As mentioned in Chapter 12, the procedures for settling the most complicated offense-issue—the incurring of a saṅghādisesa offense—involve a series of duty-issues, or Community transactions. In the conclusion to Chapter 5 of BMC1 we presented these procedures in a brief sketch. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a more complete outline of these procedures and to fill in the outline with enough detail to provide a guide for its practical application.

The procedures for settling an offense are called vuṭṭhāna-vidhī—literally, the course for getting up. The term “getting up” plays on the literal meaning of the Pali word for offense, āpatti, or “falling down.” The purpose of the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī is to enable a bhikkhu who has stumbled in his practice to get up and continue on his way. This is an important point to bear in mind and one we will encounter again in the following chapter: that these disciplinary measures are aimed not at retribution but at rehabilitation. In other words, they are not meant to make the offender suffer as a way of paying off his crimes, but to teach him the hiri and ottappa—the sense of shame and compunction—that he will need to keep from stumbling again.

The vuṭṭhāna-vidhī for a saṅghādisesa offense is as follows: A bhikkhu who commits a saṅghādisesa offense must, before dawnrise of the following day, inform a fellow bhikkhu of what he has done. A Community of at least four bhikkhus must then meet and, at his request, grant him a six-day (literally, six-night) period of penance (mānatta), during which he is deprived of certain rights and must observe certain duties. After he has completed his penance a Community of at least twenty bhikkhus must meet and—again at his request—rehabilitate him.

If, however, he originally concealed his offense for any number of days, he cannot undergo penance until he has completed a period of probation (parivāsa) equal to the number of days of concealment. As with penance, he must request a Community of at least four bhikkhus to grant him the period of probation; and, although there are slight differences in the details, probation further resembles penance in that it involves the curtailment of certain rights and the observance of certain duties.

If, at any time between the first Community meeting to grant penance or probation and the final meeting at which the bhikkhu is rehabilitated, he commits another saṅghādisesa offense, he must again inform another bhikkhu and then request a Community of at least four bhikkhus to “send him back to the beginning.” In other words, they must authorize him to begin the procedure all over again. If either the original or the new offense was concealed for any number of days, he must start with a period of probation equal to the number of days that the longest-concealed offense was concealed. Only when this probation is completed may he ask for penance.

Thus, to make amends for a saṅghādisesa offense, one must pass through at least two stages—observing penance and deserving (waiting for) rehabilitation—and in some cases up to five: observing probation, deserving to be sent back to the beginning, deserving penance, observing penance, and deserving rehabilitation. Each of these five stages involves certain duties and restrictions. Penance has a few duties and restrictions that are peculiar to it, whereas the other four stages all have the same duties and restrictions in common.

An individual bhikkhu’s path through these various stages depends on a number of contingencies: whether he has committed one or more than one offense; whether, if more than one, any of those offenses were committed while following the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī; whether any of those offenses were concealed; whether, if any of those offenses were concealed, he can remember the precise number of days they were concealed; whether, when reporting his offense(s) to the Community, he actually tells them the true number of offenses and days of concealment; and whether he commits his offense(s) alone or together with another bhikkhu.

The Canon lists the courses to be followed for these contingencies on a case-by-case model, without providing an overview of the entire subject. The Commentary, using the term “penance” to cover the entire course of a vuṭṭhāna-vidhī, provides an overview by dividing the various courses of vuṭṭhāna-vidhī into two major sets: apaṭicchanna-mānatta, penance for unconcealed offenses, and paṭicchanna-mānatta, penance for concealed offenses. Under the latter set it places a large sub-set, samodhāna-mānatta, penance for combined offenses—i.e., multiple offenses that are gathered together under a single course of penance—which it further divides into three types. Even this analysis, however, does not capture all the possible variations, for there are cases where multiple unconcealed offenses can be covered by a single penance, with no need for probation, and the overview ignores the last two contingencies mentioned in the previous paragraph.

Thus, although our discussion will borrow the Commentary’s terminology, we will have to adjust that terminology to provide a better fit for the contingencies actually mentioned in the Canon. After a few brief remarks about the formal statements and transactions used in the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī, we will discuss penance first and probation second. Because the only constant factors in each stage are (1) the duties a bhikkhu is to observe while in that stage and (2) the penalties for not observing them, the discussion for each of these two stages will begin with these topics, followed by a section on practicalities involved in the simplest course through that particular stage. Then we will discuss factors that can complicate the course through either stage.

Formal statements & transactions

There are four types of formal statements involved in the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī for saṅghādisesa offenses:

The Canon sets no pattern for type (1), while the Commentary provides two conflicting patterns. In commenting on Cv.II, it quotes the Kurundī as saying that, when informing the other bhikkhu, the offender may word his announcement to the effect that, “I inform you of an offense,” or, “I inform you of a heavy offense,” but not, “I inform you of a light offense.” In other words, one does not have to mention the class of offense (saṅghādisesa) or the grounds of the offense (e.g., intentional semen-emission), although Buddhaghosa mentions that one may mention them if one wants to. However, when commenting on the conclusion to the saṅghādisesa rules, the Commentary notes that “informing” means stating that one has committed an offense “of this name.” This would mean that one would have to mention the class of offense for the informing to be valid. Neither the Commentary nor the Sub-commentary notes the contradiction here, but—as Buddhaghosa himself states several times in the Commentary—when there are two valid but conflicting interpretations of a passage in the Canon, the wise policy is to hold to the stricter one. Thus, to be valid, the act of informing must be genuinely informative—i.e., it must mention either the class or the ground of the offense.

