Vinaya, only those who follow its rules are Sangha

Vinaya, only those who follow its rules are Sangha

Excerpt from the English Dhamma discussion with Ajahn Sujin on Zoom on Sat Feb 8th 2025. Edited and transcribed by Alberto

Mp3 audio file: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d8TYX2eR6lmreQt0qgdSiEz3LoKoiD3w

[One of our friends made the resolution that she would support a monk for the whole life, But later on, somehow she felt that the monk didn't live the holy life. So, I'd like to hear a comment from you.]
[A. Sujin] Okay, supporting a monk, but when thatperson does not follow the rules, is he still a monk? [No.] So, she made the resolution to support the monkhood, not anyone in particular, is that right?
[She was thinking of supporting the Sangha.]
So, just support the Sangha, not personal, a person. So, anyone who follows the rules of the Sangha IS Sangha. Actually, Sangha means a group of monks, not just one person. When it's just one person, it's not Sangha, it's just bhikkhu, individual bhikkhu, not Sangha. So, she made her resolution to support monks only, not the ones who break the rules, who do not behave like monks at all.

This is the way to keep the monkhood or the Sangha on and on with the understanding of who's the Sangha or the monkhood and who's not. So that, that person, that monk who does not follow the rules, can know what is right and what is wrong, when people do not support him anymore. That's not wrong at all. Otherwise, what can help him to repent for what he has done and to know what is not the life of a monk, but still wanting to be a monk? In truth, he who does not follow the rules of monkhood is not a monk.

The monk's rules are very, very subtle too, depending on the understanding: what is monk, how to be monk: different life-style, away from lay life. Is that right? [Yes.] Because one does not support the person or the one who is not monk, not following the rules of monkhood, not being a real monk. Is that true, her resolution? [Yes.] So, when that person does not follow the rules of monkhood, is he still a monk? There are so many details about how to be monk as those who were real monks, following the rules by such and such way, by way of Vinaya. To get pardoned and to let the monks allow him again back in the monks company as before he made his mistake.

[He is still part of the Sangha officially.]
Officially... it has to be by monkhood's rules, not by the law or anyone else's rules. Only the Vinaya can be the judge whether that person is still a monk or not a monk anymore, or can be monk again after he gets pardoned or whatever, by the monks' rules, to be back in the monks' company again. That's why there are many rules for monks who have done something wrong, not according to the rules, to know what to do in order to get back in the monks' company. That's why lay people too should know the monk's rules, because otherwise, how can one know whether that person is still a monk or not a monk anymore? Or he can be monk again as soon as he gets pardoned or follows the rules again. How to get pardoned, to be in the monks' company again. Any monk who has broken the rules has the way get pardoned or is able to be monk again, according to what the Vinaya laid out for that kind of mistake, different kinds of mistakes.

The resolution for anyone who studies Dhamma: do just only right things

[Many people feel that changing one's resolution might be not proper.]
And what about the akusala resolution? Shall we stick to it? The akusala resolution: I will not study Abhidhamma, or I will not study Dhamma. Should akusala resolutions be eradicated or be followed?
[You mean the resolution made because of lobha?]
Any kind of resolutions, we have to understand the point. Respecting akusala or what? Wrong understanding. Resolution to follow wrong understanding or understanding what's right and what's wrong? What's beneficial and what is not, what is true and what is not true. When it's done with ignorance, should it be on and on? Or just when there is understanding, it's just knows, the wrong should be eradicated, akusala should be eradicated. Stop it now or wait.

And the truth, right understanding is so brave, it doesn't mind or care about the words that one has spoken because of ignorance. And what is the resolution for anyone who studies Dhamma or for the Buddha-to-be? What about the resolution to do right things? When it's seen what's right and what's wrong, the resolution to do just only right things. The right decisions, conditioned by right understanding.

Without understanding we cannot be as good as the Buddha taught us to be

[These days in Vietnam, there's someone who leads a very simple life, but he doesn't say anything that can show understanding. So she would like to hear your comment.]
No matter how much we try to be good, without understanding we cannot be as good as the Buddha taught us to be. Understanding what is good and what is not good. Understanding everything as it is to let go the idea of self. Because no matter what idea we have right now, it's "my idea".

That's why what's Svakhato Bhagavata Dhammo? About all questions. When there's no understanding of the truth, it is conditioned to think by this way or that way. Different ones, but it's still my idea or his idea or her idea. What about the reality which is conditioned to be thinking, speaking, liking... all of them? All the time as "I...", on and on, no matter what the question is about, the situation is this or that. What about the understanding of the truth from moment to moment, as it is, not as anyone or anything at all or any idea at all.

Any word which is not true it's a lie, musavada, not sacca

So, any moment we talk about other things is far away from the truth that what is there arises and falls away, no matter what the word is about, it's all by conditions, the movement of the hand or the eye or the leg or whatever, each moment is conditioned. What is right is kusala, what is wrong is not kusala.

Even the resolution, right now, is conditioned by avijja, ignorance and lobha or what. And what should be eradicated? Otherwise there must be wrong resolutions on and on and on and on. And that is not sacca, any word which is not true it's a lie, musavada, not sacca.

It's parami when there is right understanding of the truth

So, what did the Buddha say about resolution? To understand the truth, sacca parami. Not wrong resolution or akusala resolution, that has to be eradicated, never having such wrong resolutions anymore. And only pañña can make such decision, pañña is not afraid of anything at all. So brave to understand what is true and what is not true, what is kusala and what is akusala. When it's akusala, should we have more? Or seeing the danger of akusala? That it can condition such wrong resolution. It cannot be parami when it's wrong.

[Yes, thanks to your explanations, I realize that we are very easily lured by the appearances.]
So now, what's your resolution? Sacca parami, adhitthāna parami, to understand dhamma because it's the only reality which can eradicate all kinds of akusala. The root of akusala is ignorance, not understanding the truth of what is there as it is, everything in life has its own reality to be known, whether it's kusala or akusala.

The end of the world, the end of taking what is there as I

[Ajahn, can we say that at the moment of understanding, the resolution is there?]
Understanding what should be known in life, what is the most precious reality in life. Understanding what is there, otherwise ignorance is there, attachment is there, wrong understanding is there, followed by all kinds of akusala, wrong belief, wrong way. All wrong when it's not right understanding of the truth. So, it's parami when there is right understanding of the truth, the best of all kinds of wholesomeness is pañña. And the worst is avijja. As long as avijja is still there, about that which appears, there cannot be the end of the world, the end of akusala, the end of wrong view, the end of taking what is there as I.

Asava, attachment is there even when doing something inattentively

So subtle, when it does not appear: anusaya. And when it is there, but no one knows: asava, until it's so strong that it can be known. Because now there are moments of akusala, attachment to what is there. Even moving one's hand, or just doing something, anything, inattentively, but it's there by conditions, always there. Ignorance and attachment, the core of all kinds of unwholesome realities. Is it there now? It's there unknown. There is seeing right now, isn't there any attachment at all? Or it's there, unknown, bhavasava. That is Svakhato Bhagavata Dhammo, resolution to understand the truth of what is there right now. The seeing, that which is seen, to wear away the idea of I and something's there, all the time in life, from life to life.

So, each word of truth about what is there is the condition for more and more letting go of akusala, ignorance and wrong understanding. Otherwise it's more and more each moment.

#Dhammahome source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJenJ2XB2-c