English
"Lest there be too swift a destruction," renouncing the training in the presence of deities is forbidden. Among humans, however, there is no fixed rule. In the presence of any discerning person, whether similar or dissimilar, householder or renunciant, a renunciation is a renunciation. But if that person does not know, it is as if not renounced – showing this meaning, it says "by an Aryan," and so on. There, "Aryan" means Aryan speech, the Magadhan language. "Barbarian" means anyone non-Aryan, such as a blind Tamil. And that person does not understand, either due to unfamiliarity with another language, or in the time of the Buddha, due to lack of skill, "This is the meaning he speaks," he does not understand. "By mistake" (davāya) means desiring to say something else, he suddenly says, "I renounce the Buddha." "By babbling" (ravāya) means by confused speech, saying something else while intending to say something else. If one asks, "What is the difference from the former?" The former is even a wise person's sudden saying of something else. This, however, is due to dullness, confusion, lack of understanding, a stumbling person saying something else while intending to say something else. "One who does not wish to declare, declares" – this means one recites, questions, learns, chants, or explains the Pāli of this training rule. This is called "one who does not wish to declare, declares." "One who wishes to declare, does not declare" – this means one reveals weakness and renounces the training, but does not break the speech. This is called "one who wishes to declare, does not declare." "Declares to one who does not understand" – this means declares to an old person who is like a book-image, or to one unskilled in the time of heavy rain, or to village children who have reached non-understanding. Does not declare to one who understands. It does not make known (the rejection) to a wise person capable of knowing (it). Or completely, by whatever means the training is rejected, in phrases like "I reject the Buddha," not even a single word-break from that does one make known. Thus indeed, the characteristic of non-rejection is defined. This is the meaning here: "Thus indeed the training is not rejected, not for any other reason." The analysis of the rejection of training is finished. Commentary on the Root Precept 55. Now, to show the meaning of "should engage in sexual intercourse" and so on, it begins with "what is called sexual intercourse." Therein, "what is called sexual intercourse" is the introductory word for the sexual intercourse to be defined. It is ignoble practice because it is the practice of the ignoble, of low people. It is village practice because it is the practice engaged in by villagers. It is outcast practice because it is the practice of outcasts; or because of the nature of defilements, the practice itself is an outcast, thus it is outcast practice. It is gross because it is corrupted by defilements, and because of its coarse and unrefined nature, thus it is gross. And from this point onwards, in three instances, changing "that which is" (masculine) and making it "that which" (neuter), it should be construed: "that which is gross, that which is water-ending, that which is secret." And here, because even seeing, even grasping, even touching, even contacting, even rubbing, being an accessory to that act, is gross, therefore that act is also gross. That which is gross, that is sexual intercourse. Water is taken at its end for purification, thus it is "water-ending"; "water-ending" itself is "water-ending"; that which is water-ending, that is sexual intercourse. Because it is to be done in a secret, concealed place, it is secret. That which is secret, that is sexual intercourse; thus this construction should be understood. Because it is to be entered into by a pair, it is "entering into a pair." Therein the construction is: "That which is 'entering into a pair', that is called sexual intercourse." But here, bringing all that together, it says: "this is called sexual intercourse." For what reason is it called sexual intercourse? Both... of two persons, who are inflamed, who are impassioned, who are infatuated, who are overcome, who are alike, is called a 'dhamma' (nature, practice), therefore it is called 'methunadhamma' (sexual practice). "Paṭisevati nāma" (engages in) is a heading to show in what manner one engages, as said in "paṭiseveyyā" (should engage). Here, "yo nittena nimittantiādīsu" (who by the sign, etc.), if a bhikkhu inserts his own sign into the sign of a woman, his own private part into the private part of a woman, even to the extent of a single sesame seed, in a damp place untouched by wind, that is called "paṭisevati" (engaging in). By this much, he incurs a breach of precept, he is defeated (pārājika). And here, in the woman's sign, four sides and the middle are found as five places. In the man's sign, four sides, the middle, and the top are six. Therefore, even if one inserts into the lower