Vinaya Bikkhu - Perilaku dengan lawan jenis

[Vipakha]

Namo Buddhaya teman2 semua,
Baru baru ini saya melihat langsung, seorang bikkhu yang dengan sengaja menyentuh tangan seorang gadis, yang jadi pertanyaan , apakah itu melanggar vinaya? Apakah dalam vinaya ada aturan jelas tentang ini  , atau samar2? Karna saya pernah dengar, kalau niat nya baik ,tidak apa2 bersentuhan dengan lawan jenis. Tapi kalau mau jujur, yang saya perhatikan akhir2 ini, kelakuan bbrp oknum bikkhu semakin menjadi – jadi. Apa yang sebaiknya dilakukan bila  menemukan hal seperti ini ? (atau yang mungkin lebih parah lagi kasusnya)

Tolong di bantu, karna saya masih penasaran, dan agak "enek" dan "males" dengan tindakan bikkhu, menyebabkan saya jadi males ke vihara.

Thanks infonya

[ryu]

Namo Buddhaya teman2 semua,
Baru baru ini saya melihat langsung, seorang bikkhu yang dengan sengaja menyentuh tangan seorang gadis, yang jadi pertanyaan , apakah itu melanggar vinaya? Apakah dalam vinaya ada aturan jelas tentang ini  , atau samar2? Karna saya pernah dengar, kalau niat nya baik ,tidak apa2 bersentuhan dengan lawan jenis. Tapi kalau mau jujur, yang saya perhatikan akhir2 ini, kelakuan bbrp oknum bikkhu semakin menjadi – jadi. Apa yang sebaiknya dilakukan bila  menemukan hal seperti ini ? (atau yang mungkin lebih parah lagi kasusnya)

Tolong di bantu, karna saya masih penasaran, dan agak "enek" dan "males" dengan tindakan bikkhu, menyebabkan saya jadi males ke vihara.

Thanks infonya

kalau tera sebenernya ga boleh, kalau maha boleh.

[will_i_am]

kalau tera sebenernya ga boleh, kalau maha boleh.

rujukannya darimana om??
kayaknya gak pernah denger..

[ryu]

rujukannya darimana om??
kayaknya gak pernah denger..

pernah mendengar cerita zen biksu menggendong cewe?
alasan untuk melanggar hinaya adalah upaya kausalya.

[Indra]

Secara vinaya, maka bersentuhan dengan wanita, terlepas dari apa niatnya, adalah pelanggaran berat, termasuk dalam kelompok pelanggaran Sanghadisesa.

[will_i_am]

pernah mendengar cerita zen biksu menggendong cewe?
alasan untuk melanggar hinaya adalah upaya kausalya.

pernah dengar, tapi yang jadi patokannya dalam cerita itu kan niatnya, bukan dilihat bahwa bhikkhu itu thera atau maha..

[Indra]

pernah mendengar cerita zen biksu menggendong cewe?
alasan untuk melanggar hinaya adalah upaya kausalya.

itu hanyalah cerita tidak ada bukti bahwa itu adalah kisah nyata. dalam cerita motivasi, yg diperhatikan adalah pesan moralnya.

[ryu]

pernah dengar, tapi yang jadi patokannya dalam cerita itu kan niatnya, bukan dilihat bahwa bhikkhu itu thera atau maha..

bagi maha, hal itu masih bisa dibenarkan, sama seperti misalnya membunuh perampok yang diyakini bisa membunuh 100 orang maka membunuh 1 perampok itu masih bisa dibenarkan demi menghindari kematian 100 orang.

[Vipakha]

Thnks buat respons nya, mungkin bisa di sertai ,dengan vinaya yang bersangkutan kalau memang menyalahi ..
Karna di sini saya mencari fakta berdasarkan bukti, kalau memang di perbolehkan ..
Di kitab mana menyatakan boleh .

Karna jujur, sebagai umat, vinaya saya ga gitu paham, search di internet, informasi juga kurang..
Mengingat banyaknya oknum bikhhu yg sudah semakin "bebas" , jadi saya mau tau batasan batasan yang jelas yang di perbolehkan di vinaya, setidaknya bisa saya info ke orang2 yang saya sayang.

thanks

[Indra]

2. Should any bhikkhu, overcome by lust, with altered mind, engage in bodily contact with a woman, or in holding her hand, holding a lock of her hair, or caressing any of her limbs, it entails initial and subsequent meetings of the Community.

