English
what is grasped is unappropriated, an unbroken continuum, like the tips of hair, body hair, nails, and teeth, arising from kamma, causes, and seasons. Therefore it is said, "even if one hair touches another hair." Thus, in "touching another's... ...or caressing," the limbs of unappropriated remaining hairs, etc., should be understood. If it is said, "this contradicts 'one who acknowledges the touch incurs a Saṅghādisesa'," it is not so, because of knowing its meaning. Even one who perceives the fact of being touched is said to acknowledge the touch, not only by the arising of body-consciousness. Body-consciousness here is not invariable. Therefore, here, the perception of touch is not stated as a limb. For if it were stated, this situation would arise: "body-consciousness did not arise in me from the friction of hair, so I would not be considered to have incurred it, thinking 'I do not acknowledge the touch'." Some say, "a braid is associated with a string of coins, etc. There, if one intends to grasp a braid, one grasps a string of coins, etc., not hair; there is no Saṅghādisesa." This should be investigated. The commentary on the training rule concerning bodily contact is finished. 3. Commentary on the training rule concerning coarse speech. "When will your mother be pleased?" This request was stated to show the characteristic of incurring a Saṅghādisesa by coarse speech, not to show that coarse speech is only that which is associated with sexual intercourse. The phrase "one who has both sets of genitals" is a mixed statement, with a non-Saṅghādisesa matter due to the male organ. For one with both sets of genitals, the female organ is hidden, the other is manifest. If that also generates it, how do phrases like "one who has no distinguishing mark" not generate a Saṅghādisesa? Some say this, but it is not appropriate, because "distinguishing mark" is also a designation for a male. And because the characteristic is stated in the mātikā: "a Saṅghādisesa for speech associated with sexual intercourse" (Pārā. 248), a Saṅghādisesa is incurred by one who perceives the speech associated with sexual intercourse; a Thullaccaya if one does not perceive it; the other Some say: If she understands the invitation, it is a grave offense. If she does not understand, it is a minor offense. This should be considered and taken. Here it is said: When one abuses with "sikharaṇī" and so on, a mind of aversion arises. Why is "twofold feeling" said, and not "threefold feeling"? This offense is due to lust, not due to aversion. Therefore, abuse arising from lust is intended here. Thus, the statement "twofold feeling" is well said. The explanation of the training rule on coarse speech is finished. 4. Explanation of the training rule on self-service "Of the kind mentioned in coarse allusions" means capable of knowing what is coarse and what is not coarse. For praising a monk for the service of self-gratification, it is a minor offense. Even in an indirect statement like, "Give the supreme gift of sexual intercourse to him who dwells in your monastery," it is a minor offense. And some say it is because it is stated, "He should speak praise for self-service, such a virtuous one as I am." Some say that because of the presence of five factors, it is a Saṅghādisesa offense. This should be considered and taken. It is written: "In these two training rules, coarse words for self-gratification even towards yakkhas and petas are a grave offense, just as in physical contact. However, this is not found in the commentaries." (Vajira. Ṭī. Pārājika 295) But a hermaphrodite is like a eunuch. The explanation of the training rule on self-service is finished. 5. Explanation of the training rule on acting as a go-between "Alaṃvacanīyā" (fit to be spoken to) means "not to be spoken to." The word "alaṃ" here is for prohibition. "Na alaṃvacanīyā" means "not fit to be spoken to," which is "nālaṃvacanīyā." It is written that they say: "He accepts, he investigates, he brings back" (Pārā. 305) Because it is stated that it is a Saṅghādisesa offense, for whom it is definitely a Saṅghādisesa, for him, these minor offenses and grave offenses of accepting, investigating, and applying do not exist. Although here there is no Pāli text saying: "A woman means a human woman, not a yakkhi, not a peti, not an animal. A man means a human man, not a yakkha, not a peta, not an animal," nevertheless, in cases like physical contact, it is stated: "A female means a human woman" (Pārā. 285) Since the determination of a woman has been made, here too it is understood as a human woman. By the commonality of being a preliminary part of sexual intercourse, the determination of a man is indeed made by the determination of a woman. Therefore, it is said: "Those with whom there is cohabitation, their nature is that of human beings" (Kankha. Atth. Sañcaritta Sikkhapada Vannana). And in cases of bodily contact, etc., eunuchs and female yakkhas are said to be grounds for a grave offense, and so too here, due to the nature of being a eunuch, a human hermaphrodite is also a ground for a grave offense. The remaining human men, non-human eunuchs, hermaphrodites, and male animals, etc., are to be understood as grounds for a minor offense, due to the nature of being an exhibition of wrong conduct. The explanation of the Sañcaritta Sikkhapada is finished. 