Asking about non parajika expulsion

[whynotme]

Hi,

I read in vinaya, sometimes the Buddha said if someone killed an arahant, raped bhikkhuni, or did many other actions (I don't remember exactly), then he said, if that one hasn't ordained, then isn't allowed to ordain, if that one is ordained, then is expelled. IIRC, there were cases when people killed arahant, raped bhikkhuni before ordination, then the Buddha didn't allow ordain them.

Are those actions equal to parajika? I.e, even if they somehow can get the ordination, if others find out their actions, would they be expelled?

Regards

[Hickersonia]

Hi,

I read in vinaya, sometimes the Buddha said if someone killed an arahant, raped bhikkhuni, or did many other actions (I don't remember exactly), then he said, if that one hasn't ordained, then isn't allowed to ordain, if that one is ordained, then is expelled. IIRC, there were cases when people killed arahant, raped bhikkhuni before ordination, then the Buddha didn't allow ordain them.

Are those actions equal to parajika? I.e, even if they somehow can get the ordination, if others find out their actions, would they be expelled?

Regards

I'm no Vinaya expert, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works. I think the idea is that, in these cases, the offender's ordination was never valid to begin with.

[Hanzze]

Good question. But how ever, this sutta come across:

Parikuppa Sutta: In Agony

"There are these five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable. Which five? One who has killed his/her mother, one who has killed his/her father, one who has killed an arahant, one who — with a corrupted mind — has caused the blood of a Tathagata to flow, and one who has caused a split in the Sangha. These are the five inhabitants of the states of deprivation, inhabitants of hell, who are in agony & incurable."

Translator's note: This discourse lists the five grave deeds that are said to prevent one's chances of attaining any of the noble attainments in this lifetime. People who commit them fall — immediately at the moment of death — into hell. No help from outside is able to mitigate the sufferings they will endure in hell, and thus they are said to be incurable. Only when the results of these deeds have worked themselves out will they be released from hell. Even if they return to the human plane, they will continue to suffer the consequences of their deeds. For example, Ven. Moggallana, one of the Buddha's foremost disciples, killed his parents many aeons ago, and the results of that deed pursued him even through his final lifetime, when he was beaten to death.

So I am not sure if it would make sense (to give ordination, or to seek for become ordinated), as it would how ever even damage the reputation of the Sangha, which would be exeptable if it would be helpful of course. I just speak for the case in killing an Arahant. Not about the other situations which are mentioned in the OP.

But thinking on the sample of Ven. Moggallana, could it be possible to work out the possibilities even in a present lifetime? Sounds more unrealistic, but why not starting with ordination or give it a change.

I.e, even if they somehow can get the ordination, if others find out their actions, would they be expelled?

I don't think so if it was befor the orditation.

Add: One thing I forgot is there are some other requires for ordination. One is that one needs to be free from criminally prosecutions which would be not easy or just after the release from the punishment. The other (if I remeber well) is that a person who is generally known as criminal, should not be ordinated (more a reputation matter).

But even that (a known criminal but already released) would not have an influence if such things would come up later, after ordination. There is for surely no quilty and its also a useless base for "Bhikkhu hunters".

[Cittasanto]

Hi,

I read in vinaya, sometimes the Buddha said if someone killed an arahant, raped bhikkhuni, or did many other actions (I don't remember exactly), then he said, if that one hasn't ordained, then isn't allowed to ordain, if that one is ordained, then is expelled. IIRC, there were cases when people killed arahant, raped bhikkhuni before ordination, then the Buddha didn't allow ordain them.

Are those actions equal to parajika? I.e, even if they somehow can get the ordination, if others find out their actions, would they be expelled?

Regards

Yes they are in the commentaries called equivelent Parajika
they are added to the parajika and reasons someone can not ordain.

there are ten reasons someone can not ordain and five of which nulify the ordination also. these fall into the nullifying catagory.

The eight actual pārājikas are:

the four for bhikkhus (also observed by the bhikkhunīs), and
the four additional pārājikas for bhikkhunīs alone.

The twelve equivalent pārājikas include the eleven disqualified types who should not be ordained as bhikkhus in the first place. If they happen to be ordained, their ordination is invalid; once they are found out they must be expelled for life (Mv.I.61-68; see BMC2, Chapter 14 for details). They are —

a paṇḍaka (essentially, a eunuch or a person born neuter — see Saṅghādisesa 2),
a "non-human" being, (this includes nāgas, petas, devas, and yakkhas),
a hermaphrodite,
a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained,
a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his status as a bhikkhu,
a person who has murdered his father,
a person who has murdered his mother,
a person who has murdered an arahant,
a person who has sexually molested a bhikkhunī,
a person who has maliciously injured a Buddha to the point of causing him to bleed, and
a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Saṅgha, knowing or suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya.

