English
"Hostile people bring a human woman to a monk and make her sit down with her sexual organ in his excretory path; if he consents to the insertion," and so on, in this manner, the origin from non-action is also stated. Therefore, even for the first offense of defeat, the origin from action should be understood primarily in the sense of the majority. For, in consenting to insertion and so on, the origin from action is not seen. And here, the movement of the sexual organ should not be taken as essential, because when it is said, "If he does not consent to the insertion, does not consent to what is inserted, does not consent to what is staying, but consents to the withdrawal, he incurs an offense of defeat," in this case, in not consenting to what is staying, there is naturally full movement. And here, the movement of engaging due to consent is not seen at all. Therefore, the origin from action should be taken primarily in the sense of the majority. Moreover, even for a bhikkhuni, in the first offense of defeat, since that consent is stated in its own form, without looking at the method of the Vibhaṅga in a corresponding way, it is simply called "origin from action." Just as in these cases, the origin from action is stated in the sense of the majority, so too, the drinking of intoxicants is to be drunk only with unwholesome intention. Otherwise, if it were said, "That which is incurred only with unwholesome intention is a worldly offense; the rest are disciplinary offenses," then the definition of worldly offenses and disciplinary offenses would be established. If, instead of saying that, it were said, "That in whose conscious aspect the mind is only unwholesome is a worldly offense; the rest are disciplinary offenses," then the word "worldly offense" would be meaningless, because even in the aspect of not knowing the object, it is to be drunk only with unwholesome intention. Because there, in the transgression of drinking intoxicants, there is no arising of unwholesome consciousness, therefore, in the Khandhaka commentary, it is said: "But in the case of drinking alcohol, a monk, even unknowingly, drinking alcohol from the very seed, incurs an offense of expiation. A novice, drinking knowingly, incurs a breach of precepts." not knowing," (Mahāva. Aṭṭha. 108) is said, it is not said, "even if there is a thought-moment similar to the unwholesome thought-moment that brings about the success of offenses like taking life, in the case of not knowing the object, the novice does not break the precepts." The word "attachment" (abhinivesa) is due to the drinking of intoxicants by novices having the same course as taking life and so on. "Intoxicating liquor and fermented liquor" (surāmerayaṃ) there is no impossibility of unwholesomeness for one who transgresses by knowing the object and intending to drink it. Therefore, it is said, "in the case where it is with intention," and so on. What is more here – if it is said that because arahants do not enter into it by way of reasoning, there is a fixed rule of unwholesomeness in cases with intention and without intention? No, because even trainees (sekkhā) do not enter into it by way of nature. To show the absence of a fixed rule of unwholesomeness in cases without intention, drops of intoxicant and so on should be exemplified, like drops of water put into the mouth of one who is sleeping. For when the meaning is taken predominantly, the commentary agrees with the Pāli, both in earlier and later parts. Teachers also say that there is no fixed rule of unwholesomeness in drinking intoxicants. Some, however, say that its origin in action is only by way of predominance, not in the first pārājika. How? The training rule of bodily contact has its origin in the first pārājika. Here, when there is bodily contact between a bhikkhu and a bhikkhunī, even if the bhikkhunī does not move a limb of her body, she assents with her mind and incurs an offense; the bhikkhu does not. The bhikkhu, however, incurs an offense only by moving; similarly, in the first pārājika too, one incurs an offense only when there is movement, not when there is none. "He desires penetration" (pavesanaṃ sādiyati) – here, desiring penetration means generating the thought of engaging in sex, or desiring one who is on the path or on the way to the path. Even for her, bodily movement is absolutely present. Even so, it is written that they say it should be taken after investigation. The explanation of the Pārājika is finished. The Saṅghādisesa Section 1. Explanation of the Ussayavādikā Training Rule To show the methods of rehabilitation for bhikkhunīs who have incurred a Saṅghādisesa, by making a personal designation, "This bhikkhunī... etc. ... has incurred," they intend from the Pārājika, "niss..." a Sanghādisesa that should be announced," and the naming of the offense is done. "Its origins, etc., are like the first Kathina, but this is just a performance" - so reads the text. The explanation of the training rule concerning those who speak boastfully is finished. 