English
For they are touched by him through contact with the body. are. But if one takes hold of the fingers or hair of many women all at once, he is to be charged with Sanghādisesa offenses by counting the women, not the fingers or hair. And for those women whose fingers or hair are in the middle, he incurs a Thullaccaya by counting them. For they are touched by that which is connected to the body. But if one encloses many women with ropes, clothes, etc., connected to their bodies, and takes hold of them, he incurs a Thullaccaya by counting all of them who are within the enclosure. In the Mahāpaccariya, a Dukkata is stated for those not touched. There, since in the Pāḷi there is no such thing as touching what is connected to what is connected to the body, therefore, including all that is connected to what is connected to the body as connected to the body, the former method stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā and in the Kurundī appears more appropriate here. For if, with equal lust, one takes hold of the hand of one woman among women standing in a row, holding hands, he incurs one Sanghādisesa on account of the woman held, and Thullaccayas for the others by counting them in the former way. If he takes hold of her by her clothes or flowers connected to her body, he incurs Thullaccayas by counting all of them. For just as when enclosing with ropes, clothes, etc., all are touched by what is connected to the body, so here too, all are touched by what is connected to the body. But if those women are standing, holding each other by the corner of their clothes, and if he, in the former way, first takes hold of a woman by her hand, he incurs a Sanghādisesa on account of the one held, and Dukkatas for the others by counting them. For all of them are touched by what is connected to the body through what is connected to the body by him in the former way. But if he too takes hold of her by what is connected to her body, he incurs a Thullaccaya on account of her, and Dukkatas for the others by counting them in the immediately preceding way. But if one rubs a woman wearing thick clothes with lustful bodily contact on her clothes, Thull an offense. He touches her, wearing a thin garment. If, through the gaps in the garment, the woman's exposed hairs, or the monk's hairs that have entered the woman's, touch the other, or if only their hairs touch each other's hairs, it is a Saṅghādisesa. For, by means of an appropriated, karma-born form, whether touching an appropriated or unappropriated object, or even by means of some unappropriated thing like hair, touching an appropriated or unappropriated object, he incurs a Saṅghādisesa. Regarding this, in the Kurundī it is said: "Counting the hairs, it is a Saṅghādisesa." But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā it is said: "One should not be made to incur an offense by counting hairs; one incurs only a single Saṅghādisesa. However, if one lies on a Saṅgha's couch without spreading a covering, one should be made to incur an offense by counting hairs." That is appropriate. For this offense is due to the woman, not due to the parts. Here it is asked: "But if one, thinking 'I will grasp what is attached to the body,' grasps the body, or thinking 'I will grasp the body,' grasps what is attached to the body, what offense does he incur?" Mahāsumatthera says: "It is just as the object is." This is his view: "The object, the perception, and the lust, the recognition of the touch; In the specified designation, one should be made to incur a grave offense by that." Here, "object" is the woman. "Perception" is the perception of a woman. "Lust" is the lust for bodily contact. "Recognition of the touch" is the knowledge of the touch of bodily contact. Therefore, if one, perceiving a woman as a woman, with the lust for bodily contact, even if acting with the intention "I will grasp what is attached to the body," touches the body, he incurs a grave Saṅghādisesa. The other, however, is a Thullaccaya, says Mahāpadumatthera: "When the perception is dispassionate, and the grasping is dispassionate; In the specified designation, a grave offense is not seen there." This is his view: A Saṅghādisesa is stated for one who perceives a woman as a woman. But by this, the perception of a woman is dispassionate, and the perception of what is attached to the body as what is attached to the body is produced. For one who grasps that, a Thullaccaya is stated. And by this, the grasping is also dispassionate. Not having grasped that, a woman was grasped. Therefore, here, due to the absence of the perception of a woman, a Saṅghādisesa is not seen. Due to not having grasped a body-bound object, a Thullaccaya is not seen. But, due to being touched with lust for bodily contact, it is a Dukkata. Indeed, there is no "no offense" for one who touches this or that object with lust for bodily contact. Therefore, it is indeed a Dukkata. And having said this, he stated this tetrad: "I will grasp with lust," he grasped with lust: Saṅghādisesa. "I will grasp without lust," he grasped without lust: Dukkata. "I will grasp with lust," he grasped without lust: Dukkata. "I will grasp without lust," he grasped with lust: Dukkata indeed. Although he said this, however, the view of the Elder Mahāsumma here, accords with this Pāli text: "If there is a woman, and he perceives her as a woman, and the bhikkhu is lustful, and he touches or strokes her with a woman's body, or a body-bound object... (etc.)