Buddha set forth clear rules on who is and who is not a Sangha member. He started with a simple command of acceptance Ehi Bhikkhu or Ehi Bhikkhuni meaning "Come here my Sakya man disciple, Come here my Sakya woman disciple" then because of Sangha members who raped, went in public naked, or were drunk or violated some local laws, or did something criminal or disgusting, he had to keep adding rules from 5 basic ones now often given to lay Buddhists for guidance in their lives to the 250 of Bhikshus and 348 for Bhikshunis.
The big 5 are do not kill (refers to a human being), do not steal, do not lie, do not have sex, do not take intoxicants. This is the usual order for lay people.
What a defeat means is that that person is no longer immediately on the act and in this lifetime allowed to be calling themselves Bhikshu or Bhikshuni or represent themselves as such, neither can they wear robes or retain the rights of a Bhikshu or Bhikshuni anywhere in this world. They cannot be re-ordained either later if they reform their ways or remain celibate. They cannot with the intention to ordain again join any Buddhist tradition new or old; or cross into another countries place with the purpose to ordain again. There is no fix to it, anywhere. This means if a Mahayana or Theravada defeat then they cannot go to the other tradition to be ordained. This means they cannot join a non-Vinaya group like Japanese traditions and be ordained a married priest nor be a monastic there. They must disrobe and leave the community in lay clothes. They remain Buddhists lay man or lay woman for the rest of their life if they choose too.
Four special categories of bhikkhunis/bhikkhus exempted from a penalty under this rule: any bhikshu/bhikshuni who is insane, possessed by spirits, delirious with pain, or the first offender(s). These four categories are exempted from penalties under nearly all of the rules, although the first offender for each rule is exempted only for the one time he acted in such a way as to provoke the Buddha into formulating the rule.
NOTE to the STUBBORN or the RADICALS! This is NOT A FREE PASS, the ONE TIME exemptions are hard to stick to, and it really is dependent on whether your Sangha would tolerate it even once.
Vibhanga commentary defines insane anyone who "goes about in an unseemly way, with deranged perceptions, having cast away all sense of shame and compunction, not knowing whether he has transgressed major or minor training rules." It recognizes this as a medical condition, which it blames on the bile. As for spirit possession, it says that this can happen either when spirits frighten one or when, by distracting one with sensory images, they insert their hands into one's heart by way of one's mouth (!). Whatever the cause, it notes that insane and possessed bhikkhus are exempt from penalties they incur only when their perceptions are deranged ("when their mindfulness is entirely forgotten and they don't know what fire, gold, excrement, and sandalwood are") and not from any they incur during their lucid moments. As for a bhikkhu delirious with pain, he is exempt from penalties he incurs only during periods when the pain is so great that he does not know what he is doing.
In the Dharmgupta 4 part Bhikshuni precepts it's written this way:
1. If a bhikshuni acts on sexual desires, violates, impure conduct, and even with domestic animals is a bhikshuni parajika and together cannot live.
The full offense here is composed of four factors: effort, object, knowledge, and consent.
Summary: Voluntary sexual intercourse — genital, anal, or oral — with a human being, non-human being, or common animal is a pārājika offense.
2. If a bhikshuni, gathers in a city, if in an empty place, not given, cherishes stealing, intends to take; Follows and actually steals things. If by a king, if a king's official places or catches. If killed, if bound, if banished: "You are thief! You fool! You are none to know." If a bhikshuni not given, takes, is a bhikshuni does thus: is a bhikshuni parajika and together cannot live.
Stealing under any circumstances is always an offense. However, the severity of the offense depends on another factor, which is —
- 1) Object: anything belonging to another human being or a group of human beings.
- 2) Perception: One perceives the object as belonging to another human being or a group of human beings.
- 3) Intention: One decides to steal it.
- 4) Effort: One takes it.
This is one that is vastly regulated examples, rules and intentions, living and the dead, pretas, and spirits, devas and the attached deceased; friends and acquantances permissions and implied, permanent and temporary; and the commentary and exceptions are lengthy.
3. If a bhikshuni intends oneself, holds severs a human life, if holds a knife aids together with people. If admires death, praises death, and urges death: "Arrgh! People use this evil life for! rather death no life!" Acts accordingly to her mind's idea, countless helps out, admires death, praises death, urges death. This is a bhikshuni parajika and together cannot live.
