CHAPTER TWELVE

Community Transactions

In Chapter 11 of BMC1, Adhikaraṇa-samatha, we discussed the four types of issues (adhikaraṇa)—dispute-issues, accusation-issues, offense-issues, and duty-issues—along with the seven means for their settlement. The fourth type of issue—duty-issue (kiccādhikaraṇa)—treated only briefly in that discussion, is the topic of this chapter and all the remaining chapters in this section.

Cv.IV.14.2 defines a duty-issue as “any duty or business of the community:

an announcement (apalokana-kamma),

a motion (ñatti-kamma),

a motion with one proclamation (ñatti-dutiya-kamma),

a motion with three proclamations (ñatti-catuttha-kamma).”

This definition refers to the four types of statements that can constitute a formal Community transaction (saṅgha-kamma), in which the Community meets and issues a statement that it is taking an action as a group. In this, duty-issues are substantially different from the other three types of issues. Other issues are problems that have to be settled in a formal way. Duty-issues, however, are formal ways of settling problems. They themselves, as Community transactions, are problems only in the sense that they have to be conducted strictly according to the correct formal pattern. If they aren’t, they are invalid, open to question, and have to be conducted again.

When a Community performs a transaction, it is in effect acting in the name of the Saṅgha as a whole. This means that it is not the ultimate authority in judging the validity of its transactions, for other Communities do not have to accept its transactions simply on its say-so. Because it is acting in their name, they have the right to question whether its transactions are fit to stand. When a Community adheres to the correct forms in its transactions, it is showing that—on that level at least—it deserves the trust of its fellow Communities. Thus, adherence to the correct forms is not a mere formality. It is one of the ways in which Communities earn one another’s trust.

Because some duty-issues function as means of settling other types of issues, this section will cover not only duty-issues pure and simple but also a few of the major duty-issues used in settling other issues. In particular, these include (1) the transactions involved in settling the most complicated offense-issues—(a) saṅghādisesa offenses and (b) the disciplinary transactions used to settle offense-issues following on accusation-issues—and (2) those for ending the most serious dispute-issue, a schism. The duty-issues used to settle issues aside from these have already been discussed in BMC1, Chapter 11.

The standard pattern for a Community transaction is that the Community meets and one of its members recites a transaction statement (kamma-vācā), while the other members of the Community show their assent by remaining silent. If a regular bhikkhu in common affiliation with the Community speaks up to register protest during the recitation, that aborts the transaction. The length of the statement, measured in the number of times the proclamation must be repeated, is a rough indication of the importance of the relevant act. The more repetitions, the more time the members of the Community have to deliberate, and the more chance they have to speak up.

In certain cases, the issuing of the transaction statement must follow on certain preliminary actions, some of which—as in the case of full Acceptance—may involve transaction statements of their own. Often the transaction statement itself constitutes the act of the Community: Simply in issuing the statement, the Community gives full Acceptance, imposes a disciplinary transaction, rehabilitates an individual who has been disciplined, authorizes an individual to perform a certain act, etc.

Cv.IV.14.34 states that a duty-issue (and, by definition, a Community transaction) is settled by means of one principle: “face-to-face.” The Khandhakas’ discussion of what constitutes a valid transaction divides this principle into two broad factors: The transaction must be in accordance with the Dhamma—in other words, the Community follows the proper procedure in issuing the statement; and it must be united—the Community issuing the statement is qualified to do so.

We can follow the Vinaya-mukha in borrowing terms from the Parivāra to divide each of these two factors into two “consummations” (sampatti). Acting in accordance with the Dhamma requires two consummations:

consummation as to the object—the person or item acting as the object of the transaction fulfills the qualifications required for that particular transaction; and

consummation as to the transaction statement—the statement issued follows the correct form for the transaction.

The unity of the Community requires two further consummations:

consummation as to the assembly—the meeting contains at least the minimum number (the quorum) of bhikkhus required to perform that particular transaction; and

consummation as to the territory—any bhikkhus in the territory where the meeting is being held whose consent needs to be conveyed are either present at the meeting or their consent has been conveyed, and no one who is qualified to do so protests the transaction while it is being carried out.

To conform with English usage, our discussion will render the word consummation as “validity.” (For a further discussion of these terms, see Appendix V.)

A transaction valid in all four of these ways is fit to stand. A transaction lacking validity in any one of them is not. Another Community may meet at a later time and redo the transaction or reverse it. Meanwhile, whatever the first Community announced that it was doing does not legitimately count as done.

The validity of the object

The object of the transaction may be either a person (such as the candidate for Acceptance) or a physical item (such as the site to build a dwelling) or both (as when the Community gives a kaṭhina-cloth to one of its members). Different transactions, of course, have different requirements for their objects. However, four general comments can be made. (1) If the object fulfills the requirements for one type of transaction but the Community performs another transaction for which the object does not fulfill the requirements, the transaction is invalid in terms of its object. (2) If the object is a person, then if that person is a bhikkhu he must be present in the gathering of the Community performing the transaction. If the person is not a bhikkhu, he/she does not need to be present—examples being when the Community “overturns its bowl” to a lay person who has harmed bhikkhus or when it ordains a bhikkhunī through a messenger. (3) The object of the transaction cannot be an entire Community. At most, only three people can be the object of any one transaction. (4) If the procedure set out for the transaction requires that the object, a bhikkhu, be interrogated prior to the transaction about an offense and acknowledge having done the offense, then if these preliminary procedures have not been done, the transaction is invalid in terms of its object.

The validity of the transaction statement

The transaction statement must follow the pattern given in the Canon, with none of the parts left out. If, for instance, the pattern calls for a motion and three proclamations, a transaction in which the statement is given as four motions or a motion and one proclamation is invalid. Also, the parts of the statement must be given in the proper order. If the pattern calls for a motion followed by one proclamation, and the announcing bhikkhu gives the proclamation first, that is called a transaction “having a semblance of the Dhamma,” which invalidates the proceeding. The texts, however, do not forbid stating any of the parts of the statement more than the required number of times. For instance, if the pattern calls for a motion and one proclamation, there is nothing wrong with giving a motion followed by three proclamations.

