English
only a thullaccaya, etc., is obtained there. Showing another supporting reason for the decision stated by Elder Upatissa, he said, "and so on." If even a small line of flesh remains on the mark, that is mostly visible. But beyond that, when the mark is completely eaten away, it is only a dukkaṭa, showing this, he said, "Beyond that, there is no thullaccaya." Some here, dividing the urinary passage, etc., into four parts, say, "Having passed two of those parts, up to the end of the third part, if it is eaten away, it is called mostly eaten away. Beyond that, there is no thullaccaya. Up to the end of the fourth part, if it is eaten away, that too is only a dukkaṭa offense." That is not suitable. It is understood that it should be known only in a dead body, as stated by the phrase "mostly visible," and so on. Although "mark," and so on, is said with reference to a living body, because it is more emphasized. Therefore, in the Mātikā commentary (Kaṅkhā. Aṭṭha. First Pārājika explanation), it is said, "Even if the skin, etc., of a living body is completely cut away without remainder in the manner described in the passage," and so on. "Completely eaten away" means all the flesh of the mark is cut. "Shape of the mark" means the hole-like inner skin, like the female mark, inside the cut flesh, up to the bladder, by which it is said, "penetration occurs." "Without leaving the shape of the mark" means without leaving the inner flesh, etc., which is in the form of a hole suitable for penetration. By this, it shows that as long as penetration is possible, it is still the passage. "A piece of flesh fallen from a mark" – this refers to an internal piece of flesh devoid of the mark's shape. But if it is a piece of flesh removed by cutting all around without disturbing the mark's shape, then for one who approaches it as if it were a clearly visible mark on a dead body, it is a pārājika offense. Having thus shown the distinction found in the body of a living human, now to show it in a dead body, he says, "But in a dead body," and so on. "In the sheaths of the bladder" – this refers to the skin of the male genitals. Because of the saying, "The nine-doored great wound," and so on, the eyes, nose, etc., of humans are, in brief, wounds, and are fields for a grave offense. Thus, a grave offense is stated for these, even in the dead body of a human. Therefore, he says, "in a dead, moist body," and so on. There, "moist body" refers to one not decomposed. "Field for a pārājika" refers to what is mostly visible. "Field for a grave offense" refers to what is half visible, and so on. And here, it should be understood that even in the grave offense fields like eyes and nose, if mostly visible, it is a grave offense; if half visible, and so on, it is a dukkaṭa offense. "Of all" is said to include other animals besides the elephants, etc., mentioned. That a dukkaṭa offense occurs in the eyes, ears, and wounds of animals should be taken as authoritative from the commentaries. For it is stated generally, "If one inserts into a wrong passage a wrong passage, there is an offense of grave offense," and not specified as "of humans." If indeed a grave offense were only for human wounds, then it would not be said that a grave offense occurs, in brief, as a wound, in the nose and bladder sheaths of elephants and horses, etc., and in the mouth-shape of a frog, yet it is said. Therefore, the commentary teachers are the authority here. "Of dead animals" is connected with "dead." He says that a grave offense is stated for one who inserts into the bladder sheath with sexual passion, "if one does not insert into the bladder sheath." And sexual passion means the passion for bodily contact and the release of pleasure. Lust, having distinguished it, arises from the coming together of two. And that arises even in men and so forth. And by that, for one approaching a woman's body in the field of the pārājika, even if impure fluid is released, there is no saṅghādisesa. It should be understood that only a grave offense or minor offense, appropriate to the field, occurs. By 'not inserting', it is shown that even without the intention of insertion into the three passages, external rubbing with sexual lust is possible. For that very reason, a grave offense is stated. Otherwise, for one touching externally with the intention of insertion, it would be a minor offense, being a preparatory act for sexual intercourse. 