Parajika is rules for expulsion from the Sangha. I want to ask whethere parajika forbids that person become a bhikkhu again in the future?
whynotme wrote:Thank you Hanzze and Cittasanto
Could you please cite some references in the vinaya?
This term, according to the Parivāra, derives from a verb meaning to lose or be defeated. A bhikkhu who commits any of the four following offenses has surrendered to his own mental defilements to such an extent that he defeats the purpose of his having become a bhikkhu in the first place. The irrevocable nature of this defeat is illustrated in the Vibhaṅga with a number of similes: "as a man with his head cut off... as a withered leaf freed from its stem... as a flat stone that has been broken in half cannot be put together again... as a palmyra tree cut off at the crown is incapable of further growth." A bhikkhu who commits any of these offenses severs himself irrevocably from the life of the Saṅgha and is no longer considered a bhikkhu.
The Patimokkha classifies its rules into seven levels:
saṅghādisesa, entailing Communal meetings;
nissaggiya pācittiya, entailing forfeiture and confession;
pācittiya, entailing confession;
pāṭidesanīya, entailing acknowledgement;
sekhiya, trainings; and
adhikaraṇa samatha, the settlement of issues.
If a monk breaks one of the four most serious rules — the pārājikas (Pr) — he is expelled from the Community for life. If he breaks one of the next most serious classes of the rules — the saṅghādisesas (Sg) — he is put on probation for six days, during which time he is stripped of his seniority, is not trusted to go anywhere unaccompanied by four other monks of regular standing, and daily has to confess his offense to every monk who lives in or happens to visit the monastery. At the end of his probation, twenty monks have to be convened to reinstate him to his original status.
Modus.Ponens wrote:There's an interesting question to be made in this topic: if the ofender is a samanera, and not a bhikkhu, is he also expelled for life?
'I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that you expel a novice (from the fraternity) in the following ten cases: When he destroys life; when he commits theft; when he commits impurity; when he is a liar; when he drinks strong drinks; when he speaks against the Buddha; when he speaks against the Dhamma; when he speaks against the Samgha; when he holds false doctrines; when he has sexual intercourse with Bhikkhunîs1. In these ten cases I prescribe, O Bhikkhus, that you expel the novice (from the fraternity).'
Expulsion. As stated under Pc 70, a misbehaving novice may be subject to two types of expulsion: expulsion from his status as a novice and expulsion as a punishment. As with punishment, expulsion is the responsibility of the novice's mentor. Pc 70 covers the second form of expulsion. Here we will discuss the first.
There are ten grounds for a novice's expulsion:
he is a taker of life,
he is a taker of what is not given,
he engages in unchastity,
he is a speaker of lies,
he is a drinker of intoxicants,
he speaks dispraise of the Buddha,
he speaks dispraise of the Dhamma,
he speaks dispraise of the Saṅgha,
he holds wrong views, or
he is a molester of a bhikkhunī.
The Commentary details the extent to which any of these acts would subject the novice to expulsion: with regard to the first precept, killing ants or smashing bed bug eggs; with regard to the second, stealing a blade of grass; with regard to the third, genital, anal, or oral intercourse; with regard to the fourth, telling a lie even in jest; with regard to the fifth, intentionally drinking alcohol. As stated above, a novice who commits any of these acts has broken his Triple Refuge. If he sees the error of his ways, he may take the Triple Refuge again. If not, he should be expelled from his status as a novice.
Dispraise of the Buddha, Dhamma, and Saṅgha, the Commentary says, means speaking in terms contradictory to those used in the standard chant of praise to the Triple Gem — asserting, for instance, that the Buddha's Dhamma is poorly taught, or that his disciples practice crookedly. An offender in this case should be reprimanded. If he sees the error of his ways, he should be punished with an appropriate prohibition and then given the training rules again. If he doesn't, he should be expelled. The same holds for a novice espousing wrong views — which, according to the Commentary, means espousing either the extreme of eternalism or the extreme of annihilationism. Only a molester of a bhikkhunī is automatically expelled without further ado. Such a novice also makes himself ineligible from taking the Going-forth or receiving Acceptance ever again in this lifetime.
Hanzze wrote:Interposed question: Are this questions here from theoretical nature, from intentions of defend/conquere or just out of interest (or to get things more understood)?
Interposed question: Are this questions here from theoretical nature, from intentions of defend/conquere or just out of interest (or to get things more understood)?
look at your own motivations before questioning others!
Modus.Ponens wrote:Thanks Cittasanto. That was really clarifying.
44.‘‘Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno sikkhaṃ apaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya antamaso tiracchānagatāyapi, pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso’’ti.
Users browsing this forum: Unrul3r and 6 guests