... grasps or touches, there is an offense of Thullaccaya." And with the commentaries' decisions such as: "Indeed, if one grasps many women standing together by embracing them with his arms, he incurs a Saṅghādisesa according to the number of women touched, and a Thullaccaya according to the number of those in the middle." Indeed, if there were such a thing as being without lust due to the absence of perception, etc., then, just as in cases like "if there is an eunuch and he perceives him as a woman," the Pāli text would also state a distinction in the manner of "if there is a body-bound object and he perceives it as a body." But since that is not stated, therefore, when there is a woman and the perception of a woman, for one touching a woman, it is a Saṅghādisesa; for one touching a body-bound object, it is a Thullaccaya. This is indeed appropriate according to the actual situation. And this was also stated in the Mahāpaccari: "I will touch the body of a dark woman lying wrapped in a blue cloth," he touches the body: Saṅghādisesa. "I will touch the body," he touches the blue cloth: Thullaccaya. "I will touch the blue cloth," he touches the body: Saṅghādisesa. "I will touch the blue cloth," he touches the blue cloth: Thullaccaya. And that which is "a woman and an eunuch," etc. By this method, the mixed-object method is stated, and in that object, the offenses mentioned due to perception-error should be understood by one not confused in the Pāli. But in the case of body-to-body-attachment, for a woman, to one perceiving her as a woman, taking a body-attachment is a grave offense. In all other cases, it is a minor offense. And in the case of body-attachment-by-body, the same method applies. And in the case of body-attachment-by-body-attachment, and in cases like relinquishment-by-body, etc., it is always a minor offense everywhere. But the section beginning, "If there is a woman, and he perceives her as a woman, and is lustful, and the woman (touches) the monk's body with her body," is stated concerning the woman's lust towards the monk. There, "the woman (touches) the monk's body with her body" means: a woman, lustful towards the monk, having gone to his sitting place or lying place, touches... or strokes that monk's body with her own body. "With the intention of sexual intercourse, he exerts his body, and perceives the touch" means: thus, being touched or stroked by her, and having the intention of sexual intercourse, if, for the purpose of perceiving the touch, he moves or stirs his body even slightly, he incurs a Sanghādisesa offense. Here, in "two women," he incurs two Sanghādisesa offenses. For a woman and a paṇḍaka, a minor offense along with a Sanghādisesa. By this method, up to "he touches a relinquishment-object with a relinquishment-object, with the intention of sexual intercourse he exerts his body but does not perceive the touch, there is an offense of dukkaṭa," the classification of offenses should be understood by the previous method. And here, "he exerts his body but does not perceive the touch" means: seeing a woman striking a flower or fruit thrown by himself, with her own relinquishment-object (a flower or fruit), he makes a bodily gesture, or moves a finger, or raises an eyebrow, or winks an eye, or makes another such gesture. This is called "he exerts his body but does not perceive the touch." He also incurs a minor offense due to exerting his body. For two women, two (minor offenses). For women and paṇḍakas, he incurs two minor offenses. Having thus shown the distinctions of offenses in detail according to the basis (of the act), now, showing the distinctions of offenses and non-offenses briefly according to their characteristics, he said, "with the intention of enjoying," and so on. There, in the first method, being touched by a woman, with the intention of enjoying, he exerts with his body, and perceives the touch – thus, with the fulfillment of three factors, it is a Saṅghādisesa. In the second method, having exerted oneself like with a Nissaggiya (robe) on a Nissaggiya (seat), and like not touching, and from not perceiving the touch, with the fulfillment of two factors, it is a Dukkata. In the third, from not exerting with the body, there is no offense. For he who, even with the intention of enjoying, with an unmoving body, merely perceives the touch, accepts it, experiences it, for him, from the mere arising of thought, there is no offense, thus no offense. But in the fourth, like with a Nissaggiya (robe)