When I was taught (Theravada) Vinaya, here’s what I was taught about laypeople who decide to wear the clothing of a monk (who have not gone through all the hoops needed to ordain properly).
Any layperson who dresses up as a Buddhist monk, even for the sake of a Halloween costume, commits a so-called “Virtual Parajika”, and the punishment for this, is that they can never ordain as a Buddhist monk for the rest of their life. It’s like if I dressed up like a Canadian RCMP Police Officer (complete with fake badge), pretending to be a mountie (with the authority to arrest people, etc), when I’m not one, that would make the RCMP so angry at me for impersonating them (and impersonating a Police Officer actually is a crime, BTW), that they would almost certainly never be willing to train me and hire me onto their Police force at any time in the future, as a punishment.
This might be a Thai Buddhist thing, BTW, as I don’t recall seeing this so-called “Virtual Parajika” anywhere in the BMC 1 or 2.
The way I see it, as long as the $500 keeps getting put on the center of the Monopoly Board (to extend the analogy I used in my Dhamma Talk, please Fast Forward 20:35 into my Dhamma Talk above), by the willing Canadians, who don’t mind paying a “Not Paying Attention Tax” (Fast Forward in 25:46), then nothing can be done.
There is a rare, hard to find sutta in the EBT’s which captures this, maybe someone can help me locate it (and I spent some time looking, but couldn’t find it)?
It says something like the following (a bit cryptically): “if the laypeople are overly generous to the monks in their offerings, then restraint should be practised on the part of the monks, so as not to receive too much, which would be greedy on the part of the monks. And if the monks misbehave to the extent that they need to be taught a lesson, then restraint should be practised on the part of the laypeople, who would do well to at least temporarily withhold their offerings, to send a message of ‘you know, we can quit supporting you through our continued gift-giving, if you don’t improve your act’.”
I would like to ask you Venerable Sir to just specify: do mean wearing actual monk robe (ocher robe like buddhist monk, made from simple plain cloth) or any robe in general?
In nowadays world even in Star Wars movie “Jedi” wear robes similar to christian monk robes. So I suppose that situation would not apply in situation like Halloween?
Also in yogic circles it is sometimes normal that people wear sort-of-spiritual clothing on special occasions (like yoga/meditation retreats) even when they are officially lay people, but taking more precepts for a time being or something. But lets say they’re different set of cloths than buddhist monastic, just something with “spiritual aesthethics”. Would that apply as well then in your opinion, or in this case it doesn’t apply, being more innocent, since even thou looking sort-of spiritual it doesn’t resemble directly a buddhist monastic and are easily distinguishable?
I’m referring specifically to Buddhist Monk robes which are complete in the details to the extent that they could effectively pass themselves off as a Buddhist monk (from a particular, recognizable Buddhist lineage). So Jedi Robes don’t count, as they would be different enough.
To extend my analogy above, the RCMP wouldn’t be angry if a kid dressed up like a cop for Halloween, where the costume only vaguely looked like their uniforms, with an obviously fake plastic badge. But once one really tries to get the details right (like a counterfeit badge, gun, holster, shoulder or chest decorations of rank, everything) then the impersonation becomes an act of deception.
Interesting. Is that found in the Vinaya itself? Something tells me that’s some much later addition, or a cultural thing.
There are sometimes subtle distinctions between the clothing a Tibetan lay yogi wears (tulku or not) and those of a monk or nun. If you don’t know what to look for, you’d miss it. I don’t know what style of robes Trungpa used to wear, but he stopped wearing them not long after setting up shop in the West.
It’s not uncommon to see beggars dressed as monks in some Buddhist countries. By beggars I don’t mean monks on alms round, but people pretending to be monks or nuns to get food or money. That tends to happen in Buddhist countries where the government has no authority over monks or nuns (so not Thailand, for example). When you see those kind of people, all you can do is shrug your shoulders and move on . That’s what the locals do.
In the BMC the additional de facto pārājikas are discussed at the very end of the pārājika chapter.
