Buddhism and Conflict Resolution

Third of 3 Talks by Subhuti

Procedures for settling disputes
Guidance from the Vinaya on ‘Issues’ and methods for resolving them

A talk given at Bhaja on 7 January 2000

There is a chapter in the Vinaya Pitaka called Settling of Disputes in the Sangha. In it we find interesting and useful information about how the Sangha, as founded by the Buddha, dealt with these things. Now, while I don't think that we can simply take what the Bhiksu Sangha did and apply it directly to ourselves, I do think that their procedures can give us a basis for discussing how we can work to resolve disputes in our own situation.

the four Adhikaranas
The discussion is divided into two parts. First of all there are the four Adhikaranas. Adhikarana means something like 'issue'. There are four kinds of issue that have to be dealt with. Then there are seven procedures by which those issues can be dealt with. These procedures are known as vinayas. Each of the procedures can be applied to one or more of the issues.

The four Adhikaranas are disputes, accusations, offences and business matters. I am going to talk a little bit about each of these and then I will go into the methods for resolving them and then I will show each of those methods as applied to each of the issues.

disputes
The Buddha is asked ‘what are disputes?’ He says the term includes quarrels, strife, controversy, difference of opinion, contradiction, opposition, cantankerousness, contention. So in speaking of ‘disputes’, he means any situation in which different members of the Sangha come into disharmonious opposition.

The Buddha gives a list of the kinds of questions that there are disputes about. For example, one side says, ‘This is the Dharma’. The other side says, ‘No, it is not the Dharma’. Or one side says, ‘This is the vinaya’, the other says, ‘This is not the vinaya’. Or there is similar disagreement between two sides about whether something is or is not taught by the Tathagata, or is practised or laid down by the Tathagata. Or the dispute may be about whether something is or is not an offence, or whether it is a serious or only a minor offence, or whether it can be cleared away or not; and so on. No doubt you get the picture: disputes can be about the nature of the Dharma, the nature of the spiritual life, the nature of moral life, and so on.

This classification of disputes is quite important. Elsewhere, the Buddha says it is when there is disagreement about these things that there is schism in the Sangha. (Of course, I have discussed in one of my previous talks what the underlying causes of disputes are. We have seen that they lie in the mind. They come out of an evil mind or a greedy mind or a foolish mind.) So these are disputes - the first of the four categories of adhikarana, or issue. As I explained in my earlier talk, a dispute is a problem that the Sangha has to deal with. When this sort of quarrel is going on, something has to be done.

accusations
The second kind of ‘issue’ is an accusation. This is where one Order member has been accused by others of a breach of morality, or of a wrong opinion, or a wrong means of livelihood. The Buddha had in mind here, in particular, accusations that are not made directly, or ones that are stated but not cleared up. This is the kind of situation where one or more Order members are saying about another Order member, 'Oh, he is a bad man, he does this, he does that'. The Buddha gives a list of what kinds of speech constitute an accusation in this sense. I won't mention them all individually, but we can classify them into three kinds.

Firstly, there are accusations proper, that is, cases where somebody accuses someone else of doing wrong. Secondly, there are excuses. This means a situation where someone blames somebody else in order to excuse himself for something he did wrong. So for instance, if you have hit somebody and you are asked why you did it, you might say, 'He made me do it, he insulted me'. So you are excusing yourself. The third type of accusation is an accusation made in the course of making fun of somebody. In other words, it is teasing. This can be dangerous because sometimes, in teasing somebody, you accuse them of something and others may believe you mean it seriously.

So in one or other of these three ways, someone may accuse somebody of something. And the accusation may be heard and repeated by others and thus become a rumour about that person. There has to be some way of clearing this sort of thing up. This is something I have observed quite a bit in our Movement. There are all sorts of rumours about people and they are just assumed to be true. People just pass them around without ever checking whether they are true or not. So the person who is accused needs some way of clearing the matter up. He can't just go round to everybody saying, 'No, it is not true', 'No, it is not true'.

The Buddha discusses what is the cause of such accusations. Once again, it is the greedy, angry or foolish mind of the accuser. When you look into such cases, you often find out that the person making the accusation does not really hate the person they are accusing. The accusation is just a symptom of a general negativity in the accuser’s mind, which he gives vent to by accusing others of this or that, almost at random. The Buddha says that such general negativity is often directed at somebody who is at a disadvantage in some way. In other words the accuser picks on somebody who is weak in some way and so can be easily attacked. Whatever the reason, this sort of accusation needs to be cleared up by the Sangha.

offences
Next, we come to the third adhikarana, or issue, which is offences. This includes any definitely unskilful action. In the Vinaya, of course, offences are defined by the rules of the Patimokkha, the list of rules that the bhiksu is supposed to observe, but in our context it means a breach of one of the Ten Precepts, especially any such breach that is particularly serious. Obviously, just as for disputes and accusations, the sangha needs some way of dealing with offences.

the business of the sangha
The fourth kind of issue is those that are connected with the business of the sangha. The sangha has various formal procedures and structures, and sometimes questions are raised about these. For instance, in our context, it might be a dispute about whether the Chapter Convenor had been properly appointed or not. Or it might be a dispute about whether somebody's ordination request had been properly discussed. So this category is about disagreements concerning the way of carrying out the business of the Order, or about its structure. Again, just as for the other adhikaranas, the sangha needs ways of sorting such things out. If they are not properly sorted out, procedural disagreements can get to the point at which they become schism.

These then are the four adhikaranas or types of issues: disputes, accusations, offences and procedural disagreements. I think this is quite a useful list of the kinds of things that we have to deal with in the Order. And indeed, we do from time to time find issues coming up under all those four headings. Now, let us turn to the seven vinayas or procedures for resolving such issues.

the seven vinayas or procedures for resolving issues
There are seven such vinayas, or procedures. The first procedure is known as 'in the presence of'. The second is called 'of innocence'. The third is called 'the declaration of insanity'. The fourth is 'confession'. The fifth is the procedure 'by majority'. The sixth is the procedure for 'obstinate offenders'. And the seventh is 'covering mud with grass'.

in the presence of the Sangha
So the first is sammukha-vinaya, which means ‘in the presence of’, or ‘in the face of’, or ‘face to face’. It is so called because the issue is resolved in the presence of the Sangha, the Dharma, and the Vinaya, and in the presence of the particular people concerned. Actually, none of these procedures are done in the absence of the people who are concerned. But in this first procedure, there is a full Order meeting and everybody who can be there is there. Those who are entitled to be there but can't be must send their apologies. And nobody can have any objection to anybody being there. So, in our case, it would probably mean, in the first instance, a full meeting of at least the local chapter.

But what is meant by the phrases in the presence of the Dharma, and in the presence of the Vinaya? Obviously it means that all those present are trying to resolve the matter as it were in the light of the Dharma and the Vinaya. They must try their best to use the teachings of the Buddha to resolve the question.

Then finally, this procedure takes place in the presence of the people involved in the issue, that is, for example, the person who is accused and the person who is making the accusation, or the person who has committed the offence, or the people who are in dispute. This procedure can be used for settling all kinds of issues. It means everyone involved, either directly or just by being part of the local sangha, gets together and discusses the matter, openly and in a positive spirit. And they try to get to the bottom of the matter. The sutta says that they should ‘thresh out’ what is Dharma. You know that, to separate the rice from the stalk, you beat it; at least that is what you do with wheat and barley and so on. You beat it with a special flail so that the grains are separated from the straw. The sangha discusses the issue in such a way that the grains of truth, the grains of Dharma, are separated from the straw of confusion and misunderstanding and so on. This is the basic procedure: you just sit down together and you work the thing out.

going to another Chapter
Now of course, you may not always succeed. If the Chapter can't get to the bottom of the matter what does it do? Well, they go to another Chapter and say to that other Chapter, 'We can't sort this matter out, will you do it for us?' The other Chapter first has to consider whether they think they are actually able to do this. They may say, 'I don't think we are going to be able to sort this out, you are too confused', or 'We just don't think we are senior enough, or wise enough, to sort this out'. Or they may say, 'We will try, we will do our best'. So then they discuss it and, if they can, they resolve the matter.

