Yes, but when you say “This is incorrect” I am not accepting that as a fact, merely your personal opinion. I am not making any assumptions about your relative expertise vs mine, and I hope you will extend the same courtesy to me.
I didn’t say I wasn’t interested in the discussion, otherwise I wouldn’t be participating. I am just curious why this issue seems to be important. But perhaps I am missing some important aspect. To me, the risk of expulsion for transgressing seems to overshadow the possible benefit of evading a train fare, but again perhaps I am not seeing this from the right perspective. I am here to understand why people might have different perspectives on this, I hope you don’t mind my presence here.
Indeed you are not. The question here wasn’t “is this ethical” or “should you do this” (despite the OPs poor wording) the legal question at hand is “Assuming some monk already did this unethical act, what is the appropriate “punishment” for them according to the Vinaya?”
In secular law, this is where judges would apply the e.g. US sentencing guidelines to decide on how a particular crime is to be dealt with, but in the Theravada Sangha we don’t have “judges” per se: We only have the broader community of fellow monastics to consult with on such matters.
I stated that by the conditions imposed by BMC Parajika 2, fare evasion would appear to be an offence. This also appears to be the conclusion reached by @sujato and others, so I don’t think I am alone in expressing this view.
However, as I understand it, the original poster expressed doubt that stealing a “service” could be regarded as a transgression, as it does not involve a physical object. I then expressed an opinion that material loss is suffered by the train operator, as the fare evader contributes to the operating cost of the train (arguably insignificantly) but also does not contribute to the maintenance cost of the train network (which is arguably substantial). So the thing “stolen” by the fare evader isn’t the service but a portion of the train network operational and maintenance burden, which does belong to an entity.
As to whether this is a legal or ethical issue, that wasn’t my question either. I simply corrected @Snowbird 's opinion that is was a legal issue, and I stated I believed it is an ethical one as well.
As to your question of the appropriate “punishment” for the offence, I don’t have an opinion.
I did have a question, which is more of a comment - I am genuinely surprised as to why a monastic would even contemplate fare evasion? Given the potential penalty (expulsion) could be a dire consequence.
No, you disagreed with me. (ETA: Which is perfectly fine.)
Whether one has committed a Vinaya offense or not is a legal Vinaya issue. Perhaps you thought I meant that it was a secular legal issue. That is not what I meant.
Whether something is moral or not is mostly irrelevant to the question of if it is a Vinaya offense or not.
I think that most people (including myself) would agree that fair evasion is immoral. However that is not a factor in the offense.
There are many Vinaya rules that have nothing to do with morality. And there are rules that people may find immoral.
Perhaps, rather than using “emotive” phrases such as “That is incorrect” or “you disagreed with me”, we can agree (without referencing each other’s supposed “expertise”) that we do not share the same opinions?
I do appreciate that you are speaking from a specific narrow perspective, which is whether a specific action (in this case fare evasion) is an offence by the definition in Vinaya. But I thought @sujato already gave an opinion that it is, which I concur with. I was merely pointing out that in addition, I would regard it as an ethical issue. So I am not quite sure why you are argumentative on this.
Sorry, I thought that I was speaking to the question raised by the OP.
And no, I’m not willing to say that there is no right and wrong, only opinions. There are indeed a vast number of Vinaya related things that are a matter of opinion. And in fact I believe that once one branches out from what you are labeling as a “narrow perspective” then one is swimming in an ocean of opinion. Some people like swimming in an ocean. I do not.
I don’t deny that someone may feel emotions when being told that they are incorrect (I do!!). However I don’t see that pointing out errors is outside the bounds of civil discussion.
As I understand it, the original poster’s question was this:
My initial response was in regards to specifically the topic of “stealing someone else services”, and I deliberately chose to comment on this from a wider perspective. I don’t agree with your opinion that “Whether something is moral or not is mostly irrelevant”. I do believe morality and ethicality is ultimately what we should ALL be concerned with, regardless of specific rules belonging to specific groups, and how certain parties may choose to interpret them.