For the next two types of statements—requests and transaction statements—the Canon sets a pattern in which statements are tailor-made to the individual case, giving a history of the offense and of how the bhikkhu has handled his efforts to make amends for it. For instance, if a bhikkhu undergoes probation and penance but commits another saṅghādisesa offense while awaiting rehabilitation and so must go back to the beginning to observe probation and penance all over again, then from that point on his requests, the Community’s transaction statements, and his notifications to the Community must cite these facts each and every time.

As with the first type of statement, the Canon does not set a pattern for the fourth—acts of notification—but the Commentary to Cv.III gives an example that follows closely on the pattern for requests, again stating the history of the offense and the bhikkhu’s attempts at rehabilitation.

Examples of some of the more common patterns for these three types of statements, plus some of their common permutations, are given in Appendix III. A glance at these patterns will show that they require a great deal of memorization, both for the offender and for the bhikkhu(s) who will have to recite the transaction statements. On top of this, all the transaction statements in these procedures consist of a motion and three proclamations, the longest possible form. From these facts it is hard to escape the conclusion that these procedures are designed to be a burden both for the offender and for his fellow bhikkhus, and a special burden when an offender cannot behave himself properly in the course of undergoing the procedures. And from this it is hard to escape the further conclusion that this burden is intended to act as a deterrent to anyone who feels tempted to transgress or re-transgress any of the saṅghādisesa rules.

One special requirement here—which, according to the Commentary, applies only to transactions concerned with the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī—is that the quorum of bhikkhus performing any of the transactions may not be filled by another bhikkhu who is also undergoing any stage of the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī. In other words, if the meeting contains such bhikkhus but the quorum is filled without counting them, the validity of the assembly is still fulfilled. If such bhikkhus need to be included to fill the quorum, it is not.

If, for any reason, the Community transactions for imposing probation, sending back to the beginning, imposing penance, or giving rehabilitation are invalid, the bhikkhu undergoing the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī is not truly purified of his offense. Any aspects of the procedure that depended on an invalid transaction have to be repeated. For instance, if the only invalid transaction was the one giving rehabilitation, the only part of the procedure that has to be redone is the meeting for giving rehabilitation. If, however, the invalid transaction was the one giving probation, the Community must meet again to grant him a new probation, and the bhikkhu has to undergo probation, followed by all the subsequent steps, all over again. Thus the Community must be scrupulous in all its transactions in order to avoid saddling the bhikkhu in question with needless hardships.

Penance

The Canon states that penance should be observed for six nights, but there is some difference of opinion as to what this means. The Commentary follows the pattern given in Pc 5, Pc 49, etc., of counting nights as dawns. In other words, it maintains that one need observe the duties of penance only around the time of dawnrise for that night to count. The Vinaya-mukha, however, insists that the word night here means a full 24-hour period of night-and-day (following the definition of night in MN 131; see the discussion in the conclusion to Chapter 5 in BMC1). The Vinaya-mukha’s interpretation seems closer to the Canon, in that many of the restrictions placed on a bhikkhu observing penance deal with activities not normally done at dawn.

Duties

A bhikkhu who is to undergo penance must first request it from the Community. Having arranged his robe over one shoulder, he approaches the assembled Community, bows down to the feet of the senior bhikkhus, and then sits in the kneeling position with his hands in añjali and states the request for penance as given in Appendix III. One of the bhikkhus—experienced and competent—then recites the transaction statement granting penance as given in Appendix III. This pattern is followed in other steps of the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī as well: when a bhikkhu requests probation, asks to be sent back to the beginning, and requests rehabilitation.

Although the Canon is silent on the issue, the Commentary states that as soon as a bhikkhu has been granted penance he should formally recite one of the statements for undertaking penance. For the details of this procedure, see the discussion under “Practicalities,” below.

The duties for a bhikkhu undergoing penance fall into three major sections, with the second section composed of seven sub-sections. They are:

1) Issues of seniority

He should not consent to a regular bhikkhu’s performing any of the duties of respect for him. These include bowing to him, standing up to greet him, performing añjali to him; bringing him a seat, bedding, water for washing his feet, a foot stand, a foot wiper; receiving his bowl and robe; scrubbing his back while bathing. However, a senior bhikkhu undergoing penance may consent when a junior bhikkhu who is also undergoing penance performs these duties for him. There are five areas, though, where a bhikkhu undergoing penance still maintains his seniority vis-à-vis regular bhikkhus: the uposatha, the Invitation, rains-bathing cloths, the redirection of offerings, and meals.

According to the Commentary, regular bhikkhu here in section 1 and in section 2E means any regular bhikkhu except for a more junior one also undergoing penance. Thus the term includes more senior bhikkhus undergoing penance, as well as any bhikkhus undergoing probation, deserving to be sent back to the beginning, deserving penance, and deserving rehabilitation. This principle applies to all five of the stages that a bhikkhu might go through in the course of his vuṭṭhāna-vidhī: With regard to issues of seniority, bhikkhus in each group must treat the bhikkhus in any of the other four groups as they would regular bhikkhus.

The Commentary further notes that if a bhikkhu undergoing penance has any bhikkhus living in dependence on him, he should tell them, “Don’t perform your normal duties for me.” If, having been told this, they continue to perform those duties anyway he incurs no offense in allowing them to do so. This, however, would amount to consent under the pattern set in Pr 1—discussed in BMC1, Chapter 3—where consent means mental acquiescence together with its physical or verbal expression. Even if the bhikkhu does not give verbal consent but does show physical consent, it counts as consent nonetheless.

