buddhist constitution
   
 
   
  Budda's constitution definition
  Provision
  Lord Buddha
  Dhamma
  Buddhist Monks
  Buddhist Assembly
  Monastic discipline
  Ecclesiastical Offences
  Meditation
  Kamma
  Buddhist Rights Freedom
   
 

About Monastic Discipline

Mãtikã 163. “Mahãpadesa” (principal references or citation) refers to the main principles for investigating citations which a monk uses when referring to the Lord Buddha’s teachings regarding the doctrines and disciplines such as the following:
(1) In case of references to the Lord Buddha, the citation should be investigated, as follows:
A monk might say, “Face to face with the Lord Buddha did I hear this; face to face with him did I receive this. This is the doctrine, this is the discipline, this is the Master’s teaching”.
All monks should not accept or deny those statements. They are suggested to memorize the wording and contents in order to investigate them in detail by comparing them to the Gantha Sutta (the discourses) and Gantha Vinaya (the disciplines). If the contents are contrary to both the Gantha Sutta and Gantha Vinaya, they are assumed that they are not the real teachings. That monk misheard, so all monks should reject it.
In other words, if the wording and the contents are alike in both the Gantha Sutta and Gantha Vinaya, they are assumed that they are the Buddha’s teachings. That monk heard them correctly. All monks should memorize them.
(2) In case of references to a lot of monks, the citation should be investigated, as follows:
A monk might say, “In such and such a monastery resides an Order together with an elder monk; together with a leader. Face to face with that Order did I hear this; face to face with them did I receive this. This is the Doctrine, this is the Discipline, this is the Master’s teaching.”
All monks should not accept or deny those statements. They are suggested to memorize the wording and contents in order to investigate them in detail by comparing them to the Gantha Sutta (the discourses) and the Gantha Vinaya (the disciplines). If the contents are contrary to both the Gantha Sutta and the Gantha Vinaya, they are assumed that they are not the real teachings. Those monks misheard, so all monks should reject it.
In other words, if the wording and the contents are alike in both the Gantha Sutta and the Gantha Vinaya, they are assumed that they are the Buddha’s teachings. Those monks heard them correctly. All monks should memorize them.
(3) In case of references to a lot of elder monks, the citation should be investigated, as follows:
A monk might say; “In such and such a monastery reside a great number of elder monks, widely learned, versed in the Collections, experts on the Doctrine, experts on the Summaries. In the presence of those monks did I hear this; in the presence of those monks did I receive this. This is the Doctrine, this is the Discipline, this is the Master’s teaching.”
All monks should not accept or deny those statements. They are suggested to memorize the wording and contents in order to investigate them in detail by comparing them to the Gantha Sutta (the discourses) and the Gantha Vinaya (the disciplines). If the contents are contrary to both the Gantha Sutta and the Gantha Vinaya, they are assumed that they are not the real teachings. Those elder monks misheard, so all monks should reject them.
In other words, if the wording and the contents are alike in both the Gantha Sutta and the Gantha Vinaya, they are assumed that they are the Buddha’s teachings. Those elder monks heard them correctly. All monks should memorize them.
(4) In case of references to an elder monk, the citation should be investigated, as follows:
A monk might say, “In such and such a monastery resides an elder monk of wide learning, versed in the Collections, experts on the Doctrine, experts on the Summaries. In the presence of that elder monk did I receive this, this is the Doctrine; this is the Disciple, this is the Master’s teaching”.
All monks should not accept or deny those statements. They are suggested to memorize the wording and contents in order to investigate them in detail by comparing them to the Gantha Sutta (the discourses) and the Gantha Vinaya (the disciplines). If the contents are contrary to both the Gantha Sutta and the Gantha Vinaya, they are assumed that they are not the real teachings. That elder monk misheard, so all monks should reject them.
In other words, if the wording and the contents are alike in both the Gantha Sutta and the Gantha Vinaya, they are assumed that they are the Buddha’s teachings. That elder monk heard them correctly. All monks should memorize them.