This rule has sometimes been viewed as a sign of prejudice against women. But, as the origin story makes clear, the Buddha formulated the rule not because women are bad, but because bhikkhus sometimes can be.

"Now at that time, Ven. Udāyin was living in the wilderness. His dwelling was beautiful, attractive, and appealing. The inner chamber was in the middle, entirely surrounded by the outer chamber. The bed and bench, the mattress and pillow were well arranged, the water for washing and drinking well placed, the surrounding area well swept. Many people came to look at it. Even a certain brahman together with his wife went to Ven. Udāyin and on arrival said, 'We would like to look at your dwelling.'

"'Very well then, brahman, have a look.' Taking the key, unfastening the lock, and opening the door, he entered the dwelling. The brahman entered after Ven. Udāyin; the brahman lady after the brahman. Then Ven. Udāyin, opening some of the windows and closing others, walking around the inner room and coming up from behind, rubbed up against the brahman lady limb by limb.

"Then, after exchanging pleasantries with Ven. Udāyin, te brahman left. Delighted, he burst out with words of delight: 'How grand are these Sakyan contemplatives who live in the wilderness like this! And how grand is Ven. Udāyin who lives in the wilderness like this!'

"When this was said, his wife said to him, 'From where does he get his grandeur? He rubbed up against me limb by limb just the way you do!'

"So the brahman criticized and complained and spread it about: 'They're shameless, these bhikkhus — immoral, liars!... How can this contemplative Udāyin rub up against my wife limb by limb? It isn't possible to go with your family wives, daughters, girls, daughters-in-law, and female slaves to a monastery or dwelling. If family wives, daughters, girls, daughters-in-law, and female slaves go to a monastery or dwelling, the Sakyan-son monks will molest them!'"

There are two ways in which a bhikkhu can come into contact with a woman: either actively (the bhikkhu makes the contact) or passively (the woman does). Because the Vibhaṅga uses different terms to analyze these two possibilities, we will discuss them separately.

Active contact. The full offense for active contact here is composed of four factors.

1) Object: a living woman — "even one born on that very day, all the more an older one." Whether she is awake enough to realize what is going on is irrelevant to the offense.
2) Perception: The bhikkhu correctly perceives her to be a woman.
3) Intention: He is impelled by lust.
4) Effort: He comes into physical contact with her.
Of these four factors, only two — intention and effort — require detailed explanation.

Intention. The Vibhaṅga explains the term overcome with lust as meaning "impassioned, desiring, a mind bound by attraction." Altered, it says, can refer in general to one of three states of mind — passion, aversion, or delusion — but here it refers specifically to passion.

The Commentary adds a piece of Abhidhamma analysis at this point, saying that altered refers to the moment when the mind leaves its state of pure neutrality in the bhavaṅga under the influence of desire. Thus the factor of intention here can be fulfilled not only by a prolonged or intense feeling of desire, but also by a momentary attraction.

The Commentary also tries to limit the range of passion to which this rule applies, saying that it covers only desire for the enjoyment of contact. As we noted under Pr 1, the ancient commentators formulated a list of eleven types of lust, each mutually exclusive, and the question of which rule applies to a particular case depends on which type of lust provokes the bhikkhu's actions. Thus if a bhikkhu lusting for intercourse touches a woman, it says, he incurs only a dukkaṭa as a preliminary to sexual intercourse under Pr 1. If he touches her through his lust for an ejaculation, he incurs a thullaccaya as a preliminary to causing an emission under Sg 1. Only if he touches her with the simple desire to enjoy the sensation of contact does he incur a saṅghādisesa under this rule.

This system, though very neat and orderly, flies in the face of common sense and, as we noted under Pr 1, contradicts the Vibhaṅga as well, so there is no need to adopt it. We can stick with the Vibhaṅga to this rule and say that any state of passion fulfills the factor of intention here. The Commentary's discussion, though, is useful in showing that the passion needn't be full-scale sexual lust. Even a momentary desire to enjoy the sensation of physical contact — overwhelming enough that one acts on it — is enough to fulfill this factor.

