English
Some say it is not overcome by other offenses of the same or different kind, which are of the same nature as pārājika by their object. This has been considered previously. But when all four pārājika offenses occur together, then they overcome that monk's state of being a monk, make him not a monk, make him not fully ordained, and he is not a monk even by designation. Some say it does not generate an offense of disparaging speech. By the second alternative meaning, the meaning of "patti" (attainment) or "sampatti" (accomplishment) of the pārājika dhamma is included as "āpatti" (offense). Thus, it is included for those who hold the view of "āpatti-sampatti" (accomplishment of offense), and this is appropriate as it is interdependent. That monk is called "sāpattiko" (one with an offense); otherwise, he would be "anāpattiko" (without offense) due to momentary destruction, which is not the case. When does it occur? When he dies, or when he renounces the training and remains in the state of a novice or similar. If so, when the training is renounced, the pārājika offense is renounced, and the training is also renounced, both exist for him. Why are saṅghādisesa and other offenses not renounced by renouncing the training? They must be confessed again by one who is fully ordained. Renouncing the training has become a rising from the offense. A non-monk rises from the offense, a householder rises, a novice rises. Therefore, due to a contradiction in the Vinaya, he does not rise. But if a householder or a novice rises, he would be endowed with virtue and attain jhāna, or attain the fruit of stream-entry or the fruit of arahantship, being guilty of a pārājika offense. One might be an Arahant. One who is suspended, or one who has left the Sangha, or one deserving of probation, or one deserving of penance, or one who has left the Sangha, might be endowed with virtue, a recipient of jhānas, a recipient of the fruit of stream-entry, or the fruit of arahantship. One might be an Arahant with an offense, with an impediment. Such a one, having been re-ordained, having given probation or penance, should be reinstated; one suspended should be restored. This is found to be similar. Herein is the determination: One who has incurred a pārājika offense, as long as he acknowledges his state as a bhikkhu and accepts communion, due to the impediment, even if he himself undertakes precepts like a householder on Uposatha days, his undertaking of precepts does not succeed, much less jhānas and so forth. If he does not accept the state of a bhikkhu, does not acknowledge it, does not accept communion, but merely, having revealed it to the bhikkhus, does not abandon the saffron robe out of fear of royal enemies, thieves, etc., he is merely unordained and causes co-sleeping and so forth, and he is a partaker of virtue and jhānas and so forth. For this was said by the Blessed One: "By one who has incurred an offense and desires purification, the existing offense should be revealed. For when it is revealed, it is comfortable for him, for the attainment of the first jhāna," and so on (Mahavagga 134-135). Here, "existing offense" means all offenses incurred, of the types with remainder and without remainder. Even so, one who stands in the state of a householder and so forth, is a partaker of jhānas and so forth, because he stands in a pure state. But one who is suspended and not reinstated, or one who has incurred a grave offense and not risen from it, having renounced the training and standing in the state of a householder and so forth, he is not a partaker of jhānas and so forth, because he does not stand in a pure state, and because there is something to be done. Therefore, the Blessed One said, "Such a one, having been re-ordained, should be reinstated." Therefore, for that person, those impeding factors incurred during his time as a bhikkhu, by generating regret, prevent the arising of joy and so forth, which have non-regret as their root, not merely in his saffron robes. If they do not prevent it, it can arise. If, having incurred a grave offense and revealed it to the bhikkhus, he has left the Sangha, having become an ordinary person, he has left the Sangha... Therefore, having done this, he should be a partaker of jhānas and so on, because it is said, "It is comfortable for him when revealed." Just as in the time of a bhikkhu, but not one who is suspended, because there is something to be done, say some. But one who follows that (view), having abandoned that doctrine, should be a partaker. "Not, O bhikkhus, for a lay assembly (Mahāva. 154), nor for one who has renounced the training, nor for one who has fallen into a final offense, nor for an assembly that has sat down (Mahāva. 