As for the five areas where one continues to maintain seniority vis-à-vis regular bhikkhus, the Commentary states that when participating in the uposatha or Invitation one should sit within hatthapāsa, but there are differences of opinion among the ancient commentaries as to whether one should sit in line with normal seniority—even though the Canon states clearly that seniority still obtains during these transactions. With regard to redirecting offerings, the Commentary states that this allowance applies to cases where a bhikkhu happens to receive a designated meal but has the expectation of a meal intended for him individually. He may then accept his designated meal and redirect it to another bhikkhu. On the following day he may then receive another designated meal. (This, according to the Kurundī, means that he should be first in line to receive the next day’s designated meals.) The right to redirect a meal in this way, the Commentary states, applies only to bhikkhus on probation, but because the Canon lists it as a right for bhikkhus in every stage of the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī, the Commentary’s statement here must be an oversight. As for seniority with regard to meals, the Commentary states that this principle applies to meals given or dedicated to the Community. Thus one maintains one’s seniority in the rosters for Community meals and designated meals. However, in line with the duties mentioned under 2B, if invited to an invitational meal one must sit at the end of the line of bhikkhus.

2) Proper conduct

A. A bhikkhu undergoing penance should not give Acceptance, should not give dependence, and should not have a novice attend to him. [The Commentary notes here that he may set his penance-duties aside (see below) to act as a preceptor or a reciting teacher in an ordination ceremony, but it is hard to imagine that the new bhikkhu would feel inspired on finding out, the day after his ordination, that his preceptor is undergoing penance. A wiser policy would be to wait until one has been rehabilitated before resuming one’s duties as preceptor. The Commentary adds that if one is undergoing penance, one should tell any pupils living in dependence on one to take dependence under another bhikkhu. However, as above, it says that if they continue to perform their duties to him anyway after being told this, he incurs no offense in consenting, but this last point does not seem in line with the Canon.]

A bhikkhu undergoing penance should not consent to an authorization to exhort the bhikkhunīs. Even when authorized, he should not exhort them.

Whatever offense he was granted penance for, he should not commit that offense, one of a similar sort, or one worse than that. He should not criticize the penance transaction or those who did it. [Here the Commentary gives an example of what passed for a clever criticism in its day: “Was that transaction (kamma) an example of farming (kasi-kamma) or an example of cow-herding (gorakkha-kamma)?”]

He should not cancel a regular bhikkhu’s uposatha, should not cancel an invitation, nor should he engage in the preliminaries to setting up accusation proceedings against another bhikkhu. [This is how the Commentary defines savācanīyaṁ, which it illustrates with two actions: placing a constraint on the other bhikkhu, telling him not to leave the monastery because one is planning to level an accusation; and giving him a summons to appear at the place where the accusation will be leveled.] He should also not set up accusation proceedings. [The Commentary, however, expands this prohibition (na anuvādo paṭṭhapetabbo) to mean that he should not function in the position of “chief of the Community” within the monastery, which it illustrates with such actions as reciting the Pāṭimokkha, inviting a fellow bhikkhu to give a Dhamma talk, or receiving formal authorization of any kind. This appears to be among the earliest references to the position of abbot, which did not exist in the time of the Canon.]

He should not get another bhikkhu to give him leave in order to make an accusation; should not make a formal charge; should not interrogate another bhikkhu (literally, “make him remember”) as part of settling a formal charge; should not join bhikkhus in disputing with bhikkhus.

AN 8:110 restates the above prohibitions beginning with, “Whatever offense he was granted penance for, he should not commit that offense,” to, “He should not join bhikkhus in disputing with bhikkhus,” under three headings: “He should not consent to any Community authorization, should not be established in a singular position, is not to be rehabilitated by means of that basis.” The precise meaning of these headings is obscure, as is the way in which they are supposed to subsume the above prohibitions, but the second heading may be the source for the Commentary’s expansive interpretation of the prohibition against setting up accusation proceedings.

B. A bhikkhu undergoing penance should not walk or sit in front of a regular bhikkhu. [The Commentary says that if he is walking along a road ahead of other bhikkhus, he should be at least six meters away from them.] He should not approach lay families with a regular bhikkhu as the contemplative who precedes him or follows him.

He should be presented with whatever is the Community’s last seat, bed, and dwelling place, and he should accept it. He is not allowed to undertake the wilderness-dweller’s practice or the alms-goer’s practice as a way of avoiding the embarrassment of having lay people see him staying in the last dwelling in the monastery or sitting in the last seat in the meal hall (in those days, an alms-goer would often take his meal at a quiet spot outside of the monastery). He should not, for the same reason, have almsfood sent to him (where he could eat it without having to go to the meal hall and sit in the last seat). The prohibition against undertaking the wilderness-dweller’s practice also serves to prevent him from living apart from a monastery where there is a full Community of bhikkhus. [The Commentary adds here that if one ordinarily goes for alms, it is all right to continue going. It is also allowable not to go for alms (i.e., to have food sent to one) if one is sick or has duties, such as construction work or duties to one’s mentor. If, in the village where one goes for alms, there are so many bhikkhus from other monasteries also going for alms that it is inconvenient to inform them all (see 2C, below), one may go to undergo penance at another, more secluded monastery where the bhikkhus are one’s friends. (This is the only passage in the texts indicating that a bhikkhu undergoing penance must inform not only the bhikkhus he encounters while in a monastery but also those he encounters while he is outside of a monastery. Because this statement comes in the Commentary, not all Communities follow it. In other words, they maintain—in line with the Canon—that a bhikkhu undergoing penance is duty-bound to inform only the bhikkhus he sees or hears while he is in what, in the Commentary’s terminology, is called the “precinct territory” of the monastery, either as a resident or as a visitor. See the next section.)]

