English
and it is only found there, that phrase is stated to show it in comparison with the Pāli text. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is also said: “All of that— in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā itself, if one touches a woman’s private parts without inserting, with sexual desire, it is a thullaccaya offense.” “With sexual desire, by mouth,” is also found somewhere. In the Pāli, without distinction, it is said: “And, monks, one should not touch the private parts with a lustful mind.” Therefore, “all of that” is said. They praise the former, because it is compared with the commentary statements such as: “for animals… in the manner stated, it is a thullaccaya offense; with desire for bodily contact, it is a dukkaṭa offense.” “All of that… they praise the former.” This is… After the council, by the teachers of Sri Lanka, the decision was made, it is said, by comparing the words stated in the Pāli and the commentaries. Here, "otherwise" means in the usual way. If it is asked, "Why is it a dukkaṭa?" It is appropriate because it is said, "For one who inserts fingers, seeds, etc., it is a dukkaṭa." Regarding "the urinal passage of a female animal" here, even in the Great Commentary, having previously said "sign," because "urinal passage" is said here, it seems appropriate that for the remaining signs, it is a dukkaṭa. "In the manner stated" means with sexual desire. And "thullaccaya" (grave offense) in the Khandhaka, because it comes in the context of the urinal sign, it should be understood after careful examination. The explanation of the 279th catukka story is finished. Explanation of the Santhata-catukka-bhedaka story 61-2. "Making a stump of the female organ" means inserting a stump into the female organ, or making it flat, for one who rubs the excess stump, it is a dukkaṭa due to the absence of insertion. If one touches the stump that is slightly inserted with the sexual organ, it is a pārājika. The island dwellers also recite, it is said, "The scent of a lotus, the state of a lotus." "In a sleeping monk" means, as in (Pārā. 57), "the intention to engage in sexual activity arises." And they also recite, "In a monk who has slept," that is straightforward. The explanation of the Santhata-catukka-bhedaka story is finished. The explanation of the word-division is finished. Explanation of Miscellaneous Stories In the miscellaneous section, those training rules called "actions," in their context, body and speech are to be understood with communication. In the context of non-actions, they are to be understood without communication, and here the mind is immeasurable because the arising of a truthful declaration is an action, and because it is without mind. There, actions are to be understood as arising from the immediate mind of the offense. Even something that does not generate communication is sometimes called an "action" by way of abundance, just as this first pārājika, even in the absence of communication, it is indeed said, "If he consents, there is an offense of pārājika," and "If he does not consent, there is no offense." Communication-related Even an action does not exist without the thought of serving, because it is mind-born, because it is a modification of form, and because it follows the mind. Therefore, this form of communication, called action, like other mind-born forms, does not stand without the generating mind, whereas other sound-objects do stand. Therefore, when there is an action, to conclude that there must certainly be the generating thought of serving, and to say "it is not accepted, there is no offense" is not reasonable. Because the thought of serving, even though it generates communication, does not always generate communication. Therefore, concluding that it arises by itself even without communication, it is said: "It is accepted, there is an offense of pārājika." If it does not arise, it is not accepted, for him there is no offense. For this reason, the Blessed One, by asking "What is your intention, monk?" determines the offense by the mind itself, not by the action, so it should be understood. In this way, the six origins of offenses, and that these are called the offense-causing phenomena, and that one incurs an offense in four ways: by body, by speech, by body and speech, or by formal declaration, these Sutta passages are not contradicted; otherwise they would be contradicted. How? For if one incurs an offense by formal declaration, it is not incurred there by body and so on. Then, along with formal declaration, the offense-causing phenomena would be seven. But then, even there, body and so on are obtained, either together or separately. "In four ways" would not be appropriate; it should be said: "one incurs an offense in three ways." In this way, they would be contradicted. How are they not contradicted? Because body and so on are distinguished by the division into communicative and non-communicative. The offense which is an action, one incurs some of it by