But sometimes issues get very complicated. So for instance, in the course of explaining to the other chapter what the dispute is, somebody says, 'He said that, I said this, and then he said that'. But somebody else disagrees with this version of events and says, 'No, no; it wasn’t like that. He said this, and then I said that, then he said this.’ Because of this kind of confusion, the Chapter who are trying to resolve the matter may get completely confused about what is going on. So they just decide, 'We can't decide this. So we suggest we appoint a commission to look into the matter'. And so the Chapter that has been visited finds three or four or five very responsible, senior, experienced Order members to sort the matter out.

Now, what does sorting it out mean? It means that everybody accepts the decision that is made. It is unanimous. But of course, that may be difficult to achieve. So, if the commission is unable to sort the matter out then you have to resort to another procedure. This other procedure is the decision by majority. We will come on to that later.

So this is the first vinaya or procedure, which is called ‘in the presence of’ or sammukha vinaya. And the gist of it is that you try to resolve the issue in the presence of everyone concerned in the local sangha. In our case, this means first of all you try to resolve it within the Chapter. If you can't resolve it there, you take it to another Chapter. If they can't help you to resolve it, you form a commission. And if that doesn’t resolve it, then you have to pass on to another procedure.

the procedure ‘of innocence’
The second procedure is the procedure ‘of innocence’. Literally, it is the sati vinaya, meaning ‘the procedure for recollection’. It is relevant to the adhikarana of accusations, that is, if you have been wrongly accused of something and you want some way of clearing your name. The procedure is that, at a full meeting of the Order, you say, 'I have been accused of this, but I have investigated my memory and I cannot find that I did do it. I am innocent of what I am accused of.' Then the whole sangha declares, 'Yes, we accept that you are innocent'. So the matter is then cleared up, and it constitutes an offence for somebody to raise it again. Of course, you have to be really innocent. And presumably you should have talked the matter over with your kalyana mitras and friends beforehand.

I think this is quite an important and interesting procedure. People have told me that they have been accused of things and it is widely believed that they actually did those things, yet in fact they didn't do them. I believe these people are telling me the truth. But how are they to persuade 30 or 40 Order members who may believe the false accusations? How are they to get them to change their minds? So this procedure gives a way of clearing your name. Of course, there may have to be some discussion, but in the end you can get to a point where everybody agrees, 'Yes, we accept that you are innocent'. So that is the second procedure.

the procedure ‘for declaring insanity’
Now we come to the third vinaya. This is the procedure ‘for declaring insanity’. It is concerned, once again, with accusations, and also with offences. What is insanity? I used to work in psychiatric social work and so I have seen clinical insanity at first hand. But I have also seen, at close quarters, behaviour that seemed to me insane, although it would not have counted as insanity in a medical sense. The fact is, most of us are a little bit mad every now and again. The Buddha said that all ‘worldlings’ - that is, ordinary people - were mad! But clearly, what is meant here is something more specific than that! It means a situation where someone’s mind is under such extreme stress and confusion that he cannot judge things properly. Sometimes, for instance, when people have experienced the death of someone very close to them, they go a little bit mad. In English there is a figure of speech to describe this, 'mad with grief'. There are situations in which people do things that show that their minds are so disturbed that they are not really seeing things properly. And in the legal field, of course, a successful plea of insanity means that you cannot be tried in the courts for whatever offence you have committed.

Order members can go mad, just like any other people. Modern science is showing more and more that madness is not is not just caused by emotional matters. It can also be the result of a physical ailment. For instance, old people get Alzheimer's disease, senile dementia. Sometimes very old people with this illness can't even recognise their own children. It is something to do with the brain breaking down. Other kinds of mental illness, not just those suffered by old people, also have physical causes, in body chemistry. Also, certain kinds of poison can bring on insanity of various kinds. So there are many reasons for insanity, and even a person who is practising spiritually, such as an Order member, can act unskilfully owing to a period of insanity.

So after such an action, in the meeting of the Chapter, he may say, 'Well, I did do that, but I was suffering a period of mental illness', or, 'I don't remember doing that. I believe you when you tell me that I did, but I just don't remember it. At that period I was mad'. Or he may say, 'I do remember it, but is as if it was a dream'.

Another alternative, of course, is that he is actually still mad and shows it in his behaviour. So the sangha obviously can't hold him responsible for something he did while in this state. In English law courts, the phrase that is used is that the person committed the offence while the balance of his mind was disturbed. So in this sort of situation, the individual is declared to be innocent of that offence because of insanity. Of course, if he is still mentally ill, he will have to be looked after by the sangha.

the procedure of confession
The fourth vinaya is the procedure of confession, which of course relates to the adhikarana of offences. In this case, a member of the sangha has done something wrong, quite badly wrong perhaps, but in any case wrong enough to require confession before the whole sangha. He can either confess in the Chapter meeting, or get together with a friend and confess to him, and then he can tell the chapter, 'My friend confessed to me, do you accept his confession?' Then the whole Chapter acknowledges that the confession has been made and that is the end of the matter. The bhikkus say, 'Do you acknowledge that you have committed this fault?' The one who has committed the fault says, 'Yes, I do acknowledge it', and the rest say, 'May you restrain yourself in the future'.

the procedure of ‘resolution by majority’
The fifth procedure, which is especially to be used for disputes, is ‘resolution by majority’. It is assumed that the parties to the dispute have been through the first procedure, the procedure in the face of, and that it has not been possible to resolve the matter that way. So the sangha appoints an election officer. Of course, they have to choose somebody who is of very high moral quality, somebody impartial, free from malice or hatred, wise and also fearless. Fearlessness is necessary in carrying out this task because people may blame you. The election officer must also be someone who is also familiar with the procedure and knows how to conduct it properly.

He puts before the sangha what the issue is and they vote on it and he collects the votes. This can be done in three different ways: by secret ballot, by whispering, or by an open ballot. For the open ballot, the election officer has tokens of two different colours, and each bhikku comes up to him and takes one of the tallies. In this way, he determines what the majority think is correct. However, an interesting feature of this system is that the election officer has the responsibility to decide whether the majority is actually acting in accordance with the Dharma or not. If he thinks that the monks have voted unwisely, he can cancel the vote.

the procedure for obstinate people
The sixth procedure is for those who are obstinate people who have committed offences but won't really properly admit to them. So for example, he might say, 'I didn't do that, it wasn't so serious, what I did was a less serious crime'. Or perhaps he says, 'I didn't do it at all'. And then, being pressed, he eventually he says, 'OK, I did commit that offence'. The other monks then they say, 'Well, why didn't you say so to begin with?', and he replies, 'I was only joking'. So in this sort of way, he avoids properly admitting what he has done and therefore adds to the original offence the further offences of being obstinate and being not open. But this procedure is used when somebody has actually in the end confessed but they have done so only after a great obstinate resistance. And this is applicable in the case of offences and accusations.

