English
Commentary on the supplementary precepts. “Gone among animals” means born among animals. Since those born among animals can be very small, into whose paths not even a sesame seed’s worth can enter, therefore not all female animals are objects for a pārājika offense. Thus, delimiting and showing those female animals that can be entered, he says, “Only these are objects for a pārājika offense,” and so on. The verses “The Apadāna, the fish,” and so on, were placed by the ancients to show the lower limit of the pārājika objects. There. There, by "snake," by the designation of species, all snake species are included, so it is said: "By the taking of 'snake'... all long-bodied species are included." There, "gonasa" is a type of snake, on whose backs large circles are visible. The taking of "fish" is a term indicating the aquatic species, so it is said: "By the taking of 'fish'... the aquatic species are included." Therefore, even though frogs and turtles have feet, they are included because they are aquatic species. "Mouth-shape" means the shape of the lips and skin. "Goes to a summary of wounds" means it goes to a collection of wounds, the intention being that it is included in the nine types of wound openings. A "gross offense regarding a wound" is to be understood in the sense of "if one inserts into an improper opening an improper opening, there is an offense of gross offense." For in that Sutta, when there are two connected wounds, if one inserts into one wound and extracts from the other, a gross offense is stated. And it will be said: "According to the sequence of this Sutta, everywhere a gross offense is to be understood in the summary of wounds" (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.66). The taking of "chicken" is also a term indicating all bird species, so it is said: "By the taking of 'chicken'... the bird species are included." The taking of "mongoose" is also to be seen as a term indicating the quadruped species. Therefore, it is said: "By the taking of 'mongoose'... the quadruped species are included." "Tree-dogs" are also called kalandakas. "Maṅgusā" means tails. The word "parājita" (defeated) is designated as "pārājika" by increasing the prefix and changing the letter 'ta' to 'ka', so it is said: "Pārājika means parājita." "Sometimes an offense, as in 'he should not destroy with a pārājika dhamma' (Pārā. 384, 391), sometimes a training rule, this is to be known by seeing it," is stated in the Gaṇṭhipadas. "Pārājika" is that which defeats, and "pārājikā" (plural) by the agentive derivation, the word "pārājika" refers to both the training rule and the offense, showing this, it is said: "He who transgresses it," etc. But the person is referred to by the word "pārājika" in the objective derivation, showing this, it is said: ‘Because the person is defeated,’ and so on. For it is with reference to this very meaning that it is said, “The person who has incurred that offense is defeated, has met with defeat.” By “fallen, abandoned,” and so on, this meaning is understood: the person who has incurred that offense is fallen, defeated, has met with defeat. It is not with reference to the meaning that a person is called a pārājika. This is how the meaning should be taken. For even in the Parivāra, the verse is not stated to show the derivation of the word pārājika as applying to a person, because the derivation and explanation of the words pārājika, etc., as applying to offenses, have already been given. The meaning of this Parivāra verse (Pari. Aṭṭha. 339) is this: That which is called the pārājika offense among the pārājikas of personal offenses and training rules, the person who commits it is thereby defeated, has met with defeat, fallen from the True Dhamma, abandoned, lost, and rendered null. As long as that person is not expelled, there is no communal life of uposatha, pavāraṇā, etc. Therefore, it is called this; for that reason, it is called this pārājika offense. The brief meaning here is: Because one is defeated by it, therefore it is called pārājika. “Paribhaṭṭha” means fallen from the Dispensation, meaning ruined. “Chinna” means cut off in the middle. Together with the word-by-word explanation: together with the explanation of the words. Four kinds of Sangha-kamma: the four kinds of acts, such as announcement. By those bounded by the sīmā: by those included within one sīmā. Those who are normal: those who have not incurred a pārājika and have not been suspended. All five kinds: all five kinds, such as the nidāna and uddesa. It is said that all training rules, except for those specifically allowed for a limited period, like for those who have been shaved, are not to be transgressed by all conscientious individuals, “because they are to be trained in equally by all conscientious individuals.” “Samaṃ” means together, or at once. “Sikkhitabbabhāvato” means because they are to be trained in by learning and questioning, etc., in the sense of not transgressing them. In the common training rules, it is said, “This is not to be trained in by you.” to be done there, it is said, "not even one is seen outside of it." "That which is said" is the connection. 