That's why I said:
What do your posts have to do the OP?Mkoll wrote:But enough of that,
(That's a rhetorical question, by the way.)
What do your posts have to do the OP?Mkoll wrote:But enough of that,
"To insult an unordained person -- according to the Commentary, this runs the gamut from bhikkhunis to all other living beings -- entails a dukkata."Chapter Eight
Part One: The Lie Chapter
2. An insult is to be confessed.
An insult is a gesture or statement, written or spoken, made with the malicious intent of hurting another person's feelings or of bringing him/her into disgrace. The Vibhanga analyzes the full offense under this rule in terms of three factors:
Effort. The Vibhanga lists ten ways a verbal insult can be phrased: making remarks about the other person's
- 1) Effort: One insults a person directly to his face, touching on any one of the 10 topics for abuse (akkosa-vatthu) discussed below.
2) Object: The person is a bhikkhu.
3) Intention: One wants to humiliate him for malicious reasons.
These ten topics are called the akkosa-vatthu -- topics for abuse -- and appear in the following training rule as well.
- race, class, or nationality (You nigger! You bum! You Jew!);
name (You really are a Dick!);
family or lineage (You bastard! You son of a bitch!);
occupation (You pimp! You capitalist pig!);
craft (What would you expect from a guy who crochets?);
disease or handicap (Hey, Clubfoot! Spastic!);
physical characteristics (Hey, Fatty! Beanpole! Shrimp! Hulk!);
defilements (You control freak! Fool! Queer! Breeder!);
offenses or attainments (Some stream-winner you are! You liar! You thief!); or
using an abusive form of address, such as, "You camel! You goat! You ass! You penis! You vagina!" (%) (All five of these come from the Vibhanga.)
As the examples in the Vibhanga show, the remark that fulfills the factor of effort here must touch on one of these topics for abuse and must be made directly to the listener: "You are X." It may be phrased either as sarcastic praise or as out-and-out abuse. The Commentary and Sub-commentary say that any insulting remark not listed in the Vibhanga would only be grounds for a dukkata, but the Vibhanga defines the topics for abuse in such a way that any term related to them in any way would fulfill this factor here.
Remarks made in an indirect or insinuating manner, though, would not fulfill this factor. Indirect remarks are when the speaker includes himself together with the target of his insult in his statement ("We're all a bunch of fools.") Insinuating remarks are when he leaves it uncertain as to whom he is referring to ("There are camels among us"). Any remark of this sort, if meant as an insult, entails a dukkata regardless of whether the target is a bhikkhu or not.
All of the insults mentioned in the Vibhanga take the form of remarks about the person, whereas insults and verbal abuse at present often take the form of command -- Go to hell! F -- off! etc. -- and the question is whether or not these too would be covered by this rule. Viewed from the standpoint of intent, they fit under the general definition of an insult; but if for some reason they would not fit under this rule, they would in most cases be covered by Pacittiya 54.
Insulting remarks made about someone behind his/her back are dealt with under Pacittiya 13.
Object. This factor is fulfilled for the full offense only if the target of one's insult is a bhikkhu. To insult an unordained person -- according to the Commentary, this runs the gamut from bhikkhunis to all other living beings -- entails a dukkata.
Intent. The Vibhanga defines this factor as "desiring to jeer at, desiring to scoff at, desiring to shame." If, with no insult intended, a bhikkhu jokes about another person's race, etc., he incurs a dubbhasita, regardless of whether the person is lay or ordained, mentioned outright or insinuatingly, and regardless of whether he/she takes it as a joke or an insult. This is the only instance of this class of offense.
The K/Commentary adds result as a fourth factor -- the target of one's insult knows, "He is insulting me" -- but there is no basis for this in either the Vibhanga or the Commentary. If one makes an insulting remark under one's breath, not intending to be heard, or in a foreign language, not intending to be understood, the intention would be to let off steam, which would not qualify as the intention covered by this rule. If one truly wants to humiliate someone, one will make the necessary effort to make that person hear and understand one's words -- but if for some reason that person doesn't hear or understand (a loud noise blots out one's words, one uses a slang term that is new to one's listener), there is nothing in the Vibhanga to indicate that one would escape from the full penalty.
For this reason, whether or not the person addressed actually feels insulted by one's remarks is of no consequence in determining the severity of the offense. If one makes a remark to a fellow bhikkhu, touching on one of the topics for abuse and meaning it as an insult, one incurs a pacittiya even if he takes it as a joke. If one means the remark as a joke, one incurs a dubbhasita even if the other person feels insulted.
Non-offenses. According to the Vibhanga, a bhikkhu who mentions another person's race, etc., commits no offense if he is "aiming at Dhamma, aiming at his benefit, aiming at teaching." The Commentary illustrates this with a bhikkhu saying to a member of the untouchable caste: "You are an untouchable. Don't do any evil. Don't be a person born into misfortune and going on to misfortune."
Another example would be of a teacher who uses insulting language to shame a stubborn disciple. This would entail no offense if done without malice, but one should be very sure of the purity of one's motives and of the beneficial effect of one's words before using language of this sort. The Cullavagga (IX.5.2) states that a bhikkhu is fit to reprove another bhikkhu only if he keeps five points in mind: "I will speak at the right time and not at the wrong time. I will speak about what is factual and not about what is not factual. I will speak with gentleness and not with harshness. I will speak about what is connected with the goal and not about what is not connected with the goal. And I will speak with thoughts of kindness and not with inner hatred."
Summary: An insult made with malicious intent to another bhikkhu is a pacittiya offense.
Whenever the topic of Sri Lanka & Myanmar come up, we get a lot of pearl clutching and moral condemnation. But seeing this as purely a moral / ethic issue ignores all the other factors that lead to these terrible actions by members of the Buddhist community. Its kind of like how US republicans depict women who seek control over their reproductive systems as a bunch of horny sluts who lack Christian values.Some people call themselves buddhist, or are dressed like monks, but use the Buddhas dispensation to cause a lot of harm.
The motives for repression and reaction in Sri Lanka is an empirical matter (and one which is going to be very hard to get a firm hold on) requiring highly specific knowledge (which I don't have) so it's not something which general speculation carried out in the absence of that knowledge can shed much light on. More generally, there isn't an abstract Buddhist (or a Muslim or a Christian or a ....) who takes to violence; there are particular people embedded in massively complex ethno-cultural conflicts with massively complex histories and understanding one probably doesn't do a lot to help one understand another. As for fear of Muslims spreading through SE Asia, not as far as I know. I've lived in Thailand for 14 years and the kind of Islamophobia which is increasingly prevalent in the West is not something I've seen here.dhammafriend wrote:Buddhists who take to violence, must feel that Islam is really a threat to their future existence and feel frustrated that their fears are not being addressed on a civil / national level. Nobody woke up one day and said : " Hey, lets go set the local mosque on fire."