communicative body, some by communicative speech, some by communicative body and speech. But the offense which is a non-action, one incurs some of it by formal declaration, and indeed that is by the remaining non-communicative body and speech, not without them, according to the saying: "If one does not give it up by body or speech, at the conclusion of the formal declaration, there is an offense of saṅghādisesa." (Pārā. 414, 421) Without distinction. or one incurs some offense by body, some by speech, some by body and speech. What is here by body and speech, that one incurs some by pure body and speech, some by formal declaration. This meaning should be understood, thus they are not contradictory. Here is a brief explanation of the meaning: "Incurs by body" means by the body, which is volitional, doing what should not be done, one incurs some; not doing what should be done, which is non-volitional, one incurs some; both of these are called bodily action. For even what is not done is called "done" in the world, as in "This is ill-done by me, that I did not do merit," and so on; and in the Dispensation, "This, friend Ānanda, is ill-done by you, that you did not ask the Blessed One," and so on. Thus, in this context of the Vinaya, even what should not be done by the body is called "bodily action." The same method applies to "incurs by speech," and so on. The taking of "origin" here is to show that one incurs an offense only with respect to the distinction of body, etc., as to what should be done or what should not be done, and not otherwise. The taking of "action" is to show the distinction of body, etc., as volitional and non-volitional. The taking of "perception" is to show the distinction of the mind as an ingredient or non-ingredient of the offense. Thereby, the mind that is established in the characteristic of action or in the characteristic of non-action, from which action or non-action arises, is not, without distinction, an ingredient or non-ingredient of the offense. Rather, it is shown that the mind associated with that perception by which "perception-release" is called, is an ingredient, the other is a non-ingredient. Now, by which mind a training rule is with mind, and by the absence of which it is without mind, by that, its blameworthiness without distinction is called "worldly blame." But the taking of "worldly blame" is to show that even though it is blameworthy, some is worldly blame and some is disciplinary blame. Since mind itself is called "worldly blame," to prevent the undesirable consequence that mental action might also be an offense, the taking of "action" is used. What is here action with the characteristic of non-action, Lest it be free From the wholesome triad, The wholesome triad is taken To prevent An undesirable outcome. And here, The undetermined offense, Some commit it Even without feeling, Having attained cessation Of perception and feeling. Thus, the feeling triad Is not found here. It should be known That the feeling triad is taken To prevent An undesirable outcome. For the training rule, By way of a conscious person, It is called 'Threefold consciousness, Threefold feeling.' Even if committed By one without consciousness, It is still called 'Threefold consciousness, Threefold feeling.' In this regard, the Sutta says: 'There is an offense, One without consciousness Commits it, One without consciousness Arises.' (Pari. 324) 'There is an offense, One with wholesome consciousness Commits it, One with wholesome consciousness Arises.' (Pari. 470) And so forth. But in the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said: 'Perception always Makes no offense, Consciousness makes an offense. That which is without consciousness Is not knowing the object, It is not a release from perception, Nor is it knowing the transgression. This is the difference Among them.' 'By way of including all,' Means including All training rules. For a bhikkhunī, Giving robes and so on, It is by action And non-action. Receiving gold and silver And so on, It is by action. In rejecting a deposit, It is by non-action. In making a hut Exceeding the measure With a designated site, It is by action. In making one exceeding the measure Without a designated site, It is by action And non-action. 'Whatever mental factor Is obtained,' Means thus: Body-consciousness, Speech-consciousness. 'Even without consciousness' here means 'Even without consciousness, And also with consciousness.' That body, Which is said to be Volitional and non-volitional, Its action is bodily action, And likewise verbal action. There, the volitional body Accomplishes action by arising, The other by not arising. Likewise, speech should be understood. 'Training rule' means That which is involved In transgression, As it is said: 'That which is a name-body, A word-body.' 'Even the arising of laughter And the act of determining Are consciousnesses That give rise to offenses. When one sees, laughing, "This too was not determined by me," Then the determination Is swift-moving,'