Effort. The Vibhaṅga illustrates the effort of making physical contact with a list of activities: rubbing, rubbing up against, rubbing downwards, rubbing upwards, bending down, pulling up, drawing to, pushing away, seizing hold (restraining or pinning down — abhiniggaṇhanā), squeezing, grasping, or touching. The Vinita-vatthu includes a case of a bhikkhu giving a woman a blow with his shoulder: He too incurs a saṅghādisesa, which shows that the Vibhaṅga's list is meant to cover all similar actions as well. If a bhikkhu with lustful mind does anything of this sort to a living woman's body, perceiving her to be a woman, he incurs the full penalty under this rule. As noted under Pr 1, mouth-to-mouth penetration with any human being or common animal would incur a thullaccaya. If this act is accompanied by other lustful bodily contact, the thullaccaya would be incurred in addition to any other penalty imposed here.

Derived offenses. Each of the factors of an offense allows a number of permutations that admit for different classes of offenses. Taken together, they form a complex system. Here we will consider each factor in turn.

Object. Assuming that the bhikkhu is acting with lustful intentions and is perceiving his object correctly, he incurs a thullaccaya for making bodily contact with a paṇḍaka, a female yakkha, or a dead woman; and a dukkaṭa for bodily contact with a man (or boy), a wooden doll, or a male or female animal.

Paṇḍaka is usually translated as eunuch, but eunuchs are only one of five types of paṇḍakas recognized by the Commentary to Mv.I.61:

1) An āsitta (literally, a "sprinkled one") — a man whose sexual desire is allayed by performing fellatio on another man and bringing him to climax. (Some have read this as classing all homosexual males as paṇḍakas, but there are two reasons for not accepting this interpretation: (a) It seems unlikely that many homosexuals would allay their sexual desire simply by bringing someone else to climax through oral sex; (b) other homosexual acts, even though they were known in ancient India, are not included under this type or under any of the types in this list.)
2) A voyeur — a man whose sexual desire is allayed by watching other people commit sexual indiscretions.
3) A eunuch — one who has been castrated.
4) A half-time paṇḍaka — one who is a paṇḍaka only during the waning moon. (! — The Sub-commentary's discussion of this point shows that its author and his contemporaries were as unfamiliar with this type as we are today. Perhaps this was how bisexuals were understood in ancient times.)
5) A neuter — a person born without sexual organs.
This passage in the Commentary further states that the last three types cannot take the Going-forth, while the first two can (although it also quotes from the Kurundī that the half-time paṇḍaka is forbidden from going-forth only during the waning moon (!).) As for the prohibition in Mv.I.61, that paṇḍakas cannot receive full ordination, the Commentary states that that refers only to those who cannot take the Going-forth.

However, in the context of this rule, and other rules in the Pāṭimokkha where paṇḍakas enter into the calculation of an offense, the Commentary does not say whether paṇḍaka covers all five types of paṇḍakas or only those not allowed to ordain. In other words, in the context of these rules do "sprinkled ones" and voyeurs count as paṇḍakas or men? In the context of this rule the practical implications of the distinction are minor: If counted as men, they would be grounds for a dukkaṭa; if paṇḍakas, grounds for a thullaccaya. However, under Pc 6, 44, 45, & 67, the distinction makes the difference between an offense and a non-offense, and so it is an important one to draw. There seems good reason to count them as men under all rules, for if they could ordain and yet were considered paṇḍakas under these rules, the texts would have been obliged to deal with the issue of how bhikkhus were to treat validly ordained paṇḍakas in their midst in the context of these rules. But they don't. This shows that the issue never arose, which means that, for the purposes of all the rules, these two types of individuals count as men.

As for female yakkhas, the Commentary says that this also includes female devas. There is an ancient story in Chieng Mai of a bhikkhu who was visited by a dazzling heavenly maiden late one night while he was meditating alone in a cave at Wat Umong. She told him not to touch her, but he did — and went immediately out of his mind. The moral: This is one thullaccaya not to be taken lightly.