The application of the term ‘pārājika’ to these extra actions, though commentarial, is undoubtedly correct, for a lifetime ordination ban on one who commits any of them is given in the Vinaya Pitaka.
The particular one that you refer to is called ‘communion by theft’ (theyyasamvāsa), though I believe the interpretation you’ve been taught is overly strict. As I understand it, a layman who went to a fancy dress party in bhikkhus’ robes wouldn’t be committing theyyasamvāsa unless it was his intention to make the other partygoers believe that he really was a bhikkhu.
Here’s the relevant passage:
48. The one living in the community by theft
At that time there was a certain man from a good family who had been brought up in comfort, but whose entire family had died. He thought, “I’ve been brought up in comfort and I’m not able to make any money. How can I live happily without exhausting myself?” And it occurred to him, “These Sakyan ascetics have pleasant habits and a happy life. After eating nice food, they sleep in beds sheltered from the wind. Perhaps I should just get myself a bowl and robes, shave off my hair and beard, put on ocher robes, and then go to the monastery and live with the monks?” And he did just that.
When he came to the monastery, he bowed down to the monks. The monks asked him, “How many rains do you have?”
He said, “What does ʻHow many rains’ mean?”
“Who’s your preceptor?”
“What’s a preceptor?”
The monks said to Venerable Upāli, “Upāli, please examine this person.”
That man then told Upāli what had happened. Upāli told the monks, who in turn told the Buddha. He said,
“Anyone living in the community by theft should not be given the full ordination. If it has been given, he should be expelled.
Hmm, I wonder why didn’t he just become a monk the normal way? Maybe he thought all you had to do was wear the robes, shave your head, grab a bowl, and show up at the local monastery? Although I guess it’s kind of implied that he didn’t want to undergo any of the rigours of monastic life, but just wanted to chill.
I am so pleased you are quoting my translation! There is a certain child-like joy to it.
I would immensely welcome your feedback on anything I have translated. On any subject really, whether it’s faulty translation, awkward or unclear wording, or even grammatical or spelling mistakes. I respect your linguistic abilities, and so it would be marvellous to hear from you.
I guess the assumption is that the whole thing was a deception from the beginning since his intention was not to go forth as a bhikkhu, but to have an easy life while passing as a bhikkhu.
The question is, if he had gone forth in the “proper manner”, would he still have been considered a rule breaker since he went forth with the wrong intentions? Or is the intention one has to become a monk not really part of the issue here ?
There’s a bit of irritation for me. Let’s say, there have, in one generation, 20 men undergone the normal procedure to ordain, and one decided not to ordain properly. I find it natural that a vinaya-rule, which takes this case as illustration of its intention & importance, just reports the where&why-s, and I’m a bit irritated why and with which perspective we’re discussing what would had happened, if this man had behaved like the other twenty. Well, this specific example of one individuum would then be missing in the canon (nothing to report on saturday, 31.march 530 before christ, say), but likely some years later, there would be another individuum, and the vinaya would now report this case… and its related rule … or not? Would we now ask, why this man does behave like this and not like the other now twenty-one cases? ??? ehhmm, sorry, just a bit confused…
Trying to come back to the main focus of this thread.
I’ve noticed something curious in the handling of the matters - either in the blogs or in the responses of the organisations. It seems to me that “accountability” was called for by the victims of misuse towards the “teachers”/“gurus”, for installation of shelter when focused at the responsible organizations and so on. What I was missing was the calling for human, mature and compassionate behave from teachers to teachers.
For example, I’ve been a teacher myself (university) and of course - it may be written code-of-conduct or not - it is obvious that a teacher cannot get in sexual relation with a current student: this is completely asymmetric and the teacher has by role the power to influence exam. Now there are many occasions for informal talks between teachers, and if I would notice that someone is going to break that rules I think it is natural to get in discussion, question and critizise even thought-games and make even other collegues aware of such mind constellation between us.