Mãtikã 164. In the Gantha Vinaya (the disciplines), Mahãpadesa refers to the main principles for investigating objects and food, as follows:
(1) Whatever has not been objected to as not allowable. If it fits in with what is not allowable and goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable.
(2) Whatever has not been objected to as not allowable. If it fits in with what is allowable, and goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable.
(3) Whatever has not been permitted as allowable. If it fits in with what is not allowable and goes against what is allowable, that is not allowable.
(4) Whatever has not been permitted as allowable. If it fits with what is allowable and goes against what is not allowable, that is allowable.

Mãtikã 165. “Sammukhãvinaya” (Verdict in the presence of the Saṅgha) refers to the investigation and the sentencing which have to be made in the presence of both the prosecutor and the accused, so it is a complete verdict including any other formal act which is performed by a chapter of Buddhist monks assembled in a solemn conclave. The act will be complete when performed in the presence of related persons.

Mãtikã 166. “Sativinaya” (Verdict of innocence) refers to the Saṅgha’s recitation to declare the acquittal of an Arahant who has fully-developed mindfulness, pureness, and did commit an ecclesiastical offence (Ãpatti).
If an Arahant is accused of ecclesiastical offence by either a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhunĩ, an assembly of Buddhist monks is allowed to recite a declaration of acquittal of the Arahant who has fully-developed mindfulness, pureness, and did not commit the ecclesiastical offence. If either a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhunĩ accuses that Arahant again, the Buddhist monks need not proceed again since they have recited their declaration already. It has been declared null and void since the previous time.

Mãtikã 167. “Amũlฺhavinaya” (Verdict of past insanity) refers to the Saṅgha’s to declaration that an insane monk did not commit an ecclesiastical offence. Neither a Bhikkhu nor Bhikkhunĩ can commit an ecclesiastical offence while he or she is mad, or if he or she commits an offence unconsciously. If he or she recovers from insanity, someone accuses him or her of that offence. An assembly of Buddhist monks is allowed to recite a declaration of relief from being an offender. It is a verdict of past insanity unless the offender claims that he or she was unconscious, mad, or likely dreaming.

Mãtikã 168. “Patiññãtakaranฺa” (admitting to committing an offence) refers to the judgment of an accuser’s confession of an offence.
When either a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhunĩ commits an ecclesiastical offence and someone has accused him or her, and he or she confessed to do so (Ãpatti). Infliction on the offender is allowed according to that confession unless he or she confesses a Minor Offence instead of Major Offence.

Mãtikã 169. “Yebhuyyasikã” (decision according to the majority) refers to judgment of an offence according to a majority decision.
If a lot of monks cannot decide on a resolution to an undetermined problem which might spread to other monasteries causing dissention among the Saṅgha, the Buddhist monks are allowed to solve the problem by means of a vote. The final decision will be given according to the majority of votes.

Mãtikã 170. “Tassapãpiyasikã” (infliction of a penalty on one who is at fault) refers to the punishment inflicted on a monk or a nun who has committed offences against monastic rules (Ãpatti), where he or she did not confess to do a specific depravity.
When either a Bhikkhu or Bhikkhunĩ is accused of doing an ecclesiastical offence at a Buddhist monk’s assembly, and he or she either at first denied it and then, later confessed, or had first confessed to it and later denied it; or he or she has changed his/her statement of defend; or he or she lied during the declaration of punishment without listening to the statement of defense.
According to the judgment by means of Tassapãpiyasikã, an offender will be punished for having the following characteristics:
(1) Those who are not pure.
(2) Those who are shameless.
(3) Those who are accused by someone.
(4) Those who are punished by means of Tassapãpiyasikã.
(5) Every monk in presence votes fairly to punish the accused.

Mãtikã 171. “Tinavatthãraka” (a reconciliation of both parties) refers to the reconciliation between the two sides of the Saṅgha who have charged each other that they committed an ecclesiastical offence (Ãpatti).
If a lot of the Saṅgha quarrel about an ecclesiastical offence and it becomes serious causing dissension among them. They are allowed to cease a dispute by means of reconciliation on both sides. One monk of each party acts as a representative to confess an offence and the Saṅgha recite the declaration of the assembly’s vote except for Major Offences; an offence which a householder disagrees with and is absent from the meeting.