The customary practice is to recite the transaction statement word-for-word as given in the Canon, inserting the name of the transaction’s object and other relevant individuals where necessary. Pv.XIX.1.3-4, however, allows for some variation in the wording as long as the following points are not omitted from either the motion or the proclamation(s): the object of the transaction, the fact that the Community is the agent of the transaction, and—where applicable—the individual member of the Community who is playing a special role in the transaction, such as the preceptor when giving full Acceptance. This allowance is especially relevant for the statements used in disciplinary transactions (Chapter 20), for in these instances the Canon gives only the statement tailored to the particular case that inspired the first instance of each of these transactions, and not to any of the other cases for which the transactions are also valid. If there were no leeway in wording these statements, the transactions could not be applied to any other cases. See Appendix IV on this point.

Mv.I.74.1 allows for the transaction statement to mention a bhikkhu by his clan name, rather than his given name. This allowance dates to the time when bhikkhus had Pali clan names, and the formality of referring to a bhikkhu by his clan name was a sign of respect. Now that bhikkhus no longer have Pali clan names the allowance is moot.

Every description of a transaction statement stipulates that the bhikkhu reciting it must be experienced and competent. According to the Commentary to Mv.I.28.3, this means that at the very least he is able to memorize the transaction statement and recite it with proper pronunciation. Also, the Canon invariably refers to the reciter of the transaction statement in the singular—i.e., a single bhikkhu making the statement. However, at present it is common, especially in transactions where lay people will be present—such as Acceptance or the kaṭhina—for two bhikkhus to recite the transaction statement(s) in unison, as a way of guarding against errors.

Announcement-transactions differ from the other three types of Community transactions in that the Canon gives no set pattern for the transaction statement. Thus the validity of the statement is not at issue in cases of this sort. In some instances, the Commentary recommends ways to phrase the announcement, but its recommendations are not binding.

To streamline communal business in matters not likely to be controversial, the Commentary to Cv.IV.14.2 contends that the following motion-with-one-proclamation transactions may be done as simple announcements: an authorization to lay claim to a dwelling (apparently this refers to the transaction for giving building responsibility—see Chapter 18), the act of giving a robe or bowl as an inheritance (see Chapter 22), and all authorizations aside from: authorizing a territory (sīmā), revoking a territory, giving kaṭhina cloth, ending kaṭhina privileges, and pointing out an area for building a hut or dwelling (under Sg 6 & 7). In making this contention, however, the Commentary is in conflict with the principle set forth in Mv.IX.3.3 and discussed above, that if a shorter format is used for a transaction requiring a longer format, the transaction is invalid.

The validity of the assembly

Most transactions require a quorum of four bhikkhus. However, three transactions—Acceptance, Invitation, and rehabilitation—require more. Acceptance outside of the Middle Ganges Valley requires five, with the stipulation that at least one of the five be expert in the Vinaya. Invitation (pavāraṇā) requires five; Acceptance in the Middle Ganges Valley, ten; and rehabilitation after observing penance for a saṅghādisesa offense, twenty.

To fill a quorum, a bhikkhu who is to be the object of the transaction (e.g., a bhikkhu receiving a kaṭhina-cloth, a bhikkhu being given probation) cannot be counted. Also, the quorum cannot be filled by:

a person who does not count as a true bhikkhu (e.g., a bhikkhunī, a lay person, a matricide who has somehow received ordination, a schismatic who knew or suspected that he joined the schism not on the side of the Dhamma (see Chapter 21),

a bhikkhu who has been suspended (see Chapter 20),

a bhikkhu of a separate affiliation (see Appendix V),

a bhikkhu standing outside the territory (according to the Commentary, this refers to the case where a group is meeting on the edge of a territory and the bhikkhu in question is within hatthapāsa but not within the bounds of the territory), or

a bhikkhu levitating off the ground through his psychic powers.

If the meeting contains such people but the quorum is filled without counting them, the validity of the assembly is still fulfilled. If such people need to be counted to complete the quorum, it is not.

Some Communities are very strict in not allowing anyone who is not a bhikkhu in common affiliation and in good standing to sit within hatthapāsa of their transaction meetings, but the Canon requires this sort of strictness only for two transactions: the uposatha (see Chapter 15) and the Invitation (see Chapter 16). For other transactions—such as Acceptance, the kaṭhina, etc.—there is no offense in allowing other individuals to sit within hatthapāsa, and their presence does not invalidate the proceedings. (This point is nowhere directly stated in the Canon, but it can be inferred from the ruling in Mv.IX.4.7 that even if such a person within the meeting protests the transaction, the protest does not count. If the protest does not invalidate the transaction, the presence of the person making the protest would not invalidate it, either.)

The validity of the territory

This factor is fulfilled when all the qualified bhikkhus in the valid territory in which the meeting is held are present at the meeting, or their consent has been conveyed to the meeting, and no one qualified to do so protests the transaction while it is being carried out.

The territory

The territory may either be one correctly authorized by a Community transaction or one defined by natural or political boundaries. This topic will be discussed in detail in the following chapter.

Unqualified bhikkhus

The Canon gives one explicit exception to the requirement for the consent or attendance of all the bhikkhus in a territory, and that is the case of a bhikkhu who is insane. Mv.II.25.1 cites two types of insanity: one in which the insane person has periods of sanity during which he remembers and comes to the uposatha and other Community transactions, alternating with bouts of insanity during which he doesn’t; and another, who is continually insane, never remembering or coming to these transactions at all. In the first case, the Canon allows for the Community to meet and, by means of a formal transaction consisting of a motion and proclamation, to identify the insane bhikkhu as insane and to authorize the unity of the Community as valid with or without his presence or consent (see Appendix I). As for the other type of insane bhikkhu, the Commentary states that there is no need for an authorization. His absence or lack of consent does not invalidate any Community transactions.

In addition, two passages in the Canon—Mv.II.34.10 and Mv.X.1.9-10—allow bhikkhus of separate affiliations to perform separate Community transactions within the same territory, which implies that the presence of a bhikkhu of a separate affiliation within the territory but not at the meeting does not invalidate a transaction, so there is no need to obtain his consent. Because a suspended bhikkhu is considered to be of a separate affiliation (see Mv.X.1.10 and Pc 69), there is no need to obtain his consent, either.

Because a bhikkhu levitating over the territory through his psychic powers does not count as legitimately present in the territory, his consent is also not required.

