Buddhist views of Insanity

I am quite intrigued to learn in one of the old Buddhist suttas, Samagama Sutta, how the monastics would exonerate certain offenses if it is deemed that the monk had been temporarily insane while the action had been done.  Here is one interesting passage:

"Despite the denial, the former presses the latter further: ‘Surely the venerable one must know quite well if he remembers having committed such and such a grave offence, one involving defeat or bordering on defeat?’ He says: ‘I had gone mad, friend, I was out of my mind, and when I was mad I said and did many things improper for a recluse. I do not remember, I was mad when I did that.’ In his case removal of litigation on account of past insanity should be pronounced. Such is the removal of litigation on account of past insanity. And so there comes to be the settlement of some litigations here by removal of litigation on account of past"

I find this view of madness or 'insanity' fascinating because it would perhaps strike modern readers as a kind of suspicious plea, similar to what we do when we say "I was temporarily insane when I did that". But on the other hand, it's interesting that in the context of this sutta, the state of mind is not as important as the monk's recognition of his past states, and his awareness that he did things "improper for a recluse". And notice how the monks don't necessarily hold this insanity against the monk, or pursue further measures. 

In modern-day courts, pleas of insanity are often followed by complicated inquests, to see just how responsible the person is. It's as though measuring a person's sanity or insanity is a measure of their level of culpability or guilt. But in the above passage, the case is simply passed through and the litigation is settled. It's interesting and I wonder if perhaps it's because 'insanity' in Buddha's time didn't connote what it does today. So far as a monk is able to own up to his temporary states of unrest, he has this freedom to settle matters with the fellow monks. But nowadays, if we were to do the same thing, there would still be the question in our minds of whether the person was 'truly' insane at the time the crime was committed, and if they were perhaps intentionally trying to do destructive things. It points to a modern preoccupation with authenticity as a measure of a person's moral worth.

I wonder if perhaps it's because in Buddha's sangha there is a shared sense of a common vision which unifies the monastics, and leads them to a shared sense of trust. I also feel that when people are united in a single spiritual practice, there is a tendency not to dwell so much on who did what, because everything comes down to how we process the events in our lives, not what 'he or she did to me'. Modern law tends to focus on the latter, establishing who originates suffering. But if one reads Buddhist scriptures, one recognizes that only the mind causes its own suffering through its attitudes and mental formations. Litigation, then, is less about assigning blame than it is ensuring that the whole sangha communicate and align itself to the shared practices that they value and trust.

References:

Bhikku Nanamoli’s translation of the Samaama Sutta collected in Nanamoli & Bodhi. 1995. The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha: a translation of the Majjima Nikaya .