I’ve already stated I choose not to go to the Sangha for refuge, as I don’t agree with all the rules as I don’t believe they are applicable today. It doesn’t mean I don’t think think they were relevant at one time, and I do appreciate the intent behind the rules. However, I don’t think engaging in considering hypothetical situations where a rule may or may not apply in a strictly mechanical manner is necessarily productive (my personal opinion only). At the end of the day, we do need to be guided by what we feel is right and wrong (again, personal opinion).
Hi Christie, I love your enthusiasm and tenacity but this discussion is a technical one about a very important rule for monks, which has a particular framework and specificity to it, not just a general discussion about what is right and wrong, or opinions.
I see from your bio here that you call yourself a “relative beginner” in Buddhism, which is wonderful! Your interlocutor, Snowbird would probably never reveal his own expertise out of humility, but just so you know, he is a senior monk with a great deal of knowledge about the Vinaya.
Whether you agree or not, it’s useful to listen to experts.
Also, regarding your comments about not having refuge in the Sangha, I feel it’s important to point out that the Sangha we go to for refuge is the Ariya or Noble Sangha, the community of enlightened beings, not the ordinary monastic Sangha. So, it might be possible for you to view the refuge in Sangha differently. Certainly the Buddha seemed to suggest that this refuge was a very important part of the path, and unshakeable confidence in the Sangha is one of the factors for stream entry.
PS bhante Sujato once told me that an expert is just someone who started before you did anyway I’m sure you’ll go from relative beginner to expert soon enough but no need to rush. All the best!
I wasn’t questioning Snowbird’s expertise, indeed I gathered from his responses that he considers himself an expert.
I call myself a “relative beginner” in Buddhism, but I call myself a relative beginner in everything. I am well aware of the Dunning Kruger syndrome, therefore I acknowledge from the beginning I am not an expert in anything. Perhaps one day, I will attain final liberation and perhaps even then I won’t consider myself an expert. I don’t think the Buddha was omniscient and he was certainly not correct all the time (at least, in my opinion, particularly of his attitude towards the ordination of women).
But I do retain a healthy skepticism for all opinions, whether they come from “experts” or not. It seems to me that:
Most, if not all of us, agree that fare evasion is not ethically good behaviour.
It would also seem the consensus opinion is that it is a transgression of Vinaya rules.
What I don’t agree with is the notion that somehow if it wasn’t regarded as a transgression (based on a "technicality"or “legality” of how one interprets the rules) then it’s somehow okay. Perhaps I am over-reaching here, but I don’t think that’s right. If someone believes that something is morally wrong, is it okay to commit the act because it “doesn’t break the rules”? That’s the line of thinking I am questioning.
I also think your discussion of the Sangha is also a technicality. The original community established by the Buddha was a group of arahants, so there is only the one Sangha. As time grew, the Buddha admitted more and more mendicants into the order, and therefore the rules were gradually established to clarify what is regarded as “right” or “wrong” behaviour in order for the community to live harmoniously.
I agree with the intent of the rules, even though I don’t agree with some of the specific details (but I appreciate the context by which they were established). But in any case, I don’t believe they are meant to be interpreted mechanically or literally, as seems to be implied by some in this thread.
Okay so, I think the point you are stuck is that for it to be a Parajika (expulsion from the Sangha forever - so quite a serious consequence) it has to be a particular kind of transgression, theft of something worth a certain amount and something that you would be severely punished for. The details of this, as others have already pointed out, are quite complex and require some knowledge and expertise, not just opinions. If it was an easy answer the Bhikkhu who asked the question and had been discussing it with his community would not have needed to ask. So, it’s complicated. It’s specialised knowledge.
