English
The time of insertion, from tip to base, is called "the moment of insertion." "Accepting" means generating the thought of indulgence, as he says, "he establishes the thought of indulgence." "At the time of insertion" means when as much of the organ as is fit for insertion has been inserted completely. The time it remains between such insertion and the beginning of withdrawal is called "remaining." However, in the Commentary, referring to the time when, after the emission of semen in a woman, one has completely ceased striving and remained, it is said, "at the time of semen emission." "Withdrawal" means the time of pulling out up to the tip, as he says, "at the time of pulling out, he establishes the thought of indulgence." "Aṅgārakāsu" means a heap of charcoal. "Not accepting" at such a time is not within everyone's scope, as he says, "this, indeed, is such a one who has begun insight," etc. "By the eleven fires" means by the eleven fires reckoned as lust, hatred, delusion, birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. Lust and the others are indeed called "fires" in the sense of burning. For they, if they exist in someone, burn him, and they are great torments and difficult to extinguish. And indeed, the Lord desired the suppression of unruly individuals, as he says, "and the mind of his enemies..." when making a transgression." "Assa" means for one who does not approve, for one endowed with the qualities mentioned. The explanation of the first tetrad is finished. Explanation of the 269th Tetrad 59-60. "Akkhāyitanimittā" (a sign that has been eaten) is said by the word "akkhāyita" with the elision of the latter part of the compound, thus it says: "a sign eaten by dogs, jackals, etc." That which has a sign that has been eaten is "akkhāyitanimittā." "Jāgaranti" (they are awake) and so on, because they lack specific qualifications, are called "pure tetrads." "Samānācariyakā therā" (elders of the same teacher) are pupils and students of the same teacher. "Mahābhaye" (in the great danger) refers to the danger from Brāhmaṇa Tissa. "Gaṅgāya aparabhāgo" (the other part of the Ganges) is "aparagaṅgaṃ." "Vata re" is a particle in the sense of reproach. What should be done by one who does not release? It says: "It should be heard constantly," and so on. Thus, by "for those who are strict in discipline," the reason for the gravity of the decision to be made by them later is stated. "Sabbaṃ pariyādiyitvā" (having completely taken everything) means having taken the entire pārājika area without remainder. "Sotaṃ chinditvā" (having cut off the stream) means having cut off the stream of transgression in the pārājika area. Because of its un-enacted state and lack of justification, it is said: "the shadow of pārājika is not seen here." Some, however, say: "Because the state of being half-eaten is difficult to determine, the pārājika was not enacted there." That is without reason, and difficulty of determination is not a reason for non-enactment, since difficulty of determination is similar even in cases of mostly-eaten and so on. For if something slightly more or less than half-eaten were eaten, that too would be counted as mostly-eaten or not-eaten. Thus, like half-eaten, mostly-eaten and so on are also difficult to determine. Moreover, if half-eaten were by nature a pārājika area, the Blessed One would not fail to enact a pārājika there on account of difficulty of determination. Now, supporting the decision made by the elder, and showing another reason there, it says: "Moreover," and so on. If even a small streak of meat remains on the sign, that is considered mostly-eaten. Beyond that, when the sign is entirely eaten, it is only a dukkaṭa, showing this, he said: "Beyond that, there is no thullaccaya." Or else, "mostly eaten" means of the openings of the anus and urethra, in the four parts, having passed two parts, eaten up to the end of the third part. But beyond that, having passed the third part, eaten up to the end of the fourth part, should be understood as a dukkaṭa matter. It should be understood only in a dead body, from the saying "a dead body mostly not eaten," and so on. "Even if the sign is entirely eaten," and so on, all this was said with reference to only a living body, it was said in the Mahāgaṇṭhipada. But by someone, "that should be investigated and taken," it was written. What is there to investigate here? Because only a living body is primarily discussed, and because the decision found in a dead body will be spoken of separately. Therefore, also in the Mātikāṭṭhakathā (Kaṅkhāvitaraṇī commentary, explanation of the first Pārājika) – "Of a living body, in the path described, even if skin and so on are entirely cut off without leaving anything, and only the form of the sign is discernible, there, at least, if one inserts a boil on the organ with unimpaired bodily sensitivity, or a pustule, or a skin tag, with the intention of sexual intercourse, it is a pārājika. For one inserting with impaired bodily sensitivity, or a dry pustule, or