C. When a bhikkhu undergoing penance has newly arrived at a monastery, he should notify the bhikkhus there of the fact that he is undergoing penance. He should also notify any bhikkhu who comes to the monastery where he is staying. [The Commentary notes that if the bhikkhus are staying in various places in the monastery rather than all in one place, he has to go inform each of them. If, after searching them out, he misses some of them, the day does not count toward his penance but he does not incur an offense. This principle applies both to the bhikkhu himself on his first day in the monastery and to any new bhikkhus coming to stay in the monastery about whom he does not yet know.] Then, every day of his penance, he must notify all the bhikkhus in the monastery again. On uposatha and Invitation days he should give his notification during the Community meeting. If he is too sick to go himself on any of these occasions, he may send a messenger to give notification in his stead. [Here the Commentary adds if one finds out after a visitor has left that he has come, one should go to notify him. If one can’t catch up with him, one’s day doesn’t count but there is no offense. Even if the incoming bhikkhu comes only into the precinct territory of the monastery (see the preceding chapter) and one knows he is there—for example, from hearing the sound of his umbrella or coughing—one must notify him. If one finds out later that he has passed through, then again one should go to notify him. If one is unable to catch up with him, one’s day doesn’t count but there is no offense. Even if simply seeing another bhikkhu from afar, one should shout out to notify him. On this point, however, the Commentary reports a disagreement: Ven. Saṅghasenābhaya Thera says that if it is impossible to catch up with a bhikkhu seen from afar, there is no offense and the day still counts; whereas Ven. Karavīkatissa Thera says that there is no offense but the day doesn’t count. If a visitor comes without one’s knowledge, the Commentary seems to assume that although one incurs no offense for not telling him, one’s day still doesn’t count. Thus, given the fact that one might have not known of a visitor who came, one should observe penance for a few extra days to compensate for such unknown quantities for, as the Kurundī warns, even an unknowing deficiency in the observance of one’s duties can invalidate one’s rehabilitation. The Sub-commentary adds further that even if a visiting bhikkhu is also on penance, each must notify the other. If one sends a messenger to notify the other bhikkhus in the monastery of one’s undergoing penance, the Commentary requires that the messenger be a bhikkhu.]

D-E. Except when there are obstructions, a bhikkhu undergoing penance should not go from a residence or non-residence where there are bhikkhus to a residence or non-residence where there are no bhikkhus (or bhikkhus of a separate affiliation) unless accompanied by a Community. [The Commentary defines obstructions here as the ten obstructions listed in Chapter 15, and Community as at least four bhikkhus not undergoing any stages of the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī. And, apparently, these bhikkhus must all be of one’s own affiliation. If, to escape from obstructions, one goes without being escorted by a Community, one’s day doesn’t count, but the Canon—according to the Commentary—is here counseling that it is wise to give up the counting of the day in order to escape the obstructions.] (Residence as used in this section, seems to mean “monastery,” but none of the texts discuss this point.)

F. A bhikkhu undergoing penance may go from a residence or non-residence where there are bhikkhus to a residence or non-residence where there are bhikkhus of the same affiliation if he knows, “I can get there today.”

G. A bhikkhu undergoing penance should not reside in a residence or non-residence under the same roof with a regular bhikkhu or with a more senior bhikkhu undergoing penance. [In explaining this point, the Commentary defines residence as used in this section as meaning any lodging built as a dwelling; and a non-residence as other buildings, such as a roof over a cetiya, a broom storeroom, a bathroom, or a gatehouse. One roof is determined by the line of rain dripping from the eaves of the building’s roof(s)—in other words, if the roofs overlap so that they do not form distinctly separate rain-drip lines on the ground, they count as one roof. If a single building has many “upacāras” (see Pc 5), one may not stay there if there is a regular bhikkhu in the building, even if he is in a separate upacāra; if one happens unknowingly to be lying down in a building at the same time as a regular bhikkhu is lying down there, one’s day doesn’t count but there is no offense. For some reason, the Commentary adds that if a junior and senior bhikkhu both undergoing penance are lying down under the same roof without knowing it, neither incurs an offense (which makes sense) but neither is allowed to count that day (which doesn’t make sense for the senior bhikkhu).]

On seeing a regular bhikkhu (or a more senior bhikkhu undergoing penance—this qualifying phrase applies to every mention of regular bhikkhu in this section) he should get up from his seat and offer it to the regular bhikkhu. [Here the Commentary says that a regular junior bhikkhu should not visit a senior bhikkhu on penance simply for the cheap gratification in seeing him get up in respect. The stipulation that the bhikkhu undergoing penance must offer his seat to the regular bhikkhu is to prevent him from simply running off when seeing a regular bhikkhu approach.] He should not sit on the same seat as a regular bhikkhu; if a regular bhikkhu is sitting on a low seat, he should not sit on a high seat [within six meters, says the Commentary]; if a regular bhikkhu is sitting on the ground, he should not sit on a seat. He should not walk back and forth on the same walking-meditation path as a regular bhikkhu; if a regular bhikkhu is walking back and forth on a low walking-meditation path, he should not walk back and forth on a higher one [within six meters and in plain view of the other path]; if a regular bhikkhu is walking back and forth on the ground, he should not walk back and forth on a constructed walking-meditation path. (The duties in this section apply to all five stages of the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī, which creates a problem of logistics. Because the bhikkhus in each stage must treat the bhikkhus in the four other stages as regular bhikkhus, the question arises: How are two bhikkhus to treat each other if, say, one is undergoing penance while the other is undergoing probation? Which one offers his seat to the other? The texts do not say, so this is an area where each Community may set its own standards based either on actual seniority or the level of progress through the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī (e.g., with a bhikkhu deserving rehabilitation considered higher on the ladder than a bhikkhu undergoing penance).)