Supporting suicide particularly the self-immolation in and out of Tibet is a parajika because it is done in words, print, pictures, online websites and in social media, signing petitions that support this, in protest marches, and acts with intention to result in the death of another person, no matter what views you have on the matter in Tibet or it's status as you wish it to be. There is no Bodhisattva vow or any precedence that would override this at all.
- 5) The value of the object.
five factors, all of which must be present for there to be the full offense.
The pārājika offense is for killing a human being aside from oneself. A bhikkhu who attempts suicide incurs a dukkaṭa. If there are bhikshu or bhikshuni or including novices supporting the act of suicide then they commit the parajika and are defeated instantly (self-immolation is suicide, those supporting it are in defeat upon the Facebook post of a picture or in written or spoken words).
- 1) Object: a human being, which according to the Vibhaṅga includes human fetuses as well, counting from the time consciousness first arises in the womb immediately after conception up to the time of death.
- 2) Intention: knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wanting to cause that person's death. "Knowingly" also includes the factor of —
- 3) Perception: perceiving the person as a living being.
- 4) Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing that person to die.
- 5) Result: The life-faculty of the person is cut as the result of one's act.
A bhikkhu who kills a "non-human being" — a yakkha, nāga, or peta — or a devatā (this last is in the Commentary) incurs a thullaccaya. According to the Commentary, when a spirit possesses a human being or an animal, it can be exorcised in either of two ways. The first is to command it to leave: This causes no injury to the spirit and results in no offense. The second is to make a doll out of flour paste or clay and then to cut off various of its parts (!). If one cuts off the hands and feet, the spirit loses its hands and feet. If one cuts off the head, the spirit dies, which is grounds for a thullaccaya.
Rules entailing thullaccaya offenses are found in the Sutta Vibhaṅga as derivatives from pārājika and saṅghādisesa rules; in the Khandhakas, as stand-alone rules. The fact that they are scattered throughout the Canon with no special arrangement or section of their own makes it difficult to determine whether one has committed an offense of this class. NOTE these require confession to good bhikshu or if a bhikshuni to another good bhikshuni.
this is an appendix to the Buddhist Monastic Code from Access to Insight website:
Here is the thullaccaya-confession:
61. Should any bhikkhu intentionally deprive an animal of life, it is to be confessed.
There are five factors for the full offense here.
1) Object: a living animal.
2) Perception: One perceives it to be a living animal.
3) Intention: One knowingly, consciously, deliberately, and purposefully wants to cause its death.
4) Effort: whatever one does with the purpose of causing it to die.
5) Result: It dies as a result of one's action.
4. If a bhikshuni really not actually knows. Self admires praises says: "I gained exceptional dharma. I already become an Arhat whose wisdom surpasses dharma. I know correctly. I see correctly." Later at a different time. If asked, if ignored wishes to seek purity intentionally, doing correctly say: "All elders, I really not know, not see, and said I know, I see. False lies talking nonsense." except achieves a slow highly developed (ability) is a bhikshuni parajika and together cannot live.
The full offense under this rule has four factors.
1) Object: a superior human state.
2) Perception: One perceives it as not present in oneself.
3) Effort: One addresses a human being, mentioning that state in connection with oneself — either the state as within oneself, or oneself as in the state —
4) Intention: with the intent to misrepresent the truth, motivated by an evil desire.
NOTE: Natural states are ok, confusion about an attainment is ok, lack of education, superstition, cultural customs and the case by case basis for the claim or practice that is noticed by other bhikshuni is not a violation of this. Because there is no intention to violate. Modern cases refer to gaining extra sensory ability whether it's real or mistaken, reading minds, knowing past lives, meeting the demands of Buddhists who would otherwise not learn from masters is ok but a violation if it is all faked. No ruling on making money off of abilities, except for already stated in the Vinaya.
5. If a bhikshuni, an impure mind together with an impure mind man, from armpit already down, knee above, bodies mutually touching. If caught rubbing. If holding hands. If returns. If upper touches. If raises. If lowers. If catches. If presses down, is a bhikshuni parajika, not together to live. It is due to a body mutually touching reason.
A continuation of Parajika 1 in more detail. The intention is to give in to desire, sexual attraction being mutual. This means the woman has not given up her desire for sex and its acting on it. Thus it is a defeat.
