English
"Because of having contracted feet in the middle" explains the reason for having clubfeet, and "because of having contracted feet at the front" for clubfeet. The manner of walking of a clubfooted person is "walking on the front of the foot." "By the outer edge of the foot" and "by the inner edge" refer to walking on both edges of the sole. "Mammana" means faltering speech, one who says the same letter four or five times; this is a designation for him, speech with unclear letters due to the absence of proper articulation. He is called "mammana" by imitating his speech. And one who, even with proper articulation, says the same letter with many hiccups, is also included here. But one who, even after suppressing that, is able to speak with loose, smooth, unrepeated letters, should be ordained. "They are not freed from an offense" means that those who act knowingly are not freed. In dangers such as threats to life, there is no offense for one who unwillingly offers bodily cooperation. 135. In discussions of "unfit persons," some say, "One who is a woman in the dark half of the month and a man in the bright half, this is a 'pakkhapaṇḍaka' (half-month eunuch)." In the commentary, however, it says, "In the dark half of the month, he is a eunuch, but in the bright half, he has a burning sensation." is extinguished.” Since the cessation of burning is mentioned only for the non-eunuch side, it is understood that on the eunuch side, there is excessive burning, leading to the state of being a eunuch. Having investigated this, the more appropriate interpretation should be taken. “Abhāvaka” means “one for whom there is no female state or male state.” Regarding the statement, “In that very case, his ordination is prohibited,” it is said in all three knot-points: “He should be ordained if he is not a eunuch, and he should be expelled if he is a eunuch.” Some, however, say: “If one ordained as a non-eunuch attains the destruction of defilements, he should not be expelled.” That is merely their opinion. For a eunuch, the destruction of defilements is impossible, and one who has destroyed defilements does not fall into the state of being a eunuch. In the discourse on rebirth without root causes, the state of being a eunuch is generally stated as rebirth without root causes. And they say that for those who are eunuchs due to semen, jealousy, or the dark half of the month, the state of being a eunuch exists from the very moment of rebirth, not just in the course of life. Therefore, in the description of rebirth without root causes, a eunuch is not specifically mentioned with the word “birth” like those born blind or deaf. And in the commentary on the fourth pārājika (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.233), when showing the incapable individuals, it is stated generally in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.109) that eunuchs, animals, and hermaphrodites—these three, whose basis is corrupted, have rebirth without root causes; their going to heaven is not prohibited, but the path is prohibited. However, in the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. Ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.109), in the case of eunuchs, all three—eunuchs due to semen, jealousy, and the dark half of the month— are said to be reborn without root causes, possessing male characteristics and so on. And because of the strength of the defilements that beset them, they are called “eunuchs,” similar to impotent eunuchs. Among these, for the two—eunuchs due to semen and jealousy— the defilements that beset them can be restrained by proper attention and so on. Therefore, it is said that they should be ordained. But for a eunuch of the dark half of the month, the burning of defilements comes over him like madness in the dark half of the month, and it only ceases after transgression. Therefore, in that case, he should not be ordained. It is said to be expelled. To show this distinction, "for whom by others" is said. There, for one who has been sprinkled, for one whose mouth has been sprinkled, even for oneself, by the discharge of impurity, the fever subsides. When envy arises, that is, when the desire-lust to serve oneself arises due to envy, by the discharge of impurity, the fever subsides. Because it is said "seeds removed," if only the mere mark is removed while the seeds remain, one is not a paṇḍaka. Even for a bhikkhu, if there is no illness, in its removal, it is merely a grave offense, not paṇḍaka-hood. But when the seeds are removed, the sexual organ is not functional due to lust, masculinity disappears, male characteristics like a beard also disappear, and ordination also disappears. The fever of defilements also becomes an irresistible transgression, like that of an impotent paṇḍaka. Therefore, they say that even such an ordained person should be expelled. If so, why is a pārājika offense not laid down for the removal of seeds? Here, some say, "This has indeed been laid down by the Blessed One, because it is