English
not to approve in such a situation is difficult. Sexual intercourse. Indeed, it arises from the effort of both, because it is said, "for him, there is a dual transgression." Therefore, you should not make an effort. Thus, there will be no offense for you. For this rule is said to be an act. From the saying, "You, monk, have committed a pārājika offense," it is established that even a non-act in this rule is mostly called an "act." 73-4. They say, "If, out of fear of a pārājika offense, one performs insertion etc. by merely making it airborne, and suddenly the organ touches the palate or the side, it is only a dukkaṭa offense." Why? Because it is not from sexual desire. It should be investigated. The external state of the teeth, like the external state of the lips, is a ground for a thullaccaya offense, as it is said, "for protruding teeth and tongue, a thullaccaya." By the phrase "making that person unconscious," it is shown that such a person is called one whose mind is disturbed. But if a person is not made unconscious, and he enjoys it with the perception of a rubbing of elements, a tingling sensation, etc., due to the absence of sexual perception, he falls into the category of the unconscious, and thus a shadow of non-offense is seen for him. But if one knows, "I think this is sexual intercourse with some non-human," and enjoys it, there is an offense. "Sexual intercourse for an eunuch" means in the anus or mouth of an eunuch; it is a genitive case used in the sense of locative. Even if one does not declare it, there is an offense due to the intention of serving, just like serving with a mat. In the case of one with impaired faculties, there are two readings: "they reported this matter" and "he reported." Among these, the reading "they reported" is better, because it is said, "or he knew, O monks"; otherwise, it would have to be said, "You, monk, have committed an offense." The islanders, it is said, read "or he knew." The preliminary applications of sexual intercourse are grasping by hand, etc. Therefore, there is a connection with the preceding phrase, "it is only a dukkaṭa offense for him." And since it is only a dukkaṭa offense for him, the connection should be understood that as long as the person does not reach the head (of the act), he remains in the dukkaṭa offense. The head means the leading of the path. “If one does not reach the head, it is not a pārājika; it remains a dukkata of the preliminary effort,” is written in a certain commentary. In “bitten by a scorpion,” the perfective participle should be understood. For “bitten, stung, eaten” are essentially one in meaning. 76-7. Just as a warrior in the forefront of battle, so is this bhikkhu, thus he is called “a bhikkhu, a warrior at the head of battle.” A door of tree-thorns, to be covered over, a thorn-door to be blocked with one or many thorns. A cloth-door and a mat-door are a cloth-mat-door. All that is said by “a mat of reeds” and so on, is included and spoken of as a cloth-mat-door. Because of their similarity, it is called “one.” “On the surface of the sky” means on the surface of a mansion. “This is the summary here” is said with reference to what is now to be said. “Since it is said that they are sitting doing something, it is not proper to ask permission of those who are lying down,” they say. Although it is said without distinction, “if he does not get up at the appointed time, he incurs an offense,” only the offense of dukkata for disrespect is intended there. How is this known? Because it is said, “if he lies down having opened the door at night and gets up when dawn breaks, there is no offense.” And because it is said in the Mahāpaccariya, distinguishing, “he is not even freed from the dukkata of disrespect.” Therefore, the intention is that he is freed from the other dukkata. “If he does not get up at the appointed time, he incurs an offense”— here it is not said with reference to the dukkata of disrespect. “At the appointed time itself” implies a restriction, meaning that it is not within the period of the appointed time. Again, it is said taking a conclusion, as in the place where “he sleeps” is said. “Thus lying down” is said with reference to the dukkata to be incurred at the time of lying down. Therefore, it is said that one who gets up at the appointed time incurs two dukkatas. In the Andhakaṭṭhakathā too, “if he lies down at night without closing the door, thinking ‘I will get up during the day,’ there is an offense of dukkata for disrespect.” It is said, even here, since it is said, "lying down," and not said, "when the sun rises, rise up," it should be understood. Some say, "In the Mahāpaccariya, it is said only with reference to a minor offense of disrespect, not the minor offense mentioned in the commentaries." For him, there is no offense, because he is not actually lying down. "But if one lies down having restrained oneself at night, and at the time of sunrise someone