'Touching organ with organ is a grave offense' – and this is said in accordance with the Sutta that appears in the Khandhaka on Leather, which states: 'And, monks, the private part should not be touched with a lustful mind. Whoever touches, there is an offense of grave offense.' And there, showing the seed of another interpretation for some, he says, 'But in the Great Commentary...' and so forth. By 'touching with the mouth', it refers to touching with mouth parts such as lips and tongue. By 'grossness', it means the grossness of the transgression. By 'spoken with reference to that', it refers to that Sutta mentioned above. For the Sutta, having been spoken with reference to the transgression, is called 'spoken with reference to that'. By 'having carefully considered', it means having carefully considered, according to one's ability, the possibility of touching the private part with the mouth of the organ for those mounting from behind, and the suitability of touching with the organ for those with sexual lust, and the fact that 'with the mouth' is not stated in the Sutta, and other methods. By 'saṅghādisesa', it is said with reference to a human woman. By 'urinary passage', this is said in the Cammakkhandhaka by way of cause. But the other two passages, for one touching with the mouth of the organ, briefly, it is only a grave offense. By 'in the manner stated', it means only with sexual lust. But without sexual lust, with the mouth of the organ, for one touching the urinary passage of a human woman or an animal female with the natural mouth, it is only a minor offense. as if touching, otherwise, even there, it would be a grave offense, and that is not proper, as it is not stated so in the Khandhaka Sutta. "A dukkaṭa due to lustful bodily contact" means that if one touches with lustful bodily contact, either by way of a sign or by way of the natural body, or by way of another body, it is a dukkaṭa. Here, if one, intending to touch an external object with lustful bodily contact, unknowingly touches the private parts, which are the field for a pārājika, what happens there? Some say, "Since there is no lust for sexual intercourse, it is a saṅghādisesa for a human female, and in other cases, depending on the object, it is a thullaccaya or dukkaṭa." Others, however, say, "Since there is a possibility of enjoying the contact at the moment of penetration, it is a pārājika, just as in the case of forceful penetration." This latter view is more appropriate. For, a difference in offense due to lustful bodily contact, etc., is found only in places other than the three paths, not in the three paths. There, however, at the moment of enjoying the contact in any way whatsoever, it is a pārājika. Therefore, in cases of penetration, etc., by another's action, a pārājika is stated simply by enjoying it, without distinguishing the type of lust. Description of the fourfold division of the mat 61-2. "For one who is practicing" means for one who has begun vipassanā. "Appropriated" is said with reference to the body faculty. "Touches with what is appropriated" should be understood in the sense of "is touched by an appropriated body," by means of the agent of the action. Or, the meaning is that a bhikkhu acting thus does not touch anything appropriated with what is appropriated. "They will lay down a trace" means they will establish a trace, they will conceive. "Having divided by the distinctions of mat, etc." means having specified by the distinctions of mat, etc. "Of the mat" is a designation of a part for the whole, as in "the hole of the burnt cloth," etc. Just as only a part of the cloth is actually called "burnt," and that designation of a part is metaphorically applied to the whole cloth, and then that whole is referred to as "the hole of the burnt cloth" due to its connection with the burnt part, similarly here, the path of a woman This term, applied to a woman as a whole, then that woman is made "connected to the covered path," and it is said, "by the excrement path of the covered woman," and so on. In the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Pārājikakaṇḍa 2.61-62), it is said here, "the term for the whole is used for a part," that is not appropriate, because by the term for the part, the whole is understood. Otherwise, the feminine gender and the connection to the path in "by the excrement path of the covered woman" would not be. But the figurative use of the whole for a part means only the part, as in "when a branch is cut, the tree is cut," and so on. "Having wrapped around" is said with reference to wrapping clothes etc. outside, without inserting them into the path. It is said that even a bhikkhu is called "covered" by the figurative use of a part for the whole, and so on. "As much as is inserted" means as much as a sesame seed is inserted. Even if eyes, nose, etc., are covered, it is as the case stands, he says, "a grave offense in the area of grave offense," and so on. "For one who strikes a stake, it is a dukkaṭa (minor offense)." If one inserts a stake into the female organ and strikes a stake that is level or protruding, for the one striking, it is a dukkaṭa due to lack of insertion. But if one touches with the organ the tip of a stake, which is not taken up (by the body) and is slightly inserted into a wet place, it is a pārājika (defeat). "Its bottom" means the inner bottom of bamboo, reed, etc. "An external stake" is said with reference to the tip protruding outside from an inserted bamboo joint, etc.