Just in our department there has been such an unethical case: the candidate dean fell in love with a student before her exam; and of course the disgust & protest of collegues stopped any further attempt to become dean. I had a couple of long disputes with him (we’ve been near and befriended collegues), sparing no criticism: ethical and professional. He went off-country for a full year and came back after that time-out, married the student, which had in the meantime won her exam, and things cooled down. It was a big lesson: especially in reflection of accountability keeping alive between teachers , and do this before things go weired, or out-of-code, or even criminal.
This is a short, surely not completely told, story in some regular university. But I think in the same way there should be an informal - and as well as formal - communication between teachers/gurus when one between them is going to get afoul while in charge - and that specific aspect I’ve been missing in the online conversations about the matter as far as I could share them. The only example where I feel the handling of such a scandal raised to this level (of personal teacher-to-teacher interaction) was the scandal by Richard Baker Roshi in S. Francisco and where the collegium of leading figures took him into question&answer in a meeting and forced him face-to-face to immediately step down.
Someone could, in theory, start a business doing mercenary Tar and Featherings for a fee, and then a fundraiser could raise money to hire the mercenaries. That to me seems about 100x more efficient than your idea, @Nessie. Not to mention 100x more entertaining. BTW: I don’t suggest that the tar be so hot as to cause a burn.
Edit: I clarified that this is a tongue-in-cheek comment below.
I agree that it is quite incredible that these people seem to ‘emerge fully formed abusers’ in positions of power, without any of their colleagues having been aware of the propensity for such wrong conduct. Even in the spirit of Kalyanamitta, and with all the Vinaya provisions for confession and confrontation for unwholesome ‘thoughts’ let alone abusive behaviour, that they would not have been identified and made accountable at an earlier stage.
I think this is a sound wake up call, for vigilance and action as soon as signs of wrong conduct appear. It is everybody’s (Lay and Ordained) responsibility to call out conduct that is inclining in the wrong way, and to either rectify it, or to remove the offender BEFORE it becomes such an entrenched issue and the perpetrator has already been able to establish a significant following.
One of my first jobs was in Childrens Protection, and the most significant thing that enabled abuse to occur was the silence of the friends and relatives that all turned a ‘blind eye’ to the many signs. We can each do our part in shining the light on this. It helps everybody; the victims and potential victims, the perpetrator themselves, and the group and community in which it occurs. It is always better to be open about it and to purge it, rather than to sweep it festering under the carpet…
An issue of view in Buddhism that seems to crop up over and over again in my monastic life seems to go like this. The Buddha taught respect and deference to elders in a smallish number of occasions throughout the EBTs. That we can all agree upon, and have no doubt heard taught to us many a time. But there are also many, many checks and balances which the Buddha places upon those in positions of authority. The elders do not have absolute authority in Buddhism. Here’s just a few suttas lying within easy reach which are examples of reigning in unchecked power, and I could find many more if you like:
But when we take a look over to Confucianism, we see an effectively absolute loyalty to authority (I can dig out some quotations to this effect if you like). I would say that leaning too closely to a Confucian style of loyalty is a defect in view, on the part of Buddhists, as it’s too close to absolute.
In other words, our loyalty to elders should be tempered with an ability to push back on them, if they are corrupt, and unresponsive to gentle hints (made with right speech).
There’s also a further defect in view that I see many Buddhists having. There is a widespread belief, @Viveka, that absolute harmlessness is a teaching of the Buddha. But there are certain occasions where it’s OK for a monk/nun to defend himself/herself, even to the extent of punching and kicking, in the Vinaya, like if one is actively under attack, or a rape attempt is underway. If my “Tar and Feathers” idea offended you, @Viveka, I’m sorry. It was a tongue in cheek comment. So if you suggest that absolute harmlessness is a teaching of the Buddha, I don’t agree with you. Just harmlessness to the extent that Vinaya is satisfied. (Having said this, of course I praise the Brahmaviharas, Jhanas, etc, where a total absense of ill will, will be required).
If you’ve got no “teeth” whatsoever, then the bullies and narcissists of the world will have their way with you, and that’s not cool. It’s a delicate balancing act, to know when to use them.
