English
for a concealed offense common to bhikkhunīs, the gender changes, only the six-night *mānatta* should be given. If, while undergoing *mānatta*, the gender changes, again only the six-night *mānatta* should be given. If, after completing *mānatta*, the gender changes, the bhikkhunīs should perform the rehabilitation ceremony. If, when the result of unwholesome kamma is exhausted, during the six-night *mānatta* period, the gender changes again, only the six-night *mānatta* should be given. If, after completing the six-night *mānatta*, the gender changes, the bhikkhus should perform the rehabilitation ceremony. In the immediately preceding case of a bhikkhunī's gender change, all decisions should be understood in the manner stated here. But this is the distinction: even if a concealed *sañcaritta* offense was incurred when she was a bhikkhunī, there is no giving of probation; only the six-night *mānatta* should be given. If, while undergoing the six-night *mānatta*, her gender changes, that is not the point; only the six-night *mānatta* should be given. If, after completing *mānatta*, her gender changes, without giving *mānatta* again, she should be rehabilitated by the bhikkhus. Then, if the bhikkhus have not given *mānatta* and the gender changes again, only the six-night *mānatta* should be given by the bhikkhunīs. Then, if, while undergoing the six-night *mānatta*, the gender changes again, only the six-night *mānatta* should be given. But if, after completing *mānatta*, a gender change occurs, the bhikkhunīs should perform the rehabilitation ceremony. And if the gender changes again, even if she remains in the state of a bhikkhunī, the offenses that were previously revoked, they are indeed well-revoked. 70. The four cases that follow, beginning with "sexual intercourse with one's mother," are indeed clear in meaning. 71. In the case of Mudupiṭṭhika, that bhikkhu, it is said, was formerly an actor. His skill in art... Well prepared, the back became soft. Therefore, he was able to do so. In the story of Lambī, that monk's private part is long and hangs down; therefore, he is called Lambī. The two stories of wounds that follow are quite clear. In the story of the plaster-painting, "lepacitta" means a painted figure. In the story of the wooden doll, "dārudhītalikā" means a wooden figure. And just as in these two, so also in other unpossessed female figures, such as ivory figures, cloth figures, metal figures, and so on, for one who approaches with sexual desire at the sign, whether semen is discharged or not, it is an offense of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa). For one who approaches with desire for bodily contact, it is likewise a dukkaṭa. But for one who approaches with desire for discharge, if discharged, a Saṅghādisesa; if not discharged, a Thullaccaya. 72. In the story of Sundara, this Sundara by name was a young man of good family in Rājagaha, who went forth out of faith; because of the beauty of his person, he received the name "Sundara." Seeing him going on the road, that woman, with desire arisen, committed this misconduct. But the elder was an Anāgāmī. Therefore, he did not consent. But for others, this is not a suitable domain. In the four stories that follow, those monks, foolish and dull-witted, having taken the woman's word, acted accordingly, and afterwards felt remorse. 73. The three stories beginning with "Akkhāyita" are straightforward in meaning. In the two stories of the severed head, this is the decision: when the round mouth is open, if one inserts the private part, and it touches below, or above, or on both sides, and one inserts it, it is a Pārājika offense. Having inserted it without touching any of the four sides, if it touches the palate inside, it is a Pārājika offense. If, without touching the four sides and the palate, making it as if in space, one inserts and withdraws it, it is a dukkaṭa offense. But if the teeth are tightly closed, and there is no space inside the mouth, and the teeth are covered externally by the lip-flesh, for one who inserts even a sesame-seed's worth into that moist place untouched by air, it is a Pārājika offense. But if the lip-flesh is torn off, and one approaches only the teeth... It is a grave offense. Even if a tooth protrudes outside, and cannot be covered by lips. Even if one approaches it, or approaches a protruding tongue, it is a grave offense. Even with a living body, with a protruding tongue, it is a grave offense. But if one wraps it with the outer tongue and inserts it into the mouth, it is a pārājika offense. Even for one whose head is severed above the neck, if one inserts the organ below and touches the palate, it is a pārājika offense. In the case of bones, even going to the charnel ground is a dukkaṭa. Even pulling bones, even approaching a sign with sexual desire, even approaching with desire for bodily contact, whether it is discharged or not, it is a dukkaṭa. But for one approaching with desire for