[Details of sixth procedure not given in this talk]

[Interpolation from talk given by Subhuti to chapter retreat at Madhyamaloka, 3/9/00]

Then we have the procedure for those who are obstinately wrong. This is essentially to do with somebody who won't really face up to what they have done and the vinaya account of it is rather delightful, it gives the example of a bhiksu sort of being accused of something and saying, 'Well, in a way I did, but not really, because it wasn't really quite like that, what I did do was this, something much more minor', and not really facing up to what he has done and then changing his story and just not really being willing to face up to what has happened. And it seems that what happens first of all is a confession but it is not a full or true confession, questions get raised about that, the confession is then either renewed or withdrawn and it takes some time for the Sangha to get to heart of the matter and for the bhiksu to make a full and proper confession. He is then required to face up fully to his eel wriggling and to his failure to really face up to it.

The Buddha was at one point asked about adhikarana and about resolution of adhikarana and he said that there were two kinds of resolution. There was resolution in the spirit and resolution in the letter. And he said that resolution in the letter was no resolution at all, there was only a resolution in the spirit that counted as resolution. So the question arose: what is resolution in the spirit? What produces resolution in the spirit? And he said when the matter is looked into deeply and its bottom is reached so that there is as it were nothing more to come out, nothing more to be gone into. So it is gone into all the way, you are not just content with superficial harmony or superficial apology or something like that. The full depth of the issue is revealed. And I think in a way this relates to the whole question of confession again, it is not just a question of reeling off an apology so to speak for the action itself, there needs to be a deep exploration of what went on. And again, not as an accusation but as a dialogue, a discussion, a communication. It has got a lot to do with the bhiksu or the Order member being shameless. In other words, not really feeling shame when the Sangha becomes aware of wrong doing.

And it might sound a little bit almost heartless but one of the very impressive things about the discussion of these matters in the sutras is the extreme care and delicacy with which the Buddha, particularly, approaches people. He is absolutely uncompromising in the sense that he will not let a matter drop but he is prepared to take a long time to get to grips with it and he is prepared to use very indirect means. The Bhaddali Sutta is the best example of that where Bhaddali won't take some advice from the Buddha during the rainy season retreat about eating. Apparently he used to like to eat a lot and the Buddha recommended only eating before midday or one meal a day, I think it was, and he refuses. So the Buddha gives him all sorts of mitigations of the rule but he just refuses, he says he can't, and the rest of the rainy season he is kind of out of contact with the Buddha but nobody kind of gives him a hard time. But at the end of the rainy season retreat when they are mending their robes ready for the end of the retreat some other bhiksus are sitting with him and they just say, 'Well, why don't you go and just talk to the Buddha, it is a long time since you talked to the Buddha, why don't you just clear things up with him before you go as you may not see him again'. So he does and having confessed that he had not listened to the Buddha properly the Buddha starts to go into it and eventually goes into it so deeply that poor Bhaddali we feel really sorry for him in a way but he has kind of opened himself up. And the Buddha says, 'It wasn't just a matter of you not listening, you actually cut yourself off and in cutting yourself off you actually undermine your whole spiritual life. You can't really hope to make spiritual progress if you cut yourself off from the Sangha, if you don't listen to the teacher, if you don't listen to the Dharma, and so on'. So he really goes into it very deeply indeed but in such a gentle way, although actually by that time it is not so gentle but he gets round to it very gently. He waits till Bhaddali is open. So then Bhaddali says, 'Why didn't you tell me earlier?'. So the Buddha said, 'You wouldn't have listened and it might have alienated you'. And he says, 'If in a family one brother has only one eye everybody in the family is very careful to make sure that that one eye isn't put out. If he has got two you are less careful, you have one to spare. But if somebody has got little faith you make sure that you don't blot out the little faith that they have'. Bhante did a seminar on this which is very good on that sort of area of sensitivity and persistence and even a kind of uncompromisingness but with at the same time great gentleness and sensitivity and subtlety.

So one mustn't think of these as being conducted in a crude and harsh way. And when you read the text it does bring that out more fully, the bare bones of it suggest something rather legal and therefore rather harsh and cruel. But the way in which it is all to be used is sensitively, with respect and, as I say, with a preparedness to believe the other person even if you have got grounds for doubt. So the procedure for those who are obstinately wrong may take a long time in order to get through to them but again it is not let go of. I think that is quite important, it is something that emerges from the consideration that matters are not just let slide, they are gone into deeply.

the procedure of ‘covering mud with grass’
The last vinaya is the procedure of ‘covering mud with grass’. It applies to disputes and offences. Imagine that there is one group of monks saying one thing and another group saying another, and they are quarrelling about it. Eventually, somebody on one side realises, 'Look, this is ridiculous. We are fighting with our brothers in the sangha. We shouldn't be doing this.' He manages to persuade the others. Then somebody on the other side, in the same way, realises that what they are doing is silly and persuades the others to stop. Of course, this may happen because someone outside the dispute - perhaps a senior monk - has managed to persuade one individual on each side to come to this point. So the bhikku on the one side who has been the first to realise this says to his friends, 'Look, I will confess for all of us. Will you let me do that?'. The monk on the other side does the same. They all come together, the two monks speak for the others, confess and apologise, and that is the end of the matter.

Of course, it can only be as simple as this if no very serious offence has been committed in the course of the dispute, or as its cause. If something serious has been done, of course, it has to be examined more deeply. But if the issue was just disputing, just quarrelling, without giving rise to deep ill will and distrust, it can be resolved in this way - by everybody confessing that they have participated in a quarrel. There is no need for every individual to resolve matters with every other individual. So this is called ‘covering mud with straw’. There is no need to clear up the mud, you just put straw on top of it. Then you can walk over it.

So there are the four kinds of issues and the seven kinds of procedure that the bhikku sangha can use to resolve them. I think we can learn from this and apply some of the methods, perhaps in a more informal way. Certainly, we need to take very seriously any of the four ‘issues’ that arise in our sangha: we should take them up collectively and resolve them. Disputes, for example, need to be cleared up: either the truth needs to be found or harmony has to be restored by some means. Accusations need to be looked into, and either withdrawn and apologised for (if they are wrong) or (if they are shown to be correct) then the person accused needs to confess. If we have committed offences we need to confess them. If there are misunderstandings or confusions about business matters then we must discuss them until they are concluded. I think one of the greatest enemies to the Sangha is vagueness. Too often, we don't properly face up to issues and resolve them. We have to be willing to put time and energy into doing so.

So I hope that is helpful. We should be pleased and grateful that such a clear and detailed system of resolving issues is offered to us by the Buddhist tradition.

[end of talk]
-------------------
Canonical sources mentioned

The Patimokkha - The Bhikkhus' Code of Discipline
Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Adhikarana-Samatha
1. A verdict "in the presence of" should be given. This means that the formal act settling the issue must be carried out in the presence of the Community, in the presence of the individuals, and in the presence of the Dhamma and Vinaya.
2. A verdict of mindfulness may be given. This is the verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused remembers fully that he did not commit the offense in question.
3. A verdict of past insanity may be given. This is another verdict of innocence given in an accusation, based on the fact that the accused was out of his mind when he committed the offense in question and so is absolved of any responsibility for it.
4. Acting in accordance with what is admitted. This refers to the ordinary confession of offenses, where no formal interrogation is involved. The confession is valid only if in accord with the facts, e.g., a bhikkhu actually commits a pacittiya offense and then confesses it as such, and not as a stronger or lesser offense. If he were to confess it as a dukkata or a sanghadisesa, that would be invalid.
5. Acting in accordance with the majority. This refers to cases in which bhikkhus are unable to settle a dispute unanimously, even after all the proper procedures are followed, and -- in the words of the Canon -- are "wounding one another with weapons of the tongue." In cases such as these, decisions can be made by majority vote.
6. Acting in accordance with the accused's further misconduct. This refers to cases where a bhikkhu admits to having committed the offense in question only after being formally interrogated about it. He is then to be reproved for his actions, made to remember the offense and to confess it, after which the Community carries out a formal act of "further misconduct" against him as an added punishment for being so uncooperative as to require the formal interrogation in the first place.
7. Covering over as with grass. This refers to situations in which both sides of a dispute realize that, in the course of their dispute, they have done much that is unworthy of a contemplative. If they were to deal with one another for their offenses, the only result would be greater divisiveness. Thus if both sides agree, all the bhikkhus gather in one place. (According to the Commentary, this means that all bhikkhus in the sima must attend. No one should send his consent, and even sick bhikkhus must go.) A motion is made to the entire group that this procedure will be followed. One member of each side then makes a formal motion to the members of his faction that he will make a confession for them. When both sides are ready, the representative of each side addresses the entire group and makes the blanket confession, using the form of a motion and one announcement (natti-dutiya-kamma).
Revised: Thu 18 February 1999 http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/vinaya/bhikkhu-pati.html

