I have come across the discussion about consent ( The discussion is good) .So I have decided to read the article for myself. While I was reading the article I came across this
Can be triggering
One part of the Vinaya recounts the story of a monk who abuses a child and is found not guilty of the most serious category of sexual transgression because the abuse did not involve the necessary type of sexual contact, namely, penetration of an intact orifice by the penis.
So I looked up the Parajika 1 because it may have been included in that section. I came across this :
Vinaya Parajika 1
At one time a monk who was an alms-collector saw a little girl lying on a bench. Being lustful, he inserted his thumb into her vagina. She died. He became anxious … “There’s no offense entailing expulsion, but there’s an offense entailing suspension.”
Why was the monk not expelled and only suspended even though he killed a child ? Is it not a violation of Parajika 1 , since as the author said that it is not covered since there was no penetration? Since he violated Parajika 1 and even Parajika 3 I thought the penalty would be higher and the monk expelled From what I know since it is under Parajika 1 that part of the violation is the only one discussed and not including the other Parajikas . Is that correct? I hope anyone can enlighten me in this very sensitive issue since I admit I am not that versed in the Vinaya Pitaka .
Ugly stuff, eh?
There was no intention to kill. All four Parajikas require specific intention to commit the act. In terms of the Vinaya, her death was an accident.
As we define penetration now, yes, of course this is penetration. But in terms of the Parajika rule, there would need to be penetration with the monks sexual organ. I think there is a table online somewhere that explains all the different combinations that meet the Vinaya definition of an offense.
But in terms of bad karma? Yeah, off the charts.
Vinaya is very technical.
Parajika can also depends on whether sexbots are regarded as/really is sentient. If not sentient, then having sex with sexbots can also not count as violating Parajika 1.
I don’t know how this was in ancient India, but nowadays this would be a worldly legal issue. Is it possible to remain a member of the order if one is guilty of a “worldly” crime punishable by a longer jail penalty? Or even life long detention in a forensic psychiatric facility, in case one is found to have a mental disorder that makes it likely for these things to happen again (which could be the case in Germany)?
Absolutely. The Vinaya explains how one becomes not a member of the order. Committing a crime is not one of those, unless it is also a Vinaya offense.
Despite what happens in Thailand with the government forcing people to disrobe, according to the Vinaya, no one can make someone else not a bhikkhu/bhikkhuni.
So they go to jail in robes … strange idea, but obviously possible.
So sexual interactions between woman are not considered to be a Parajika? I have been trying to read up on this and I am lightly confused.Also is it not like rape since there was no consent? Also thank you for bringing up the point about intentions.
I was quite baffled and saddened about the story of the little girl to be honest. Real ugly stuff. Thanks for all that shared their thoughts .
I think most people would call it rape because the child could not consent. But consent isn’t a factor in the sexual Vinaya offenses as far as I remember. Because even if the acts are consensual they are usually some kind of offense according to the Vinaya.
The whole sex section of the Vinaya is hard to read both technically and emotionally. In general, it’s hard to read about all the bad things monastics have done (and had done to them). It is also something very difficult to study without a guide, preferably a living person who has been following the rules.
It’s also tricky because the Vinaya cannot be taken as passing moral judgement on actions—both what is and is not a Vinaya offense. There are probably quite a few things around killing where a modern court might rule at least negligent homicide where according to Vinaya there is no offense. At the end of the day, the Vinaya has to be something that can be followed without being overwhelmed by doubt. So lots of thing are cut and dry when we might not expect them to be.
Yep, super weird. But if you think about it, it makes senses. Lets say the monk is arrested. Should that make him disrobe? Or would it be after he is convicted in a court of law? What if the monk is wrongly convicted? Should he have to disrobe in that situation? After he serves his time could he become a monk again?
Women (nuns) have their own parajika & other offenses.
Iirc this separation does lead to some weird gaps. For instance, masturbation is treated differently, with iirc women having two rules against manually stimulating themselves or inserting a dildo, while men have a single rule against causing themselves to ejaculate by any means. I’m sure there’s some weird corner cases caused by these different wordings, but the spirit of the vinaya strikes me as quite clear. If you read it with evil intent, “what bad things could one do while possibly being within the technicalities of the rules” you come to very different impressions than if you read it thinking “what does this encourage one to do”. Monastics are supposed to be celibate.