In short, consent does not have to be brought from any bhikkhu whose protest would not invalidate a Community transaction (see below).

Being present

None of the Khandhaka texts give a precise definition of what counts as being present at a Community meeting. The Vibhaṅga to Pc 80 defines being present in the meeting as sitting within hatthapāsa of at least one of the other bhikkhus also present in the meeting (see the discussion under that rule). Not being present would thus mean being located outside hatthapāsa. The question has arisen as to whether the Pc 80 definition applies in every case, or only in the case covered by that rule, i.e., that of a bhikkhu hoping to invalidate a meeting by getting up and leaving hatthapāsa, yet staying within the territory. Given that it is the only definition of present and not present provided anywhere in the Canon, and given the need for a clear definition in this area, there seems every reason to assume that the Pc 80 definition would apply by default in all cases. If it did not apply, there would be no logic to that rule, in that there would be no reason for a bhikkhu’s getting up and leaving hatthapāsa to have an impact on the conduct of the meeting.

There may be occasions where a territory is not large enough to accommodate all the bhikkhus attending a meeting. This would not invalidate the territory or the meeting, but the bhikkhus sitting outside the territory would not count as present. They could not be counted toward the quorum; and if any of them protested the conduct of the meeting (see below), the protest would carry no weight. One special exception, however, is that if the bhikkhus are meeting to listen to the Pāṭimokkha (see Chapter 15) and the gathering is so large that not all the bhikkhus can fit in the designated uposatha-hall or area in front of the uposatha-hall, all the bhikkhus within earshot count as having heard the Pāṭimokkha. If, when meeting for other purposes, the assembly wants to count all the bhikkhus as present at the meeting, they may move the meeting outside the territory to an adjacent territory large enough to accommodate everyone. In most cases, this would mean moving out of a small baddha-sīmā (see the following chapter) to the larger abaddha-sīmā surrounding it.

Consent

A bhikkhu too ill to come to the meeting may give his consent as follows: Going to another bhikkhu, he arranges his upper robe over one shoulder, kneels down, performs añjali, and says to the other:

“Chandaṁ dammi. Chandaṁ me hara. Chandaṁ me ārocehi. (I give consent. Convey my consent. Report my consent.)”

If he makes this understood by physical gesture, by voice, or by both, his consent counts as given. If not, his consent does not count as given. The texts do not mention this point, but it seems reasonable that a bhikkhu too ill to go to another bhikkhu or to get in the kneeling position should be allowed to give his consent from his sick-bed. The Vinaya-mukha adds that if the bhikkhu giving consent is junior to the one conveying his consent, he should change hara to the more formal haratha, and ārocehi to ārocetha.

As for the bhikkhu to whom the consent has been given, his duty is to join the meeting and report the other bhikkhu’s consent when he has arrived. If, however, Bhikkhu Y—instead of going to the meeting—goes away immediately after Bhikkhu X gives him his consent, the consent does not count as given; X must give his consent to another bhikkhu (although none of the texts mention a penalty for not doing so). The same holds true if, at that moment, Y dies, disrobes, admits to not being a true bhikkhu, or admits to being insane, possessed, delirious with pain, or suspended. If, however, any of these things happens while Y is on the way to the meeting, X does not have to re-give his consent, even though it does not count as having been conveyed. (This, however, would still invalidate any action taken at the meeting.) If any of these things happens after Y arrives at the meeting, the consent counts as having been conveyed. If Y arrives at the meeting and unintentionally neglects to report X’s consent either because he is heedless, falls asleep, or enters a meditative attainment, the consent still counts as conveyed, and Y incurs no offense. If, however, Y intentionally does not report X’s consent, the consent counts as conveyed, but Y incurs a dukkaṭa.

The Commentary also notes that if Bhikkhu X gives his consent to Bhikkhu Y, and Y then asks Z to convey X’s consent and his own to the assembly, then when Z tells the assembly, only Y’s consent is conveyed. X’s is called a “leashed-cat consent”—which means that it doesn’t come no matter how hard you pull at it.

Although the relevant passage allows an ill bhikkhu to give his consent in this way, the texts do not define how ill a bhikkhu must be in order to qualify for this allowance. The origin story to Pc 79 describes a case where bhikkhus are too busy making robes to go to the meeting and so send their consent. The transaction carried out by the meeting was considered valid. Thus ill here apparently can mean not only physically ill but also seriously inconvenienced in other ways as well.

If a bhikkhu unable to attend the meeting is too ill to give his consent in the above way, he should be carried into the midst of the Community on a bed or a bench. If he is too ill to be moved—either because his disease would worsen or he could die—the Community should go to where he is staying and carry out the transaction there.

If the transaction is the uposatha observance, a bhikkhu not attending the meeting must send his purity instead of his consent. Similarly, if the transaction is the Invitation, he must send his invitation. If, in addition to the uposatha or the Invitation, the Community is planning to conduct other business at the meeting, he must send his consent as well. (For a full discussion of this point, see Chapter 15.) Again, the texts do not define how ill one must be in order to be allowed to send one’s purity or invitation in this way, but because these meetings are regularly scheduled, the general consensus in most Communities is that only a serious physical illness would be legitimate grounds for taking advantage of this allowance.

One of the issues at the Second Council was whether an incomplete Community could carry out a transaction and then have it ratified by the bhikkhus who came later. The Council’s decision was No.

Protest

If, during a transaction, a bhikkhu is displeased with it—for whatever reason, in line with the Dhamma or not—he has the right to protest. If he wants to, he may speak loudly enough to interrupt the proceedings, but if he feels intimidated by the group he may simply register his protest by informing the bhikkhu sitting right next to him. If his protest carries weight, that invalidates the transaction, and the issue may be reopened at a later time.

The protest of the following people does not carry weight:

anyone who is not rightly a bhikkhu;

a bhikkhu who is insane, possessed, or delirious with pain;

a bhikkhu who has been suspended;

a bhikkhu of a separate affiliation;

a bhikkhu standing outside the territory;

a bhikkhu levitating in the sky through psychic power;

the person who is the object of the transaction.

If any of these people protest a transaction, that does not invalidate the proceeding, and the transaction is still fit to stand.

If the protest of a regular bhikkhu of common affiliation halts a transaction that would have been in accordance with the Dhamma and fit to stand, he is subject to having his Pāṭimokkha canceled (Cv.IX.3—see Chapter 15), after which the Community would look into his attitude to see if he would benefit from a disciplinary transaction.