56. Not only by "the mark of a woman is the object of a pārājika" does it show that the mark of a woman alone is not the object of a pārājika, but also the mark of hermaphrodites, eunuchs, and men is the object of a pārājika. And by "not only of a human woman" it shows that the mark of a human woman alone is not the object of a pārājika, but also the mark of non-human women, animal women, non-human hermaphrodites, and so on, is the object of a pārājika. "It is not an object at all, it rejects gold, silver, and so on, which come up in connection with non-human women," is said in all three knot-points, but it does not seem appropriate. For there was no mention of non-human women before this, so that such a connection might arise. Only now has the mention of non-human women been made by "three women" and so on, and the connection of gold, silver, and so on, with the mention of non-human women is not appropriate, because the connection of gold, silver, and so on, has been removed by specifying the beings that are objects of a pārājika as threefold: human, non-human, and animal. Thus, in the mātikā, without mentioning any particular women, men, and so on, or humans, non-humans, and so on, it is only said, "should engage in sexual intercourse." And in the word analysis of that, having extracted the mātikā word "engages," it is shown only the manner of engaging: "whoever inserts mark into mark, genital into genital, even as much as a sesame seed, that is called engaging." But the marks and supports that are objects of a pārājika, namely, human, non-human, and animal women, men, eunuchs, and hermaphrodites, are not specified and shown. Therefore, a doubt might arise, "is the mark of a woman alone the object of a pārājika, or also of others?" And the term "mark" is certainly found in the case of figures made of gold, silver, and so on. Therefore, having been disciplined In the Thū (Pārā. 71) it is said: "He touched the sign of a painted figure with the sexual organ. He touched the sign of a wooden doll with the sexual organ." Therefore, due to the generality of the sign, some might doubt: "Is the sign of figures made of gold, silver, etc., also a pārājika object, or not?" For this reason, it is said: "He had remorse regarding painted figures and other such objects." Therefore, to remove that doubt, and to define the beings that are pārājika objects, the Blessed One, dividing the beings that are pārājika objects into three categories by species— humans, non-humans, etc.— explains them. Therefore, it should be said that the sign of figures made of gold, silver, etc., which arose incidentally from the generality of the sign, is rejected as "it is not an object at all." He says that "tayo magge" is a locative usage, meaning "in the three paths" should be understood. Thus, by "everywhere," it is also indicated that in "dve magge" (two paths), the meaning "in the two paths" should be understood. The explanation of the Subsequent Regulations is finished. Explanation of the First Group of Four. 57. He says "assa" is a verbal form, and showing its meaning, he says "hoti" (is). However, in the Gaṇṭhipadas, another interpretation is given: "assa" refers to a person, and "hoti" is the implied verb. But that is not better. For if an implied verb were intended, "hoti" should be stated. Therefore, in another interpretation, "hoti" is made the implied verb. 58. Regarding "sādiyantasseva" (only for one who enjoys), he says that "sādiyana" (enjoyment) is the arising of the mind desiring to indulge, meaning "for one endowed with the mind of indulgence." In the Gaṇṭhipadas, it is said: "paṭipakkhaṃ atthayanti" (destroying the opponent) means "destroying the unvirtuous state, which is the opponent of monks who desire to train." However, here the meaning should be understood as: "they seek out some enemy who is an opponent of their own enemy." For enemies, desiring to destroy their own foe, wish for some enemy of that foe to become their ally. Regarding royal enemies and so on, what will be said... Therefore, showing the meaning in accordance with that, he said: "Monks themselves are enemies, thus 'monk-enemies'." But if it were said, "Enemies of a monk are monk-enemies," then kings and others who are enemies of a monk would also be included here, and thus king-enemies and others would not need to be mentioned separately. However, elsewhere, the meaning "enemies of a monk are monk-enemies" is indeed obtained, just as "enemies of the Dispensation." "Overcome by envy" means overwhelmed by envy, characterized by the inability to bear the gains and honors of others. "They do not stir" means without stirring, meaning to take hold in such a way that one cannot move or turn. "They join" means they join with the excretory passage. "At that moment" means at that moment of insertion.