CHAPTER SIX

Aniyata

This term means undetermined or uncertain.  The rules in this

section do not determine fixed penalties, but instead give

procedures by which the Community may pass judgment when a bhikkhu

in uncertain circumstances is accused of having committed an

offense.  There are two training rules here.

1. Should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone with a woman in

a seat secluded enough to lend itself (to the sexual act),

so that a female lay follower whose word can be trusted,

having seen (them), might describe it as constituting any of

three cases -- involving either defeat, communal meetings,

or confession -- then the bhikkhu, acknowledging having sat

(there), may be dealt with for any of the three cases --

involving defeat, communal meetings, or confession -- or he

may be dealt with for whichever case the female lay follower

described.  This case is undetermined.

//Woman// here means a female human being, "even one born that very

day, all the more an older one."  //To sit// also includes lying

down.  Whether the bhikkhu sits near the woman when she is already

seated, or the woman sits near him when he is already seated, or

both sit down at the same time, makes no difference here.

//Private// means private to the eye and private to the ear.  Two

people sitting in a place private to the eye means that no one else

can see if they wink, raise their eyebrows, or nod.  If they are in

a place private to the ear, no one else can hear what they say in an

normal voice.  A secluded seat is one behind a wall, a closed door,

a large bush, or anything at all that would afford them enough

privacy to commit the sexual act.

For a bhikkhu to sit in such a place with a woman can be in itself

a breach of Pacittiya 44 (see the explanations for that rule) and

affords the opportunity for breaking Parajika 1 and Sanghadisesas 1,

2, 3, & 4 as well -- which is why this case is called uncertain or

undetermined.

If a trustworthy female lay follower happens to see a bhikkhu with

a woman in such circumstances, she may inform the Community and

charge him on the basis of what she has seen.  //Female lay

follower// here means one who has taken refuge in the Buddha,

Dhamma, and Sangha.  //Trustworthy// means that she is at least a

Stream-winner.  Even if she is not a Stream-winner, the Community

may chose to investigate the case anyway; but if she is, they have

to.  The texts do not discuss cases in which a man is making the

charge but, given the low legal status of women in the Buddha's

time, it seems reasonable to infer that if a woman's word was given

such weight, the same would hold true for a man's.  In other words,

if he is a Stream-winner, the Community has to investigate the case.

If he isn't, they are free to handle the case or not, as they see

fit.

The wording of the rule suggests that once the matter is

investigated and the bhikkhu in question has stated his side of the

story, the bhikkhus are free to judge the case either in line with

what he admits to having done or in line with the trustworthy female

lay follower's charge.  In other words, if his admission and her

charge are at variance, they may decide which side seems to be

telling the truth and impose a penalty -- or no penalty -- on the

bhikkhu as they see fit.

The Vibhanga, however, says that they may deal with him only in

line with what he admits to having done.  The Commentary offers no

explanations for this point aside from saying that in uncertain

cases things are not always as they seem, citing as example the

story of an arahant who was wrongly charged by another bhikkhu of

having broken Pacittiya 44.

Actually, the Vibhanga in departing from the wording of the rule

is simply following the general guideline the Khandhakas give for

handling accusations.  Apparently what happened was that this rule

and the following one were formulated early on.  Later, when the

general guidelines were first worked out, some group-of-six bhikkhus

abused the system to impose penalties on innocent bhikkhus they

didn't like (Mv.IX.3.1), so the Buddha formulated a number of checks

to prevent the system from working against the innocent.  We will

cover the guidelines in detail under the Adhikarana-Samatha rules,

but here we may note a few of their more important features.

As explained under Sanghadisesa 8, if Bhikkhu X is charged with an

offense, the bhikkhus who learn of the charge are duty-bound to

question him first in private.  If he admits to the charge, agrees

that it is an offense, and then undergoes the penalty, nothing

further need be done (Mv.IX.5.6).  If he admits that he did the act,

but refuses to see that it is an offense and/or refuses to undergo

the penalty, then if the act really did constitute an offense, the

Community may meet and suspend him (Mv.IX.5.8; Cv.I.26).  The

Khandhakas (Mv.IX.1.3 and Cv.XI.1.10) show that "not seeing an

offense" does //not// mean that one denies doing the act; simply

that one does not agree that the act was against any of the rules.

`     If, however, X denies the charge, and yet some of the members of

the Community suspect him of not telling the truth, the issue has to

go to a formal meeting.  Once the case reaches this stage, one of

only three verdicts is possible:  that the accused is innocent, that

he was insane at the time he committed the offense (and so absolved

of guilt), or that he is not only guilty as charged but also guilty

of "further misconduct" in having dragged out his confession to this

point (Cv.IV.14.27-29).  If the last verdict is the true one, then

the bhikkhu must not only undergo the penalty for the offense but

also be penalized with an act of further misconduct, which is the

same as an act of censure. (Cv.IV.11-12)

When the Community meets, both the accused and the accuser must be

present, and both must agree to the case's being heard by that

particular group.  (If the original accuser is a lay person, one of

the bhikkhus is to take up the charge.)  The accused is then asked

to state his version of the story and is to be dealt with in

accordance with what he admits to having done (Mv.IX.6.1-4).  The

Cullavagga (IV.14.29) shows that the other bhikkhus are not to take

his first statement at face value.  They should press and

cross-examine him until they are all satisfied that he is telling

the truth, and only then may they pass one of the three verdicts

mentioned above.

