English
having heard the Vinaya Piṭaka nine times, left his teacher and went to the other side of the river. Then Elder Mahāpaduma said: “Indeed, that Vinaya-holder is brave, who thinks it proper to dwell elsewhere while his teacher is still alive. Should one not, while the teacher is alive, even after having learned the Vinaya Piṭaka and the commentaries many times, not abandon them, but listen constantly, and recite them annually?” In the time of such monks, who revered the Vinaya, one day, Elder Upatissa was seated, explaining this passage in the first Pārājika training rule to five hundred disciples, led by Elder Mahāpaduma. The disciples asked him: “Venerable sir, if it is mostly eaten, it is a pārājika; if it is mostly consumed, it is a thullaccaya. What should it be if it is half-eaten?” The Elder said: “Friends, when the Buddhas enunciate a pārājika, they do not enunciate it with a remainder; they enunciate it without any remainder, completely exhausting everything, cutting off the stream, and in a pārājika matter, they enunciate only a pārājika. This training rule is a worldly offense, not an offense by enactment.” Therefore, if in half-eaten [body] there were a pārājika [offence], the Perfectly Enlightened One would have laid it down. But here, no trace of pārājika is seen, only a serious offence is seen. Moreover, the Blessed One, when laying down a pārājika in a dead body, mostly placed it in the uneaten [part] to show that "beyond that, there is no pārājika." When laying down a serious offence, he mostly placed it in the eaten [part] to show that "beyond that, there is no serious offence." This should also be understood. And this "eaten" and "uneaten" should be understood only in a dead body, not in a living one. For in a living being, even if there is skin, flesh, or sinew the size of a fingernail, it is a pārājika. Even if the skin and flesh of the organ are entirely eaten away, but the shape of the organ is discernible, and penetration occurs, it is a pārājika. But if the shape of the organ is not left at all, and the entire organ is cut off, trimmed all around, and removed, due to the wound's contraction, it is a serious offence. For one who attempts [intercourse] with a piece of flesh fallen from the organ, it is a minor offence. But in a dead body, even if the whole body is eaten, even if it is uneaten, if the three passages are uneaten, for one who attempts [intercourse] in them, it is a pārājika. Mostly, in the uneaten [passages], it is a pārājika. And in half-eaten [passages], and mostly eaten [passages], it is a serious offence. In the living body of humans, in the eye, nose, ear holes, or in the sheaths of the private parts, or in wounds made by knives, etc., for one who, out of sexual desire, inserts the organ even the size of a sesame seed, it is a serious offence. In the rest of the body, in the armpits, etc., it is a minor offence. In a dead, fresh body, in the pārājika domain, it is a pārājika. In the serious offence domain, it is a serious offence. In the minor offence domain, it is a minor offence. But when the body is bloated, putrid, swarming with bluebottles, teeming with swarms of worms, and from its nine openings, pus and foul matter ooze out, making it impossible even to approach, then it abandons the ground for pārājika and the ground for serious offence. In such a body, wherever one attempts [intercourse], it is a minor offence. The same. For animals, elephants, horses, oxen, donkeys, camels, buffaloes, and so on, on the nose, a grave offense. On the bladder/genital area, just a grave offense. For all animals, on the eyes, ears, wounds, a minor offense. And on the rest of the body, just a minor offense. For the dead, on a wet body, in the area of a pārājika, a pārājika. In the area of a thullaccaya, a thullaccaya. In the area of a dukkaṭa, a dukkaṭa. But on a putrid corpse, in the manner previously stated, everywhere, a minor offense. If, with lust for bodily contact or lust for sexual intercourse, without inserting into the bladder/genital area of a living man, one touches the organ with the organ, a minor offense. With lust for sexual intercourse, without inserting into a woman, one touches the organ with the organ, a grave offense. But in the Great Commentary, it is said: "If one touches a woman's organ with lust for sexual intercourse with the mouth, it is a grave offense." In the Khandhaka on Leather, it is said without distinction, regarding this origin story: "The group of six monks on the Aciravatī River, when cows were crossing, grabbed their horns, grabbed their ears, grabbed their necks, grabbed their tails, even climbed on their backs, and with lustful minds touched their private parts." (Mahāva. 252) And it is said: "Monks, a private part should not be touched with a lustful mind. Whoever touches it commits a grave offense." (Mahāva. 