Thich Nhat Hanh (Old Path White Clouds, p. 311)
1 sammukha-vinaya (face-to-face sitting - the dispute must be stated before the entire
convocation of bhikkhus… this is to avoid private conversations about the conflict which
inevitably influence people against one side or the other, creating further discord and tension
2 smtri-vinaya (remembrance)
3 amudha-vinaya (non-stubbornness - the community expects both parties to demonstrate
their willingness to reach reconciliation)
4 tatsvabhaisya-vinaya (voluntary confession)
5 pratijnakaraka-vinaya (accepting the verdict - when the verdict is reached, it will be read
aloud three times. If no-one in the community voices disagreement with it, it is
considered final. Neither party in the dispute has the right to challenge the verdict.
6 yadbhuyasikiya-vinaya (decision by consensus)
7 trnastaraka-viiinaya (covering mud with straw - a venerable elder monk is appointed to
represent each side in the conflict… their words have the capacity to soothe and heal
wounds, just as straw covers mud…)

PARACANONICAL VINAYA LITERATURE
(from A Survey of Vinaya Literature, by Charles Prebish)
Adhikarana-Samatha-dharmasThese seven rules represent a system by which offenses may be resolved.

· The first, sammukhavinaya, literally means: in the presence of. The Samathakkhandhaka of the Pali Vinaya explains this by the presence of the individual, the Samgha, the Dharma, and the Vinaya. 26

· The second, smrtivinaya, literally means: verdict based on recollection. However, the Samathakkhandhaka makes it clear that it is a verdict of innocence and outlines five requirements for such a decision:

(1) that the monk is pure and faultless,
(2) that he is accused,
(3) that he asks for dismissal of the charge,
(4) that the samgha gives the smrtivinaya decision, and
(5) that the samgha is complete.

· The third, amudhavinaya, literally means: verdict of past insanity. The Samathakkhandhaka notes three criteria for granting such a verdict: (1) the offense was not remembered, (2) the offense was remembered and confessed, and (3) the monk remains insane.

· The fourth, yadbhuyasikiya, literally means: decision of the majority. The Samathakkhandhaka, however, states that when a decision of the majority is not reached, monks at another avasa may be consulted. Miss Horner suspects that this method was not contemplated, referring to a passage in which voting by tickets was used to resolve the legal question.

· The fifth, tatsvabhavaisiya, literally means: special nature (of the accused monk). The Samathakkhandhaka notes three occasions for carrying out this act against a monk: if he (1) is a maker of fights, (2) is a maker of quarrels, or (3) is a maker of disputes.”

· The sixth, trnaprastaraka, literally means: cover (as) with grass. The Samathakkhandhaka explains that when monks are engaged in dispute, many unbecoming things may be said. Monks should gather together under the direction of an experienced monk, confess their collective fault, and unless it is a grave act (sthulavadya) or connected with the laity (grhapatisamyukta), enact this procedure. 32

· The seventh, y pratijnakaraka, literally means: verdict which effects confession. The Samathakkhandhaka advises that acts must not be carried out against a monk without his acknowledgement. The adhikarana-samatha-dharmas are discussed at length in Sukumar Dutt’s volume ‘Early Buddhist Monachism’ (Chapter VI: “The Internal Polity of a Buddhist Sangha,” pp. 113-145 in the revised edition). Strangely enough, we also find an explanation of this class of rules in the Samagama-sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya (Sutta No. 104).

Second of 3 Talks by Subhuti

DEALING WITH CONFLICT
Lessons from the Kinti Sutta

A talk given at Bhaja in India on 6 January 2000

In my last talk, I looked at the subject of disharmony, and showed that disharmony has its roots in the mind. Disputes have their origin in our negative mental states, such as ill will, resentment, envy, jealousy, and so on. We saw that those mental states destroy our faith in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, and therefore stop us from making spiritual effort and progress. In such mental states, we have no sense of sangha. Therefore we fall into dispute and disharmony with our brothers and sisters in the sangha. This means we have to pull up the roots of dispute in our own minds; we have to work on ourselves spiritually. You, as Chapter Convenors, need to promote harmony in the Order. That means that your first job is to rid yourself of such negative states and then encourage everyone else to do the same.

We also learnt about Buddhaghosa's ten ways of working on resentment and ill will in the mind. They are very comprehensive, and if one really applies these methods, ill will could not continue in one’s mind. So this is your first task as Chapter Convenors. You really need to make sure that people are working on their own minds. You can do this in the Chapter of course, through confession, discussion of your own experience, and so on. But it is especially through meditation that you can get to grips with these roots of dispute in your own mind. Meditation retreats should be an important part of the life of every Order member.

I now want to talk more about how you help others to resolve their difficulties. As a Chapter Convenor, there are two difficult situations that you may have to deal with. The first is a dispute between two factions within the Order; the second is where an Order member commits some sort of offence.

So what are you to do as a Chapter Convenor when you are confronted by either of these situations? I am assuming that you yourself are not part of the dispute. What should you do? I am going to look at this issue in the light of a sutta called the Kinti Sutta. Kinti means 'what if' or 'what next', 'what then'.

In the sutta, the Buddha asks some monks, 'What do you think I am teaching the Dharma for? Do you think I am teaching the Dharma for the sake of robes, for the sake of alms food, for the sake of somewhere to stay, lodgings?' Of course, the Bhiksus say, 'No, we don't think you are teaching just for your own personal benefit. You are teaching out of compassion for us, out of a desire for our welfare'. The Buddha agrees and explains that he teaches them the 37 bodhipaksadhammas – a sort of systematic compendium of his teachings – for their benefit. But he remarks that not all disciples practise what he teaches. Often they do things incompatible with the Teaching. Sometimes, they even start to quarrel with each other. He poses the question, 'If you find two sets of monks quarrelling in this way, what do you do?'

He explains that the first thing to do in such a situation is to find out what is going on, to establish clearly what the basis of the dispute is. Usually, at this stage, we find out that the dispute is not really about anything of any great substance. It is often just about words. People haven't really thought about what they are saying. Or if there is a real disagreement, it probably is not about anything fundamental; and as we have seen previously, there is no need to quarrel or have negative feelings about disagreements. For instance, one of us might say the best way to get to the station is this way; another one might say, ‘No, it’s that way’. The two might not be able to persuade each other, but there is no need to quarrel about it, we can just disagree. In English, we say people can ‘agree to disagree’.

