A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF PROPERTY UNDER THE VINAYA RULES AND THE OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF PROPERTY UNDER THE CIVIL AND COMMERCIAL CODE CONCERNING BUDDHIST MONKS

Abstract

Objectives of this research article were: 1. to examine the legal provisions governing ownership and property possession under the Vinaya Pitaka and civil law; 2. to study the ownership and property possession of Buddhist monks under Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code (CCC) and the laws of foreign jurisdictions, namely Myanmar and Sri Lanka; 3. to compare the principles of ownership and property possession as prescribed by the Vinaya Pitaka with those of the Civil and Commercial Code as applied to Buddhist monks; and 4. to propose guidelines for legal reform consistent with the principles of monastic ownership and property possession. The study employed a qualitative research methodology using documentary research, drawing on the Tipitaka, commentarial literature (Atthakatha), the Civil and Commercial Code, Supreme Court judgments, foreign legislation, and relevant academic works. Data were analyzed through descriptive analysis alongside an in-depth comparative approach.

The findings revealed that: 1. the Vinaya Pitaka strictly prohibits Buddhist monks from possessing or engaging in transactions involving money and personal property, employing the Nissaggiya Pacittiya rule as the principal regulatory mechanism; property is classified into puggalika (personal property) and sanghika (communal property), with the objective of supporting spiritual practice and preserving the purity of monastic life; 2. Sections 1622–1624 of the Civil and Commercial Code confer upon monks property rights equivalent to those of laypersons, differing from Myanmar and Sri Lanka, which maintain specific legal frameworks governing monastic property; 3. the comparative analysis identified a significant normative gap between the Dhamma-Vinaya and state law, particularly in matters of inheritance, marital property, and juridical acts that contravene the Vinaya yet remain legally valid under civil law; and 4. to bridge this gap, the Civil and Commercial Code should be reformed, especially Sections 1622–1624, by establishing a presumption that property acquired during ordination constitutes religious property, rendering acts contrary to the Vinaya absolutely void, and instituting a centralized regulatory mechanism under the Sangha Supreme Council to ensure transparency and effective oversight of monastic property management.