English
even if the skin and so forth are completely cut away without remainder, and only the mere form of the organ is discernible, then even if one inserts a non-decayed growth, a boil, or a skin tag that has arisen on the organ, with the intention of sexual intercourse, it is a pārājika. If one inserts a decayed growth, a dry boil, dead skin, or hair, it is a dukkaṭa. If even the mere form of the organ is completely cut away without remainder... If the penis is extracted, there, by the attempt, in the manner of a wound's contraction, it is a grave offense. Likewise, for humans, in the eyes, nose, ear-holes, bladder, or scrotum, if a wound is made with a knife, and for animals like elephants and horses, in their bladders, scrota, or nostrils, it is a grave offense. But for animals, in their eye, ear, or nose wounds, if there is a tiny mark, insufficient for a snake or fish to enter, and for all, in the armpits and other remaining body parts, it is a minor offense. In a dead body, if the mark is from half-decayed onwards, until it is not putrid, it is a grave offense. If putrid, a minor offense. Likewise, if one inserts the organ into a mouth that is not touching, it is a minor offense. If the tongue is protruding outside the lips, or in the teeth, it is a grave offense. If a piece of flesh has fallen outside the mark, it is a minor offense. This is the classification of offenses here. For one who does not know, who does not consent, who is insane, who is deranged, who is afflicted by pain, and for the first offender, there is no offense. Here, one who, having fallen asleep, does not know of an attempt made by another, is one who does not know. One who knows but does not consent, is one who does not consent. One who has fallen into incurable madness due to bile, is insane. One whose mind is deranged by yakkhas, is deranged. For both of these, the measure is their not knowing, as they behave similarly towards fire, gold, excrement, sandalwood, and so on. One who, being afflicted by excessive pain, knows nothing, is one afflicted by pain. One who is the first to commit that particular act, is the first offender. This, however, is no offense. Among the four failures, it is a failure of morality. Its two factors are the intention to engage and the act of leading the path by the path. From the perspective of its origin, this training rule arises from the first pārājika, is an action, is released by perception, is intentional, is blameworthy by the world, is a bodily action, involves an unwholesome mind, and is of two kinds of feeling. These origins and so on belong to the offense, not to the training rule. However, for ease of expression, in all commentaries, the teaching is presented under the heading of the training rule. Therefore, in other such places, in the wording... Without confusion, only the intended meaning should be taken. For the Lord declared the meaning as the refuge; not the letter, the great sage, the benefactor of the world. Therefore, not delighting in the letters; one who is wise should fix his mind on the meaning. The explanation of the First Pārājika is finished. 2. Explanation of the Second Pārājika In the second [Pārājika], regarding "from a village or from a forest," here every kind, even a single hut, etc., whether enclosed or unenclosed, whether inhabited by humans or not by humans, even any place where a caravan has settled for more than four months, should be understood as a "village." Excluding the village and the village precincts, the remainder is called a forest. There, for the sake of clarity, this distinction of house, house precincts, village, village precincts should be understood. Indeed, for a house without a wall, the area within where water falls is called a house. And that place where a woman standing at the door throws out water from washing dishes, its falling place, and the falling place of a winnowing basket or broom normally thrown outside by a woman standing inside the house, and the enclosure made to prevent cattle from entering, connecting at the two corners in front of the house, and placing a tree-stake gate in the middle, all this is called the house precincts. And that which is the outermost house, for a man of average strength standing in such house precincts of that house, just as young men, showing their strength, extend their arm and throw a clod of earth, the area within the falling place of such a thrown clod is called a village. The area within the falling place of another clod beyond that is called the village precincts. But the clod that has fallen, the place it rolled to should not be taken. But for an enclosed village, the enclosure itself is the boundary of the village, if it has two main gateposts, the area within the falling place of a clod thrown by one standing at the inner gatepost is called the village precincts. Indeed, in the word-division (Pārā. 92) too, the meaning