Then you look at one faction to identify the person in that faction who will be easiest to talk to, the one who has got the most reasonable mind, the most pleasant temperament. You go to him and you say, 'Look, you and those others are quarrelling about certain matters, but on more fundamental matters you are in compete agreement, so there is no need to quarrel. You can be in disagreement, but just don't quarrel.' In that way you calm them down. Then you go to the people on the other side and, similarly, you find the most reasonable person on that side. In just the same way you point out to him the fact that both parties agree on fundamental matters. You say, ‘Look, you are arguing about a point you disagree about, but disagreement doesn't necessarily mean disharmony. It doesn't have to lead to a breakdown in communication and negative feelings.’ In this way, you calm the two sides down and they are gradually able to come back into communication.

This method of the Buddha is very sensible and astute. If you see two sets of people who are arguing, there will always be somebody on either side who is more reasonable than the rest. So you use those people to bring the rest of them together. Once you have persuaded the most reasonable person, they can gradually persuade the rest.

You have to approach them in a very polite and friendly way. When we read the Pali Canon, we are bound to notice how polite the Buddha and most of his monks are. Certainly, if you are trying to resolve a dispute, you need to be especially pleasing and polite in your approach to people. Having approached people politely, you clarify the real basis of the disagreement. You separate the real issue from the feelings involved, which allows the issue to be seen as it really is. Then you point out to them the fact that they may disagree on that point, but that does not mean they have to be in disharmony.

Actually, what is most important about the method I have just described is not the method itself the very fact that something is done about the problem. The most fundamental point is that the Buddha does not just let disharmony go on. Somebody must take the initiative to create harmony. Among us, this is part of the duty of a Chapter Convenor. The Chapter Convenor himself might not be the best person to do the actual work of resolving a particular dispute. It depends on the circumstances and the individuals involved. But he should, at least, make sure that something is done – that a more appropriate person takes the initiative to restore harmony. I think that, far too often in our Order, both in the East and the West, we just let disputes go on.

All the Chapter Convenors in any particular area, in a region for instance, should get together at regular intervals and discuss what disputes or disharmonies are going on. In relation to each dispute, they should ask, 'Who is the best person to go and deal with this?' There are some people who are very good and experienced at this. In our own ordination team we have got some very experienced people. Jutindhar and Sudarshan have performed some miracles recently! But there are others too who have this skill. Your duty as a Chapter Convenor is to say, 'Something must be done about this'. Any dispute, anywhere in the Order, affects the whole Order. So you need to take up the issue and you need to make sure that somebody does something. Of course, your personal ability to deal with them will depend upon your ability to deal with yourself! If you don't quite know what to do, you should turn to those with a lot of experience, like Sudarshan. But I think that all Order members need to take much more responsibility for resolving disputes and take opportunities to gain experience in doing so.

In the Vinaya, the Buddha makes an interesting point about resolving disputes. He says there are two kinds of restoration of harmony – in the letter and in the spirit. In other words, there is superficial harmony and genuine harmony. Real harmony only comes about when you have got to the bottom of the matter, when you have made clear what the real basis of the dispute is. Then everybody can see what is going on and they can drop it. It is your duty as a Chapter Convenor, to ensure that this happens.

To summarise what I have said so far, we need to make sure that, where there are disputes, something is done about them. We need to find out what really is going on. And then we need to bring the two parties to a better attitude by going to them, especially by going to the more mature individuals involved on each side, and talking to them. If the matter is just a disagreement about minor issues or the way to do something, we should make the parties aware of this and show them that there is no need to quarrel about such things.

But sometimes, of course, the dispute between the two factions is not just an argument about words. Sometimes there occurs what the Buddha calls a 'bad activity of speech'. In other words, harsh, violent speech is used. Offensive views are expressed. In other words, people think and say things about the other people that are insulting and unpleasant. There is what the Buddha refers to as 'malice in thought, discontent and dissatisfaction'. So what do you do if things have got to this point?

You have to get people to look at their behaviour and what it signifies. Here again, you have to find the people on both sides who are easiest to approach. You approach them in a very polite and friendly way and then gently point out, 'Well, this is the way you are behaving, this is the way you, or others on your side, are speaking. Do you think that the Buddha would approve of the way in which you are behaving? If the Buddha knew what you have done or said, what do you think he would feel about it?' So you invoke apatrapya – the feeling of shame that comes because somebody who you respect greatly disapproves of what you are doing. You ask them, 'Do you think that the Buddha would be pleased with your behaviour?' If they are at all honest they will say, ‘No, he would not'. Then you say to them, 'Well, you have gone for Refuge to the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, you have committed yourself to the spiritual life, and you are hoping through the spiritual life to attain Enlightenment. Do you think that you will gain Enlightenment, behaving like this?’ And of course, if they are honest they will say, 'No'.

Then, of course you go to somebody on the other side and you say the same sort of thing to them. In this way, you try to awaken in the people on both sides their shame and their sense of what is right and what is wrong. You try to recall them to their fundamental spiritual commitment. Finally, you bring both sides together and get them to talk to each other. Of course, all this requires a great deal of skill and positive emotion on your part. But the skill can be learnt, and if you learn it you will have a precious ability to bring people to a more positive and constructive state.

Of course, approaching somebody when they are in a negative state is quite dangerous. They may turn on you. Sometimes, you try to resolve a quarrel, but you end up by being attacked yourself. Then, of course, you think to yourself, ‘I am just bringing a lot of trouble on myself, and maybe I am putting them into an even worse mental state. I am not going to bother'. But the Buddha doesn't let us off so easily. He is very thorough. He says first of all, you should not rush into reprimanding somebody. If you have got to approach somebody who is doing something wrong, you don't just rush up to him and say, 'You shouldn't do that!' You have got to go into things. It may take quite a lot of time and you have got to be very patient and go into things quite slowly and carefully.

You need to make a judgement about the person you are dealing with. Sometimes, when you consider that, you realise, 'It is not going to be difficult for me, it is not going to be difficult for him. He is not an angry person, he is not a reactive person, he is quick to understand things and he is of a receptive nature, he is not difficult to convince.' The Buddha says, in that case, you should speak. Then you consider the other person and perhaps you realise that he is very bad tempered. You know he might get quite upset when you approach him. On the other hand, you also know that he has a logical mind and it will be possible to convince him. So you just have to explain things clearly to him and he will see the point. Yes, he will be quite hurt, it will upset him, but you will be able to bring him from an unskilful state to a skilful one. So in that case too, you should speak.

But, as the Buddha explains, there are other possibilities. What if the other person is not bad tempered, but is rather slow-witted, not very intelligent? You can see that he will find it quite difficult to understand what you are saying. That means it is going to be a lot of hard work for you. You will have to go over each point again and again. When you explain the whole thing and you think you have made it all quite clear, he says, 'No, I don't understand what you are saying'. It is not painful for him but it is a lot of trouble for you. But in the end, you can bring him from an unskilful state to a more skilful one. So of course, in that case too, you should speak.

What if, in a really difficult case, a party to the dispute is very emotionally reactive and also very dim-witted? It will be a lot of trouble for you and a lot of trouble for him. You explain everything to him and he gets very upset but he still doesn’t understand the point you are making. But in the end you are able to convince him. So he moves from an unskilful state to a skilful one. So of course you should peak.

But what happens if you realise that there is nothing you can do? You see that, even if you go into things again and again, the other person is just not going to listen to you and you are just going to upset yourself, perhaps upset them even more, and in the end they are still not going to understand. The Buddha says, 'Well all right, if that is the case, just keep quiet. Don't disturb your own mind to no purpose.'

To summarise, what the Buddha is really saying is that you have to make an effort to resolve the dispute if you think you have got any chance of persuading the other person to come back into harmony. I think people have to be really very deeply closed for you not to take the trouble to try to talk to them. I must say that in my own experience it is very rare that I am not able to get through in the end. You have to take time and trouble, but in the end it is usually worthwhile.