If necessary, they should be prepared to spend many hours in the

meeting to arrive at a unanimous decision, for if they cannot come

to a unanimous agreement, the case has to be left as unsettled,

which is a very bad question mark to leave in the communal life.

The Commentary to Sanghadisesa 8 suggests that if one side or the

other seems unreasonably stubborn, the senior bhikkhus present

should lead the group in long periods of chanting to wear down the

stubborn side.

If a verdict is reached but later discovered to be wrong -- the

accused got away with a plea of innocence when actually guilty, or

admitted to being guilty simply to end the interrogation when

actually innocent -- the Community may reopen the case and reach a

new verdict (Cv.IV.4.11; Cv.IV.8).  If a bhikkhu learns that a

fellow bhikkhu actually was guilty and yet got away with a verdict

of innocence, and he then helps conceal the truth, he is guilty of

an offense under Pacittiya 64.

Obviously, the main thrust of these guidelines is to prevent an

innocent bhikkhu from being unfairly penalized.  As for the opposite

case -- a guilty bhikkhu getting away with no penalty -- we should

remember that the laws of kamma guarantee that in the long run he is

not getting away with anything at all.

Although these guidelines supercede both Aniyata rules, the rules

still serve two important functions:

1)  They remind the bhikkhus that charges made by lay people are

not to be lightly ignored, and that the Buddha at one point was

willing to let the bhikkhus give more weight to the word of a female

lay follower than to that of the accused bhikkhu.  This in itself,

considering the general position of women in Indian society at the

time, is remarkable.

2) As we will see under Pacittiya 44, it is possible under some

circumstances -- depending on the bhikkhu's state of mind -- to sit

alone with a woman in a secluded place without incurring a penalty.

Still, a bhikkhu should not blithely take advantage of the

exemptions under that rule, for even if his motives are pure, it

doesn't look good to anyone who may come along and see him there.

These rules serve to remind such a bhikkhu that he could easily be

subject to a charge that would lead to a formal meeting of the

Community.  Even if he were to be declared innocent, the meeting

would waste a great deal of time both for himself and for the

Community.  And in some people's minds -- given the Vibhanga's

general rule that he is innocent until proven guilty -- there would

remain the belief that he was actually guilty and got off with no

penalty simply from lack of hard evidence.  A bhikkhu would be wise

to avoid such situations altogether, remembering what Lady Visakha

told Ven. Udayin in the origin story to this rule:

"It is unfitting, sir, and improper, for the master to sit in

private, alone with a woman....Even though the master may not be

aiming at that act, it is difficult to convince those who are

unbelievers."

Summary:  When a trustworthy female lay follower accuses a

bhikkhu of having committed a parajika, sanghadisesa, or

pacittiya offense while sitting alone with a woman in a

private, secluded place, the Community should investigate

the charge and deal with the bhikkhu in accordance with

whatever he admits to having done.

* * *

2.In case a seat is not sufficiently secluded to lend itself

(to the sexual act) but sufficiently so to address lewd

words to a woman, should any bhikkhu sit in private, alone

with a woman in such a seat, so that a female lay follower

whose word can be trusted, having seen them, would describe

it as constituting either of two cases -- involving communal

meetings or confession -- then the bhikkhu, acknowledging

having sat (there), is to be dealt with for either of the

two cases -- involving communal meetings or confession -- or

he is to be dealt with for whichever case the female lay

follower described.  This case too is undetermined.

This rule differs from the preceding one mainly in the type of seat

it describes -- private to the eye and private to the ear, but not

secluded.  Examples would be an open-air meeting hall or a place out

in the open far enough away from other people so that they could not

see one wink, etc., or hear what one is saying in a normal voice.

Such a place, although inconvenient for committing Parajika 1,

Sanghadisesas 1 & 2, or Pacittiya 44, would be convenient for

committing Sanghadisesas 3 & 4 or Pacittiya 45.  As a result, the

term //woman// under this rule is defined as under those rules:  one

experienced enough to know what is and is not lewd.

Otherwise, all explanations for this rule are the same as under

the preceding rule.

Summary:  When a trustworthy female lay follower accuses a

bhikkhu of having committed a sanghadisesa or pacittiya

offense while sitting alone with a woman in a private place,

the Community should investigate the charge and deal with

the bhikkhu in accordance with whatever he admits to having

done.

* * * * * * * *