There is one exception to the dukkaṭa for lustful contact with an animal: Mv.V.9.3 states that a bhikkhu who touches the genitals of cattle incurs a thullaccaya.

Other information from the Commentary:

1) The thullaccaya for lustfully touching female corpses applies only to those that would be grounds for a full offense under Pr 1, i.e., those with an anal, oral, or genital orifice intact enough for one to perform the sexual act. Female corpses decomposed beyond that point are grounds for a dukkaṭa here.
2) The dukkaṭa for lustfully touching wooden dolls (mannequins) applies also to any female form made out of other materials, and even to any picture of a woman.
3) Female animals include female nāgas as well as any female offspring of a union between a human being and an animal.
For some reason, male yakkhas and devas slipped out of the list. Perhaps they should come under men.

Perception. Misperception affects the severity of the offense only in the cases of women and paṇḍakas. A bhikkhu who makes lustful bodily contact with a woman while under the impression that she is something else — a paṇḍaka, a man, or an animal — incurs a thullaccaya. If he makes lustful bodily contact with a paṇḍaka while under the impression that the paṇḍaka is a woman, a man, or an animal, the penalty is a dukkaṭa. In the cases of men and animals, misperception has no effect on the severity of the case: Lustful bodily contact — e.g., with a male transvestite whom one thinks to be a woman — still results in a dukkaṭa.

Intention. The Vinita-vatthu contains cases of a bhikkhu who caresses his mother out of filial affection, one who caresses his daughter out of fatherly affection, and one who caresses his sister out of brotherly affection. In each case the penalty is a dukkaṭa.

A bhikkhu who strikes a woman — or anyone else — out of anger would be treated under Pc 74. Both under that rule and in the context of Passive Contact under this rule, below, a bhikkhu who strikes or otherwise touches a woman out of a desire to escape from her commits no offense.

Otherwise, the Vibhaṅga does not discuss the issue of bhikkhus who intentionally make active contact with women for purposes other than lust or affection — e.g., helping a woman who has fallen into a raging river — but the Commentary does. It introduces the concept of anāmāsa, things carrying a dukkaṭa penalty when touched; women and women's clothing top the list. (See BMC2, Appendix V for the entire list.) It then goes into great detail to tell how one should behave when one's mother falls into a raging river. Under no circumstances, it says, should one grab hold of her, although one may extend a rope, a board, etc., in her direction. If she happens to grab hold of her son the bhikkhu, he should not shake her off but should simply let her hold on as he swims back to shore.

Where the Commentary gets the concept of anāmāsa is hard to say. Perhaps it came from the practices of the brahman caste, who are very careful not to touch certain things and people of certain lower castes. At any rate, there is no direct basis for it in the Canon. Although the concept has received wide acceptance in Theravādin Communities, many highly respected Vinaya experts have made an exception right here, saying that there is nothing wrong in touching a woman when one's action is based not on lust but on a desire to save her from danger. Even if there is an offense in doing so, there are other places where Buddhaghosa recommends that one be willing to incur a minor penalty for the sake of compassion (e.g., digging a person out of a hole into which he has fallen), and the same principle surely holds here.

[Indra]

There is no offense in touching a being other than a woman if one's intentions are not lustful, although tickling is an offense under Pc 52.

Effort. Acts of lustful but indirect bodily contact with a woman one perceives to be a woman and a paṇḍaka one perceives to be a woman carry the following penalties:

For the woman: Using one's body to make contact with an article connected to her body — e.g., using one's hand to touch a rope or stick she is holding: a thullaccaya.

Using an item connected with one's body to make contact with her body — e.g., using a flower one is holding to brush along her arm: a thullaccaya.

Using an item connected with one's body to make contact with an item connected with her body: a dukkaṭa.

Taking an object — such as a flower — and tossing it against her body, an object connected with her body, or an object she has tossed: a dukkaṭa.

Taking hold of something she is standing or sitting on — a bridge, a tree, a boat, etc. — and giving it a shake: a dukkaṭa.

For the paṇḍaka one assumes to be a woman, the penalty in all the above cases is a dukkaṭa.

