Three kinds of voting in the Vinaya

Q & A
1

Hello, I am curious on how to interpret the Vinaya rules regarding three kinds of voting here: SuttaCentral

The way I am presently reading it, is that the goal here is to obtain the consensus of the sangha regarding the resolution of a legal issue. In order to guarantee consensus, the manager of the vote is given two methods of privately learning how each monk intends to vote. If the manager finds that the majority view is in accordance with the Teaching (according to the manager, who should be knowledgeable), then the vote is held. If the manager finds that the majority would vote contrary to the Teaching, then he should not announce the vote yet, and wait for better conditions.

If the manager of the vote already knows that the majority will vote according to the Teaching, then there is no need to privately determine how the monks will vote, and an open vote can be held.

The point I find slightly ambiguous is the following: how does the manager of the vote determine agreement with the Teaching?

I have two competing interpretations:

  1. The manager of the vote knows which monks speak in agreement with the Teaching, and therefore knows if the vote can be held based on who is present. This feels more like a true vote, as the decision is made by the monks, whether the manager agrees with the outcome or not. However, then I do not see the purpose of privately learning everyone’s voting intent.
  2. The manager of the vote knows which answer is in accordance with the Teaching, and learns the voting intentions of the monks to determine if they would vote correctly, and if they would not, then the vote is not held. Which feels less like a true vote, but seems more coherent with the text.

Or perhaps there is a different way to read it?

2

I’m not sure what you mean by a true vote, but it probably isn’t the goal.

14.25.25 “Monks, this legal issue has been settled, laid to rest, and properly disposed of. To persuade those monks, I allow three kinds of voting: a secret ballot, whispering in the ear, and an open vote.

The goal is to reach a vote that is in line with the teachings. If the majority isn’t going to vote in line with the teachings, then there can’t be a vote. Voting in this case isn’t about democracy. It is about continuing the discussion until the manager knows that the majority is finally in accord with the teaching.

3

Thank you, that was what I imagined was most likely intended by the text!

By “true vote” I did mean a democratic one, in the sense that if the acceptable outcome is already decided, why take the time to ask anyone for their opinion?

But if the goal of the vote is not to find out what the majority thinks, but rather to settle a matter, the strategy makes sense to me.