2. The explanation of the training rule concerning those who raise up a thief Without going anywhere, for one doing it while sitting in the very place where she sat, from speech and mind. For one who has gone to a broken boundary, etc., from body, speech, and mind. The explanation of the training rule concerning those who raise up a thief is finished. 3. The explanation of the training rule concerning going to a single village-interval Because it is said "without intention," if there is intention, there is no offense. But in this training rule, in the Samantapāsādikā, an offense is stated for transgressing the precinct, here, for entering. What is said in both is in meaning just one Sanghādisesa concerning going to a village-interval, because it is said with reference to the precinct. It is a contradiction to falling behind the group. "In the wilderness" - this is said according to the meaning, it also happens in a village-interval. As it is explained by the Buddha, the best of those who know the training rules, in the verse, and in the commentary, it is said that the other side of the river is included in the village-interval. The explanation of the training rule concerning going to a single village-interval is finished. This statement, "a dukkata is incurred for covering and making excuses" – "One incurs a serious remaining offense; One covers it due to disrespect; A bhikkhunī should not touch the fault; This problem is considered by the skillful." (Pari. 481) – It contradicts this. Therefore, it appears like a careless writing, so the meaning here should be investigated. In the discourse on the Mānattā for bhikkhus, "from the boundary of a bounded monastery, and from the place worthy of a boundary for an unbounded one, having passed two clod-throws" (Kaṅkhā. aṭṭha. nigamanavaṇṇanā) is said. But here, "from the village precinct and from the bhikkhus' monastery precinct, two clod-throws," etc., is said. There, for bhikkhus, it is permissible to perform that act even in a village after transgressing the aforementioned kind of area. But for bhikkhunīs, it is not permissible in a village. Therefore, some say it is stated thus. Others say that even for bhikkhus, it is not permissible in a village. A bhikkhu's monastery is called Previously it stood beyond the village precincts, therefore, without mentioning the village, only the monastery precincts were stated below. For bhikkhunis, the monastery is proper only within the village, not outside, therefore, both the village precincts and the monastery precincts are shown here. Therefore, they say there is no difference in meaning in both cases. What is appropriate, that should be taken. The explanation of the Sanghādisesa is finished. The Section on Undetermined Offences 1. The Explanation of the First Undetermined Training Rule Having said "with a woman," and then again "with one," it is said "with one woman, that is, a female." "Raho" means not open. And the non-openness means that the one who commits no offence is not seen, therefore it is said "seclusion from sight." But is it not the case that "seclusion means seclusion from sight, seclusion from hearing. Seclusion from sight means it is not possible to see by digging out the eyes, or raising the eyebrows, or raising the head. Seclusion from hearing means it is not possible to hear ordinary talk," in the Padabhājanapāḷi "seclusion from hearing" is mentioned, so why is it not mentioned, and only "seclusion from sight" is stated? It is said "although..." etc. By this, it shows that in the Pāḷi, "seclusion from hearing" is stated by way of extracting the meaning. Then how is this understood, that "seclusion from sight alone is intended here"? From the statement "in a secluded seat" and because it is said "it is possible to engage in sexual intercourse" (Pārā. 445). Therefore, it is said "even if..." etc. By "with a closed door" (Sārattha. Ṭī. 2.444-445), it shows the existence of seclusion from sight due to its secluded nature. However, one sitting at the door of an open-doored room (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.444-445) commits no offence; it should be understood that not only one sitting at the door of an open-doored room commits no offence, but also one sitting within a twelve-cubit space. Therefore, it is said "where it is possible to see..." etc. Because one sitting and sleeping, overcome by drowsiness for some time, opens the eyes... He lies down, closes his eyes for a while, but does not enter deep sleep. Therefore, it is said, "Even while sleeping, he commits no offense." But one who lies down and sleeps is not like that, he says, "Even lying down and sleeping, he does not commit it." Meaning, he commits no offense. For sexual intercourse, a woman is not a second party. For women indeed conceal each other's faults. For that very reason, in Vesāli, in the Great Wood, when a bhikkhu lay down with the door open, many women,