These penalties for indirect contact have inspired the Commentary to say that if a bhikkhu makes contact with a clothed portion of a woman's body or uses a clothed portion of his body to make contact with hers, and the cloth is so thick that neither his body hairs nor hers can penetrate it, the penalty is only a thullaccaya because he is not making direct contact. Only if the contact is skin-to-skin, skin-to-hair, or hair-to-hair (as might be possible through thin cloth) does he commit the full offense. Thus a bhikkhu who fondles the breasts, buttocks, or crotch of a fully clothed woman would incur only a thullaccaya because the contact was indirect.

There is a certain logic to the commentators' assertion here, but why they adopted it is unclear. Perhaps they drew a parallel to the following rule — concerning lustful remarks made to a woman — which also contains derived offenses for remarks directed at items "connected with the body." In that case, defining connected with the body to include clothing worn by the woman does no violence to the nature of the activity covered by the rule, for it is possible to make remarks about a woman's clothing without using words that touch on her body at all.

Here, however, the nature of the activity is different. If one pushes a woman, it does not matter how many layers of cloth lie between her body and one's hand: One is pushing both the cloth and her. If one squeezes her fully clothed breasts, again, one is squeezing both the cloth and the breasts. To say that one is pushing or squeezing only the cloth is a denial of the true nature of the action. Also, if one stroked a woman's fully clothed thigh, it is unlikely that the strength of her reaction would depend on whether her body hairs penetrated the cloth, or if one was wearing latex gloves that prevented her hair from touching one's skin. Common linguistic usage reflects these facts, as does the law.

The question is, does the Vibhaṅga follow this common linguistic usage, and the answer appears to be Yes. In none of the Vinita-vatthu cases concerning physical contact with women does the Buddha ever ask the bhikkhu if he made contact with the clothed or unclothed portions of the woman's body. This suggests that the question of whether she was clothed or unclothed is irrelevant to the offense. In one of the cases, "a certain bhikkhu, seeing a woman he encountered coming in the opposite direction, was impassioned and gave her a blow with his shoulder." Now, bhikkhus sometimes have their shoulders bared and sometimes robed; women walking along a road may have different parts of their body clothed or bared. If the presence or absence of a layer or two of cloth between the bhikkhu's shoulder and the woman's body were relevant to the severity of the offense, then given the Buddha's usual thoroughness in cases like this he would have asked about the amount, location, and thickness of clothing on both the bhikkhu and the woman, to determine if the offense was a dukkaṭa, a thullaccaya, or a saṅghādisesa. But he didn't. He simply penalized the bhikkhu with a saṅghādisesa, which again suggests that the presence or absence of cloth between the bhikkhu and the woman is irrelevant in all cases under this rule.

The only cases of indirect contact mentioned in the Vinita-vatthu refer to contact of a much more remote sort: A bhikkhu pulls a cord of which a woman is holding the other end, pulls a stick of which she is holding the other end, or gives her a playful push with his bowl.

Thus in the context of this rule the Vibhaṅga defines "object connected to the body," through which indirect contact is made, with examples of things that the person is holding. The Vinaya-mukha adds things that are hanging from the person, like the hem of a robe or a dress. In this context, contact made through cloth that the person is wearing would be classed as direct. This would parallel Pr 1, in which the question of whether there is anything covering either of the organs involved in intercourse is completely irrelevant to the offense. Thus the concept of direct and indirect contact here would seem to follow general linguistic usage: If a woman is wearing a long-sleeved shirt, for instance, grabbing her by the arm and grabbing her by the cuff of her shirt are two different things, and would receive different penalties under this rule.

According to the Vibhaṅga, if a bhikkhu feels desire for contact with a woman and makes an effort that does not achieve even indirect contact — e.g., making a squeezing motion in the air near one of her breasts — the penalty is a dukkaṭa.

Passive contact. The Vibhaṅga's analysis of passive contact — when the bhikkhu is the object rather than the agent making the contact — deals with only a limited number of variables.

Agent: either a woman the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, or a paṇḍaka he perceives to be a woman.

The agent's effort: any of the actions that fulfill the factor of effort for the full offense under active contact — rubbing, pulling, pushing, squeezing, etc.