Announcements

There is some disagreement as to how the validity of the territory applies to announcement-transactions. The Commentary’s discussion of the “shaving” announcement (Mv.I.48.2—see Chapter 14) recommends gathering all the bhikkhus in the territory and making the announcement or sending word to all of them. In the latter case, it says, the transaction is still valid even if some of the bhikkhus are missed in the latter procedure either because they are meditating or asleep. It does not say whether this option applies to other announcements as well. The Vinaya-mukha, on the other hand, cites another case from the Commentary to Cv.VI.21.1—the announcement when food is being distributed in the meal hall—to put forth the theory that an announcement-transaction does not have to be performed in a territory, the bhikkhus gathered do not have to be within hatthapāsa of one another, and there is no need to have consent conveyed. However, there is the question of whether the announcement mentioned in the Commentary was meant to be a Community transaction. There is no other support for this theory in the texts. Nevertheless, both of these precedents are in agreement in suggesting that the validity of only two factors is at issue in an announcement-transaction: the validity of the object and the validity of the assembly.

Offenses

Any bhikkhu who, knowing that a transaction is valid in terms of all the above factors, nevertheless agitates for it to be reopened incurs a pācittiya under Pc 63. For further details, see the discussion under that rule. For related offenses, see also the discussions under Pc 79-81.

According to Mv.II.16.5, a bhikkhu who participates in a transaction not in accordance with the Dhamma incurs a dukkaṭa. The same passage discusses a case in which some group-of-six bhikkhus conduct a transaction not in accordance with the Dhamma and physically threaten any members of the meeting who protest. In a case like this, there is an allowance for four or five to protest, two or three to voice an opinion, and one to determine silently, “I do not approve of this.” Any bhikkhu who does so is exempt from the offense. However, the silent determination does not count as a protest and so does not invalidate the proceeding. Still, the fact that the transaction is not in accordance with the Dhamma already invalidates it; the fact that one perceives it as such means that one may reopen the issue at a later date.

The penalty for participating in a factional transaction is also a dukkaṭa. This penalty applies even if the only bhikkhus within the territory not participating in the meeting or sending consent are too sick to be carried into the assembly (Mv.II.23.2).

Rules

Issues

“There are these four issues: dispute-issues; accusation-issues, offense-issues; duty-issues.

“What here is a dispute-issue? There is the case where bhikkhus dispute: ‘This is Dhamma,’ ‘This is not Dhamma’; ‘This is Vinaya,’ ‘This is not Vinaya’; ‘This was spoken by the Tathāgata,’ ‘This was not spoken by the Tathāgata’; ‘This was regularly practiced by the Tathāgata,’ ‘This was not regularly practiced by the Tathāgata’; ‘This was formulated by the Tathāgata,’ ‘This was not formulated by the Tathāgata’; ‘This is an offense,’ ‘This is not an offense’; ‘This is a light offense,’ ‘This is a heavy offense’; ‘This is a curable offense,’ ‘This is an incurable offense’; or ‘This is a serious offense,’ ‘This is not a serious offense. ‘Whatever strife, quarreling, contention, dispute, differing opinions, opposing opinions, heated words, abusiveness based on this are called a dispute-issue.

“What here is an accusation-issue? There is the case where bhikkhus accuse a bhikkhu of a defect in virtue or a defect in conduct or a defect in views or a defect in livelihood. Any accusation there, any condemnation, scolding, blaming, denunciation, ganging up is called an accusation-issue.

“What here is an offense-issue? Any offense-issue from the five categories of offenses or the seven categories of offenses. This is called an offense-issue.

“What here is a duty-issue? Any duty or business of the Community: an announcement, a motion, a motion with one proclamation, a motion with three proclamations. This is called a duty-issue.”

—Cv.IV.14.2

Sources of disputes: three unskillful & three skillful.

[A list is inserted giving six unskillful traits:] a bhikkhu who is

1) easily angered & bears a grudge;

2) mean & spiteful;

3) jealous & possessive;

4) scheming & deceitful;

5) has evil desires & wrong views;

6) is attached to his own views, obstinate, unable to let them go.

Such a bhikkhu lives without deference or respect for the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Saṅgha; does not complete the training. When he causes a dispute in the Community, it comes to be for the harm, the unhappiness, the detriment of many people, for the pain and harm of human and divine beings.—Cv.IV.14.3

Three unskillful sources: states of mind that are covetous, corrupt, or confused. Three skillful sources: states of mind that are not covetous, corrupt, or confused.—Cv.IV.14.4

Sources of accusations: three unskillful & three skillful, plus the inserted list as with disputes. Also body & speech as sources of accusations.

“What is the body as a source of accusation? There is the case where a certain person has bad coloring, is ugly, deformed, very ill, purblind, paralyzed down one side, lame, or a cripple, on account of which they accuse (denounce?) him. This is the body as a source of accusation.

“What is speech as a source of accusation? There is the case where a certain person is a poor speaker, stuttering, drooling in his speech, on account of which they accuse (denounce?) him. This is speech as a source of accusation.”—Cv.IV.14.5

Sources of offense-issues: six—

body, not speech or mind;

speech, not body or mind;

body & speech, not mind;

body & mind, not speech;

speech & mind, not body;

body & speech & mind.—Cv.IV.14.6

Source of duty-issues: the Community.—Cv.IV.14.7

Dispute-issues may be skillful, unskillful, neutral (depending on the mind states of the bhikkhus involved).—Cv.IV.14.8

Accusation-issues may be skillful, unskillful, neutral (depending on the mind states of the bhikkhus making the accusation).—Cv.IV.14.9

Offense-issues may be unskillful or neutral (depending on whether the offense is committed knowingly and deliberately or not). There are no offense-issues that are skillful.—Cv.IV.14.10

Duty-issues may be skillful, unskillful, neutral (depending on the mind states of the bhikkhus involved).—Cv.IV.14.11

[Analysis of terms:]

1) Dispute & issue; 2) dispute & no issue, 3) issue but not dispute:

1) dispute-issue

2) mother disputes with son, son with mother,… father,… brother,… sister

3) accusation-issues, offense-issues, duty-issues—Cv.IV.14.12

1) Accusation & issue; 2) accusation & no issue, 3) issue but not accusation:

1) accusation-issue

2) mother accuses son, son mother,… father,… brother,… sister

3) dispute-issues, offense-issues, duty-issues—Cv.IV.14.13

1) Offense & issue; 2) offense (“falling”) & no issue, 3) issue but not offense:

1) offense-issue

2) the attainment of stream “falling” (i.e., stream entry) [this is a pun on “āpatti”]

3) dispute-issues, accusation-issues, duty-issues—Cv.IV.14.14

1) Duty & issue; 2) duty & no issue, 3) issue but not duty:

1) duty-issue

2) one’s duties to teacher, preceptor, those on a level with one’s teacher, those on a level with one’s preceptor

3) dispute-issues, accusation-issues, offense-issues—Cv.IV.14.15

“A dispute-issue is settled by means of how many ways of settling? A dispute-issue is settled by means of two ways of settling: a face-to-face verdict and acting in accordance with the majority.”

Face-to-face with: the Community, the Dhamma, the Vinaya, the individuals:

—face-to-face with the Community: the full number of bhikkhus competent for the transaction has come, if the consent of those who should send consent has been conveyed, if those who are present do not protest ( = united transaction —Mv.IX.3.6);

— face-to-face with the Dhamma, the Vinaya: when the issue is settled by means of the Dhamma, the Vinaya, the Teacher’s instruction;

— face-to-face with the individuals: both whoever quarrels & whoever he quarrels with, opposed on the issue, are present.

When the issue has been settled in this way, whoever involved in the transaction reopens it: a pācittiya offense (Pc 63); whoever, having given consent to it, complains: a pācittiya offense (Pc 79).—Cv.IV.14.16

Steps 2 & 3 if the original bhikkhus can’t settle the issue themselves—see BMC1, Chapter 11—Cv.IV.14.17-18

Steps 4 & 5 if bhikkhus at another residence can’t settle the issue—see BMC1, Chapter 11—Cv.IV.14.19-23

In accordance with the majority: BMC1, Chapter 11—Cv.IV.14.24-26

“An accusation-issue is settled by means of how many ways of settling? An accusation-issue is settled by means of four ways of settling: a face-to-face verdict, a verdict of mindfulness (innocence), a verdict of past insanity, a further-punishment (transaction).”

Procedure, request, and transaction statement for verdict of mindfulness—Cv.IV.14.27

Procedure, request, and transaction statement for verdict of past insanity—Cv.IV.14.28

Procedure, request, and transaction statement for a further punishment-transaction—Cv.IV.14.29 [ = Cv.IV.11.2]

“An offense-issue is settled by means of how many ways of settling? An offense-issue is settled by means of three ways of settling: a face-to-face verdict, in accordance with (the offender’s) admission, covering over as with grass.”

Confession of offenses: face-to-face with the Dhamma, the Vinaya, the individuals (the bhikkhu making confession and the bhikkhu to whom confession is made are face-to-face)

Confession to an individual—Cv.IV.14.30

Confession to a group—Cv.IV.14.31

Confession to a Community—Cv.IV.14.32 (here “face-to-face” includes face-to-face with the Community)

Covering over as with grass—Cv.IV.14.33

“A duty-issue is settled by means of how many ways of settling? A duty-issue is settled by means of one way of settling: a face-to-face verdict.”—Cv.IV.14.34

Methods of settling
Face-to-face

“A transaction of censure, demotion, banishment, reconciliation, or suspension is not to be imposed on bhikkhus who are not present: whoever does so, an offense of wrong doing.”—Cv.IV.1

An individual, group, or Community who speaks what is not Dhamma influences an individual, group, or Community who speaks what is Dhamma to go over to their side: Any issue settled in this way is settled by what is not Dhamma with the appearance of a face-to-face verdict.—Cv.IV.2

The opposite: Any issue settled in this way is settled by what is Dhamma with a face-to-face verdict.—Cv.IV.3

Mindfulness

Request and transaction statement for a verdict of mindfulness (innocence)—Cv.IV.4.10 (see BMC1, Appendix VIII)

Requirements for a verdict of mindfulness:

1) the bhikkhu is pure and has not committed the offense (in question);

2) he is accused of it;

3) he requests (the verdict of mindfulness);

4) the Community gives it;

5) in accordance with Dhamma, united.—Cv.IV.4.11

Past Insanity

Request and transaction statement for a verdict of past insanity—Cv.IV.5.2 (see BMC1, Appendix VIII)

The verdict is not valid if

—on being asked if he remembers offenses, he says he doesn’t even when he does;

—on being asked if he remembers offenses, he says he remembers as if in a dream even when he actually remembers;

—on being asked if he remembers offenses, he—though not actually insane—acts insane.—Cv.IV.6.1

The verdict is valid if

—on being asked if he remembers offenses, he says he doesn’t when he actually doesn’t;

—on being asked if he remembers offenses, he says he remembers as if in a dream when that is actually the case;

—on being asked if he remembers offenses, he is actually insane and acts (§) insane.—Cv.IV.6.2

In Accordance with What is Admitted

“A transaction of censure, demotion, banishment, reconciliation, or suspension is not to be imposed on bhikkhus (§) who have not admitted (the offense in question): whoever does so, an offense of wrong doing.”—Cv.IV.7

The verdict is not valid if the bhikkhu admits to an offense other than what he actually committed (even when admitting to an offense heavier than what he actually did).—Cv.IV.8.1

The verdict is valid if the bhikkhu admits to the offense he actually committed.—Cv.IV.8.2

In Accordance with the Majority

Procedure and transaction statement for choosing a bhikkhu to be the distributor of voting tickets—Cv.IV.9

A distribution of voting tickets is not valid if:

the issue is trifling;

it has not gone its course;

it is not remembered or made to be remembered;

one knows that the non-Dhamma side is in the majority;

one hopes (§) that the non-Dhamma side may be in the majority;

one knows that the Community will be split;

one hopes (§) that the Community will be split;

they take the tickets in a non-Dhamma way;

a faction takes the tickets;

they take them not in accordance with their views.