should be understood in this very way. There, this precinct of an unenclosed village that has been shown, according to that, entering the village at the wrong time In such cases, the offense should be determined. Thus, excluding the village and the village vicinity, the remainder in this training rule is called "forest". And this is merely a statement: "from a village or from a forest". But those house-vicinities and village-vicinities mentioned to show their distinction, even there, for one who takes away a Parajika object, it is indeed a Parajika offense. "What is not given" means what belongs to another human being. In "with the intention of stealing": "thena" is a thief, "theyya" is the state of a thief, this is a name for the mind of taking away. "Saṅkhā" and "saṅkhāta" are essentially one in meaning; this is a name for a part, as in "the proliferation of concepts arises from perception" and so on. "Theyyañca taṃ saṅkhātañcāti theyyasaṅkhātaṃ" means "theyya" and "saṅkhāta" together form "theyyasaṅkhāta", meaning one part of the mind reckoned as a thieving mind. And this is a nominative case in the sense of an instrument; therefore, "theyyasaṅkhātena" should be understood in meaning. And he who takes with the intention of stealing, since he has a thieving mind, therefore, without taking the mere expression, but to show the meaning itself, its word analysis is stated as: "with a thieving mind, with an intention to take away." "Should take" means should carry away in one of twenty-five ways of taking. And those ways of taking should be carefully noted by combining five fives. The five fives are: the five kinds of various goods, the five kinds of single goods, the five kinds of personal taking, the five kinds of prior arrangement, and the five kinds of thieving removal. There, the first two fives are obtained by means of the words mentioned in the word analysis of this very term: "should take, should carry, should remove, should disturb the posture, should move from its place." There, the five kinds of various goods should be understood in terms of animate and inanimate, the others only in terms of animate. How? "Should take" means he occupies the monastery, an offense of wrong-doing. He causes doubt in the owner, an offense of grave fault. The owner gives up the claim, saying "It will not be mine," an offense... i. Of the pārājika. If, with intent to steal, he touches another's goods, placing a burden on his head, it is a dukkaṭa. If he makes it tremble, it is a thullaccaya. If he lowers it from his shoulder, it is a pārājika. If, when asked for a deposited item, "Give me the goods," he says, "I did not take it," it is a dukkaṭa. If he causes doubt in the owner, it is a thullaccaya. If the owner gives up hope, "It will not be mine," it is a pārājika. If he disturbs the posture, intending to take the goods, he moves the first foot, it is a thullaccaya. He moves the second foot, it is a pārājika. If he moves it from its place, he touches goods on the ground, with intent to steal, it is a dukkaṭa. If he makes it tremble, it is a thullaccaya. If he moves it from its place, it is a pārājika. Thus, the five kinds of diverse goods should be understood. But for goods with an owner, whether a servant or an animal, the five kinds of single goods should be understood by way of taking, carrying, concealing, disturbing posture, and moving from place, according to the aforementioned methods of accusation, etc. What are the five kinds of personal action? Personal action, commanded action, abandoned action, purpose-fulfilling action, and giving up hope. Therein, personal action is when one takes another's goods with one's own hand. Commanded action is when one commands another, "Take so-and-so's goods." Abandoned action is when one, standing within the designated areas for customs-evaders, throws something outside. Purpose-fulfilling action is when one commands another, "When you can, take so-and-so's goods." Therein, if the other person, without hindrance, takes it, the pārājika occurs for the commander at the moment of command. Or, if one puts shoes or other things into another's oil jar, which are certainly to be drunk, the pārājika occurs as soon as it leaves the hand. Giving up hope, however, should be understood by way of goods deposited in a monastery or by accusation. The same method applies to one who does not give temporary goods due. This is the five kinds of personal action. What are the five kinds of prior application? Prior application, simultaneous application, s Concerted taking, signaling, and indicating. Therein, the prior application is to be understood as by command. And the simultaneous application is to be understood as by removing from a place, or by moving fallow land and the like, and taking fields and the like. Concerted taking means arranging and consulting, saying, "We will take such and such an article," and then taking it.