The bhikkhu's aim. The Vibhaṅga lists only two possibilities here: the desire to partake (of the contact) and the desire to escape (§). The Sub-commentary explains the first as desiring the pleasurable feeling of contact. It also states that if, in the course of receiving contact, one's motives change from desiring contact to desiring escape, the second motive is what counts.

Effort. The bhikkhu either makes a physical effort or he doesn't. The Commentary includes under this factor even the slightest physical movements, such as winking, raising one's eyebrows, or rolling one's eyes.

Result. The bhikkhu either detects the contact or he doesn't.

The most important factor here is the bhikkhu's aim: If he desires to escape from the contact, then no matter who the person making the contact is, whether or not the bhikkhu makes an effort, or whether or not he detects the contact, there is no offense. The Vinita-vatthu gives an example:

"Now at that time, many women, pressing up to a certain bhikkhu, led him about arm-in-arm. He felt conscience-stricken... 'Did you consent, bhikkhu?' (the Buddha) asked.

'No, venerable sir, I did not.'

'Then there was no offense, bhikkhu, as you did not consent.'"

The Commentary mentions another example, in which a bhikkhu not desiring the contact is molested by a lustful woman. He remains perfectly still, with the thought, "When she realizes I'm not interested, she'll go away." He too commits no offense.

However, if the bhikkhu desires the contact, then the offenses are as follows:

The agent is a woman, the bhikkhu makes an effort and detects contact: a saṅghādisesa. He makes an effort but detects no contact: a dukkaṭa. He makes no effort (e.g., he remains perfectly still as she grasps, squeezes, and rubs his body): no offense regardless of whether or not he detects contact. One exception here, though, would be the special case mentioned under "Consent" in the preceding rule, in which a bhikkhu lets a woman — or anyone at all, for that matter — make him have an emission and he incurs a saṅghādisesa under that rule as a result.

The agent is a paṇḍaka whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, the bhikkhu makes an effort and detects contact: a dukkaṭa. He doesn't detect contact: a dukkaṭa (this point is included in the PTS edition, but not in the Sri Lankan or the Thai). Other possibilities — detected contact but no effort, no effort and no detected contact: no offense.

Other derived offenses for passive contact all deal with cases in which the bhikkhu desires contact and makes an effort. The variables focus on the agent, the agent's effort, and the question of whether the bhikkhu detects contact or not, with the pattern of offenses following the pattern of derived offenses for active contact. In other words:

If the agent is a woman whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, then if she makes an effort at the bhikkhu's body using something connected to her body, and the bhikkhu detects contact: a thullaccaya. If she makes an effort at something connected to the bhikkhu's body using her body, and the bhikkhu detects contact: a thullaccaya. If she makes contact at something connected to the bhikkhu's body using something connected to her body, and the bhikkhu detects contact: a dukkaṭa. If, in any of these cases, the bhikkhu does not detect contact, the offense is a dukkaṭa.

If she tosses something at or on his body, something connected with his body, or something he has tossed, then the offense is a dukkaṭa regardless of whether he detects contact or not.

If the agent is a paṇḍaka whom the bhikkhu perceives to be a woman, the offense is a dukkaṭa in each of the above cases.

Counting offenses. According to the Vibhaṅga, if a bhikkhu has lustful bodily contact with x number of people in any of the ways that constitute an offense here, he commits x number of offenses. For example, if he lustfully rubs up against two women in a bus, he incurs two saṅghādisesas. If, out of fatherly affection, he hugs his two daughters and three sons, he incurs two dukkaṭas for hugging his daughters and no penalty for hugging his sons.

The Commentary adds that if he makes lustful contact with a person x number of times, he commits x number of offenses. For instance, he hugs a woman from behind, she fights him off, and he strikes her out of lust: two saṅghādisesas.

The question of counting saṅghādisesas, though, is somewhat academic because the penalty for multiple offenses is almost identical with the penalty for one. The only difference is in the formal announcements in the community transactions that accompany the penalty — e.g., when the Community places the offender under probation, when he informs others bhikkhus of why he is under probation, etc. For more on this point, see the concluding section of this chapter.

