Bhikkus in Politics, Have they become Parajika (no longer in communion)?

All Contesting Bhikkhus have become Parajika (no longer in communion) Strictly according to the Vinaya rules given under subdivision "Suttavibhanga", Section 4, of Parajika and under Section 10 of "Sanghadisesa" of Vinaya Pitaka

Written and compiled by Dharmasiri Weerasinghe, London, UK

(Dharmasiri Weerasinghe is a leading petroleum exploration engineer working in London for the last 30 years. In his religious studies he does research into understanding of Abhidamma in the context of modern theoretical physics)

1 Preamble
Altogether, there are 227 Patimokkha rules (code of discipline) for the bhikkhus (monks) and 311 for the bhikkhunis (nuns). As the rules were established one by one, on a case-by-case basis, the punishments naturally range widely in severity, from simple confession (e.g., if a monk behaves disrespectfully) to permanent expulsion from the Sangha (e.g., if a monk commits homicide).

The Buddha, in laying down each rule, gave ten reasons for doing so: for the excellence of the Community, the peace of the Community, the curbing of the shameless, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of pollutants related to the present life, the prevention of pollutants related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma and the fostering of discipline.

1.1 Parajika
Rule No. 4. Should any bhikkhu, without direct knowledge, boast of a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision as present in himself, saying, "Thus do I know; thus do I see," such that regardless of whether or not he is cross-examined on a later occasion, he -- being remorseful and desirous of purification -- might say, "Friends, not knowing, I said I know; not seeing, I said I see -- vainly, falsely, idly," unless it was from over-estimation, he also is defeated and no longer in communion.

1.2 Sanghadisesa
10. Should any bhikkhu agitate for a schism in a Community in concord, or should he persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism, the bhikkhus should admonish him thus: "Do not, Ven. sir, agitate for a schism in a Community in concord or persist in taking up an issue conducive to schism. Let the venerable one be reconciled with the Community, for a Community in concord, on complimentary terms, free from dispute, having a common recitation, dwells in peace."
And should that bhikkhu, admonished thus by the bhikkhus, persist as before, the bhikkhus are to rebuke him up to three times so as to desist. If while being rebuked up to three times he desists, that is good. If he does not desist, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

1.3. The Innate Principles of the Vinaya

Uncertainty arose in the monks with regard to this and that item: "Now what is allowed by the Blessed One? What is not allowed?" They told this matter to the Blessed One, (who said):
"Bhikkhus, whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, this is not allowable for you.
"Whatever I have not objected to, saying, 'This is not allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, this is allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is not allowable, if it goes against what is allowable, this is not allowable for you.
"And whatever I have not permitted, saying, 'This is allowable,' if it fits in with what is allowable, if it goes against what is not allowable, this is allowable for you."
(Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

The Buddha, in laying down each rule, gave ten reasons for doing so: for the excellence of the Community, the peace of the Community, the curbing of the shameless, the comfort of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of pollutants related to the present life, the prevention of pollutants related to the next life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma and the fostering of discipline.

1.4. The bhikkhus who are contesting the general elections in Sri Lanka claimed to have used the following justification for their decision to enter politics,

i. Parliament is a cesspit; therefore the Bhikkus should enter it to clean it.

ii Many religious leaders like the Ayatollas, Archbishop Makarios and Aristide have led their countries, so why not Bhikkus.

iii. Ralph Nader fought against the might of the Democrats and Republicans.

iv. Therapuththabaya fought in King Dutugemunu's Army.

All above four points do not have any relevance with the Vinaya pitaka except point no.iv where Therapuththabaya disrobed first before he became Parajika (no longer in communion) and after the victory entered the Sasana again.

1.5. To call the nation's most respected centre of legislature a cesspit, and undertake to clean it, the contesting bhikkhus claimed to possess a superior human state, a truly noble knowledge and vision to understand laws of government and have developed to a level of consciousness that prevent them from having basic human qualities, such as greed, hatred, attraction towards the worldly comforts etc. According to Abhidamma, only those who have entered the path of stream-entry (Sotapatti or Sovan in Sinhala) can have that level of superior human state (super mundane level - Lokuttara) This claim is in violation of Vinaya pitaka section Suttavibhanga ,Subsection 4 of Parajika.

1.6. These bhikkhus have knowingly and willingly entered to the political contest, knowing very well that this will result in community being fragmented and separated into political groups, parties and affiliations causing disharmony among members. This action is in violation of Vinaya pitaka section Sanghadisesa subsection 10 .

1.7. If a monk breaks one of the four most serious rules -- the parajikas (Pr) -- he is expelled from the Community for life. If he breaks one of the next most serious classes of the rules -- the sanghadisesas (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.

1.8. If a monk commits an offense and refuses to undergo the penalty, the Community may decide how seriously they take the matter. Since there are no monks' police beyond the individual's conscience, it may often happen that no one else knows of the offense to begin with, and nothing is done. If however it becomes common knowledge, and the Community regards it as a serious matter, they should talk privately with the monk to help him see the error of his ways. If he is recalcitrant, they may strip him temporarily of his status, either by censuring him, stripping him of his seniority, driving him from the Community, or suspending him from the Order of monks as a whole. If the offender sees the error of his ways and reforms his behavior accordingly, the Community may return him to his former status. Now of course there may be some hardened souls among the monks who are unfazed by punishments of this sort, but we should note that the Buddha saw no use for physical coercion in enforcing his rules. If a monk had to be physically forced into abiding by the training, his heart wouldn't be in it, and there is no way that he could benefit from it. Such monks the Buddha considered beyond the pale, although he allowed them to stay on in the Community in hopes that eventually their conscience would get the better of them. In the meantime, the law of karma would guarantee that in the long run, they would not be getting away with anything at all.

2.0 Discussion