Anantarika-karma

A group of nuns on the road to Savatthi were raped (ekaccā bhikkhuṇiyo dusesuṃ). The Buddha said those who rape nuns should not be ordained (bhikkhuṇidusako na upasampādetabbo) (Vinaya i 089). The danger of raping nuns is this: the man who raped (dusesi) the nun Uppalavanna was cast into hell. The rule against ordaining, and the descent into hell, are both signs of Ānantarika Kamma.

The rape of monks and novices is likely Ānantarika Kamma, too. just as ordination confers special protection on women, it likely confers the same protection on men. The definition of sexual misconduct does not discriminate between the sexes (M i 286).[13]

• A group of nuns on the road to Savatthi were raped (ekaccā bhikkhuṇiyo dusesuṃ).
• In the course of showing her round his new hut, Udayin fondled a visitor's wife 'limb by limb' and was accused of molesting her (duseyyu ti, Vinaya iii 119).
• A doctor treating a nun, lanced a boil 'in the area between her navel and knees,' then started to molest her (dūsetuṃ upakkami) (Vinaya iv 316).
• Then the layman Sāḷha asked the nun Sundarīnandā : “What is wrong with you? Why are you lying down?” “Surely, it is this, sir: you do not want me.” “How could I not want you? But I never had a chance to make love with you” (okāsaṃ na labhāmi taṃ dūsetun ti). Then, filled with lust, Sāḷha touched the nun Sundarīnandā, who was also filled with lust (avassuto avassutāya sundarīnandāya bhikkhuniyā kāyasaṃsaggaṃ samapajji).

Ānantarika Kamma involves actions undertaken without consent. Acts that are consensual are not Ānantarika Kamma, however unskilful they may be.

For example:

• two nuns sexually abuse each other: Pacittiya offence (Vinaya iv 261).
• a monk invites a novice to sexually abuse him: Sanghadisesa offence (Sd 1, case 29; Vinaya iii 118).
• a monk or nun consents to sex: Parajika offence (Vinaya iii 040).

If a woman rapes a monk it is Ānantarika Kamma: if she seduces him, it is not.

Sexually abusing laywomen is a Sanghadisesa Offence. For example, a monk sexually abusing a baby girl (Vinaya iii 35).

Hell usually is the result of repeated infringements of the five precepts. Therefore such infringements are not Anantarika Karma (A iv 248).

Although the Buddha strongly condemned the sexual harm of children,[13] there are, in Vinaya, no extra provisions made to ensure the safety of young children in community life. Thus, even today, across the world, children of all ages are being trained in monasteries without proper safeguarding.[14][15][16]

Although children were in early Buddhism initially prohibited from ordaining under fifteen years of age (Vin i 079), this standard was eventually relinquished to admit them even at seven years old (Vin i 079). But not only are there no special safeguards for the under thirteens, for example, Vinaya even seems to minimise the danger. For example, the bhikkhu who accidentally killed a young girl by penetrating her with his thumb, was not obliged to disrobe (Vin iii 034).[17] And the monk who sexually assaulted a sleeping novice was judged guilty of a minor offence.(V iii 117).[18] These two stories may perplex the modern reader, but there is no scriptural justification to discount them.

The Buddha made it clear that religious texts of all traditions, even his own, may on occasions be corrupted. Mistakes and errors can creep in (M i 520).[19] Therefore, one cannot categorically argue, on the basis of scriptures, how seriously to regard the abuse of child novices. Although there is no justification for saying child abuse is Anantarika Karma, there is but little justification for saying it is not. As explained above, the fact that they are in robes, means that all monastics should be treated with extraordinary respect.