said, 'Monks, a paṇḍaka who is not ordained should not be ordained; one who is ordained should be expelled.'" But some say, "Because at the moment of seed removal, one is not a paṇḍaka, therefore, at that moment, a pārājika is not laid down. But because that bhikkhu with removed seeds later, in the manner described, becomes a paṇḍaka, becomes one without being, is not a suitable subject for ordination, and from that very point his ordination ceases, therefore, from the time of becoming a paṇḍaka, he is linked with a naturally impotent paṇḍaka and is said to be 'one who is ordained should be expelled,' and is incapable, not before that. And although this one has a cause, due to the cessation of his being, resembling one without a cause, the path also does not arise for him," they say. Others, however, say, "It is with reference to one who has become a paṇḍaka by an act before going forth that it is said, 'one who is ordained should be expelled'; but for one who is ordained, his ordination does not cease by an act later." That is not suitable. For by which means, before going forth, by an act, he becomes incapable... then it should be understood by examining that it is also at the end. There is no such state as this, so it is a non-existent one. Where it is said "ordination is not prevented," by the mention of ordination, higher ordination is also included. Therefore it is said, "for whom ordination is prevented here," and so on. Where it is said, "ordination is prevented in that very faction of his," in the faction of the aṇḍhaka, only mere ordination is obtained, but higher ordination is not allowed even then. However, in the faction of the paṇḍaka, it is said that if he has come, he should be expelled by the removal of his gender. 136. "He has both signs," so "ubhatobyañjanaka" (hermaphrodite) is an external compound with an unequal grammatical relation, and it shows the non-elision of the case ending in the first word. Here, "sign" refers to the male sign and the female sign. Now, does a hermaphrodite have only one faculty, or two? It has only one, not two. If it is asked, "How is this known?" It is because in the Abhidhamma, the arising of two states of faculties in one continuum is denied: "If the female faculty arises in someone, does the male faculty arise in him? No. Or if the male faculty arises in someone, does the female faculty arise in him? No." And that is, for the female hermaphrodite, the female faculty; for the male hermaphrodite, the male faculty. If so, the absence of the second sign would follow, for the faculty is said to be the cause of the sign, and that is not present in him? It is said: His faculty is not the cause of the second sign. Why? Because of its constant absence. For when a female hermaphrodite's lustful thought for a woman arises, the male sign becomes manifest, and the female sign is hidden and concealed. Similarly, for the other, the other. And if their faculty were the cause of the second sign, both signs would always be present, but they are not. Therefore, it should be understood that "that is not the cause of that sign for him, but rather, the lustful thought itself, aided by kamma, is the cause." is the cause." And because there is only one faculty for him, therefore, a female hermaphrodite herself conceives, and causes others to conceive. A male hermaphrodite causes others to conceive, but does not herself conceive. This is stated in the Sāratthadīpanī. However, in the Vimativinodanī, "female hermaphrodite" means one endowed with the female faculty. The other is endowed with the male faculty. For one being, two states do not arise simultaneously, as rejected in the Yamaka. The second characteristic, however, arises without a state, only by a mind of unwholesome karma as an assistant. Even for ordinary women and men, karma itself is the cause of the characteristics and signs, not the state, since its causality by any condition is not stated in the Paṭṭhāna. Merely to show the occurrence of characteristics and signs accompanied by a state, it is said in the commentaries, "dependent on the female faculty, female signs, etc.," thus stating the faculty as the cause of the characteristics. Here, however, it should be understood that by the power of unwholesome karma, the characteristic arises even without the faculty. And for both of those hermaphrodites, when lust arises in the female, the male characteristic becomes manifest, the other is concealed. When lust arises in the male, the female characteristic becomes manifest, the other is concealed. This is stated. 137. "One who cohabits by stealth" means a thief of cohabitation. And here, not merely a thief of cohabitation is intended, but also a thief of the characteristic and of both. Therefore, it says, "three thieves of cohabitation," etc. "Does not accept salutation according to seniority" means he does not accept salutation from monks or novices according to their seniority. "Accepts salutation according to seniority" means having told a lie himself,