 (see BMC1, Chapter 11)—Cv.IV.10.1

A distribution of voting tickets is valid if:

the issue is not trifling;

it has gone its course;

it is remembered or made to be remembered;

one knows that the Dhamma side is in the majority;

one hopes (§) that the Dhamma side may be in the majority;

one knows that the Community will not be split;

one hopes (§) that the Community will not be split;

they take the tickets in a Dhamma way;

(the Community) takes the tickets in unity;

they take them in accordance with their views.

 (see BMC1, Chapter 11)—Cv.IV.10.2

Further Punishment

Procedure (charged (§), made to remember, made to disclose the offense [the PTS version here has ropetabbo; the Burmese and Sri Lankan versions, āropetabbo]) and transaction statement for a further-punishment transaction—Cv.IV.11.2

Five requirements for a further-punishment transaction:

1) he (the bhikkhu in question) is impure;

2) he is unconscientious;

3) he stands accused (sānuvāda);

4-5) the Community gives him a further-punishment transaction

—in accordance with the Dhamma

—united.—Cv.IV.12.1

Twelve qualities of a further-punishment transaction that is not-Dhamma, not-Vinaya, poorly settled (§) (lists of threes) [ = Cv.I.2-3] —Cv.IV.12.2

Nine qualities of a bhikkhu against whom a further-punishment transaction may be carried out [ = Cv.I.4] (§ —BD omits the passages indicating that any one of these qualities is enough)—Cv.IV.12.3

Eighteen duties of a bhikkhu against whom a further-punishment transaction has been carried out [ = Cv.I.5]—Cv.IV.12.4

Covering over as with Grass

Procedure and transaction statements—Cv.IV.13.2-3

“Those bhikkhus are risen up from their offenses except for those that are grave faults [C: pārājika and saṅghādisesa offenses]; except for those connected with the laity; except for those of anyone whose views go against the transaction; and except for those of anyone who is not present”—Cv.IV.13.4

Transactions

“A non-Dhamma transaction is not to be performed in the midst of a Community. Whoever should do so: an offense of wrong doing… I allow when a non-Dhamma transaction is being performed that it be protested.”—Mv.II.16.4

“I allow that even an opinion be voiced.” “I allow four or five to protest, two or three to voice an opinion, and one to determine, ‘I do not approve of this.’”—Mv.II.16.5

Transactions that are not transactions and are not to be done:

a factional transaction that is non-Dhamma;

a united (samagga) transaction that is non-Dhamma;

a factional transaction that is a semblance of the Dhamma;

a united transaction that is a semblance of the Dhamma;

a factional transaction that is Dhamma;

one suspends one;

one suspends two;

one suspends many;

one suspends a Community;

two suspend one;

two suspend two;

two suspend many;

two suspend a Community;

many (not a Community) suspend one;

many suspend two;

many suspend many;

many suspend a Community;

a Community suspends a Community.—Mv.IX.2.3

“There are these four transactions: a factional transaction that is non-Dhamma; a united transaction that is non-Dhamma; a factional transaction that is Dhamma; a united transaction that is Dhamma.

“Of these, the factional transaction that is non-Dhamma is—because of its factionality, because of its lack of accordance with the Dhamma—reversible and unfit to stand. This sort of transaction is not to be done, nor is this sort of transaction allowed by me.

“The united transaction that is non-Dhamma is—because of its lack of accordance with the Dhamma—reversible and unfit to stand. This sort of transaction is not to be done, nor is this sort of transaction allowed by me.

“The factional transaction that is Dhamma is—because of its factionality—reversible and unfit to stand. This sort of transaction is not to be done, nor is this sort of transaction allowed by me.

“The united transaction that is Dhamma is—because of its unity, because of its accordance with the Dhamma—irreversible and fit to stand. This sort of transaction is to be done; this sort of transaction is allowed by me.

“Thus (thinking), ‘We will perform this sort of transaction, i.e., the united transaction that is Dhamma.’ That is how you should train yourselves.”—Mv.IX.2.4

More transactions that are not transactions and are not to be carried out:

an invalid motion and valid proclamation;

an invalid proclamation and valid motion;

an invalid motion and invalid proclamation;

apart from the Dhamma;

apart from the Vinaya;

apart from the Teacher’s instruction;

one that has been protested, is reversible, is not fit to stand—Mv.IX.3.2

“There are these six transactions: a non-Dhamma transaction; a factional transaction; a united transaction; a factional transaction that is a semblance of the Dhamma; a united transaction that is a semblance of the Dhamma; a united transaction that is Dhamma.

“And what is the non-Dhamma transaction?

“If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, one performs the transaction by means of a single motion but does not proclaim the transaction statement (kamma-vācā), that is a non-Dhamma transaction.

“If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, one performs the transaction by means of a double motion but does not proclaim the transaction statement, that is a non-Dhamma transaction.

“If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, one performs the transaction by means of a single transaction statement but does not set forth the motion, that is a non-Dhamma transaction.

“If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, one performs the transaction by means of a double transaction statement but does not set forth the motion, that is a non-Dhamma transaction.” —Mv.IX.3.3

“If, in a transaction with a motion and three proclamations, one performs the transaction by means of a single motion but does not proclaim the transaction statement, that is a non-Dhamma transaction.

“If, in a transaction with a motion and three proclamations, one performs the transaction by means of a double motion, a triple motion, (or) a quadruple motion but does not proclaim the transaction statement, that is a non-Dhamma transaction.

“If, in a transaction with a motion and three proclamations, one performs the transaction by means of a single transaction statement but does not set forth the motion, that is a non-Dhamma transaction.

“If, in a transaction with a motion and three proclamations, one performs the transaction by means of a double, a triple, (or) a quadruple transaction statement but does not set forth the motion, that is a non-Dhamma transaction.”—Mv.IX.3.4

“And what is a factional transaction? If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, the full number of bhikkhus competent for the transaction have not come, if the consent of those who should send consent has not been conveyed, (or) if those who are present protest, it is a factional transaction.

“If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, the full number of bhikkhus competent for the transaction have come, if the consent of those who should send consent has not been conveyed, (or) if those who are present protest, it is a factional transaction.

“If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, the full number of bhikkhus competent for the transaction have come, if the consent of those who should send consent has been conveyed, (but) if those who are present protest, it is a factional transaction.”

(Similarly for a transaction with a motion and three proclamations.)—Mv.IX.3.5

Is the permission for assent permissible?

What is the permission for assent?

