinary person holds wrong views are innumerable. So the evil act of killing can be done many times even within a single lifetime, let alone the number of such acts in countless previous lives. If a person commits one heinous unwholesome deed in the present life, it will give definite results in hell. The misdeeds done in countless past lives will then give their results too.

In this present life, too, many persons have committed acts of killing several times while young, which will be clear to each individual. Others have done past misdeeds of killing though they refrain from killing in this present life. Most people have done evil deeds such as killing in both the past and present lives.

Personality view opens the way to commit evils of the gravest kind, such as killing one’s father or mother, or harming the Buddha. If one still believes in a soul, and entertains doubts about the Three Gems, in future existences one might kill one’s mother or father, getting the gravest evil and the worst result. So besides killing living beings, there may be heinous misdeeds too. If a detailed analysis is made of one’s own various misdeeds, one cannot safely declare that there is a cessation of the act of killing, in the matter of ordinary or extraordinary types. If a person does not kill any sentient being today, he may commit this evil tomorrow, next month, next year, or next life. So please ponder like this: “Due to wrong view and doubt I could certainly kill my mother or father, cause schism in the Saṅgha, harm the Buddha, or kill Arahants.”

This is, of course, the “unarisen evil” mentioned above. Future evil deeds and past or present evil deeds are classified as “unarisen evil” and “arisen evil” respectively.

Why does a person perpetrate these various types of evil, pertaining to the past, present, and future? It is due to the existence of personality view. With this wrong view one will certainly do small and great evil. What is personality view? It is the belief that one’s own five aggregates are a soul, a person, a self, or an entity. This sense of “I” gives rise to the worst kammas. Both arisen and unarisen unwholesome kammas will not lose their power if personality view still exists. They are bound to increase due to wrong understanding of the nature of the five aggregates. So if circumstances are favourable, one will commit various crimes, great or small, propelled by wrong view. When personality view is eradicated, all past evil deeds and their potential results are destroyed totally. Countless evil actions cease. The ten evil deeds and the five heinous crimes are based on personality view. Personality view is their leader. Evil deeds are its followers, and its consequences.

Can one entertain any hope of cessation of evils or deliverance? If one encounters the Buddha’s dispensation in this life and practises insight meditation, one is delivered from personality view, root and branch. All past evils are wiped away, and countless effects of past evil that were due to mature also cease. Total eradication of evil is possible in this dispensation only because correct methods have been given. Human beings possess the rarest chance to overcome this appalling predicament. During this dispensation, good and rare chances are available for the destruction of countless new evils that are bound to arise in the future. All latent evils are uprooted by mindfulness as taught by the Buddha. If these methods and rare opportunities exist, it is called the Buddha’s dispensation. The dispensation is said to disappear when such opportunities no longer exist. Everyone should note that if death occurs today and life continues in an existence where these opportunities don’t exist, the dispensation disappears today. In this case the opportunities of this dispensation are lost as soon as one dies.

This rare opportunity and grave danger should be appreciated by everyone. Moral dread, together with farsighted trepidation (saṃvega), must be cultivated while one is alive and the dispensation still prevails. One must practise concentration and insight daily with great urgency. To get rid of personality view and doubt is the noblest aim in life according to the teaching of the Buddha. Morality and insight practice are essential to eradicate mental defilements and evil deeds. When one practises morality and insight meditation, mental purity and skilful deeds arise. By these means one obtains the four great moral efforts. Wholesome deeds, both arisen and unarisen, must be done in this present life.

There are only three essential points in the Tipiṭaka:

1. The higher training in morality (adhisīlasikkhā).
2. The higher training in concentration (adhicittasikkhā).
3. The higher training in wisdom (adhipaññāsikkhā).

The essence of the teaching means morality, concentration, and wisdom. Keeping the five, eight, or ten precepts is called morality. Concentration means neighbourhood concentration (upacāra samādhi) and absorption concentration (appanā samādhi). Wisdom means insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāṇa), path knowledge (magga-ñāṇa), and fruition knowledge (phala-ñāṇa).

Among these three essential practices, morality is of the arisen type because it is already done or presently kept. However, concentration and wisdom belong to the unarisen type of wholesome states. Although many people practise concentration such as recollection of the virtues of the Buddha (Buddhānussati), or mindfulness of the body (kāyagatāsati), they usually reach only the initial stage with the aim of getting merit. Their efforts are not sincere, not mature, so not even neighbourhood concentration is attained. The firm type of concentration necessary for liberation is still an unarisen wholesome deed. Many Buddhists count their rosaries chanting suttas, or reciting “anicca, dukkha, anatta,” but they fail to win insight knowledge. Although they accumulate merit, their insight knowledge is a sham as it cannot eradicate the perception of, and belief in, a person, a being, a self, or a soul. They fail to gain insight into psychophysical phenomena, or ultimate truths. Genuine insight, which means the complete, well-developed stage, is not attained by slack effort and weak wisdom. Therefore their wisdom is also of the unarisen wholesome type.

Even in the matter of morality, which has been classified as already arisen, many can retain it only for short periods, so they achieve only temporary morality. They fail to reach the full, stable stage called “samuccheda sīla — morality by cutting off defilements.” Only when one obtains stable moral conduct can one safely be said to be a truly moral person.

Regarding the precept of refraining from killing, most attain only momentary morality. The majority of people, if they observe the five precepts or this single one, achieve good conduct for a short period like a flash of lightning in the darkness. They get this moral achievement several times, but they lose it several times too. So their morality shows the characteristic of instability.

This is true. In countless past lives the attainment of momentary morality by restraint from killing has occurred frequently. One achieved the status of a moral person in many past lives. Yet these achievements in morality, being temporary, do not give real security and complete safety. This type of temporary moral conduct is superficial and unreliable. For example, today one may possess moral conduct, but tomorrow one may become shameless and immoral due to breaking a precept. Morality is achieved for one month only to be lost in the next. This uncertainty applies after death to. In this life one may be scrupulous, but in the next life one may be shameless. So a scrupulous monk, a good man, a moral person in this life may become a robber, a murderer, a thief, a hunter, or a wicked person in the next.

Even famous saints who have attained jhāna, and can fly in the air with their psychic powers, may become robbers, murderers, thieves, hunters, or wicked persons in their next lives. Though they encounter this rare dispensation, they fail to appreciate the significance of the unique opportunities now available. If they remain satisfied with temporary morality, they will be reborn as ghosts, animals, robbers, murderers, etc. They will suffer in hell due to the fallibility of their moral conduct, which is the characteristic of temporary morality.

This fallible, temporary morality is available even outside the Buddha’s dispensation. It exists naturally just like the world and its environment. It is common everywhere, and at all times. It even exists in other universes where no Buddhas ever arise, where the Buddha’s teaching can never be heard. In countless universes, many human beings, deities, and brahmās live without the benefit of the Buddha’s teaching. Yet they achieve the status of human beings, deities and brahmās as a result of this temporary morality. However, their moral conduct is impermanent, so they can fall down in moral status. The important point is that this common, temporary morality cannot be classed as true morality, which is available only during the Buddha’s dispensation. Temporary morality is not the true dispensation. Only the unique morality called “samuccheda sīla — morality by cutting off defilements” is the true, stable morality belonging to the Buddha’s dispensation. It means infallible morality, genuine morality.