6. Explanation of the Kuṭikāra Sikkhapada "What, venerable sir?" Even when this much is said. It is written that one who is asked, for what purpose he entered, is allowed to state it, because it is a duty of alms-round to be asked. When asked for manual labor, one asks, "Will you give tools or money?" Is it permissible or not permissible? It is permissible, say some, because in a dwelling, light and conversation, etc., are obtained. "Three cubits," here means three cubits by a carpenter's cubit. It is written: "A bed of the right measure means a bed of nine spans by the usual span, and it does not move from there, therefore it is not four cubits wide," and so on. But for a hut, there is no need for a ground-laying ceremony, as it is said to be plastered and unplastered. "The state of being plastered, etc., ... 'it is said with reference to the roof only' is appropriate. Why? Because if one erects a wall of clay and then plasters or unplasters or both, making it adhere to the wall, there is an offense even without plastering the wall," it is written. In this way, pillars, beams, rafters, and crossbeams would be useless here. Therefore, it should be considered carefully. If one makes it thinking, "It will be an Uposatha hall, and I will also reside there," or "I will reside together with bhikkhus or novices," it is permissible. Why? It is written, "because it is said 'for oneself'." But this training rule, like the fourth pārājika, depends on the origin. For the Vaggumudā-tīriya monks did not themselves bring about and declare a superhuman quality that was not their own, which is the characteristic of false speech. For they declared the praise of superhuman qualities to one another. And not by that alone does it become a pārājika offense. But by that much of a hint, the Blessed One, making that incident the origin, enacted the pārājika. Likewise here. For in the origin it is not said, "one who has not declared the object, who is quarrelsome, who does not turn away." But because it is said, "one who is immeasurable," a saṅghādisesa offense for one who exceeds the measure is dependent on the origin. There, what appears like the possibility of a saṅghādisesa in being quarrelsome and not turning away, is not prevented in the Vibhaṅga, because it is said, "the Vibhaṅga is its regulator." Likewise for the elder. Here it is asked: "Why is the dukkaṭa offense mentioned in the mātikā? Should it not be said in the Vibhaṅga itself?" So it is. Should the monks be led to the declaration of the object? By those monks, the object should be declared. What kind? Not quarrelsome, with turning away. For the other, it is said because it comes in the sense of non-occurrence, "if a monk is quarrelsome in the object, and does not turn away." Since an object is sometimes quarrelsome and not turning away, sometimes not quarrelsome and with turning away, sometimes quarrelsome and with turning away, sometimes not quarrelsome and not turning away— being of many kinds— therefore, because it is of many kinds, it is said that the object should be declared as not quarrelsome and with turning away, and not the other. If it is asked, "What is the purpose of the declaration of the object here?" It is as a means to avoid the cause of enacting a serious offense. For not declaring the object is the cause of enacting a serious offense. Enacting a serious offense causes distress to laypeople who have not made a request. And the state of being quarrelsome is a cause of one's own suffering and others' suffering. These are avoided by the means of the declaration of the object. For monks do not for the purpose of making an improper hut, or for the purpose of distressing laypeople, or being quarrelsome. or describing the object for making a hut. And here there are— “The exposition of the matrix of offenses of wrong-doing; The causes of grave offenses are thus expounded. “By the method of expounding the object, the causes of grave offenses; Are avoided, and thereby the abandonment of strife and so forth is caused.” The description of the training rule concerning making a hut is finished. 7. The Description of the Training Rule Concerning Making a Vihāra This is non-action, due to its arising from the mere act of doing. That is, in the sense of not making an exposition. Here, the word “or” in “or bhikkhus should not be led” should be understood as having the meaning of emphasis. Since it is stated, “Venerable Channa caused a shrine tree to be cut down” (Parajika 365), this too should be understood as dependent on the origin.