“It is permissible to carry out a transaction with an incomplete Community, (thinking,) ‘We will get the assent of the bhikkhus who arrive later.’”

That is not permissible.

Where is it objected to?

In the Campeyyaka-Vinayavatthu (Mv.IX.3.5)

What offense is committed?

A dukkaṭa for overstepping the discipline.—Cv.XII.2.8

“And what is a united transaction? If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, the full number of bhikkhus competent for the transaction have come, if the consent of those who should send consent has been conveyed, (and) if those who are present do not protest, it is a united transaction.”

(Similarly for a transaction with a motion and three proclamations.)—Mv.IX.3.6

“And what is a factional transaction that is a semblance of the Dhamma? If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, one proclaims the transaction statement first and sets forth the motion afterwards, and the full number of bhikkhus competent for the transaction have not come, if the consent of those who should send consent has not been conveyed, (or) if those who are present protest, it is a factional transaction that is a semblance of the Dhamma. (Complete as in Mv.IX.3.5)”—Mv.IX.3.7

“And what is a united transaction that is a semblance of the Dhamma? If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, one proclaims the transaction statement first and sets forth the motion afterwards, and the full number of bhikkhus competent for the transaction have come, if the consent of those who should send consent has been conveyed, (and) if those who are present do not protest, it is a united transaction that is a semblance of the Dhamma.”

(Similarly for a transaction with a motion and three proclamations.)—Mv.IX.3.8

“And what is a united transaction in accordance with the Dhamma? If, in a transaction with a motion and one proclamation, one sets forth the motion first and performs the transaction by means of one transaction statement afterwards, and the full number of bhikkhus competent for the transaction have come, if the consent of those who should send consent has been conveyed, (and) if those who are present do not protest, it is a united transaction in accordance with the Dhamma.”

(Similarly for a transaction with a motion and three proclamations.)—Mv.IX.3.9

A bhikkhu with no offense to be seen, who sees no offense in himself: if suspended for not seeing an offense—a non-Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with no offense for which he should make amends: if suspended for not making amends for an offense—a non-Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with no evil view: if suspended for not relinquishing an evil view—a non-Dhamma transaction.—Mv.IX.5.1

Combinations of the above factors—Mv.IX.5.2-5

A bhikkhu with an offense to be seen; sees (admits to) the offense: if suspended for not seeing an offense—a non-Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with an offense for which he should make amends; promises to make amends: if suspended for not making amends for an offense—a non-Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with an evil view; promises to relinquish it: if suspended for not relinquishing an evil view—a non-Dhamma transaction.—Mv.IX.5.6

Combination of the above factors—Mv.IX.5.7

A bhikkhu with an offense to be seen; refuses to see the offense (to admit that it is an offense): if suspended for not seeing an offense— a Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with an offense for which he should make amends; refuses to make amends: if suspended for not making amends for an offense—a Dhamma transaction.

A bhikkhu with an evil view; refuses to relinquish it: if suspended for not relinquishing an evil view—a Dhamma transaction.—Mv.IX.5.8

Combination of the above factors—Mv.IX.5.9

“Any Community that, in unity, performs a transaction that should be done face-to-face not face-to-face: That is a non-Dhamma transaction, a non-Vinaya transaction, and the Community is one that has overstepped its bounds. Any Community that, in unity, performs a transaction that should be done with interrogation without interrogation… that should be done with the acknowledgment (of the accused bhikkhu) without his acknowledgment… who gives a verdict of past insanity to one who deserves a verdict of mindfulness… who imposes a further-punishment transaction on one who deserves a verdict of past insanity… who imposes a censure transaction on one who deserves a further-punishment transaction… who imposes a demotion transaction on one who deserves a censure transaction… who imposes a banishment transaction on one who deserves a demotion transaction… who imposes a reconciliation transaction on one who deserves a banishment transaction… who imposes a suspension transaction on one who deserves a reconciliation transaction… who grants probation to one who deserves a suspension transaction… who sends back to the beginning one who deserves probation… who grants penance to one who deserves to be sent back to the beginning… who grants rehabilitation to one deserves penance… who grants Acceptance to one who deserves rehabilitation: That is a non-Dhamma transaction, a non-Vinaya transaction, and the Community is one that has overstepped its bounds.”—Mv.IX.6.3

Any Community in unity that performs a transaction in a proper way for one who deserves it (see the cases above): That is a Dhamma-transaction, a Vinaya-transaction, and the Community is not one that has overstepped its bounds.—Mv.IX.6.4

Other combinations of wrongly applied transactions—Mv.IX.6.6

Other combinations of rightly applied transactions—Mv.IX.6.8

Bhikkhus deserving a censure transaction, etc., but it is improperly carried out many times—Mv.IX.7.1-11

Bhikkhus deserving to have a censure transaction, etc., revoked, but it is improperly revoked many times—Mv.IX.7.12-14

Those who say these transactions should be carried out again are those who speak Dhamma—Mv.IX.7.15-20

“I allow one to be mentioned in the proclamation by clan name.”—Mv.I.74.1

Quorum

“Five communities: a four-fold community of bhikkhus; a five-fold community of bhikkhus; a ten-fold community of bhikkhus; a twenty-fold community of bhikkhus; a more than twenty-fold community of bhikkhus.

“Of these, the four-fold community of bhikkhus is competent for the transaction of all transactions—if united and in accordance with the Dhamma—except for three: Acceptance, Invitation, and rehabilitation.

“The five-fold community of bhikkhus is competent for the transaction of all transactions—if united and in accordance with the Dhamma—except for two: Acceptance in the Middle Country and rehabilitation.

“The ten-fold community of bhikkhus is competent for the transaction of all transactions—if united and in accordance with the Dhamma—except for one: rehabilitation.