Non-offenses. There is no offense for a bhikkhu who makes contact with a woman —

unintentionally — as when accidentally touching a woman while she is putting food in his bowl;
unthinkingly — as when a woman runs into him and, startled, he pushes her away;
unknowingly — as when, without lust, he touches a tomboy he thinks to be a boy (this example is from the Commentary), when he doesn't even know that he has run into a woman in a crowd, or when a woman touches him while he is asleep; or
when he doesn't give his consent — as in the case of the bhikkhu led around arm-in-arm by a crowd of women.
For some reason, the non-offense clauses omit the non-offenses the Vibhaṅga lists under passive contact — i.e., there is no offense if:

the bhikkhu does not desire contact or
he does desire contact and yet makes no effort.
Summary: Lustful bodily contact with a woman whom one perceives to be a woman is a saṅghādisesa offense.

[Vipakha]

Non-offenses. There is no offense for a bhikkhu who makes contact with a woman —

unintentionally — as when accidentally touching a woman while she is putting food in his bowl;
unthinkingly — as when a woman runs into him and, startled, he pushes her away;
unknowingly — as when, without lust, he touches a tomboy he thinks to be a boy (this example is from the Commentary), when he doesn't even know that he has run into a woman in a crowd, or when a woman touches him while he is asleep; or
when he doesn't give his consent — as in the case of the bhikkhu led around arm-in-arm by a crowd of women.

---> recheck karna inggris pas2an kasus di atas di ijinkan dan tidak melanggar vinaya ya ?
Brati dari contoh kasus yg saya cerita pertama kali itu jelas melanggar vinaya, karna si bikkhu dengan sengaja (sambil snyum2) menyentuh tangan si gadis ?

jadi kalau gitu, apakah bikhhu ga blh bersentuhan dengan keluarga yg blawanan jenis?

[cumi polos]

Namo Buddhaya teman2 semua,
Baru baru ini saya melihat langsung, seorang bikkhu yang dengan sengaja menyentuh tangan seorang gadis, yang jadi pertanyaan , apakah itu melanggar vinaya? Apakah dalam vinaya ada aturan jelas tentang ini  , atau samar2? Karna saya pernah dengar, kalau niat nya baik ,tidak apa2 bersentuhan dengan lawan jenis. Tapi kalau mau jujur, yang saya perhatikan akhir2 ini, kelakuan bbrp oknum bikkhu semakin menjadi – jadi. Apa yang sebaiknya dilakukan bila  menemukan hal seperti ini ? (atau yang mungkin lebih parah lagi kasusnya)

Tolong di bantu, karna saya masih penasaran, dan agak "enek" dan "males" dengan tindakan bikkhu, menyebabkan saya jadi males ke vihara.

Thanks infonya

Ini gadis umurnya berapa ? dan dalam kondisi/upacara/keadaan apa tangan gadis tersebut memberikan kesempatan utk disentuh ?  semakin menjadi-jadi ? jangan2 itu salah satu usaha si gadis...

jangankan sentuh, kalau menatap dgn bengong (mulut terbuka, mata melotot) udah tentu gak boleh....

cuma gimana ya, dimana gadis2 cantik pakai parfum yg begitu KERAS.... seharusnya ada panitia yg mengawasin dehhh

kalau sentuh tangan nenek ada yg keberatan gak ?

yg gw lihat di tantra, kalau sentuh rambut kepala sih udah biasa....utk gadis dan nenek....

[Vipakha]

Well..  Gadis nya masih teenage kayanya, di sini , fokus nya melanggar vinaya atau ga ?
jadi mau orang gimana, kalau bante itu memang tekad melatih diri, dan jujur , info tentang vinaya kan sangat minim, bisa di bilang, dhmma desana, ga pernah tuh jelasin ini, Bante nya kan tau vinaya. . seharusnya dia jalankan dengan baik, bukan?
Jadi, kalau memang melihat dan melotot ja ga boleh, itu referensi darimana ?
biar selalu di dasari bukti

thanks info nya

[cumi polos]

bagaimana kalau umat cewek (gadis) mengantar bhiksunya pulang dari jauh (jarak antar kota) dan cuma berduaan dgn mobil ?

adakah beda kalau ngantarnya malam atau siang ?
adakah alasan kalau gak ada orang lain yg bisa ngantar ?

apakah biksu (Theravada, Mahayana, Tantra) boleh nginap dirumah umat ?