A tragic accident happened in Thailand a few days ago. An interesting discussion topic is the nurse who came to help injured monks:
I’m pretty sure no vinaya rule was broken, but I’d like to find evidence to support this assumption. I’d appreciate it if anyone could point out the relevant Vinaya rules (with links to the SuttaCentral pages).
There are no Vinaya rules for lay people. Only bhikkhus and bhikkhunis have Vinaya rules.
It’s understandable that in a Buddhist culture there would be social norms against lay people touching monastics.
There are some cases where lay people can cause a monastic to break a precept, for example by telling them that food has been officially offered when it has not and then the monastic eats the food. But those are rare.
It’s true that in the case of touching, if a woman touches a monk that makes it much easier for the monk to touch her back, which, depending on the mental factors in the mind of the monk could be an offense. If the monk is unconscious then obviously an offense is impossible.
The monks were at the doorstep of death. One monk got his pulse back, some didn’t.
Yes, I was trying to present a broad view of the rule. Of course the chance of a monk committing an offense of touching a woman with lustful intentions is near zero in this situation.
The article is correct, though, that the woman “challenged Buddhist customs.” And that people on the scene who were not medical professionals would automatically fall back into their own conditioning is not surprising. As you know it’s deeply ingrained.
In a non-crisis situation it’s easier for everyone if you have male medical professionals in physical contact with monks (and vice versa). I’m guessing that this medical professional’s action is really a non-story and will fade into the background of this horror. If anything, I would hope her colleagues will support her actions.
The general reactions are supportive of her action, but the comments run along the line of ‘life first, vinaya later’. What I want to find out is some rules to support my assumption that no vinaya rule was broken.
Well, there is no rule, so you aren’t going to find a rule to show there is no rule.
Or are you talking about specific cases where women touched monks and the monk was found to not commit an offense? If so you are probably looking for the case of a group of women sexually assulting a monk. He was found not to have committed an offense.
Yes. Sorry for my clumsy language. 
In addition to reading Parajika 1 (for intercourse) the rule you would look to is Sanghadisesa 2, lustful contact with a woman. You could start here. You have to read very carefully though…
Others making direct contact with a monk: body to body
3.5.1 It is a woman, he perceives her as a woman, and he has lust. 3.5.2 If the woman makes physical contact with the monk, body to body, if she touches him, strokes him downwards, strokes him upwards, pulls him down, lifts him up, pulls him, pushes him, squeezes him, presses him, takes hold of him, contacts him, and he, aiming at connection, makes an effort with the body and experiences contact, he commits an offense entailing suspension. …
In all the cases of an offense for the monk, he is making some kind of intentional effort while having lust in his mind.
Note also the non-offenses:
Non-offenses
There is no offense: if it is unintentional; if he is not mindful; if he does not know; if he does not consent; if he is insane; if he is deranged; if he is overwhelmed by pain; if he is the first offender.
Yes, just to reiterate what was said before: Vinaya is for the behavior of monastics, not behavior towards monastics. Lay precepts are the five, eight, and so on. It’s polite for lay people to not unreasonably go against customs or behave in a provocative way, but it’s not a Vinaya issue as such.
What does this mean, please?
Thai culture: vinaya belongs to monks, but we should not cause a monk to break his vinaya.
The comment regarding this case is that the nurse would cause the monk to break the vinaya, which, of course, is a huge misunderstanding, as the monks were not only unconscious but also not breathing.
First offender means first offender in that particular Buddha’s dispensation. So for example, the first monk who ever had sexual intercourse with a woman did not commit a parajika offense because when he did it, there was no rule.
It’s basically no longer needed in the rule, but legally it makes sense. Patimokkha rules were only ever created after someone did something wrong.
I believe this is literally impossible. At least for the important rules, the monastic’s intention is crucial. One might tempt a monastic to break their Vinaya, but we are adults who take responsibility for our own actions. No-one makes us break Vinaya.
What Vens. Snowbird and Sujato said.
In Thailand people, including monks, often make little or no distinction between “this is custom” and “this is Vinaya”. So we can understand some potential confusion.
But going by the Vinaya-pitaka itself, technically it’s not even an offense for the monk himself to have touched the lady, as long as there is no lust in his mind; let alone for the lady to touch the unconscious monk with the intention to help!
What I find more interesting is the last line of the article:
“As a Thai, as a nurse, I’m very proud, I got to use what I know to help my fellow human beings,” she said.
There is not even a vinaya rule about monks not being able to touch women in the first place!
The vinaya rule is specifically about a monk not touching a woman with lustful intent.
Does anyone in their right mind think that a person - lay or monastic - in such a situation could have any intent other than to save life and limb?
The filth in this situation, IMO is not in the minds of the monks or the nurse… the filth, defilement and corruption is in the minds of the ignorant fools who think that it should be an issue in the first place. Sorry for the language, but such behaviour from lay people is downright despicable and deserves to be called out.
Mara… I see you! 
I try to give people the benefit of the doubt. The article says the medical professional had this happen in the moment. The norm of not touching monks is so deeply ingrained that it’s understandable this would be someone else’s first reaction. Kind of like trying to catch a dropped knife. You act on instinct. She acted on professional instinct, non-professionals acted on cultural instinct.
The nurse doesn’t say people were pulling her off the monks.
I listened to her interview. She didn’t say anything about being Thai. She said:
“I feel proud of my profession — proud of the knowledge I’ve worked hard to learn, and proud that I can help other human beings. If I weren’t in this line of work, I don’t know how much I would have been able to do. I’m simply glad that I could help.”
I totally agree with you, Venerable. And thank you for understanding how Thai people have been ingrained to act and/or think the way they do.
When the nurse was approaching the monks, someone said: “They are monks.” She responded: “They are patients (= ill or sick people).”
The heart‑wrenching part, she said, was that she had to make a split‑second decision about which monk to save first. They all looked equally bad — almost dead.