discharge, if discharged, it is a saṅghādisesa; if not discharged, it is a grave offense. In the case of a Nāgī, whether it be a Nāga maiden or any other such as a Kinnarī, in all cases it is a pārājika. In the case of a Yakkhī, all deities are Yakkhīs. In the case of a Petī, those like the hungry ghosts cannot even be touched. But there are Vimāna Petīs; for whom unwholesome kamma ripens in the dark fortnight, and in the bright fortnight they experience prosperity like deities. If with such a Petī or Yakkhī, seeing, grasping, touching, contacting, or rubbing are evident, it is a pārājika. Even if there is no seeing, but the others are evident, it is a pārājika. But if seeing and grasping are not evident, and by touching, contacting, or rubbing, that person is made unconscious, and she fulfills her own desire and goes, this is called "beyond the scope." Therefore, in this case, due to being beyond the scope, there is no offense. The case of the eunuch is clear. In the case of one with impaired faculties, "one with impaired faculties" means one whose bodily sensitivity is impaired, who feels neither pleasure nor pain, like a dry stump or a thorn. Even for one who does not feel, there is an offense by way of the intention to engage. In the case of mere touching, if one, thinking "I will engage in sexual intercourse," takes a woman, but refrains from sexual intercourse and feels remorse, it is a dukkaṭa. It is the eighth for him. Indeed, the preliminary acts of sexual intercourse, such as hand-holding, remain minor offenses (dukkaṭa) until it reaches the head. When it reaches the head, it is a pārājika offense. Indeed, for the first pārājika, the dukkaṭa is its proximity. For the other three, it is a serious offense (thullaccaya). But this monk, having abstained from sexual intercourse, is to be understood as having accepted bodily contact. Therefore, the Blessed One said: "There is an offense of Sanghādisesa." 74. In the Bhaddiya story, that city was named Bhaddiya. The Jātiyāvana (Jāti Grove) was so named because of the abundance of jasmine flower bushes; it was a grove in the vicinity of that city. Lying there, he fell into a deep sleep due to that wind-induced exhaustion. The stream of existence flowed as one. "Having seen the wetness" means having seen the impure stain. 75. The next four stories related to acceptance, and the story of not knowing, these five are straightforward in meaning. 76. In the two stories of non-acceptance, "he rose up suddenly" means he rose quickly as if bitten by a poisonous snake or burned by fire. "Having stepped on and caused it to move" means that a diligent monk, having begun insight, with mindfulness established, quickly rising up, stepped on it, causing it to roll, turn over, be disturbed, and fall to the ground. Indeed, by a virtuous ordinary person, the mind should be guarded in such situations. And this monk was one of those chief warriors in battle. 77. In the story of lying down with the door open, "by one who secludes himself during the day" means by one who lies down during the day. "To seclude oneself with the door closed" means to lie down with the door shut. And here, although in the Pāli it is not stated "this is such and such an offense." But in the story that arose from the fault of lying down with the door open, because it was said, "Monks, I allow one who secludes himself during the day to seclude himself with the door closed," a dukkaṭa offense is stated for one who secludes himself without closing the door. Indeed, knowing the intention of the Blessed One, the commentaries were established by Elder Upāli and others. "There is an offense committed during the day, not at night." i (pari. 323) This is also proven by this. What kind of door should be closed? What kind should not be closed? A revolving door, made by using any kind of door panel from wood, bamboo, mats, leaves, etc., inserted below into a mortar-like base and above into an upper crossbeam, that alone should be closed. Other kinds of doors, like a door of wooden stakes and thorns as in cattle pens, a door with a latch as in village huts, a sliding door made by attaching two or three latches to planks or screens, a lifting door as in shops, a door with a stick-handle made by weaving bamboo splints in two or three places in leaf huts, a cloth or sackcloth door— such doors should not be closed. However, for one with a bowl in hand, only a cloth or sackcloth door is not an offense when opening it; opening the others is an offense. For one lying down for a daytime retreat, only a revolving door causes an offense; for one lying down, having closed or not closed the others, there is no offense. However, one should lie down having closed it; this is the proper practice. How much closed is a revolving door considered closed? When a bolt, latch, etc., are applied, it is considered closed. Moreover, it is permissible even if only a bolt is applied. It is permissible even if only a latch is applied. It is permissible