This is very important advice, because the first thing that occurs to you when you think of going and trying to talk to somebody about their behaviour is, 'This is going to be trouble for me'. Perhaps they are going to react. Well, perhaps it is going to be a lot of trouble, but it has to be done. We are members of the same spiritual community and we owe it to each individual, and to the community as a whole, to make the effort.

So we should be extremely unwilling to say, 'Oh, it is impossible to talk to him'. Nearly always, if you are skilful and patient, you will get through. This is a skill that you must all learn - how to take things up with people so that they will listen to you. You need to study the person to see what the best way is. With determined effort, and perhaps with some experience and practice, you will find you get through to people who are caught up in disputes. You will be able to convince them that their own behaviour is unskilful, that the Buddha would not approve of what they are doing, and that it will not lead them to Enlightenment. Then you will be able to bring the disputing parties together.

The Buddha makes one final point in this Sutta. He makes the point that people may be very impressed by what you have done. They may say, 'Oh, look what he has done, he is so clever'. But you must not let your success go to your head. Being a peacemaker is a skill that makes everybody very happy, and they will start to think very highly of you. But if you are a genuine peacemaker, you will realise that all you have done is apply the Buddha's teaching. You have to recognise that, in a sense, it wasn't you that achieved peace, it was the Buddha. You were just the messenger. This is quite important. One of your most difficult and dangerous problems is that you may get a sense of power, when you are trying to be a peacemaker, and that can destroy the work that you are undertaking.

So, in this way, the Buddha ends his discourse. The Sutta ends with the words: 'delighted, those monks rejoiced in what the Buddha had said'.

So we have learnt a lot of very practical things from the Kinti Sutta. We learnt that we must do something about disharmony, we should not just let it go on. We must make sure that we get to the bottom of it. But we must take it up very carefully and skilfully. We should try to understand what is happening, and then find the easiest people to talk to. We should get them to see that there is really no need to quarrel. We should help them to realise that their behaviour is quite contrary to the Buddha's teaching. We must do this very carefully and kindly. But it has to be done. If we don't do anything about disharmony and wrong action it just gets worse and worse.

I must say that my impression is that, in the Order here, we don't have much skill in resolving disputes and in discussing other people's wrong actions. So I think this is something you need to work on. The Chapter Convenors collectively and individually should concentrate on this. In your discussion, you should explore ways in which you can help each other to resolve disharmonies and to tackle people who are acting unskilfully.

One of things that I found most interesting about the Kinti Sutta is that they were having these problems 2,500 years ago. Sometimes we think, 'Oh dear, our Order has got so many disharmonies and so many people who are acting wrongly'. But the spiritual community has always had to face this challenge. That is just what spiritual life consists in, really. Creating a spiritual community is a very hard task and we have to work very hard. But the Buddha suggests to us ways in which we can do that. And I hope that we will begin to build up a body of knowledge and understanding that we can hand on to others.

The First of 3 talks on Conflict by Subhuti - FWBO

THE MENTAL SOURCES OF CONFLICT
Lessons from the Samagama Sutta and the Visuddhimagga

A talk given at Bhaja, India on 5 January 2000

There is still a lot of work to be done on the Order. The Order functions well, but not well enough. In a way, of course, it can never be good enough! In particular, the Chapters need to function better than they do now. It is not that they are bad, but they need to be much more effective. The Chapter Convenors are the ones who carry the greatest responsibility for making the Chapters more effective. Of course, every Order member is responsible but the Chapter Convenors are responsible for making sure that the other members take responsibility.

So during these five days I want to explore with you how to go further in working on the Chapters. Now I thought that maybe I would do this by study, that is, by taking a text and going through it with you. But I think there are some difficulties in that. I don't speak Hindi or Marathi and there are quite a lot of you, so it would be quite difficult for us to have a discussion together. So instead, each morning, I am going to give a talk. I will take some texts from the Buddhist suttas and expound them, and then leave you to discuss them. Then, if any points arise that you want to ask me about, or even just tell me about, you can do that later. In this way I hope we can explore some of these issues quite deeply.

The issue that I want to concentrate on during these five days is harmony. Recently, we have seen the end of a major case of disharmony in the Order. Over quite a number of years, there was a very deep tension within the Order. With some people leaving the Order, that tension has now gone. Of course, there is still tension with those people, now that they are outside the Order, but that is a very different thing. Bhante said, in his talk at the International Convention in England, that the enemy within is far more undermining than the enemy outside. Even though we have got rid of that extreme disharmony within, other disharmonies still exist amongst us. All over the Movement, all over the Order, here, there are disputes between Order members. They are not as bad as those that we have had in the past, and they are nothing like as bad as those that are common in the world outside, but there are a lot of disputes in the Order. Yet the very nature of the Order, as it should be, is harmony. If the Order is in disharmony, then it is not the Order. We therefore need to work much harder to overcome disputes among us.

Now, on the whole, these disputes are between people who are good people, and good Order members, too. This means that, in principle, the disputes can be resolved. But we don't always know sufficiently clearly how to do this. We need to develop and apply the skills required for resolving disputes. Often, when I look at a dispute between two people, I see that if they could just change their habits of speech, the whole dispute would be resolved. For instance, if you go to somebody and say, 'You did that!', they are going to feel quite upset. But if you go to them and say, 'Look, I have heard that you did that, I don't know whether it is true or not. Please tell me. If it is true, why did you do it? Please explain'. Just by learning to communicate with people more sensitively, like this, you can help to resolve disputes.

All of you need to become experts in resolving disputes between your friends. Of course, first of all you have to resolve any that you yourself are involved in! But after that, you need to become experienced and skilled in helping people come to harmony. Now, as I say, I think this is a skill and it is something that you can learn. Often people don't want to be in dispute, but they just don't know how to get out of it. So you should learn to help them to resolve disputes harmoniously.

We can see, in the wider world today, big efforts to resolve long-standing disputes. At the moment, the leaders of Israel and Syria are meeting in the USA, and they are trying to sort out their differences. It is very interesting to observe the way in which they are doing this. The Americans have become very experienced at this. They are careful, slow and thorough. We don't know yet whether it is going to have a successful outcome, but it is quite possible that, in the next few days, those two countries, which have fought three wars in the last 30-40 years, will be at peace. They don't even belong to the same religion and they are certainly not members of a spiritual community. So, if they can resolve disputes, we should be able to do it much better!

So I want all Order members to begin to learn the skills of resolving disputes. I think we are going to need to develop a theory and practice of dispute resolution. That is what we are going to be exploring during the next few days.

Each day, I will give a talk based on the Buddhist scriptures, and then you will discuss it. I would like you to discuss it from the point of view of how we can apply the ideas in the scriptures within the Order, so that they can help us to resolve disputes. In the bhiksu Sangha founded by the Buddha, procedures were developed for resolving disputes. Now those exact procedures are not fully applicable to us, because ours isn't a bhiksu Sangha, but we need our own equivalents. So during these five days I would like us to begin to work out ways in which we can apply the basic ideas that underlie those procedures. In your discussion, I hope that you will be able to think of something quite practical that we can actually use.

Let us begin by thinking about what we mean by the word ‘dispute’. The Buddha says that there are really two main kinds of disputes: on one hand, there are disagreements about ideas or facts; on the other, there are clashes of emotion and personality. Often, of course, the two get mixed, and when we have a disagreement about an idea or a fact we also fall into ill will. But they do not necessarily go together.

For instance, we know there has been a lot of discussion about whether the TBMSG is fulfilling Dr Ambedkar’s vision. Now that is something about which you can have different opinions, without any ill will. People of good will can disagree about that. They can and do sit down together in a very calm, reasonable way and discuss the extent to which TBMSG does or does not fulfil Babasaheb's vision. Of course it is not really a question of whether it does or does not, it is whether it does so enough. But there is no reason why we should not sit down and discuss such matters calmly, without polarisation or negativity.