“The twenty-fold… the more than twenty-fold community of bhikkhus is competent for the transaction of all transactions—if united and in accordance with the Dhamma.”—Mv.IX.4.1

“If, in a transaction requiring a four-fold (community), the transaction is performed with a bhikkhunī as the fourth member, it is not a transaction and is not to be performed. If it is performed with a female trainee… a novice… a female novice… a renouncer of the training… one who has committed an extreme (pārājika) offense… one who is suspended for not seeing an offense… one who is suspended for not making amends for an offense… one who is suspended for not relinquishing an evil view… a paṇḍaka… one who lives in affiliation by theft… one who has gone over (while a bhikkhu) to another religion… an animal… a matricide… a patricide… a murderer of an arahant… a molester of a bhikkhunī… a schismatic… one who has shed (a Tathāgata’s) blood… a hermaphrodite… a bhikkhu of a separate affiliation… one standing in a different territory… one standing (levitating) in the sky through psychic power as the fourth member, it is not a transaction and is not to be performed. If he concerning whom the community is performing the action is the fourth member, it is not a transaction and is not to be performed.”—Mv.IX.4.2

(Similarly for transactions requiring five-fold, ten-fold, and twenty-fold communities.)—Mv.IX.4.3-5

Two kinds of madmen: “There is the madman who sometimes remembers the uposatha and sometimes doesn’t, who sometimes remembers a Community transaction and sometimes doesn’t. There is the madman who doesn’t remember at all (§). There is the madman who sometimes comes to the uposatha and sometimes doesn’t, who sometimes comes to a Community transaction and sometimes doesn’t. There is the madman who doesn’t come at all (§).” “When there is a madman who sometimes remembers the uposatha and sometimes doesn’t, who sometimes remembers a Community transaction and sometimes doesn’t, who sometimes comes to the uposatha and sometimes doesn’t, who sometimes comes to a Community transaction and sometimes doesn’t: I allow that an authorization of madness be given to a madman like this.”—Mv.II.25.1-2

Community transaction stating that whether the madman comes or not, the transactions of the Community are still valid—Mv.II.25.3-4

“If the followers of the suspended bhikkhu perform the uposatha, perform a Community transaction in that very same territory in accordance with the motion and announcement formulated by me (§), those transactions of theirs are in accordance with the Dhamma, irreversible, and fit to stand. If you, the bhikkhus who suspended (him) perform the uposatha, perform a Community transaction in that very same territory in accordance with the motion and announcement formulated by me (§), those transactions of yours are in accordance with the Dhamma, irreversible, and fit to stand. Why is that? Those bhikkhus belong to a separate affiliation from you, and you belong to a separate affiliation from them. There are these two grounds for being of a separate affiliation: Oneself makes oneself of a separate affiliation or a united Community suspends one for not seeing (an offense), for not making amends (for an offense), or for not relinquishing (an evil view). These are the two grounds for being of a separate affiliation. There are these two grounds for being of common affiliation: Oneself makes oneself of a common affiliation or a united Community restores one who has been suspended for not seeing (an offense), for not making amends (for an offense), or for not relinquishing (an evil view). These are the two grounds for being of common affiliation.”—Mv.X.1.9-10

Consent

“I allow that an ill bhikkhu give his consent (to a Community transaction) (§). This is how it is to be given. The ill bhikkhu, going to one bhikkhu, arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, kneeling down, performing añjali, should say to him, ‘I give consent. Convey my consent. Announce my consent (Chandaṁ dammi. Chandaṁ me hara. Chandaṁ me ārocehīti.)’ If he makes this understood by physical gesture, by voice, or by both physical gesture and voice, his consent is given. If he does not make this understood by physical gesture, by voice, or by both physical gesture and voice, his consent is not given.

“If he manages it thus, well and good. If not, then having carried the ill bhikkhu to the midst of the Community on a bed or bench, the transaction may be carried out. If the thought occurs to the nurse-bhikkhus, ‘If we move the ill one from this spot his disease will grow worse or he will die,’ then the ill one should not be moved from that place. The transaction is to be carried out when the Community has gone there. Not even then should a transaction be performed by a faction of the Community. If it should perform it: an offense of wrong doing.”—Mv.II.23.1-2

“If the conveyor of consent, on being given consent, goes away then and there, consent should be given to another. If the conveyor of consent, on being given consent forsakes the Community… dies… admits (§) to being a novice… to having renounced the training… to having committed an extreme (pārājika offense)… to being insane… possessed… delirious with pain… suspended for not seeing an offense… suspended for not making amends for an offense… suspended for not relinquishing an evil view; if he admits to being a paṇḍaka… one who lives in affiliation by theft… one who has gone over (while a bhikkhu) to another religion… an animal… a matricide… a patricide… a murderer of an arahant… a molester of a bhikkhunī… a schismatic… one who has shed the Tathāgata’s blood… a hermaphrodite then and there, consent should be given to another. If the conveyor of consent, having been given consent, on the way (to the meeting) goes away… admits to being a paṇḍaka, the consent is not conveyed. If the conveyor of consent, on being given consent, goes away… admits to being a hermaphrodite on arriving at the Community, the consent is conveyed. If the conveyor of consent, on being given consent, arrives at the Community but, falling asleep… being heedless… entering a (meditative) attainment, does not announce it, the consent is conveyed and the conveyor of consent is without offense. If the conveyor of consent, having been given (another bhikkhu’s) consent, on arriving in the Community intentionally does not announce it, the consent is conveyed but the conveyor of consent incurs an offense of wrong doing. I allow that, on the uposatha day, when purity is given, that consent be given as well, when the Community has something to be done (§).”—Mv.II.23.3

Protest

“The protest of some in the midst of the Community carries weight, while that of others does not carry weight. And whose protest in the midst of the Community does not carry weight? The protest of a bhikkhunī… a female trainee… a novice… a female novice… a renouncer of the training… one who has committed an extreme (pārājika) offense… one who is insane… one possessed… one delirious with pain… one who is suspended for not seeing an offense… one who is suspended for not making amends for an offense… one who is suspended for not relinquishing an evil view… a paṇḍaka… a person in affiliation through theft… a bhikkhu who has gone over (while a bhikkhu) to another religion… an animal… a matricide… a patricide… a murderer of an arahant… a molester of a bhikkhunī… a schismatic… a shedder of (a Tathāgata’s) blood… a hermaphrodite… a bhikkhu of a separate affiliation… one standing in a different territory… one standing (levitating) in the sky through psychic power does not carry weight. The protest of the one concerning whom the Community is performing the action, in the midst of the Community, does not carry weight.”—Mv.IX.4.7

“And whose protest in the midst of the Community does carry weight? The protest of a regular bhikkhu in the midst of the Community carries weight if he is of the same affiliation, is staying within the same territory, even if he just informs the bhikkhu right next to him.”—Mv.IX.4.8