183)" - here, a householder is one who naturally remains in the lay state. One who has renounced the training, remaining in the bhikkhu state, is a "renouncer of training." He, being attached to his robes, desiring the state of a novice, becomes a novice by that very state, by the three refuges. One who has fallen into a final offense, even if he has enjoyed cohabitation, afterwards, not enjoying it in the manner previously stated, desiring the state of a novice, becomes a novice by the three refuges, like one who has renounced the training. He should not be made to receive robes again by the bhikkhus, because he remained in the state first given. But if one who is defeated, being accused of a pārājika offense, says, "Come, venerable sirs, I will become a novice, give me the refuges," it should not be said, "Good, take them." He should be established in the lay state, and then made to receive robes again and ordained. "But all this, being stated according to one's own opinion, should be taken after consideration," says the teacher. "Insertion" means the contact of the organ with the organ when inserting. "Entered" means the time of effort when inserting up to the root, at the time of completion. At the time of semen emission, the organ is "fixed." "Withdrawal" means the time of extraction. But in the Gaṇṭhipada, it is said, "The state of having ceased effort is 'fixed'," which is said to show non-confusion. Even at the times of insertion, entry, and withdrawal, semen emission occurs. The explanation of the first four (offenses) is finished. Explanation of the 269th four (offenses). 59-60. By the saying, "The dead is mostly declared," even the living, mostly declared, is indeed a pārājika offense. shows. It shows that what is entirely eaten or uprooted is an offense of grave fault. Similarly, by the saying "mostly eaten," it shows that what is considered entirely eaten or uprooted is an offense of wrong-doing. And they do not prescribe it as partially remaining. For what reason? For this training rule is a worldly fault, not a prescriptive fault. Here, "training rule" refers to a pārājika. Here, even a grave fault is a worldly fault, not a prescriptive fault. Or, both are prescribed without remainder. For, when placed at the lower limit in the domain of a pārājika, what is beyond that is indeed prescribed as a grave fault. Here, it should be understood that the domain of a grave fault is stated with a lower limit, like the domain of a pārājika. In the case of half-eaten, where the private part is eaten, that is to be understood as an offense of wrong-doing. Here it is asked: Does the Blessed One prescribe a prescriptive fault only as partially remaining? No. But we will explain it definitively, wherever possible. Why did the Blessed One not prescribe a pārājika for half-eaten? This question is unaskable, as the prescription of the Vinaya is within the Buddha's domain. This is a plausible reason here: "because the state of being half is difficult to determine." "Mostly eaten" means eaten beyond two parts of the four parts of the anus and urethra openings, up to the end of the third part. Eaten beyond the third part up to the end of the fourth part is an offense of wrong-doing. Although they say that "the private part being entirely eaten" is stated with reference to "a living body," that should be taken after investigation. In a fresh body, meaning in a new or undecomposed living human body, in the eyes, nose, etc., it is only a grave fault. In the case of animals like elephants and horses, in the nose and bladder, it is a grave fault. This is stated here with a specific meaning from the Pāli text: "If one inserts into a wrong passage through a wrong passage, there is an offense of grave fault." In the armpits, etc., it is a wrong-doing. All Even for animals, it is a dukkaṭa offense for the eyes, ears, or wounds; and for the rest of the body, it is also a dukkaṭa offense. This is in the Vinītavatthu, where it is said: “Come, venerable sir, engage in sexual intercourse.” “Enough, sister, that is not proper,” by this, the absence of sexual desire is shown. “Come, venerable sir, touch between the thighs… that monk did so,” by this, the pleasure of release is shown. Therefore, the Blessed One said: “An offense of saṅghādisesa.” “Whoever, with sexual desire, touches between the thighs, for him, it is a dukkaṭa offense,” this is stated having established the principle. For humans, touching the eyes, ears, or wounds is a thullaccaya offense; for animals, it is a dukkaṭa offense. Here, the Pāli text is difficult to understand. Therefore, “And, monks, one should not touch the private parts with a lustful mind; whoever touches, it is an offense of thullaccaya.” According to this saying, for one who touches the eyes, ears, or wounds with a lustful mind, it is a dukkaṭa offense. This principle is to be understood as the Pāli text in the Cammakkhandhaka. “‘Of a living man’— the word ‘living man’ is stated to make known that there is nothing to be said about a dead man,” so they say. But in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, although it is said, “having made the Mahāaṭṭhakathā as the body,” yet, because in other commentaries there is no phrase “with sexual desire, by mouth,”