These eleven equivalent pārājikas apply to bhikkhunīs as well.

The twelfth equivalent pārājika, which applies only to bhikkhunīs, is the case where a bhikkhunī leaves the Bhikkhunī Saṅgha and takes up the role of a lay woman (Cv.X.26.1). Unlike the bhikkhus, the bhikkhunīs have no formal procedure for disrobing. If they leave the Saṅgha, they are not allowed to reordain for the rest of this lifetime.

In addition to the twenty actual and equivalent pārājikas, the Commentary gives separate listing to the four anulomika (derived) pārājikas, which are actually four cases included under Pr 1: the bhikkhu with a supple back who sticks his penis in his mouth, the bhikkhu with a long penis who inserts it into his anus, the bhikkhu who performs oral intercourse with someone else, and the bhikkhu who receives anal intercourse. Of these, three can be extrapolated to apply to bhikkhunīs, too. Why the Commentary lists these cases as separate pārājikas is hard to tell, until it's simply to ensure that these permutations of Pr 1 don't get overlooked. Still, the entire list of 24 is important, for under the rules dealing with falsely accusing another bhikkhu of having committed a pārājika (Sg 8 & 9) or the rule dealing with concealing another bhikkhu's pārājika offense (Pc 64), the Commentary defines pārājika as including equivalent and derived pārājikas as well.

those absolutely disqualifying him for life — even if he receives ordination, he does not count as properly ordained;
those marking him as an undesirable member of the Community — if he happens to be ordained, he counts as ordained, but the bhikkhus participating in the ordination incur a dukkaṭa; and
those indicating that he is formally unprepared for full Acceptance (for instance, he lacks robes and an alms-bowl or does not have a valid preceptor) — the Canon does not state whether these factors absolutely invalidate the applicant's Acceptance, but the Commentary puts them in the same class as the undesirables, above.

Absolutely disqualified. A person may be absolutely disqualified if he:

1) has an abnormal gender;
2) has committed any of the five deeds leading to immediate retribution in hell (ānantariya/ānantarika-kamma);
3) has seriously wronged the Dhamma-Vinaya; or
4) is an animal.

2) The five deeds of immediate retribution are:

a) killing one's mother (matricide),
b) killing one's father (patricide),
c) killing an arahant,
d) maliciously injuring the Tathāgata to the point of drawing blood, and
e) successfully creating a schism in the Community.

3) The prohibition for having seriously wronged the Dhamma-Vinaya covers any person who has:

a) committed a pārājika while previously a bhikkhu (Pr.I.7);
b) taken affiliation by theft;
c) gone over to another religion while still a bhikkhu; or
d) molested a bhikkhunī.

[Hanzze]

Interessting share Cittasanto,

Just wander where this interpretations are coming from. They seem to be somehow absolut and authoritarian.

In case of "a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained" would even hinder a reordination wouldn't it? So if one ordinates amoung one sect and likes to reordinate amoung another, it would be somehow difficult if he posed to be a Bhikkhu before. Or is the "a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his status as a bhikkhu" the emergency exit in this case?

Is "Bhikkhu" somehow defined?

Btw, what does BMC1 and BMC2 mean?

This is also interesting: "a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Saṅgha, knowing or suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya", as far as I know is it not possible to cause a schism in the sangha as layman. Not to speak what dishonestly means (speaking not the truth?). Might this be maybe a case, why laypeople are traditional taught to stay away from Vinaya issues?

[Cittasanto]

Interessting share Cittasanto,

Just wander where this interpretations are coming from. They seem to be somehow absolut and authoritarian.

as does much of the vinaya.
they come from in part the commentaries and the vinaya.

In case of "a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained" would even hinder a reordination wouldn't it? So if one ordinates amoung one sect and likes to reordinate amoung another, it would be somehow difficult if he posed to be a Bhikkhu before. Or is the "a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his status as a bhikkhu" the emergency exit in this case?

they are someone who poses as a bhikkhu. someone who is not a bhikkhu.
if they go to another "religion" they should disrobe first as they have not propperly renounced the training and the rules still apply to them.

Is "Bhikkhu" somehow defined?

yes, they are validly ordained member of the Sangha.