3) Completing a quorum

This point was stated earlier in this chapter, but it bears repeating: If, with a bhikkhu undergoing penance as the fourth member, a Community grants probation, sends back to the beginning, grants penance; or as the twentieth, rehabilitates, the transaction is invalid. [Here the Commentary states that the bhikkhu may complete the quorum for other transactions. If the Community needs him to complete a quorum for imposing probation, etc., he should set his duties aside (see below) to complete the quorum—but a wise policy would be to grant this allowance only when absolutely necessary.]

Penalties

If a bhikkhu undergoing penance disobeys any of these duties or restrictions, he incurs a dukkaṭa. If, on any of the days of his penance, he commits any of the following “night-cutting (ratti-cheda)” activities, that day/night does not count toward the total of six:

As the Commentary points out, there are instances where one might commit a night-cutting activity without realizing it, so a wise policy is to observe penance for an extra day or two to ensure that one’s duties have been fulfilled.

Practicalities

Because a bhikkhu observing penance must notify every bhikkhu in the monastery of his penance, it is impractical for him to observe penance in a monastery with many bhikkhus in residence or coming and going on visits. Thus the texts agree that a wise policy is to choose a monastery where only a few (but no less than four) other congenial bhikkhus are living and where visiting bhikkhus are rare. If a large number of bhikkhus happens to come to stay at the monastery, one may set one’s penance aside. Approaching a regular bhikkhu, arranging his robe over one shoulder, kneeling down, placing his hands in añjali, he says,

Cv.II.8, in explaining this procedure, says after each statement, “The penance is set aside.” The same pattern is followed in Cv.II.3 for the similar procedure in connection with probation. From this, the Commentary to Cv.II.3 reasons that saying either statement alone is sufficient to cover both setting aside probation/penance and setting aside one’s duties. The Vinaya-mukha does not agree with this conclusion and furthermore reverses the order of the statements on the grounds that one should set aside one’s duties before setting aside one’s penance/probation, but neither the Canon nor the commentaries support the Vinaya-mukha on these points.

When the large gathering has left, the bhikkhu may undertake his penance and duties again, following a similar procedure: Approaching a regular bhikkhu, arranging his robe over one shoulder, kneeling down, placing his hands in añjali, he says,

Although the Canon is silent about the issue, the Commentary to Cv.III.1 states that when a bhikkhu takes on penance without a prior probation he should also recite the statements for undertaking penance and its attendant duties. Thus it suggests that as soon as the transaction statement imposing penance is finished he should immediately undertake the penance and duties, following the formula given above. (If he requested penance after probation without having set his probation aside, the Commentary to Cv.II.3 says that there is no need for him to state that he is taking on penance, for his previous statement in taking on the duties of probation, still in force, covers the duties of penance as well.) Then he should state his first notification to the Community (as under section 2C, above) to the assembled bhikkhus. (Examples of notification statements are given in Appendix III.) If the monastery where he has been given the transaction statement is too large conveniently to observe penance and he is planning to observe it in a smaller monastery, he may then announce that he is setting his penance aside. The Sub-commentary adds that if he doesn’t give notification of his penance (following 2C) before setting his penance and duties aside, he incurs a dukkaṭa for breaking his duties.

When he has set his penance aside, he may go unaccompanied to the other monastery even if it is more than a day’s travel away, because technically he is a regular bhikkhu, but a wise policy followed in many Communities is to have at least one regular bhikkhu go along as a companion. When the bhikkhu who will be undergoing penance has arrived at the other monastery, he may undertake his penance and duties again, following the appropriate formulae, above.

Following the interpretation that night in the context of penance means “dawn,” the Commentary gives the following instructions for Bhikkhu X, who is observing penance in a monastery where the resident or visiting bhikkhus are too many to conveniently notify them every day:

After setting his duties and penance aside after initially receiving penance, X should wait until dawn is near. Then he should go with four or five other bhikkhus to a spot concealed by a fence or bushes, etc., outside the monastery, {SC: at least} two leḍḍupātas (approximately 36 meters) from its enclosure or, if there is no enclosure, from the edge of the monastery’s property. Resuming his penance and duties, he should then notify the assembled bhikkhus of his penance. If another bhikkhu happens to come past and X sees or hears him, X should notify him of his penance as well. If X neglects to notify him, the night doesn’t count and X earns a dukkaṭa for breaking his duties. If the other bhikkhu comes within six meters but X doesn’t know he’s there, the night doesn’t count, but there is no breaking of X’s duties.

Once X has notified the assembled bhikkhus, at least one of them should remain with him while the others may go off on whatever business they may have. When dawnrise comes, X should set aside his penance and duties in the presence of the remaining bhikkhu. If for some reason that bhikkhu goes off beforehand, X should set his penance and duties aside in the presence of the first bhikkhu he sees, whether that bhikkhu comes from X’s own monastery or is a visitor. Having set his penance and duties aside, X is a regular bhikkhu until he takes on the penance and duties again before the dawn of the next day.

Having done this for six nights, X qualifies for rehabilitation. Before asking for rehabilitation, if he has set aside his penance and duties in the interim, he should take them on again.