252) All of that should be understood by reconciling it so that there is no contradiction. And how is there no contradiction? First, what is said in the Great Commentary: "touches with the mouth with lust for sexual intercourse." There, it is indeed intended that the opening of the organ is meant by "mouth." And because "with lust for sexual intercourse" is stated, this indeed is to be understood as the intention there. For indeed, sexual intercourse does not occur with a natural mouth on a woman's organ. And in the Khandhaka, those who climbed on the back and with lust for sexual intercourse touched organ with organ, referring to them, a grave offense is stated, is to be understood. Otherwise, it would be a minor offense. But some say: "Even in the Khandhaka, referring to touching with the mouth, because the act is gross, a grave offense..." it was said. And in the Commentary, taking that statement into account, it was said, “Touching with the mouth due to sexual passion is a grave offense.” Therefore, having carefully considered, whichever of the two decisions is more appropriate, that should be adopted. However, experts in Vinaya praise the former. But for one who touches a woman’s private parts with the natural mouth or with the artificial mouth due to bodily contact passion, it is a Sanghādisesa. For one who touches the urinary passage of an animal female with the artificial mouth, it is a grave offense in the manner stated. Due to bodily contact passion, it is a dukkaṭa. The discourse on the two hundred and sixty-nine tetrads is finished. The discourse on the divisions of the covered tetrad 61-62. Thus, the Blessed One, for the protection of a monk who practices, having extracted two hundred and seventy tetrads, and having seen, “Now, those evil monks who in the future will intentionally make a pretext, saying, ‘This covered thing is not appropriated; it touches an appropriated thing. What is the fault here?’ For them, there will be no establishment in the Dispensation,” showing this, by dividing each tetrad among those two hundred and seventy tetrads into four divisions such as the covered, He said, “When enemies of monks bring a human woman to a monk and cause her to sit down with her anus, urinary passage, or mouth on his private parts, when he is uncovered and she is covered,” and so on. Here, in “when she is covered and he is uncovered,” and so on, the connection should be understood in this way: “When a covered woman causes the private parts of an uncovered monk to be sat upon by her anus, urinary passage, or mouth.” Here, “covered” refers to a woman whose one of the three passages is covered by any cloth, or leaf, or bark strip, or hide, or a strip of tin or lead, either by wrapping it around or inserting it inside. “Covered” refers to a monk whose private parts are covered by any of those same cloths, etc. Here, whether an appropriated thing touches an unappropriated thing, or an unappropriated thing touches an appropriated thing, or an unappropriated thing touches an unappropriated thing, or an appropriated thing Or by what is taken up, if it is said that by inserting so much, it is a pārājika, and that much is inserted, for one who assents everywhere, in the pārājika field, it is a pārājika; in the thullaccaya field, it is a thullaccaya; in the dukkaṭa field, it is only a dukkaṭa. If a female organ is made into a stump and spread out, for one who touches the stump, it is a dukkaṭa. If a male organ is made into a stump and spread out, for one who inserts into the stump, it is a dukkaṭa. If both are made into stumps and spread out, for one who touches stump with stump, it is a dukkaṭa. If something like a bamboo or reed joint is inserted into the female organ, and one touches its lower part and inserts even a sesame seed's worth, it is a pārājika. And if one touches its upper part, or even one side of both sides, and inserts, it is a pārājika. Even if one inserts without touching any of the four sides, and then touches its bottom, it is a pārājika. But if one inserts without touching the sides or the bottom, making it merely air-borne, and then withdraws it, it is a dukkaṭa. If one touches the stump externally, it is only a dukkaṭa. And as stated concerning the female organ, so should the characteristic be understood everywhere. The discourse on the four categories of spread-out things is concluded. Explanation of the four categories concerning enemies of bhikkhus. 63-64. Having thus spoken of the four categories of spread-out things, now, since they do not only bring human women and the like to the bhikkhu, but they also bring the bhikkhu to them, therefore, showing that distinction, it again extracted and showed all those four categories with the method beginning "enemies of bhikkhus (bring) a bhikkhu to a human woman." The decision in these should be understood according to the method stated. The explanation of the four categories concerning enemies of bhikkhus is concluded. Discourse on the four categories concerning enemies of kings and so forth. 65.