

                                           
                                           
                              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.
   
   
                            * * * * * * * *