Btw, what does BMC1 and BMC2 mean?

Buddhist Monastic code 1/2

This is also interesting: "a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Saṅgha, knowing or suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya", as far as I know is it not possible to cause a schism in the sangha as layman. Not to speak what dishonestly means (speaking not the truth?). Might this be maybe a case, why laypeople are traditional taught to stay away from Vinaya issues?

The vinaya is not aimed at lay people that is why lay people don't deal with it. they can not cause a schism in the sangha because they have no standing in the sangha of monks or nuns. as I understand it a Nun can not even cause a schism as they are a different group, although they could schism between themselves or join one or the other side of a schism.

[Hanzze]

Just wander where this interpretations are coming from. They seem to be somehow absolut and authoritarian.

as does much of the vinaya.
they come from in part the commentaries and the vinaya.

Would it be much effort to find them or quote them (I am not so used to it)

In case of "a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained" would even hinder a reordination wouldn't it? So if one ordinates amoung one sect and likes to reordinate amoung another, it would be somehow difficult if he posed to be a Bhikkhu before. Or is the "a bhikkhu who has ordained in another religion without first giving up his status as a bhikkhu" the emergency exit in this case?

they are someone who poses as a bhikkhu. someone who is not a bhikkhu.

Let me give a sample: If the Dali Lama would like to ordinate under the Dhammayutt school, would it be possible?
or if a Mahanikay Bhikkhu likes to ordinate in the Dhammayut line or vici versa, would it be possible?

if they go to another "religion" they should disrobe first as they have not propperly renounced the training and the rules still apply to them.

If that is the door, than the "a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained" makes no sense if we call it another religion if one comes form another Bhikkhu sect.

Is "Bhikkhu" somehow defined?

yes, they are validly ordained member of the Sangha.

Then technical a Bhikkhu can not be a Bhikkhu with out it. Or does that "pose" mean that he tells that he is ordinated validly as a member of the Sangha (while he is not been ordinated in this or that way he tells). Not to speak about all the different interpretations of what ordination means.

Btw, what does BMC1 and BMC2 mean?

Buddhist Monastic code 1/2

Thank you, does it rever to Bhikkhu Thanissaros work on accesstoinsight?

This is also interesting: "a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Saṅgha, knowing or suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya", as far as I know is it not possible to cause a schism in the sangha as layman. Not to speak what dishonestly means (speaking not the truth?). Might this be maybe a case, why laypeople are traditional taught to stay away from Vinaya issues?

The vinaya is not aimed at lay people that is why lay people don't deal with it. they can not cause a schism in the sangha because they have no standing in the sangha of monks or nuns. as I understand it a Nun can not even cause a schism as they are a different group, although they could schism between themselves or join one or the other side of a schism.

There is now a serial of contradiction, maybe its good to make it step by step.
While we here discuss, could we aim a schism if we tell something wrongly?
If we (if we are not ordinated yet) are not able to cause such things this passage is almost useless.

[whynotme]

Many thanks Cittasanto

@ Hanzze, those commentaries actually have their root in the Vinaya. Vinaya likes suttas tells stories and those rules appeared there, the commentaries just summarized them. It is in fact the Buddha's words.

Regards

[Cittasanto]

Many thanks Cittasanto

@ Hanzze, those commentaries actually have their root in the Vinaya. Vinaya likes suttas tells stories and those rules appeared there, the commentaries just summarized them. It is in fact the Buddha's words.

Regards

no worries, any other questions?

[Hanzze]

@ Hanzze, those commentaries actually have their root in the Vinaya. Vinaya likes suttas tells stories and those rules appeared there, the commentaries just summarized them. It is in fact the Buddha's words.

From where do you know that? Or did you read them (suttas) before? Here we have just 3rd maybe 4th, 5th hand commentaries.

[whynotme]

@ Hanzze, those commentaries actually have their root in the Vinaya. Vinaya likes suttas tells stories and those rules appeared there, the commentaries just summarized them. It is in fact the Buddha's words.

From where do you know that? Or did you read them (suttas) before? Here we have just 3rd maybe 4th, 5th hand commentaries.

Yes, I've read most the suttas and most of the vinaya but in my language so I can't help you at citing (also I am terrible at it). IMO, the vinaya is more interesting because it tells more stories than the suttas, you will know a lot about society of the Buddha time while the suttas concentrate more about the dhamma knowledge.

@ Cittasanto, for now I haven't any question

Regards

[Hanzze]

@ Hanzze, those commentaries actually have their root in the Vinaya. Vinaya likes suttas tells stories and those rules appeared there, the commentaries just summarized them. It is in fact the Buddha's words.

