Keywords
Legal Ethics
Monastic Buddhism
Restorative Justice
Vinaya Piṭaka
Categories
How to Cite
Abstract
The Buddhist framework emphasizes the contextual nature of transgressions, recognizing that ethical violations cannot be assessed solely by their outcomes but must also consider the intention and circumstances of the individual. This understanding of moral responsibility provides valuable insights to contemporary legal ethics, particularly in the areas of professional accountability, conflict resolution, and restorative practices. Drawing from the Vinaya Piṭaka, this paper explores how ethical breaches were categorized, addressed, and resolved within the monastic community. By comparing the Buddhist concept of anāpatti with modern legal principles, the paper highlights how ancient philosophical insights can inform current debates on the ethical responsibilities of legal practitioners, the role of intention in determining culpability, and the integration of restorative justice into legal systems. This study highlights the enduring relevance of Buddhist ethical concepts in developing a more compassionate and context-sensitive approach to legal ethics.
References
1. Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford University Press.
2. Buddhaghosa. (1924). Samantapasadika, Buddhaghosa’s commentary on the Vinaya Pitaka (Vol. I & III). Retrieved June 07, 2024, from https://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil/2_pali/4_comm/samp_1ou.htm.
3. Department of Justice, U.S. (2013). Zimmerman v. Martin Case. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-investigation-death-trayvon-martin.
4. Doniger, W., & Smith, B. K. (1991). The law of Manu. Penguin Books.
5. Eglash, A. (1958). Creative restitution: A broader meaning for an old term. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 49(4), 619–622.
6. Hart, H. L. A. (1973). Punishment and responsibility (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
7. Hinüber, O. V. (1995). Buddhist law according to the Theravāda-Vinaya: A survey of theory and practice. Journal of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, 18(1), 7-47.
8. Horner, I. B. (1949). The book of the discipline (Vol. I-IV). Luzac & Co.
9. Huxley, A. (2014). Pali Buddhist law in Southeast Asia. In R. R. French & M. A. Nathan (Eds.), Buddhism and law: An introduction (pp. 167-182). Cambridge University Press.
10. Koike, K. (2010). The acquittal (anapatti) of the mentally disordered monks. Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 58(3), 38-42.
11. Marwah, A. (2020). Restorative justice and reformation of offenders. Indian Law Institute Review, 37(2), 157-170.
12. Author. (2021). Details omitted for double-blind review.
13. Montrose, J. L. (1954). The M’Naghten Rules. The Modern Law Review, 17(4), 383–386.
14. Oldenberg, H., & Rhys Davids, T. W. (1881). Vinaya texts: Part I, The sacred books of the East (Vol. 13). Oxford University Press.
15. Oldenberg, H. (1880). The Vinaya Piṭaka (Vol. II-V, Cullavagga). Pali Text Society.
16. Philip, S., & Malathesh, B. C. (2024). Shifting sands: Mental disorder defense from section 84 IPC to Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Indian Journal of Psychiatry, 66(2), 764-765.
17. Polak, A. L. (1961). Insanity and the M’Naghten Rules. The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 34(2), 61-64.
18. Pound, R. (1923). Interpretations of legal history. Macmillan.
19. Rossiter, C. L. (1948). Constitutional dictatorship: Crisis government in the modern democracies. Cambridge University Press.
20. Zehr, H., & Gohar, A. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 South India Journal of Social Sciences