That is what the Commentary says. As we stated above, however, the duties for a bhikkhu undergoing penance cover many activities that a bhikkhu would not normally do at dawn, such as eating a meal, etc., so it seems highly unlikely that the authors of the Canon intended the word night to mean “dawn.” In particular, the Commentary’s recommendations here seem aimed at getting around many of the designed difficulties of penance simply on the basis of a technicality and so they have little to recommend them. If one happens to commit a saṅghādisesa offense while living in a large, busy monastery, the wise policy would be to find a smaller monastery of congenial bhikkhus where one can observe one’s penance in full.

On fully observing one’s penance, one enters the stage of deserving rehabilitation. This period may take any number of days and can be especially long in an area where the twenty bhikkhus needed for the quorum are hard to find. During this time, one must observe the duties for probation (see below), although in cases where convening the proper number of bhikkhus will take time one may put aside one’s duties until right before requesting rehabilitation. In some Communities, a bhikkhu deserving rehabilitation who has set his duties aside in this way will be directed to resume his duties every uposatha and Invitation day, and then to set them aside again after the uposatha and Invitation meetings are over. When a full quorum of twenty bhikkhus finally convenes for the purpose of one’s rehabilitation, one must first resume one’s duties before requesting rehabilitation.

Some Communities, perhaps for psychological impact, require a bhikkhu requesting rehabilitation to stay outside of the hatthapāsa of the meeting until after the transaction statement giving him rehabilitation has been recited. Only then is he allowed within the hatthapāsa. This, however, violates the stipulation in the Vibhaṅga to Pc 80 that a bhikkhu must be within the hatthapāsa of the meeting in order to be considered present (see the discussion in Chapter 12). So, for the rehabilitation transaction to be valid, the bhikkhu requesting rehabilitation must be within hatthapāsa while the transaction statement is being recited.

Probation

Probation shares many of the duties, penalties, and practicalities for penance, with the added practical issue of calculating the number of days a bhikkhu must undergo probation before he is eligible for penance.

Duties

The duties for probation are identical to the duties for penance, with the following exceptions:

Under 2C, the Vinaya-mukha argues that if a regular bhikkhu residing in the monastery has heard one’s notification and then, after going away, returns to the monastery, one must notify him as a “visiting” bhikkhu. Apparently, going away here means going to reside elsewhere for at least a night, but neither the Canon nor the commentaries mention this point.

Penalties

A bhikkhu undergoing probation has only three “night-cuttings”:

In other words, unlike a bhikkhu undergoing penance, his nights are not cut if he goes about in defiance of the requirements of 2D, even though he does incur a dukkaṭa for doing so.

Practicalities

The procedures for requesting probation, for setting it aside, and for undertaking it (again) are similar to those for penance, with only slight changes in the wording.

One difference in the request for probation is that one must state the number of days the offense was concealed. The Commentary recommends that, if one has concealed one’s offense for up to 14 days, one should count the period of concealment in days; if fifteen days, say, “concealed for a fortnight”; if 16-29 days, say, “concealed for more than a fortnight”; if 30, say, “concealed for one month.” From that point on, count in months and “more than x month(s)” up to “more than eleven months.” From that point on, count in years and “more than x years” up to sixty years and beyond. Some examples of how to do this are given in Appendix III.

When setting probation aside, the announcement is:

When undertaking probation, the announcement is,

Because one’s nights can be “cut” without one’s knowledge, the Commentary recommends observing probation for a few extra days in order to provide for that contingency. Once probation is completed, one enters the stage of deserving penance. During this period, one must continue to observe one’s probation duties until penance has been granted.

Concealment

Of the practical issues associated specifically with probation, the first is the question of determining what qualifies as a concealed saṅghādisesa offense. The Canon does not systematically discuss this question, but in scattered places begins by stating that the offense must be an actual saṅghādisesa offense. If one assumes wrongly that a lesser offense is a saṅghādisesa offense, one is not subject to probation even if one conceals it. Nowhere does the Canon say that the person to be informed of the offense must be a bhikkhu, but perhaps this was an oversight. The origin story in Cv.III.1.1 suggests, by example, that bhikkhus were the proper people to be informed.

The Canon seems inconsistent in its treatment of perception under this topic. In some passages (such as Cv.III.23.2-4; Cv.III.25.2), it indicates that a bhikkhu who commits a saṅghādisesa and conceals it is guilty of concealment even if he doesn’t know, if he forgets, or if he is in doubt. However, other passages (such as Cv.III.23.5-6; Cv.III.25.3) indicate that the offender must remember and must know without doubt for his concealment to count as concealment. The syntax of the different passages is different, suggesting that two types of not knowing (and forgetting or being in doubt) are at work here. The Commentary follows this suggestion, resolving the issue by in effect defining two types of not knowing: (1) knowing that the action is an offense but not knowing that it is a saṅghādisesa; and (2) not even knowing that it is an offense. Its conclusion: Concealing a saṅghādisesa offense knowing that it is an offense but not knowing that it is a saṅghādisesa counts as concealment; concealing it not knowing that it is an offense does not. A similar principle applies to forgetting and being in doubt.

Cv.III.34.2 discusses a case in which two bhikkhus commit a saṅghādisesa offense, one of them deciding that he will inform another bhikkhu of the offense, the other deciding that he won’t. The verdict is that when dawn rises before the second bhikkhu has told another bhikkhu, his offense counts as concealed. This raises the question: What about the first bhikkhu? If he desires to inform another bhikkhu but for some reason doesn’t do so before dawnrise, does that count as concealment? The Canon does not say, although in other cases it notes extenuating circumstances under which an offense would not count as concealed: The offender forgets to inform another bhikkhu (Cv.III.23.6) or he goes insane, gets possessed, or becomes delirious with pain (Cv.III.30; Cv.III.34.2).

