English
the masculine gender designation is not appropriate. Therefore, the animal-man is included here, and the reason for the statement that "even for a human-bodied animal-woman, who is not included in the Pāḷi, it is merely a dukkaṭa" as stated in the commentary, should be sought. This is not appropriate. Why? Because when women and men are mentioned together, the masculine gender prevails. Here, animal-men, paṇḍakas, and women, all three, are collectively referred to as "animal." And there, among human-bodied and non-human-bodied beings, the perception of woman, paṇḍaka, and man should be understood as appropriate. In the two rules on lewd speech, etc., because the cases are abbreviated, animal-men, etc., are not included. As stated, there is an offense, and so it is there too. Otherwise, for one who speaks lewdly to a man, there is no offense, and for one who speaks lewdly to a paṇḍaka, And it is said in the commentary on the mātikā that it is a grave offense. Therefore, those cases are understood to be summarized. And there is a distinction for one who perceives a woman in an eunuch, a man, or an animal. Yet, a minor offense is stated there. Therefore, what is stated in the commentary is the standard. And regarding these two views, wherever more reason or cause is seen, that should be considered and adopted, say the teachers. In such instances, one should speak after careful consideration. Now, the enumeration of cases found in the Pāli text should be known briefly thus: Five cases based on women, and five each based on eunuchs, men, and animals, making twenty cases based on a single root. Likewise, twenty cases based on two roots, and twenty cases based on mixed roots, making sixty cases. These are three sets of twenty. In each set of twenty, taking one root case, three cases of physical contact with physical contact are stated. The remaining fifty-seven cases are summarized. Likewise, three cases of physical contact with the body are stated, the rest are summarized. Thus, in cases of physical contact with physical contact, and in cases of relinquishment with the body, and in cases of relinquishment with physical contact, and in cases of relinquishment with relinquishment, three cases each are stated, the rest are summarized. Thus, eighteen cases are stated in detail by way of six sets of three. The remaining three hundred and forty-two cases are summarized. Furthermore, in the context of lust for a woman, by adding one by one to the previously mentioned eighteen cases of physical contact with physical contact, twenty-one cases are stated in detail. Three hundred and ninety-nine cases are summarized. Furthermore, four cases indicating offenses and non-offenses, four cases based on the intention to engage, and four cases based on the intention to be free, thus two sets of four, are presented. Herein, this is the distinction: that which is the term "parāmasana" in the mātikā, by that, since all twelve terms, beginning with "āmasana" and ending with "chupana," are included, therefore, without extracting the terms, it says: "touching, fondling, grasping." "Parāmasana" means "āmasana" (touching). "Gr- "Upana" when said, touching also should be understood as a distinct unity. "She is a woman and perceives her as a woman" in this first instance, all twelve acts of touching, etc., are shown combined. Thereafter, at the beginning, two words, thus four words appear; the others should be understood as abbreviated. In the Nissaggiya section, regarding bodily actions, etc., since they are not obtained in all ways, only one act of touching appears, not the others. The reading is: "He moves, he carries," and "he moves." In the commentary sections, it is written: "In the former manner, that is, encircling with ropes, clothes, etc.," and later, "In the former manner, that is, it is a touching," and "Because an offense is prescribed for grasping a braid, a Saṅghādisesa even for touching hair," and "To explain that, 'by an appropriated object,' etc., is said." "In the explanation as pointed out" means in this very explanation as pointed out. When "he took something similar" is said, it means he took something of that kind, causing a serious matter there; this is the meaning in the section on bodily contact. The other is also a covering attached to the body. "And in taking" or "taking." "Dispassionate" means "mistaken." "Passionate" means attached with the passion for bodily contact; it means intended by oneself. "I will take a mother, sister, etc., who is dispassionate" – he took a dispassionate one out of family affection; here a dukkata is appropriate. "Or I will take a passionate one with the passion for bodily contact" – he took a dispassionate mother; he took what was not intended. Here, according to the opinion of the Elder Mahāsumana, a thullaccaya (grave offense) is incurred if, saying "I will take the body," he takes something attached to the body, because it is considered a thullaccaya. "She is a woman, and