opens it, for one who lies down without having guarded the door, etc., there is indeed an offense. Why? Because it is the field of offense," they say. Since even one possessed by a yakkha is like one who has lost consciousness, or one whose mind is disturbed, for him there is no offense of pārājika, much less any other. Therefore, what is said in the Mahāpaccariya, "Even one possessed by a yakkha, or one who has lost consciousness, is not exempt," is said with the intention that if one deliberately lay down during the day previously, then even if one is later possessed by a yakkha or has lost consciousness, one is not exempt, because the offense was incurred at the very moment of the act of lying down. One who is made to lie down by being bound is exempt. This applies not only to those possessed by yakkhas, etc.; even such a person is exempt as long as he does not himself intend to lie down. When one is tired and intends to sleep, then one should sleep after having been restrained, or having been guarded, or having made an intention; otherwise, there is an offense. If there is no suitable companion, or one does not see, or one is unable to go. After enduring for a long time, one later suffers from pain and sleeps without intention; for him, there is no offense by the saying, "no offense for one afflicted by pain." For him too, since it is not within the scope, no offense is seen. Similarly, for one who sleeps due to loss of consciousness, by the saying, "no offense for one whose mind is disturbed," no offense is seen. But the teachers do not speak thus; they do not say "no offense" without distinction. If one sleeps without regaining consciousness, since one is not in control, no offense is seen. If, however, one regains consciousness but, due to a tired body, approves of sleeping and sleeps, since one's lack of control is not seen, there is indeed an offense, they say. This is the intention. Mahāpadumatthera In the view, one seized by a demon, one with a deranged mind, is freed. Having been bound and made to lie down, because of not intending to lie down, and because of being afflicted by pain, he is freed – such is the meaning. This being so, the Pāli commentaries and the Theravāda doctrine agree. Therefore, "This very meaning for those various decisions is not acceptable to us," says the teacher. But in the sub-glosses, even one seized by a demon, even one who has become unconscious, is not freed, indeed. He is capable of committing a pārājika offense, because he intermittently regains consciousness – such is the meaning. "Or having been bound and made to lie down," by the Kurundī statement, even if lying down in one posture, is he not freed? He is freed, indeed. Why? Because in reality he is not lying down. By the Kurundī statement, the Great Commentary statement agrees. Why? Because of the commonality of not being in control. Although it agrees, but the teachers do not speak thus. Not only they, but even the Elder Mahāpaduma (said so) – to show this, "by the Elder Mahāpaduma" is stated. In the Elder Mahāpaduma's view, it is also said: "One seized by a demon is indeed incapable of committing a pārājika offense." But regarding that, the teachers speak thus: "If one overcome by sleep, even unknowingly, places his feet on the bed, it is indeed an offense, because it is said. But for him who, having fallen, lies down right there and does not get up, an offense occurs, whether intermittently knowing or intermittently not knowing." To summarize the statements made in all commentaries and to show them, "Here, who is freed, and who is not freed?" is stated. One seized by a demon, or one who has become unconscious, not only is capable of committing a pārājika, but all of them commit it. Thus, by the statement "only one bound and made to lie down is freed," because even he is not in control, they do not say "an offense is not seen." Because he is not one among the insane, the deranged, or the afflicted by pain, therefore they say, "It is indeed an offense." This, it seems, all of it did not ascend to the council. "He approves of the entry," etc. – because it is said thus, they say "even non-action occurs." That should not be taken. But when he approves, then even a subtle intimation indeed occurs – here, it seems... “It is so,” is said in the Anugaṇṭhipada. The explanation of the First Pārājika is finished. 2. The Second Pārājika The explanation of the Dhaniya story 84. In the second, because it was appropriated by kings, it obtained the name “Rājagaha.” By proximity, and by location, it obtained the locative case ending. On Gijjhakūṭa mountain, four monks were dwelling. This is the intention. Its connection with “they entered the rains” should be understood. Only three, excluding the motion, perform a communal act. Not fewer or more than that, because it would be invalid. Here, in the context of the Vinaya, for the skill in action of the Sangha, the group, and the individual,