dead skin, or hair, it is a dukkaṭa. If even the mere form of the sign is not left, and the path is entirely uprooted, there, by the attempt, by way of a wound summary, it is a thullaccaya." Only in a living body is the aforementioned decision shown. "Entirely eaten" means in the region of the sign, the outer skin having been entirely cut off, made to be like something eaten by dogs, jackals, and so on. Therefore he said: "There is no skin." But because of the existence of the flesh of the sign and of the inner skin, "the form of the sign is discernible," it was said. Therefore he said: "Insertion arises." And 'without leaving any place' means without leaving any skin, hide, flesh, etc., that stands as a mark, without remainder. Having shown the special characteristic found in a living body, now, showing the special characteristic found in a dead body, he said: "And in a dead body," and so on. By 'in the living body of humans,' and so on, moreover, even eyes, etc., fall into the category of wounds. Having made a single classification by 'wound,' a grave offense is stated even for eyes, etc. And their classification as wounds should be understood according to suttas like "the great wound with nine doors" (Mil. Pa. 2.6.1), and so on. However, a minor offense in the eyes, ears, and wounds of animals should be taken as authoritative by the commentaries. Just as in humans, non-humans, and animals, there is no difference in the anus, urethra, and mouth being objects of a pārājika offense, so too, there should be no difference in the eyes, etc., being objects of a grave offense, and so on. And a grave offense regarding a wound is generally stated as: "one inserts into a non-path a non-path, there is an offense of thullaccaya" (Pārā. 66). And there is no specific mention of "of humans." And if there should be no grave offense regarding the wounds of animals, then a grave offense should not be stated for the mouth-like wound on the face of a frog, but it is stated. Therefore, the commentators are the authority here. For the commentators know the Buddha's intention. Therefore it is said: "The Dhamma and Vinaya were taught by the Buddha, and are known in the same way by his sons," and so on (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1). 'Of humans' (manussānaṃ) is stated generally for women, men, eunuchs, and hermaphrodites. 'In the bladder-sheaths' (vatthikosesu) means in the bladder-sacs, in the sheaths of the male organ. A dead body, as long as it has not decayed into a bloated state, etc., should be understood as a wet body. Therefore he said – "But when the body becomes bloated," and so on. And 'it abandons the object of pārājika and the object of thullaccaya' – here, the meaning should be understood as 'it abandons the state of being an object of pārājika and the state of being an object of thullaccaya.' Of dead animals The connection is "gone." He says, "not inserting into the sheath," meaning that inserting into the urinary tract with sexual passion is stated as a grave offense. "Not inserting into a woman" means not inserting into a woman's genital organ. "Not inserting" also shows the absence of the intention to insert. However, if one touches outside with the intention to insert, it should be a minor offense, as it is a preliminary act of sexual intercourse. "Touching the genital organ with the genital organ is a grave offense"—this is stated in accordance with the Sutta: "And, monks, one should not touch the genital organ with a lustful mind. If one touches, it is a grave offense" (Mahāvagga 252). There, showing a method of interpretation for some in a different way, he says, "But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā," and so on. Although it is said there, "having made the Mahāaṭṭhakathā the body" (Pārājika Aṭṭhakathā 1, Introduction to the Text), nevertheless, to show the absence of the phrase "with the mouth, with sexual passion" in other Aṭṭhakathās, it is said, "But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā." "Without distinction" is said because "with the genital organ" is not stated. Now, showing the Mahāaṭṭhakathā in comparison with the Pāli, he says, "What is in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā," and so on. Otherwise, it would be a minor offense, just as it would be a minor offense for one touching with the natural opening, like grasping a horn, etc. Having thus compared the Mahāaṭṭhakathā with the Pāli, now, showing a different interpretation for some there, he says, "But some," and so on. "Saṅghādisesa" means a Saṅghādisesa offense by the rule of physical contact. "In the manner stated" means with sexual passion. Since "with the genital opening" is stated, it should be understood that touching the urinary passage of an animal with sexual passion, with the natural opening, is a minor offense. "A minor offense due to passion for physical contact" means that touching with passion for physical contact, whether with the genital opening or with the natural opening, is a minor offense.