So that is the first point: that there can be disagreement and discussion, without disharmony. Sometimes, we have to be careful to separate the discussion of ideas from our emotional attachment to our own views. But a disagreement about ideas or facts, is not necessarily disharmony. Disharmony occurs when negative emotions affect the discussion. But very often disagreement leads to, or comes from, disharmony. And there is something even stranger may happen - you can have complete agreement but with disharmony.

What I want us to think and talk about is how to resolve the emotional aspect of disputes. But in order to do this, we need to be able to distinguish the emotional aspect from the objective content of the dispute. Sometimes you have to say, 'Yes, this is a matter of discussion, so let's discuss it, but let's not quarrel about it'. Thus, it is an important skill to identify what the thing to be discussed is. So let's say that, for instance, some people arrive late for the retreat, and then there is a lot of argument and anger about that. There might be an argument, with people shouting at each other, 'You came late!' 'You didn't tell me clearly when to come!', and so on. Somebody says, 'Stop, wait a minute, let's calm down, so let's just hear what happened, as far as you are concerned'.

Then, on being discussed, it turns out that there was a simple misunderstanding, or perhaps somebody passed on a message wrongly. My point is that, very often, in situations like this, the disharmony is made worse because we don't actually find out what the facts are. People just assume they know what is going on in the other person's mind. So, for example, one Order member thinks that another has arrived late deliberately, as an insult. At the same time, the other Order member, who is actually embarrassed at being late, assumes that the first deliberately gave him wrong information about the starting time, so as to make him look bad. Thus, before either party has ascertained the facts, they jump to conclusions about each other.

So this is the first task in trying to resolve disputes - separate the objective content of the discussion from the emotional reactions.

The Buddha says that sometimes it may be necessary separate the two parties to the dispute and talk to each of them separately. This may help them to cool down a bit. This is what President Clinton is doing with the Israelis and the Syrians, he has the Syrians in one room and the Israelis in another, and he is going between the two saying, 'They say this, what do you say?' And gradually they are coming closer together.

The Buddha also has something to say about how disputes come about. In the Samagama Sutta in the Majjimanikaya, Sutta 104, he says there are six sources of disputes.

The first cause is anger or ill will. If someone has anger and ill will, he doesn't have any respect for the teacher, the Dharma, or the Sangha. He doesn't, in the words of the sutta, ‘complete the training’. In other words, he gives up working on himself. Feelings of ill will, anger, or resentment stops us from making spiritual progress. This is a misfortune for the individual and for the whole sangha. It is a misfortune for all living beings, because it is depriving them of the example of harmony that the Sangha can offer.

The Buddha says there is a kind of nidana chain. Ill will and anger in the mind of somebody makes him lose his spiritual perspective. You can't have sraddha and anger in your mind at the same time. Anger chases out all positive qualities. When this happens, you don't look at your brothers and sisters in the Sangha with the eye of faith, you look at them with the red eyes of anger. And what do you see? You just see everything you dislike, disagree with, or resent. You no longer believe that the sangha is really a sangha, so you start to stir up dissatisfaction, to cause dispute.

The Buddha says that if you see this source of dispute, you must get rid of it in yourself. The source of disputes is within the heart and we must cleanse the heart of it. Once we have done so, we have to make sure it doesn't come back again in the future.

The next source of dispute lies in somebody being harsh and unmerciful. Again, this is a negative mental state, in which you just don’t have any feeling for other people, you don't feel that you are hurting them. The consequences of that are just the same as anger and ill will. If you don't have a feeling of sensitivity for others you won’t respect the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Again, you don’t see the sangha as a sangha, and that means you are going to cause disputes.

The third source of dispute, again, is in the mind of the individual: someone is envious and grudging. In this state of mind, you see others as having things that you want and you resent them for it. For example, you see somebody is elected Chairman and you resent him for it. Or while you are hoping to get ordained yourself, you see somebody else being ordained and you resent them for it. Or you see people are being ordained from another Centre than your own and you resent them for it. And the nidana chain is the same. With this attitude, you don't respect the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. You don't see the sangha as a sangha, so you fall into dispute.

The fourth source is craftiness and deceitfulness. This is a very selfish attitude, where someone only thinks, 'How can I get what I want?' This makes him crafty. In English, we say someone like this is ‘crafty as a fox’. A fox knows how to get the chicken out of the farmer's yard. I am sure Indian foxes are just as clever as English ones. People of this sort are also deceitful. They don’t reveal their real, harmful intentions. They disguise them under an appearance of sincerity and sympathy. In English we call someone like this a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’. He is like a hungry and cunning wolf that, according to an old fable, concealed itself in a sheep’s skin in order to trick a flock of sheep into allowing him near them. As with the other cases, this sort of person never really sees the Order as an Order, and so he causes disputes.

The fifth source of disputes is evil desires and wrong views. So you have very strong craving and you have very confused ideas. In a way I don't need to explain all that, the same nidana chain takes place.

Finally, the sixth source is someone who is infected with worldliness, and is stubborn and obstinate. So the individual in the Order has an attitude that really belongs to the world and not to the Sangha. I think this is one of the commonest causes of dispute amongst us. We are influenced by what other people outside the Order think. We have the attitudes of people outside the Order. And the results are the same, leading us into dispute. But in this case, we are also obstinate and stubborn, we won't listen to other people, we won't look at ourselves, we just stick to our position.

So all these six sources of disputes cut us off from the spiritual vision. And if we don't have that vision of the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha when we come together we are just an ordinary bunch of people. So the Order is only an Order to the extent that we all Go for Refuge. These factors destroy our Going for Refuge. To the extent that we go for Refuge, we are in harmony. To the extent that we are not going for Refuge, we are likely to fall into dispute.

The Buddha makes very clear where the resolution of disputes has to start. It has to start in us. We have to work on ourselves if we are to overcome disputes. Of course, others have to work on themselves, but you can't make them do so. You can only make yourself work on yourself. And if you do that, it will probably have an effect on them.

In other words, the sources of dispute are in our minds. This means that, as people trying to help to resolve disputes, the most important thing you have to do is to work on yourself. And you also have to encourage other people to work on themselves. You have to encourage people to see their own contribution to the dispute. The Buddha makes very clear that nobody ever has any right to a negative emotion. Even if somebody is very unpleasant to you, that fact does not justify you in feeling negative emotions towards them, still less in expressing such emotions. If you react, (that is, if you respond from worldly emotions, without mindfulness and self-control), then your reaction is your responsibility. So you have to help people to realise their own negative emotions and work on them.

So let's look at this. How do you work on your own reactions?

Of course, you work on them principally through meditation. Meditation makes the mind stronger, more positive and more confident, with the result that you don't react when anything happens. By meditation, we develop positive non-reactivity. The Buddha was so unreactive that, whatever happened, he never lost his mindfulness, he never lost his metta. Each of us should work constantly to gain the same ability as the Buddha. The most important meditation, for this purpose, is the maitri bhavana. If you are trying to help people to resolve a dispute, get them to work harder develop more maitri through this meditation, especially towards the people for whom they are feeling ill-will. After all, the whole purpose of the maitri bhavana is to feel love towards everybody. And if you have ill will towards somebody then you have a need to develop more maitri.

Sometimes, we think about meditation is as if it had nothing to do with real experience. So we have some dispute with somebody, and we start to feel very upset and angry, but it never occurs to us that this is material to work on in meditation. We think more that they should do something, or the Sangha should do something to him. But we have to work on the problem in ourselves. And this is actually much harder than we usually realise.

