Dear Gunnar,

> Since there has been recently a rather vivid discussion
> about Vinaya matters - what about the Vinaya perspective of
> the fact that some Sinhalese bhikkhus have let themselves be
> elected into the Sri Lankan parliament?

The Pabbajitaabhi.nha Sutta (AN. v. 87-8) gives ten dhammas
to be frequently recollected by a bhikkhu. In many temples
the sutta is recited daily. The first and third dhammas are:

veva.n.niyamhi ajjhupagato'ti pabbajitena
abhi.nha.m paccavekkhitabba.m

"I am arrived at a different status," should be
frequently recollected by one who has gone forth.


'a~n~no me aakappo kara.niiyo' ti pabbajitena
abhi.nha.m paccavekkhitabba.m

"I should behave in a different way [than
formerly]," should be frequently recollected by
one who has gone forth.


One illustration of how differently a monk ought to behave,
and how much he ought to sever himself from householderly
concerns, can be seen from this rule:

na ca, bhikkhave, nahaapitapubbena khurabha.n.da.m
pariharitabba.m. yo parihareyya, aapatti dukka.tassa

Nor, monks, should [a monk] who was formerly a
barber carry about a barber's equipment. For
whomever should carry it about, there is an
offence of wrong-doing.
(Vin. i. 250)

But in modern Sri Lanka it seems that a barber can renounce
the householder's life, renounce even his razor, scissors
etc. so as not to be reminded of that life ... and then
stand for parliament! As if one were to abandon the dusty
household life only to dive headfirst into a dunghill.

But your question was concerned with the Vinaya perspective.
This is a little trickier. It's one thing to show the
absurdity and impropriety of these monks' conduct from the
point of view of Dhamma, e.g. how contrary it is to the
values of a renunciate, but another thing entirely to show
that it is a Vinaya offence. Since no monk in the Buddha's
day ever did anything as outlandish as stand for public
election, no rule was ever laid down forbidding it. I
suppose if a monk serving as a member of parliament were to
accept a salary, then he might be censured by the sangha for
wrong livelihood. Later, heavier sanctions could be applied
if he did not quit that occupation.

But what if the monk were to accept no payment for his work?
In that case, perhaps his role as a public servant might
give grounds for censure (or worse) for improper association
with householders.

Of course this is all pretty theoretical. In practice, I
think the political role of much of the Sinhalese sangha is
too deeply entrenched to make any such action feasible,
unless there were some heavy-handed intervention by
the State.

> It has been pointed out here that bhikkhus are not permitted
> to deal with money (although in Sri Lanka, I have got the
> impression that they can sit on the seats "For Clergy" in
> the buses only if they pay); and how is it possible to be a
> member of an organization deciding about the national budget
> without dealing with money?

Yes, one can imagine all sorts of situations in which the
Vinaya would make it impossible for a monk MP to vote without
breaking some rule (e.g. voting for the construction of a
tidal barrier that will entail digging the earth). But
these would have to be dealt with according to the procedures
for specific depravities, and would not concern his being an MP
per se.

Best wishes,

Dhammanando