6. If a bhikshuni, an impure mind, knows a man's impure mind; accepting grabs hands, seizes robes, enters a screened place, together standing, together talking, together walking, or bodies mutually lean on, or together dates. Is a bhikshuni parajika and together cannot live.
This is also related to parajika 1. The case is dating, being seen dating, as a couple so the people viewing the bhikshuni with the man will see them as a couple walking in public, talking in public, going into a screened place even standing, watching them seeing them lean on each other like a husband and wife or a boyfriend and girlfriend. Women who have neglected their mindfulness finding themselves seeking out men, being in the company of men, making comments about the beauty or ugliness of men, are also at risk here. Comments to a family member to shore them up and build their confidence are not a part here, but still can't be in the company of the menfolk without attracting gossip.
7. If a Bhikshuni, knows a Bhikshuni violated a parajika, not self confessed, not pure assembly. If in an unusual time; this bhikshuni or life when her life ends, or among assembly raises, or retires a path, or enters a place path group, after does rightly say: "I foretold similar to be thus as a right violation." Is a bhikshuni parajika, together cannot live. Covered concealed serious fault by intent.
This matter means that if knowing a bhikshuni in or outside your own community or even in your community has a violated a parajika then that bhikshuni is suspect but not in violation if she is unclear about the matter at hand. All good bhikshuni should be aware of this difference. Knowing someone who is a parajika breaker is not good for your credibility either. I regularly check my friends on Facebook for appropriateness. Sometimes with a large number of fans or friends it's really hard to catch it when a violation occurs.
8. If a Bhikshuni knows a Bhikshu Sangha to do conduct. As a dharma, as regulation, as a Buddha actually taught not comply , not repentant, the Sangha not yet grant act together to live, yet to comply, all Bhikshuni speak saying: "Elder sisters, this Bhikshu no Sangha place conduct, as dharma, as law, as Buddha actually taught. Not comply not repentant, Sangha not yet grant act together to live, as did not comply." thus bhikshuni warn this bhikshuni when persists not given up. This bhikshuni must and even 2nd, 3rd warnings, order gives up this mistake. And even 3 warnings, gives up she is good. If she doesn't give up. It is a bhikshuni parajika not together to live. Violation follows conduct intent.
Really simple, stop hanging out with the bad boys. You Bhikshuni who support a violated Bhikshu are considered warned now upon reading this blog. I'm checking your Facebook timeliness periodically, unfortunately it takes me time to figure stuff out, I like you, do err on the side of caution. If you hide you can be found. Don't worry about it if you are not in the wrong here.
A bhikkhu who violates any of these four pārājika rules is automatically no longer a bhikkhu. There is no need for him to go through a formal ceremony of disrobing, for the act of violating the rule is an act of disrobing in and of itself. As each of the rules states, he is no longer in affiliation, which the word-analysis defines as no longer having a single transaction (i.e., he can no longer participate in any Community meetings), no longer having a single recitation (i.e., he can no longer participate in the uposatha (see BMC2, Chapter 15)), no longer having a training in common with the bhikkhus.
Even if a bhikkhu who has violated any of these rules continues to pretend to be a bhikkhu, he does not really count as one; as soon as the facts are known he must be expelled from the Saṅgha. He can never again properly ordain as a bhikkhu in this life. If he tries to ordain in a Community that does not know of his offense, his ordination is invalid, and he must be expelled as soon as the truth is found out.
The Commentary to Pr 1 maintains that he is allowed to "go forth" as a novice, but because the Vibhaṅga does not clearly support this position, not all Communities accept it.
Ignorance of these rules does not exempt an offender from the penalty, which is why the Buddha ordered that they be taught to each new bhikkhu as soon as possible after ordination (Mv.I.78.2-5). Because the rules cover a number of cases that are legal in present-day society (e.g., recommending abortion, proving to oneself how supple one has become through yoga by inserting one's penis in one's mouth) or that are common practice among people who see nothing wrong with flirting with the edges of the law (e.g., hiding an article subject to customs duties when entering a country), it is especially important to inform each new bhikkhu of the rules' full implications from the very start.