part of the woman's sign, he is defeated. Even if one inserts from the upper part, even if one inserts from both sides, even if one inserts through the middle, avoiding the four places, he is defeated. As for the man's sign, even if one inserts touching the lower part, he is defeated. Even if one inserts touching the upper part, even if one inserts touching both sides, even if one inserts touching only the middle, even if one inserts touching the upper part, contracting it like a bent finger at the back of the middle joint, he is defeated. There, for one inserting it like a balance beam, there are four sides and the middle, making five places. For one inserting it contracted, there are four sides and the middle of the upper part, making five places. Thus, all together, there are ten places in the man's sign. If one inserts a skin tag or a boil that has arisen in the sign and has not lost its sensitivity, it is an offense of defeat (pārājika). If one inserts dead skin or a dry boil that has lost its sensitivity, it is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). Even if one inserts hair or finger-thumb-seeds, etc., with sexual pleasure, it is only an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). And this talk about sexual intercourse, since it is vulgar talk, impolite talk, therefore And when speaking of this or another such matter in the Vinaya, one should establish mindfulness of repulsiveness, perception of a recluse, and shame and dread, generating reverence for the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One, and reflecting on the compassionate quality of the peerlessly compassionate World-Protector, one should speak. For indeed, that Blessed One, though completely turned away from sensual pleasures, out of compassion for beings, out of sympathy for the world, out of kindness towards beings, spoke such a discourse for the purpose of establishing the training rules. "Oh, the compassionate quality of the Teacher!" Thus, reflecting on the compassionate quality of the World-Protector, one should speak. Moreover, if the Blessed One had not spoken such a discourse in every way, who would know: "In these instances, it is a pārājika; in these, a thullaccaya; in these, a dukkaṭa"? Therefore, neither the listener nor the speaker should sit covering their mouth with a seed, or smiling with bared teeth. Reflecting, "Even the Perfectly Self-Enlightened One spoke such things," one should speak with a dignified demeanor, endowed with shame and dread, as if representing the Teacher. The Root Ordination is concluded. In the section on subsequent ordinances – "Even to the extent of" means to the very last limit. "Even to an animal" means to one reborn in animal realms. "How much more so to a human woman" means primarily to a woman of human birth. Here, "animal" should be understood as an animal that can be the basis for a pārājika offense, not all animals. Here is the classification: Among the legless, snakes and fish; Among the two-legged, a hen; Among the four-legged, a cat; These are the bases for a pārājika. Here, by "snake," all long-bodied creatures like pythons, monitor lizards, etc., are included. Therefore, among long-bodied creatures, if it is possible to insert even a sesame seed's worth into any of the three passages, that is a basis for a pārājika. The rest should be understood as bases for a dukkaṭa. By "fish," all aquatic creatures like fish, turtles, frogs, etc., are included. There too, in the case of long-bodied aquatic creatures, the basis for a pārājika and a dukkaṭa should be understood in the same way as stated. This is the distinction: There are creatures called moth-faced frogs, their mouth shape is large, the opening is small, insertion is not possible there; but the mouth shape goes to a wound-like constriction, therefore it should be known as a grave offense. By the inclusion of 'chicken', all bird species are included, such as crows, pigeons, and so forth. There too, in the manner stated, a pārājika offense and a dukkaṭa offense should be known. By the inclusion of 'cat', all four-footed species are included, such as tree-dogs, mongooses, iguanas, and so forth. There too, in the manner stated, a pārājika offense and a dukkaṭa offense should be known. Pārājika means defeated, one who has fallen into defeat. This word 'pārājika' is used for training rules, offenses, and individuals. There, "It is impossible, Ānanda, it is not possible for the Tathāgata, on account of the Vajjians or the Vajji-sons, to abolish a pārājika training rule that has been laid down for the disciples" —thus, when referring to a training rule, it should be understood. "You, bhikkhu, have incurred a pārājika offense" —thus, when referring to an offense. "We are not pārājika; whoever has been expelled, that one is pārājika" —thus, when referring to an individual, it should be understood. "He would disparage with a pārājika dhamma" —and so forth, they say it refers to a dhamma. However, since there, 'dhamma'