As an analogy to help you understand the rule, there are consequences for breaking road rules, however, some rules have bigger consequences for breaking them. So, although we would all agree that driving faster than the speed limit is naughty, going a few kms over the limit is obviously very different to driving at full speed with the intent to mow down pedestrians. Obviously both are wrong but at the lower end of the spectrum you’re probably going to get a warning, at the upper end of the spectrum you’re going to get arrested and go to court and probably going to gaol. Because that penalty would be very heavy, there’s a lot of complexity around the laws involved and what crimes were committed or not and what the punishment would be. That’s the kind of thing being explored here.
No, that is NOT what I am saying at all. I am actually saying the opposite.
What matters is that one follows the eightfold path, which includes right action. It’s important that we do what is right, and not whether it breaks the rules or not.
I actually think part of the issue (with some aspects of Buddhism today) is that we are focused on what the rules say, instead of doing what is right. For example, we have would-be bhikkhunis prevented from ordination because of a “technicality”.
I would argue anyone who claims morality is “irrelevant” when one is considering whether a particular Vinaya rule has been broken or not should probably re-evaluate what their focus and their priority should be. It’s not about whether or not a rule has been broken, and what punishment if any is due. We need to stop thinking like lawyers and start thinking like compassionate beings. Then we can truly hope to achieve the cessation of craving and suffering.
None of us are perfect. Not even the Buddha - he was capable of making mistakes, and he still led a mortal life with sickness and suffering even after realisation. The Sangha is a political and social organisation, it has rules that perhaps are not perfect or can be perfectly applied. I would question whether acceptance of the Sangha is a necessary step for realisation, there were plenty of examples of the Buddha awakening disciples long before the Sangha was fully established. That’s clearly something added later on by others to bolster the importance of adhering to the Sangha. Remember, we do not know for certain exactly what was taught by the Buddha and what was added on. As the Buddha reminds us, we need to question everything and directly experience what is the truth for ourselves.
I admire your tenacity in telling the monastics how they should be conducting their discussions. I also admire the patience and compassion shown by the monastics in giving time to helping you understand what is going on in this thread.
Once again I admire you enthusiasm. But if this is your approach, I fear your nascent Vinaya studies will be doomed! It’s starting to feel like you’re either missing the point completely or actually engaging in bad faith here, afterall this isn’t a discussion of your personal ethical viewpoint and what’s “right” according to you but rather the actual content and technical detail of the Vinaya rule.
Whilst I have no doubt about your sincerity, to say monastics should just “do what’s right” is all well and good but also somewhat akin to those sovereign citizens declaring themselves free from all the laws of the land because they disagree with a piece of legislation.
Monastics don’t have the luxury to just declare ourselves free from the rules and to just do one’s own idiosyncratic version of what’s “right”. We are members of a community.
Exploring exactly what those rules are is a legitimate discussion. People here have tried to help you see the technical and legalistic side of such a discussion as distinct from other concerns, but if you’re unwilling to engage in legitimate aspects of Vinaya discussions then it’s probably best to avoid future threads like this one.
Well, I am not sure how to respond to this, as I feel you are mischaracterising what I am saying and creating strawman positions which I did not subscribe to or agree with.
I wasn’t discussing my personal ethical viewpoint. As I understand it, most of this thread (including I believe @Snowbird) agree that fare evasion is not “ethical”, so I am not telling others what is “right” but reiterating what I believe it is a commonly agreed position.
I also thought the prevailing position is that fare evasion is an offence under Vinaya rules. Again, I am not stating a different position, but actually concurring with what I believe to be the common viewpoint.
As to the analogy with “sovereign citizens”, I do feel that’s a rather unfair comparison. I was not advocating that we should ignore legislation. Avoiding fare evasion is complying with secular legislation, as well as with the Vinaya rules, so I am not advocating doing something different.
So in summary, I am not sure why you think I am “unwilling to engage in legitimate aspects of Vinaya discussions” when I am actually agreeing with everything that has been said. The only additional point I was making was that if we already believe that committing an act is immoral, that should be already a sufficient deterrent and it doesn’t then matter what the rules say or don’t say. Surely this is not a position of “bad faith”?
anyway I’m sure you’ll go from relative beginner to expert soon enough but no need to rush. All the best!