If a bhikkhu suspects that he has committed a pārājika, he should immediately inform a senior bhikkhu well versed in the rules. The way the senior bhikkhu should handle the case is well-illustrated by an incident reported in the Commentary to Pr 2: A king together with an enormous crowd once went to worship the Great Stūpa at a certain monastery in Sri Lanka. Among the crowd was a visiting bhikkhu from the South of the country who was carrying an expensive roll of cloth. The commotion of the event was so great that he dropped the cloth, was unable to retrieve it, and soon gave it up for lost. One of the resident bhikkhus happened to come across it and, desiring to steal it, quickly put it away before the owner might see it. Eventually, of course, he became tormented by guilt and went to the resident Vinaya expert to admit a pārājika and disrobe.
The Vinaya expert, though, wouldn't let him disrobe until he had found the owner of the cloth and inquired about it more fully. Eventually, after a long search, the bhikkhu was able to track down the original owner at a monastery back South, who told him that at the time of the theft he had given the cloth up for lost and had abandoned all mental attachment for it. Thus, as the cloth was ownerless, the resident bhikkhu had incurred not a pārājika, but simply some dukkaṭas for the preliminary efforts with intention to steal.
This example shows several things: the great thoroughness with which a senior bhikkhu should investigate a possible pārājika, the compassion he should show to the offender, and the fact that the offender should be given the benefit of the doubt wherever possible: He is to be considered innocent until the facts prove him guilty.
There are, however, cases of another sort, in which a bhikkhu commits a pārājika and refuses to acknowledge the fact. If his fellow bhikkhus see, hear, or have any suspicions that this has happened, they are duty-bound to bring up the issue with him. If they are not satisfied with his assertions of his innocence, the case becomes an accusation issue, which must be resolved in line with the procedures outlined in Sg 8 and Chapter 11.
Finally, the Commentary concludes its discussion of the pārājikas by noticing that there are altogether 24 — eight actual, twelve equivalent, and four derived — pārājikas for bhikkhus and bhikkhunīs.
The eight actual pārājikas are:
- the four for bhikkhus (also observed by the bhikkhunīs), and
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 —
- the four additional pārājikas for bhikkhunīs alone.
- 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 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
These eleven equivalent pārājikas apply to bhikkhunīs as well.
- a person who has dishonestly caused a schism in the Saṅgha, knowing or suspecting that his position was contrary to the Dhamma-Vinaya.
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.
Inserted material is from Access to Insight website. Parajika section in Chapter 4 of the Buddhist Monastic Code I; the material I inserted is only a little bit from this entire section. It bears saying that it is better to read the Buddhist Monastic Code I and Buddhist Monastic Code II for more information and for a complete understanding of this matter.
Remember those who are Bhikshuni or Bhikshu living in solitude away from Sangha but not intentionally disrobing are still considered pure. It is a fault on the Bhikshu or Bhikshuni that
views them or claims them as defeated or disrobed because they live alone or in retreat or are retired.
Sangha in Buddha's time his students even lived in solitude and it's always been the case due to financial costs or lack of community space or geography or even personal preferences where Sangha would live on their own.
Records left to us by ancient masters and their communities point out those that live to high achievement while living on their own and remaining pure. And exceptions are made for those that need to be working and having to adhere to dress codes in the workplace then returning home to wear robes are in fact still in good standing. There is no rule against such living only rules guiding one in how to live in community and how to live outside it.
Take heart dear brothers and sister in purity. If you find you are the object of derision by another Sangha member just get on Facebook, I will find you someone you can trust to help you decide the matter. If the matter includes one of these then you are duty bound to seek an elder who is expert in the Vinaya and who is willing to hear you and you should observe the advice given.
If you are in defeat admit it let it be investigated to see if the it is truly the case
and if it is so, then take the recommended action but please do wait for the review and the process to be complete, particularly if you are a bhikshuni.
We are not to attract local gossip, being careful to deport ourselves properly in public, we are to seek out other Sangha regularly, asking elders for advice often. It is also clear that you can go outside your own community or tradition to receive good advice from Vinaya masters. Do so, it matters. It clarifies and makes you more supported than if you were sitting in a chair wondering about a mater.
Remain in contact with other Bhikshuni or Bhikshu in good standing who are in solitude or residing in communities.
This is clear. No one can be accused of a parajika or other offenses for where they live and/or how they have to survive as long as they are not breaking the the laws or their Vinaya precepts given to them.
Remember dear Sangha a place or robes does not make you pure
it is the precepts properly transmitted to you,
properly educated right away in them and
if you observe them in your daily life continuously that makes you pure.