he perceives her as a woman, and she is passionate; and the bhikkhu touches her body with his body" – by this statement (Pārā. 273), a Saṅghādisesa also appears. "I will take a dispassionate one" – he takes a passionate one; even here, a Saṅghādisesa appears by the statement: "Saying 'I will touch blue,' he touches the body, a Saṅghādisesa." Here, however, "not in the initial stage due to passion for bodily contact." In the section on the knot, the reason was stated. But some say: “Fearing a grave offense, intending ‘I will touch only the blue,’ he touches the body. Since it was intended beforehand ‘I will touch what is connected to the body,’ it should be a dukkaṭa.” It is said that Elder Dhammasiri says: “In such a case, it is a Saṅghādisesa.” They say: “For a woman with a double-gendered female, and a man with a double-gendered male, the offense differs in the way stated. Even when the female organ is covered, the offense is still as if with a woman.” Commentary on the Vinīta-Vatthu 281. “Tiṇaṇḍupaka” means made by taking roots like hirivera. “Tālapaṇṇamuddika” means a finger-ring made of palm leaves. From this, it is established that a mat made of palm leaves, a waist-string, ear ornaments, and so on, are all not permissible. It is said that the inhabitants of Tambapaṇṇi draw the image of a woman and do not touch a loincloth. This is merely a quote from the source. “Ratanamissoti” means adorned with jewels, interwoven with golden vines and the like, for decoration. “Suvaṇṇena saddhiṃ yojetvā pacitvāti” means by adding gold liquid and cooking it. From seeds, from mineral rocks, and so on. The Elder says it is not permissible, because it was stated “sent to you.” It is said that it is permissible when it is said “make an offering to the cetiya.” “Bubbuḷakaṃ tārakaṃ” means a bubble, a star. Even brass (ārakūṭa) is considered like gold. This was stated in the Andhakaṭṭhakathā: “Brass is like gold, it makes gold conform, it is not to be touched.” From the saying “but for medicinal purposes it is permissible,” it is understood that even a part of the method stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā is allowed, so the intention should be understood and explained in each context. The commentary on the Training Rule concerning Physical Contact is finished. 3. Commentary on the Training Rule concerning Coarse Speech 283. In the third, three instances of Saṅghādisesa, three instances of Thullaccaya, three instances of Dukkaṭa, and three instances of Kāyapaṭibaddha are presented in their form, making twelve instances. Among these, the three Saṅghādisesa instances are stated in the second training rule, so it should be understood that these are instances from each of the three twenty-fold roots. Therefore, here... Thus, fifty cases are summarized. Otherwise, if there is a woman, and he is doubtful and lustful, and the monk, pointing to her anus or urethra, speaks praise... ...there is an offense of grave fault. If there is a woman, and he perceives her as a eunuch or an animal, and is lustful, and the monk, pointing to her anus or urethra, speaks praise or even insults, there is an offense of grave fault. If there is a eunuch, and he perceives him as a eunuch, and is lustful, and the monk, pointing to the eunuch's anus, speaks praise, there is an offense of grave fault. Otherwise, for such offenses, there would be no offense, but that is not the case. To show that for a eunuch, if he perceives him as a woman, there is a dukkaṭa, it is stated: "If there is a woman or a eunuch, and for both he perceives them as a woman, there is an offense of Sanghādisesa (for the woman) and dukkaṭa (for the eunuch)." Thus, it is as if "for a eunuch, if he perceives him as a eunuch, there is a grave fault" has been stated. Therefore, in all summarized cases, where there is a grave fault, a grave fault is stated; where there is a dukkaṭa, a dukkaṭa is also stated, this should be understood. Similarly, "If there is a woman, and he is doubtful and lustful, and the monk, setting aside her anus and urethra, points to her armpit or above her kneecap, and speaks praise..." "...there is a grave fault." In this way, cases of grave fault should be extracted as appropriate. Similarly, "If there is a woman, and he is doubtful and lustful, and the monk, pointing to something connected to her body, speaks praise..." "...there is a dukkaṭa." In this way, cases related to the body should be extracted as appropriate. Like the three cases related to the body, even if three cases related to Nissaggiya are obtainable, they are not extracted due to the absence of specific offenses. However, since the method has been given for the three cases related to the body, those and analogous cases should also be extracted. Everywhere, an unknowing young girl, an old woman, an insane person, and so on, are not intended, much less ordinary animal women, and eunuchs and so on, this should be understood. That's it. The rest should be understood