From these cases the commentators apparently derived a general principle that extenuating circumstances do make a difference in this case and so, after applying the Great Standards to find further legitimate exemptions and collecting the above points from the Canon, came up with the following list, setting the factors for concealment at ten, arranged in five pairs:

The Commentary provides its own discussion of these factors, as follows:

Under pair 1: As long as the offense is a saṅghādisesa and one knows that it is an offense, this pair of factors is fulfilled. If it is a saṅghādisesa offense but—out of shamelessness—one confesses it as a light offense, it counts as neither confessed nor concealed (although it is hard to see how a misleading confession—a deliberate lie—would not count as concealment).

Under pair 3: “Obstructions” means any of the ten obstructions mentioned in Chapter 15.

Under pair 4: A small sore on the mouth, a toothache, “wind pains in the jaw,” etc., don’t qualify as excuses for “not being able.” As noted above, Cv.III.30 indicates that going insane, becoming possessed, or growing delirious with pain after committing the offense would count as “not being able to confess the offense.” A bhikkhu “not suitable to be informed” is one of a separate affiliation or one who is not on congenial terms, even if he is one’s own preceptor. In choosing the bhikkhu to inform, one should not choose another bhikkhu who has committed the same offense that one has committed. If one does so, one’s offense is not counted as concealed (see, however, the special case under “shared offenses,” below) but one still incurs a dukkaṭa. Therefore, one should choose a pure bhikkhu as the one to inform. According to the Sub-commentary, pure here means one who does not have to make amends for that particular saṅghādisesa offense.

Under pair 5: If at first one wants to conceal the offense but then before dawnrise develops a sense of shame and informs another bhikkhu, that is called “one wants to conceal the offense but doesn’t conceal it.” It doesn’t count as concealed. And, as noted in the cases from the Canon, if one plans to inform another bhikkhu but then forgets to do so, that would not count as “wanting to conceal.”

If any of these ten factors is not fulfilled, the offense does not count as concealed. For instance, if one has doubts as to whether it is an offense, there is no penalty for waiting until one can discuss the matter with a bhikkhu who is both congenial and knowledgeable enough to allay one’s doubts. Once those doubts are allayed, however, and the offense turns out to have been a saṅghādisesa, one must inform another bhikkhu before the following dawn.

Mid-course adjustments

Another practical issue in granting probation concerns what to do if a bhikkhu requesting probation understates the actual amount of time he concealed his offense—either through doubt, faulty memory, or shamelessness. If he later ends his doubt, remembers, or develops a sense of shame, he can request to have his probation extended to cover the actual time of concealment. The extended time period for the probation is counted from the time the original probation was begun. Thus, if he asked for a five-day probation and then, on the fourth day, realizes that the actual time of concealment was ten days, he can ask for a ten-day probation. The first four days of the original probation count toward the new one, so he has only six more days of probation to undergo.

If, however, his original request for probation understated the number of his offenses, then when he finally ends his doubt, remembers, or develops a sense of shame at the fact, he can request a probation for the offense(s) not included in the original request. This second probation begins on the day of the Community transaction granting it. Thus, for instance, having committed two offenses, each concealed for one month, suppose he asks for probation for only one of them and then on the tenth day of the probation remembers the second offense. He can then request a one-month probation for the second offense, which begins on the day it is granted. The first ten days of the first probation do not count toward the second one.

(The passages from the Canon stating this principle contain some dubious arithmetic. From the way they are phrased, they seem to imply that the second offense was hidden for one month at the time the bhikkhu requested the probation for the first offense. This raises two possibilities: Either (1) the number of days he continued to conceal the second offense while on probation for the first do not count as concealment; or (2) the compilers of the Canon were sloppy in their presentation and meant to indicate that the second offense had been concealed a full month counting back from the day he requested his second probation. Because the second interpretation calls for a longer probation, and because it is always safer to observe a probation that is too long rather than too short, the second interpretation seems preferable.)

Purifying probation

A third practical issue is what to do if a bhikkhu knows that he has committed a saṅghādisesa offense but doesn’t know, doesn’t remember, or is in doubt about the number of days he has concealed the offense. The Canon directs that he request and be granted a “purifying probation” (suddhanta-parivāsa), in which the length of the probation is determined by his best guess as to how long the offense has been concealed.

The Commentary divides this sort of probation into two sorts: lesser (cūḷa-suddhanta-parivāsa) and greater (mahā-suddhanta-parivāsa).

Lesser purifying probation, it says, is for cases when the offender can recall being pure, with certainty, up to a given date following his ordination. The probation is then granted for the number of days from that date up to the present. If, after being granted probation for a set period of time, he realizes that he under- or over-estimated the time of his purity, he may accordingly extend or reduce the length of the probation without having to ask the Community to formalize the change. This probation clears all offenses except for any he concealed but claimed not to have concealed, any he knowingly concealed for a greater amount of time than he claimed to have concealed them, and any he knowingly claimed to be fewer in number than they actually were.

Greater purifying probation is for cases when a bhikkhu cannot recall with certainty having been pure up to a given date. This probation equals the amount of time since his ordination. As with the lesser purifying probation, it may be shortened if he can later recall with certainty having been pure up to such-and-such a date; there is no need to ask the Community to formalize the change.

