The Pot Discourse and the Chapter on Wrongness: A Pot with a Stand
Cittassa ādhāroA pot without a stand is easily knocked over; with a stand it is hard to knock over. So too the mind, and the …
Paṭisāraṇīyakammaṃ
The monk Sudhamma felt slighted when the householder Citta invited senior monks without consulting him first, so he made a cutting remark about a missing sweet. When Citta answered back, Sudhamma claimed he had been insulted and left. The Buddha rebuked him and had the Saṅgha impose the act of reconciliation: he had to go and ask that lay follower's forgiveness himself.
In the Kammakkhandhaka of the Cullavagga, Vinaya Piṭaka, the monk Sudhamma was the resident monk at Macchikāsaṇḍa, in charge of building work and receiving regular meals from the householder Citta. Whenever Citta wanted to invite the Saṅgha or any monk, he always told Sudhamma first. Once a number of senior monks, among them Sāriputta, Mahāmoggallāna, Anuruddha, Upāli, Ānanda and Rāhula, arrived while wandering. Citta heard a Dhamma talk from Sāriputta and invited the elders for a meal the next day, and only then went to invite Sudhamma.
Sudhamma thought Citta no longer cared about him and refused three times. But the next morning he went to Citta's house to look at the food, and said there was plenty but one thing was missing: sesame sweets. Citta replied that with so much of the Buddha's word available, the venerable had spoken of sweets, and compared this to a chick born of a hen and a crow: when it tries to caw like a crow it sounds like a chicken, and when it tries to crow like a rooster it sounds like a crow. Sudhamma said Citta was insulting him and announced he would leave the monastery. Even though Citta said he had not insulted him and asked him to stay, Sudhamma went to see the Buddha at Sāvatthī and reported everything both of them had said.
The Buddha rebuked him: Citta has faith and confidence, is a donor and supporter of the Saṅgha, so how could you disparage him with base words? He then had the Saṅgha impose the act of reconciliation (paṭisāraṇīyakamma) on Sudhamma, requiring him to ask Citta's forgiveness. The procedures for imposing and lifting this act are monastic rules, but the core, going to apologise to the person we have harmed, applies to everyone.
Sudhamma was used to Citta always telling him first. When Citta invited the elders first this time, he thought Citta no longer cared about him and refused the invitation three times.
When you feel "why didn't they ask me first?", recognise it as a feeling of lost face, not proof that the other person looks down on you. Ask them directly before interpreting.
Sudhamma still went to the house to see the food prepared for the elders and remarked that there was plenty but no sesame sweets. A small remark born of hurt feelings became the starting point of the clash.
When we are upset, we often don't speak about what actually bothers us but criticise small things instead, like the food or the arrangements. Ask yourself whether you are really criticising that, or venting hurt.
When Citta replied with the simile of the chick of a hen and a crow, Sudhamma said Citta had abused and reviled him and announced he would leave the monastery. Citta said he had not insulted him, asked him to stay and offered to provide his requisites, but Sudhamma still insisted on going.
When you are answered back after speaking harshly first, don't rush to cast yourself as the victim. Look back at whose words started the exchange.
Citta asked Sudhamma to report to the Buddha everything that both of them had said, and Sudhamma did tell him all of it. The judgement therefore rested on the facts from both sides.
When you take a conflict to a manager or elder, recount both your words and the other person's, not just the parts that make you look good.
The Buddha rebuked Sudhamma: Citta has faith and confidence, is a donor and supporter of the Saṅgha, so how could you disparage him with base words? Such conduct does not inspire confidence in those without it.
A manager who belittles a dedicated employee, or an elder who puts down someone who came to help, should be challenged just the same. Position is no exemption.
The Saṅgha imposed the act of reconciliation on Sudhamma, requiring him to ask Citta's forgiveness. The Vinaya also lists grounds for this act, such as working for lay people's loss of gain or harm, abusing lay people, causing division among lay people, disparaging lay people, and making a proper promise to lay people and not keeping it.
A meaningful apology means speaking to the person you harmed yourself, not sending word through someone else or posting something vague for them to see.
Sudhamma reached Macchikāsaṇḍa but was too embarrassed to ask forgiveness and came back. The Buddha had the Saṅgha appoint another monk as a companion envoy. First Sudhamma asks forgiveness himself; if Citta does not forgive, the envoy speaks up, vouches for him, and asks in the name of the Saṅgha. If Citta still does not forgive, Sudhamma confesses the offence within Citta's sight and hearing.
A hard apology may need a go-between both sides trust. The go-between opens the way, but the one who did wrong still has to speak.
Sudhamma went with the envoy and asked Citta's forgiveness. He conducted himself properly, was humbled, and asked the monks what he should do next. The Buddha then had the Saṅgha lift the act of reconciliation.
Once someone who did wrong has apologised and changed their attitude, the community should have a way of closing the matter so they can take their normal place again.
What makes this story striking is that the one who had to apologise was a monk, who in society held a higher status than a lay person. Yet the Buddha did not protect him for being a monk. He looked at the action: disparaging someone generous to the community is a wrong that must be put right by going to apologise to that person.
In homes, workplaces and communities, parents, managers and people in positions of authority can hurt others too. Apologising to a child, an employee or someone younger doesn't diminish respect; it gives that respect a real foundation.
Notice too that Citta's reply had an edge. But the other side answering back sharply doesn't cancel out the words we started with.
Tap to read the actual passage on the page cited.
A pot without a stand is easily knocked over; with a stand it is hard to knock over. So too the mind, and the …
The Parivāra counts what causes a community to break apart. The answer is eighteen things, and nearly all of t…
An otter, a jackal and a monkey each bring a brahmin the food they have, while the hare has nothing to give an…
Two consecutive debates in chapter 2. The first asks whether a single mind lasts a whole day; the Theravāda qu…