Mãtikã 172. “Adhikaranฺa” (a case) means a disciplinary case of dispute where the Saṅgha have to proceed accurately and fairly. A disciplinary case of dispute is,
as follow:
(1) “Vivãdãdhikaranฺa” (a legal case concerning disputes) refers to the
contention concerning the Doctrine and the discipline. A judgment will be made by means of either. Sammukhãvinaya (an investigation and a sentence which have to make in the presence of both the prosecutor and the accused) or Yebhuyyasikã (decision according to the majority).
(2) “Anuvãdãdhikaranฺa” (a legal case concerning an accusation) refers to
accusations of Failure (Vipatti) as follow:
- Sĩla – vipatti (failure in morality).
- Ãcãra – vipatti (failure in conduct).
- Ditฺtฺhi – vipatti (failure in livelihood) having the wrong view.
- Ajiva-vipatti (failure in livelihood).
A judgment will be made by means of one of the following:
- Sammukhãvinaya (a verdict in the presence of both the
prosecutor and the accused).
- Sativinaya (A verdict of innocence).
- Amũlhavinaya (A verdict of past insanity).
- Tassapãpiyasikã (penalizing on one who is at fault).
(3) Ãpattãdhikarana (legal questions concerning offences) refers to a
judgment on Ãppatti (an ecclesiastical offence). The judgment will be made by means of the following:
- Sammukhãvinaya (a verdict in the presence of both the
prosecutor and the accused).
- Patiññãtakaranฺa (a verdict of the presence of offender is admitted).
- Tinฺavatthãraka (a verdict of a reconciliation of two parties).
(4) “Kiccãdhikaranฺa” (business to be enacted by the Saṅgha) is an formal act
performed by a chapter of Buddhist monks assembled to process their duties fairly such as the Ordination Ceremony, the Kathin Ceremony (the annual robe – presentation ceremony in the month following the end of the Rains Retreat), and making a wish on the occasion of the rains-residence called Vassũpanãyikãdivasa. These formal acts are performed by a chapter of Buddhist monks by means of Sammukhavinaya (performed in the presence of the Saṅgha).

Mãtikã 173. Bhikkhu, Bhikkhunĩ, Sãmanฺera, Sãmanฺerĩ and Sikkhamãnã are not allowed to eat the following:

(1) human flesh (6) lion flesh
(2) elephant flesh (7) tiger flesh
(3) horse meat (8) leopard flesh
(4) dog meat (9) bear flesh
(5) snake meat (10) wolf flesh

Mãtikã 174. Bhikkhu, Bhikkhunĩ, Sãmanฺera, Sãmanฺerĩ and Sikkhamãnã should not eat meat which is prepared by intentionally killing animals, or meat particularly given to them. They are allowed to eat fish and meat with 3 Characteristics, as follows:
(1) They are witness to the animal killing.
(2) They heard that someone killed the animals which were specifically given
to them.
(3) They mistrust that someone killed the animals which were specifically
given to them.

Mãtikã 175. Vikãla is an improper time (after noon and night). Bhikkhu, Bhikkhunĩ, Sãmanฺera, Sãmanฺerĩ and Sikkhamãnã are allowed to drink the following juices at Vikãla.
(1) Mango juice.
(2) Rose apple juice and Hva juice (Hva = Jumbolan Plum or Java plum is a
kind of dark purple fruit).
(3) Banana juice (banana with seeds).
(4) Banana juice (banana without seeds).
(5) Masarng juice (Masarng is a kind of fruit with sweet flavor).
(6) Grape juice.
(7) Jan juice.
(8) Maprang juice and Lychee juice. (Maprang = is a kind of yellow skin fruit).
(Lychee is a small fruit, originally from China, with sweet white flesh and single large seed in a thin reddish shell).

Mãtikã 176. Juice squeezed from all kinds of fruit including sugar-cane except
rice, vegetables and Masarng flowers are allowable in the daytime.

 
Copyright © 2009 buddaleela.com. All rights reserved

 

translator's Introduction site map