Multiple offenses

If a bhikkhu has committed more than one saṅghādisesa offense, he may make amends for all of them at the same time. The penance for multiple offenses is called concurrent or combined (samodhāna) penance; the probation, concurrent or combined probation. The Commentary summarizes the relevant cases in the Canon under three types of combination: aggha-samodhāna (value combination), odhāna-samodhāna (nullifying combination), and missaka-samodhāna (mixed combination). (The following discussion of these terms differs from that in the Vinaya-mukha, which is based on a misunderstanding of the Commentary.)

Value combination

Value combination covers cases where all the offenses were of the same base (i.e., all in defiance of the same rule) and were committed before one’s vuṭṭhāna-vidhī. If the offenses were unconcealed, one need simply request penance for two offenses (dve āpattiyo) or three (tisso āpattiyo). The Commentary suggests that a bhikkhu requesting a combined penance for more than three offenses should simply ask for a penance for many offenses (sambahulā āpattiyo).

If any of the offenses were concealed, one must first request probation for the length of time the longest-concealed offense was concealed. Thus, if one offense was concealed for two days and another for five, one must request and undergo a five-day probation before becoming eligible to request penance.

Nullifying combination

Nullifying combination covers cases where one has committed one or more saṅghādisesa offenses, of the same base as the original offense(s), in the course of one’s vuṭṭhāna-vidhī up through the period of awaiting rehabilitation. This is called “nullifying” because all the days that one has already observed probation, penance, etc., are nullified and one must request to be sent back to the beginning to start the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī all over again. If either the original offense(s) or the new offense(s) were concealed, one must first request a concurrent probation for the length of time the longest-concealed offense was concealed. If neither the original nor the new offense(s) were concealed, one may simply request a concurrent penance.

During the period after committing the new offense(s) and before requesting and receiving the Community transaction that sends one back to the beginning, one is in the stage of deserving to be sent back to the beginning, during which one must continue to observe one’s probation duties.

The Commentary maintains that if a bhikkhu commits a new offense when his probation or penance duties have been set aside, he should not be taken back to the beginning to undergo probation/penance concurrent with the earlier offense. Instead—as he counts as a “regular bhikkhu” during the time that the duties are set aside—he has to undergo another, separate penance/probation period after completing his first. The Commentary’s judgment here is interesting, as it serves as a warning against complacency on the part of a bhikkhu who has set his duties aside. However, this judgment may simply be based on the fact that the Canon does not contain any patterns for the formal statements to be used in a case like this. The easiest way out is thus to treat the new offense as uncombinable with the earlier offense(s) and to have the offender take a separate course through the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī.

Mixed combination

Mixed combination covers cases where the offenses are of different bases (e.g., one offense of intentional emission, one for lustful contact with a woman), and the combination may either be a value combination (for offenses committed before beginning a vuṭṭhāna-vidhī) or a nullifying combination (for extra offenses committed in the course of a vuṭṭhāna-vidhī).

Shared offenses

If two (or more) bhikkhus together commit the same saṅghādisesa offense, or if together they commit a saṅghādisesa mixed with another offense, they must undergo the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī together. Examples of a saṅghādisesa offense committed together would be building an unauthorized dwelling in which they both expect to live (see Sg 6 & 7), joining in groundlessly accusing another bhikkhu of a pārājika offense (Sg 8 & 9), or supporting a schismatic after being warned not to do so by the Community (Sg 11). An example of mixed offenses would be mutual masturbation: Each incurs a saṅghādisesa for getting the other to bring him to ejaculation, while—in bringing the other to ejaculation—each earns a dukkaṭa for lustful contact with a man.

The Canon’s discussion of shared offenses shows that, after committing the offense together, the two bhikkhus cannot simply inform each other of the fact and consider their offense unconcealed. They must inform another bhikkhu who is innocent of the offense. If one of them conceals the offense while the other one doesn’t, the first must confess the dukkaṭa for concealment, after which he is granted probation for the number of days the offense was concealed. Only when he is ready for penance can both bhikkhus be granted penance, which they must undergo at the same time.

Interruptions

If a bhikkhu commits a saṅghādisesa offense, disrobes before the Community meets to impose probation or penance on him, and then reordains, he is not exempted after his reordination from undergoing the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī for his original offense. The same holds true if, after committing the offense, he becomes a novice and then reordains, goes insane and then recovers, becomes possessed and then regains possession of himself, or becomes delirious with pain and then returns to his senses. (The Commentary’s discussion of concealment would indicate that the same principle would also apply to a bhikkhu who is suspended and then is restored to his status as a regular bhikkhu.) He is expected to inform his fellow bhikkhus on the day he reordains, etc., even if he already confessed the offense prior to disrobing. If he did not conceal the offense either before or after disrobing, etc., he is simply to be granted penance. If he did conceal the offense either before or after the interruption in his status, he is to be granted probation for the total number of days, before and after, that he concealed it. The time during which he was not a bhikkhu or not in possession of his sanity, etc., does not count as “concealing.” Thus if he concealed it five days before disrobing and then three days after reordaining, he is to be given an eight-day probation regardless of how much time elapsed between his disrobing and reordination.

A similar principle holds true if he disrobes, etc., while undergoing the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī and then later reordains, recovers, etc., (and here the Canon explicitly includes a bhikkhu who is suspended and then is restored to his status as a regular bhikkhu). Here, however, the issue of concealment after his reordination, etc., does not come up. For instance, if he waits three days after his reordination, etc., to tell his fellow bhikkhus of his interrupted vuṭṭhāna-vidhī, he does not have to undergo an added three-day probation. Nor in any case does the Community have to repeat the transaction(s) of imposing the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī on him. Whatever portion of his vuṭṭhāna-vidhī was already properly observed is still valid, and he is simply to resume his course through the vuṭṭhāna-vidhī where he left off.