I've heard in several dhamma deshana that discussing the bad practices practiced by monks is a sin. But I feel that if we don't discuss such with our family & just continue giving, we won't have much shradda in our heart & also we won't be able to inform it to the chief monks to be corrected. Is there any suthra that describes about this?

  • 1
    Very broad, actually. Investigating with the will to understand right and be clear is nothing wrong, especially if driven by metta, karuna.. Talking what is not right, a lie. AN 4.83: Avannaraha Sutta - Dispraise. As a very dangerous area, elders always tell to care about ones own actions and relations. It's also often unskilful of what people speak about neighbors. Asking direct is always better, if really after good. The topic as well can be a transgression here, destroying refuge. – user11235 Sep 13 '19 at 23:47
  • See also Ninda and Pasamsa and Issa – user11235 Sep 13 '19 at 23:53
  • Association with careless and respectless people with no shame, is always the main support to wrong doings. That is why elders stay away from people who have a loosy mouth. When coming from good tradition, virtues are fast lost in modern worlds of common people. – user11235 Sep 14 '19 at 4:04
  • buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/20955/… This answers most of my question. – Amaani Sep 15 '19 at 18:37
  • Ordinary people, how ever, are incapable to recognice of what is a person of integrity and not, young householder, and will always give preferences toward their defilements. The Power of Judgment. – user11235 Sep 15 '19 at 23:43

enter image description here

(Hatthi,gāmaka) Ugga Sutta

In the above Sutta householder, Ugga declares he does not discriminate how he treats the monks based on their attainments or qualities. This is his 6th quality.

But if some monk is doing something wrong it might be worthwhile to report him to a head monk if there is a chance that proper action might be taken.

Ultimately what matters is the motivation. If you talk ill of a monk with intention breaking his good standing with other this is bad karma. If you do it for the betterment of the monk and the sasana then it is positive. In doing so you have to be tactful though so that it does not lead to unintended consequences.


Remember that any yet-to-be-enlightened monk/nun is still a responsible citizen of the country they're living in, hence they're bound by the law of the land, not above it. Furthermore, they also need to observe another set of law written in the Vinaya specific to their "profession". So if they break a common law, then they're not a good citizen; if they break a Vinaya law, then they're not a good monk. And provided that the errors are well documented and backed up by evidences, it's not only fair game but also a duty for good people, both lay and monastic to bring it up, so that the error could be corrected and prevented from happening again in the future.

  • "yet-to-be-enlightened monk/nun is still a responsible citizen", in that case he might not have left home and relations. – user11235 Sep 13 '19 at 23:37
  • You are missing my point. A monk in training is still a human who can still break not only Vinaya law but also the common law of the land. I don't care if s/he left home and cut off relationships, the moment they break the law, they will be tried in front of the court just like every other citizens exactly because they are still citizens of the land who are bound by the law of the land, not above it. – santa100 Sep 14 '19 at 1:32
  • It's obivious and displayed without much shame that Nyom does not care, not respect, those having left home. No need to worry about them and also no need to worry that they would take on whom ever's point. It's all Nyom's. – user11235 Sep 14 '19 at 3:57
  • @SamanaJohann "I don't care if" is an idiom which means "my statement was true independent of" -- it's saying, "monks are still subject to the country's national law, regardless of (independent of) whether the monks have left home and cut off relationships", and, "it's the duty of all citizens (or good people) to be concerned when anyone breaks the laws (even if the law-breaker were a monk)". – ChrisW Sep 14 '19 at 10:58
  • Where such as the status of "homeless" isn't recognized, missing already such as leader who could give such. My person does not say that such is something inherited and often points out how seldom such is. Of course "homeless" do not hold any rights as well and have "just" the Gems as refuge. Such is surely not easy to understand, more difficult ever to meet. Take care! Blame an "householder" wrongly isn't that heavy and not easy to know. – user11235 Sep 14 '19 at 11:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.