English
By "A madman renounces the training," "from a madman," and so on, it shows the person-rule. And by "he does not understand," and so on, it shows the absence of renunciation due to the absence of the understanding-rule. By "in sport," and so on, due to the absence of the intention-rule. By "desiring to make known, he does not make known," due to the absence of the expression-rule. By "he makes known to one who does not understand, he does not make known to one who understands," it means that to whomever he intends to make known, only by that person's hearing does it come to fruition, not by another's. But "if he does not make known at all, the training is not renounced" is said to show that renunciation of the training occurs only by the intention and other rules, not otherwise. Therefore, knowing the renunciation of the training by way of intention, field, time, expression, person, and understanding, its non-renunciation should be understood by their absence. How? Renunciation of the training occurs only by the intention of desiring to fall away from the state of having received ordination, not by speaking in sport or in jest. Thus, renunciation of the training occurs by intention, not by its absence. Similarly, by the utterance of any of these twenty-two field-terms— the fourteen mentioned, from "the Buddha" to "fellow celibates," and the eight mentioned, from "hold me as a layperson" to "not a Sakyan son"— renunciation of the training occurs even if one says something while intending to say something else. Thus, renunciation of the training occurs by field, not by its absence. Therein, that which is "I renounce" and "Hold me as such" - these are present tense words spoken. And those four words, "Enough for me with the Buddha," "What is the Buddha to me?" "I have no need of the Buddha," "I am well rid of the Buddha," and so on, spoken in an indicative manner, without specifying time, combined with the previous fourteen terms, these four words, "Enough for me," and so on. By these very words and their synonyms, renunciation occurs. But not for one who says, "You renounce," or "I will renounce," or "You hold me," or "You will hold me," or "Oh, that I might renounce," and so on, which are past, future, or hypothetical words. Thus, renunciation occurs by present tense words and by words not specifying time, not by their absence. The act, however, is of two kinds: physical and verbal. Therein, renunciation occurs only by a verbal act, by making a distinction of speech in any language, saying "I renounce the Buddha," and so on. Not by writing letters or showing hand gestures or other physical acts. Thus, renunciation occurs only by a verbal act, not by its absence. The person, however, is of two kinds: the one who renounces, and the one to whom one renounces. Therein, if the one who renounces is not one of those who are mad, deranged, or suffering from pain, and if the one to whom one renounces is a human being, not one of those who are mad, etc., and is present, then the renunciation of training occurs. For informing one who is not present, by messenger or by letter, is not valid. Thus, renunciation occurs according to the aforementioned persons, not by their absence. Understanding, too, is of two kinds: specified and unspecified. Therein, if one specifies to whom one is informing, saying, "I inform this one" or "these ones," if they, like ordinary people in the world, hear the words and understand at the time of attention, then immediately after his words, a human being, by whatever means, understands "This one is discontented" or "This one desires the lay state." He knows the meaning, then the training is renounced. But later, thinking "What was said by this one?" they come to know, or others come to know, then it is not renounced. However, for one who declares without specifying, if any human being knows the meaning of the words in the way stated, the training is renounced. Thus, renunciation occurs by way of knowing, not by its absence. Therefore, it should be understood that the renunciation of training occurs only by means of these aforementioned states of mind, etc., and not otherwise. The method of explaining the renunciation of training is finished. Explanation of the Root Precept 55. "From this point onwards" means starting from the coarse word. To show that sexual intercourse is coarse by its very nature, and also coarse because it is surrounded by coarse acts like looking, "because" and so on was stated. "Avassutānaṃ" means those soaked with sexual desire. "Pariyuṭṭhitānaṃ" means those whose minds are overwhelmed by sexual desire. Because the word "methuna" is a synonym for similar words, "sadisānaṃ" (of those who are similar) was stated; the meaning is "similar by being attached," and so on. And this was stated mostly because even if one of the two lacks desire, the other's act of sexual intercourse is accomplished. Or the word "methuna" is a synonym for "both"; for "methuna," "yugaḷaṃ" (pair), "yamakaṃ" (twin), "ubhayaṃ" (both) are essentially one in meaning. Therefore, it says "of both who are attached." For "entering into pairs" is also stated in the Pāli. "Nimittena" is an instrumental case word in the locative sense; the meaning is "he inserts his own organ into the female organ." "Nimitta" and "aṅgajāta" (genital organ) are essentially one in meaning. "Tilaphalaṃ" (sesame fruit) refers to a sesame seed the size of a mustard seed, not a fruit with a husk. Therefore, it says "even the size of a sesame seed." "Allokāse" (in an open space) refers to a moist area of the naturally covered organ, not touched by ordinary wind. Even if such an area dries out due to some disturbance like wind, it is still not an "open space," and thus it is a pārājika offense by way of effort. "Vemajjhaṃ" (middle) means the inner surface of the female organ, which has been opened, in such a way that he inserts without touching the four sides. Male- "In the middle" means referring to the tip. "Above" is the very tip, like the back of the middle joint of a contracted finger, when the organ is inserted by contracting its middle joint. "Inserting below" means inserting so that it touches the lower part of the female organ, so that the lower surface of the moist area of the female organ is touched by one's own organ, even if only by a sesame seed's worth. Here, touching is inserting, and similarly in other cases. "Inserting in the middle" means inserting so that it touches the inner surface, so that it touches the inner surface. If one inserts without touching anywhere and withdraws it while it is still in the air, there is no pārājika, but there is a dukkaṭa, as in the case of the severed head (Pārā. 73). "Inserting so that it touches only in the middle" means inserting so that it touches with the tip. "Contracting with the back of the middle joint" means inserting while touching the upper part, having contracted the organ with the back of one's middle joint. "Like what?" The connection is "like a contracted finger." Or, the connection is "like a contracted finger with the back of the middle joint," or it should be connected as "like inserting a contracted finger with the back of the middle joint." "By the upper part" means by the upper tip of the contracted organ. Now, referring to the sixth position, "above," among the six mentioned below for the male organ, taking four sides separately, he says "there" and so on, showing a ten-position distinction in the male organ. However, six positions were mentioned below by way of grasping what was not grasped. "Even for one inserting like a balance beam" means for one inserting straight without contracting. "A skin peg" is a skin growth on the organ, like on the neck of a sheep or other animal; they also call it "a woolly knot." By saying "destroyed bodily sensitivity" instead of "impaired bodily sensitivity," it means that even if bodily sensitivity is impaired by some condition, when there is an acquired state, as in the case of impaired faculties (Pā shows that it is a pārājika, like (Pārā. 73). Even if the female organ is destroyed, if it is still appropriated, like a dead body, its nature as a pārājika field is not lost, it should be understood. By 'sexual pleasure' (methunassādena) this is said to be a Saṅghādisesa when there is lust for bodily contact. 'Seeds' (bījāni) are testicles (aṇḍāni). By 'covering the mouth' (mukhaṃ apidhāya), even a laugh arising from carelessness, without even covering it with a fan, sitting is said to be disrespectful. Or, 'by covering' means having covered, the meaning is that one should not sit laughing with the mouth covered by a fan. By 'showing the teeth' (dantavidaṃsakaṃ) means showing the teeth. By 'conceited' (gabbhitena) means not shrinking from 'improper talk', the meaning is being enthusiastic in speaking out one's entire intention. Explanation of the Subsequent Rule By 'being the basis for a pārājika' (pārājikavatthubhūtā), those in whose three paths there is an opening for the organ, even as small as a sesame seed, all such, male and female, are included, not others. Here, however, in accordance with the Pāli phrase 'to an animal', it is spoken in the feminine gender, by 'not all' and so on. Gonasā are a type of snake, which have very large circles on their backs. Even though tortoises and frogs are quadrupeds, they are included with legless creatures due to their common aquatic nature. By 'mouth-shape' (mukhasaṇṭhānaṃ) is meant the shape of the lip-skin. By 'summary of wounds' (vaṇasaṅkhepaṃ) is meant a collection of wounds. And a grave offense regarding a wound should be understood according to this Sutta (Pārā. 66): ‘If one inserts an improper thing into an improper place, there is an offense of grave fault.’ Maṅgusā are mongooses. By 'this very meaning' (etameva hi atthaṃ) is meant this meaning: 'whoever falls into it, him it defeats', because this supplementary verse occurs in the context of explaining