From where do you know that? Or did you read them (suttas) before? Here we have just 3rd maybe 4th, 5th hand commentaries.

Yes, I've read most the suttas and most of the vinaya but in my language so I can't help you at citing (also I am terrible at it). IMO, the vinaya is more interesting because it tells more stories than the suttas, you will know a lot about society of the Buddha time while the suttas concentrate more about the dhamma knowledge.

Then I really do not understand why you ask for 3rd hand commentaries... So are the told things right in according to what you read?

[Cittasanto]

I just remembered a novice can be expelled for ten reasons

"I allow a novice endowed with ten qualities to be expelled: 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, he is a molester of a bhikkhunī. I allow that a novice endowed with these ten qualities be expelled." — Mv.I.60

which is not unrelated to your question.

[DAWN]

Thanks you Cittasanto for your quatations,

I would like to ask one question to one who knows the response

a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained,

what is condition that makes one go under this statement?

If it's a living like a bikkhu, a living a simple life, and/or train your self in vinaya without be ordained
Or is identify with a label "bikkhu", telling to peoples i'am a ordainded bikkhu give me dana, listen to me etc ?

Thanks is someone can clarify it

[Cittasanto]

Thanks you Cittasanto for your quatations,

I would like to ask one question to one who knows the response

a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained,

what is condition that makes one go under this statement?

If it's a living like a bikkhu, a living a simple life, and/or train your self in vinaya without be ordained
Or is identify with a label "bikkhu", telling to peoples i'am a ordainded bikkhu give me dana, listen to me etc ?

Thanks is someone can clarify it

dressing up and pretending to be what you are not to win gains, honour... essentially your second option.
it does not refer to other renunciant forms. Although pretending to be a novice maybe included I am not sure of this.

[Hanzze]

I just remembered a novice can be expelled for ten reasons

"I allow a novice endowed with ten qualities to be expelled: 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, he is a molester of a bhikkhunī. I allow that a novice endowed with these ten qualities be expelled." — Mv.I.60

which is not unrelated to your question.

Dear Cittasanto,
can you explain more. I am not sure what question you mean. There have been many.

Btw, at least we have not even talk about "non parajika expulsion". An expulsion not allowance is somehow a different thing.

[Hanzze]

Thanks you Cittasanto for your quatations,

I would like to ask one question to one who knows the response

a person who poses as a bhikkhu without having been ordained,

what is condition that makes one go under this statement?

If it's a living like a bikkhu, a living a simple life, and/or train your self in vinaya without be ordained
Or is identify with a label "bikkhu", telling to peoples i'am a ordainded bikkhu give me dana, listen to me etc ?

Thanks is someone can clarify it

dressing up and pretending to be what you are not to win gains, honour... essentially your second option.
it does not refer to other renunciant forms. Although pretending to be a novice maybe included I am not sure of this.

The have been many recluses, dressed up and live a very similar live. Win gains and honour is something "normal even under Bhikkhus, so that seems to be also not realy the point. One more thing is, that most even not all "rules" given by the Buddha do not depend on speculations and personal ideas but more on facts, which would be a little difficult with such arguments.

[Cittasanto]

I was speaking to the last person I spoke with whynotme the thread starter.

non parajika expulsions have been talked about
The vinaya is quite clear on what it is talking about.
good-bye

[Hanzze]

I am sure that the Vinaya (or better what the Buddha meant) is quite clear, but I am not sure if we get the message in the right way. Texts seems to be often so straight and takeable, but if we start to reflect a little more about it or even compare them with personal situations, some interpretation are quick simply useless and it would be better if people who do not just make it to an kind of hobby are not left hanging in the air.

If the intention to talk about is just inquisitiveness (in german "Neugierde" - literary "greed or desire for new") that such a surface investigation might be enoght.

In the sphere of reconciliation and reuniting the Sangha some points here are very needed to clear as they are simply a hindrence if they are like told for expample.

[Cittasanto]

I am sure that the Vinaya (or better what the Buddha meant) is quite clear, but I am not sure if we get the message in the right way. Texts seems to be often so straight and takeable, but if we start to reflect a little more about it or even compare them with personal situations, some interpretation are quick simply useless and it would be better if people who do not just make it to an kind of hobby are not left hanging in the air.

have you read the vinaya, or studied it?
do you know the study or reading others have put in or why?
if not you are making big unfounded assumptions.