So I am going to give you ten ways of working on negative emotions such as ill will, resentment and so on. These are methods that you can use yourself and you can also suggest them to any people who are in dispute with others. I have taken them from Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimaga. Buddhaghosa is on our Refuge Tree, of course. He was one of the great Indian gurus. He worked in Sri Lanka, but he was of Indian birth. And he organised the teachings in the Pali scriptures into a system.

The first of the methods for getting rid of resentment is, think of what the Buddha said. The Buddha spoke again and again about getting rid of resentment. He frequently said that a true disciple of the Buddha feels no ill will. You may remember he gave the simile of the two-handed saw. He said that if bandits capture you and then cut off your limbs one by one with a two-handled saw, if you even for one moment had a feeling of hatred towards those people, you would not be carrying out the Buddha's teaching. Well, it is a horrible image, having your limbs cut off with a saw, and we might feel it is quite understandable that you would feel hatred in that situation! But the Buddha says no, you have got to overcome hatred completely. And if you are experiencing hatred, you are not really following the Buddha's teaching. But a single word can make us feel hatred. It may not even be a word; it can be just a look. It may not even be a look; it can be something we imagine about the other person. So clearly, if we take the Buddha's teaching seriously, we must work hard to get rid of hatred. We have faith in the Buddha, so we should try to remember that faith when we start to feel hatred. We should think, ‘The Buddha would not want me to feel this hatred’. Through your faith in the Buddha, you may be able to drive out the negative state.

Now the second method is to call to mind some positive quality in the other person. So you think about them and see that there is something that is good in them, and you concentrate on that. And in that way, the ill will fades and positive feelings arise. After all, probably everybody we are likely to come across has got some positive qualities, particularly if they are Order members! So perhaps with Order members, especially, you can think, 'Well, he is going for Refuge', and in this way you can call up your positive feelings.

The third method is to be used when you can't find any positive qualities. Now I think that if you can't find any positive qualities in another Order member, there is something wrong with you and you just need to work harder. But nevertheless, Buddhaghosa says that if you can't find any positive qualities, then you reflect, 'Poor man!' After all, if somebody has got no positive qualities, the appropriate response isn't hatred but compassion. With all those bad qualities, what is going to happen to him? He is going to have a horrible life and suffer a lot. So in this way you call up feelings of compassion.

If your anger hasn't gone, there is a fourth method. You give yourself a good talking to! You say to yourself, 'How useless this anger is! It is just poisoning my mind. It may lead me to me hurt him, it may not. But even if I do hurt him, what good does that do me? And what is the mental state of hatred doing to me? It is a very painful and unpleasant state.' Remember that negative mental states are negative for you. So in this way you reflect on the stupidity of anger. You just think about the pointlessness, the uselessness and the pain of your anger.

Now if that hasn't worked, if your anger is still there, there is a fifth method. In this case you reflect on the nature of karma. Buddhaghosa says that you should reflect on the ownership of karma. You think, 'I own my actions, he owns his'. So you ask yourself, ‘What is the consequence of actions performed with a mind dominated by hatred?’ The answer, of course, is that under the law of karma, your angry actions just lead to your own pain and suffering. His angry actions will lead to his suffering. You don't need to punish him because he will be punished by his own karma. You can just leave him to his karma. But your angry actions will lead to your pain and suffering. You have to realise that they poison your mind now and they poison your future. As a result you realise you should not get angry.

But if even that doesn't work, there is another thing that you can do. Buddhaghosa doesn't give up! You can reflect on the Buddha's own demonstration of lack of hatred. You remember that there were many situations in which people tried to hurt the Buddha, but he wouldn't get angry. He had a very calm, equanimous, loving attitude. You can call to mind, for instance, that somebody came and insulted him. And he said, 'If somebody gives you a gift and you don't accept it, who does the gift belong to?' The other person said, 'It belongs to the person who gave it.' The Buddha said, 'Well, I don't accept your insult, so it returns to you'. He just remained quite calm, cool and unreactive. Think of how much Devadatta tried to hurt him. In that case too, he didn't react at all. Buddhaghosa mentions many of the Jataka stories, as well. In many of them, the Buddha is shown as non-reactive. So we can try to follow the example of the Buddha.

Well, if that doesn't work, where do you go next? The next one is a favourite of the Tibetans. It involves a very strong belief in rebirth. You think, 'Well, I have been reborn again and again since beginningless time, and if I have been reborn an infinite number of times I must have had an infinite number of parents. That must mean that every human being has, at various times, been my mother, my father and my child.' So can you feel angry with your own mother? Is it right that you should feel hatred towards your own children? When the other person was your mother, she nurtured you, fed you and cared for you. And is anger the way to repay all their kindness? It is quite a strange thought, isn't it? Each one of you has been my mother at one time, and I was your mother once. For some of you I am your Preceptor, but you were my Preceptor once in the past! Thinking like this helps us to change our relationship with other people.

But even that method may not work. The resentment may be very deeply embedded in your mind and your heart. So there is an eighth method. In this one you consider the advantages of metta. According to Buddhaghosa there are 11 advantages to metta. Firstly, if your mind is full of metta, you sleep easily. When you wake up in the morning, you feel happy and at ease. What is more, you have no evil dreams. Furthermore, if you feel metta freely and strongly, other people like you; and not just human beings but even animals and spirits will be attracted to you. Not only that, but if you are full of metta, things go well for you, you have good fortune. In the same way, because you are in a happy positive state, you don't get into difficulties, or find yourself in dangerous situations. Your mind is healthy, so you are guarded by your intuitions, which steer you away from harmful or dangerous circumstances. Next, if you have a lot of metta, it is very easy to concentrate your mind in meditation. Buddhaghosa even says that metta brings you good looks! If you habitually feel metta, your face is beautiful and serene. More importantly, perhaps, metta is an advantage at the time of death: when you come to die, if your heart is filled with metta, you die very calmly and with a clear mind: you are not confused or frightened. Finally, and very significantly, if you feel metta you will have a good rebirth. This does not mean ‘good’ in a merely social or material sense: it means that you will be born in a psychologically healthy and ethical family, with advantages for practising the Dharma. A ‘good family’ really means a morally good family, not a socially high family. These are a wonderful set of advantages; but, of course, if you don't develop metta, you won't get them.

Now if this does not cure the resentment, there is yet more you can do. There is a ninth method. This is much subtler. You think, 'Well, what am I getting angry with? There is the person, but what does the person consist in? Is it their body I am getting angry with? If so, which part of their body? And anyway their body consists of different elements. Which of those elements am I getting angry with?' And you continue as in the Six Element Practice, realising through this analysis that there is nothing fixed and unchanging that you can direct your anger to. In this way, you use your analytical Buddhist training to eliminate any idea of something you can be angry with.

The final method is a very beautiful one. (It is interesting that Buddhaghosa ends with this one.) He says if you cannot get rid of anger in any of these ways, give the hated person a gift. Even though you still feel hatred, just give them something. Giving is something that transforms your emotions. If you feel resentment towards somebody, then deliberately take some action towards him that expresses the opposite feeling. In this way you can overcome your resentment. You will change the other person as well. When the other person receives your gift, they will change their attitude to you. I think this is a very effective means of overcoming hatred.

So these are Buddhaghosa's ten methods for overcoming resentment. They constitute an unusually thorough exploration of the topic. His suggested methods are very valuable to us in our efforts to learn the skill of overcoming disputes. They are all methods you yourself can use, and encourage others to use. You can help people, firstly, by making them understand that the source of disputes is in their minds. Then you can help them to learn how to work effectively to overcome their resentment and ill will. If we can get Order members to work in this way we will raise the whole Order to a very high level indeed.