English
There, a blighted bodily beauty, a boil or a skin tag, Or for one inserting into hair, a dukkaṭa. Into eyes, nose, ear-holes, urethra, scrotum, or into wounds made by knives etc., for one inserting the male organ with sexual desire, a thullaccaya. Into other body parts, such as armpits etc., a dukkaṭa. For animals like elephants, horses, cows, donkeys, camels, buffaloes etc., into the nose, a thullaccaya; into the scrotum, indeed a thullaccaya. For all animals, into eyes, ears, wounds, a dukkaṭa. Similarly, into other body parts, with desire for bodily contact or sexual desire, for one not inserting into the scrotum of a living man, but touching organ to organ, a dukkaṭa. But for one attempting into protruding teeth, a thullaccaya. This here is the decision, the order of explanation of meaning. Now, insertion, indeed, occurs not only by one's own effort, but also by another's effort. Even then, only if one consents, one falls. To show this, "or" etc. is said. There, "or" is this particle, or a collection of particles, at the beginning of another alternative. Insertion and remaining and withdrawal and having been inserted, insertion...etc...inserted, a reciprocal dvanda compound. Reciprocal dvanda means mutual inclusion of meanings. Thus, insertion etc. also have meanings like remaining etc. The word "paviṭṭha" (inserted) also has the meaning of insertion etc. Therefore, here, from that, the possibility of the plural. Otherwise, in a dvanda compound, due to the prominence of individual parts, how could the words "paviṭṭha," even if denoting one meaning, occur in the plural? Or a collective dvanda. "Khaṇa" is a specific time. And for those engaged in the act, there is no separation from the moment. Thus, insertion...etc...inserted itself is the moment, a kammadhāraya compound. Or, by conceiving difference in non-difference, the moment of insertion...etc...inserted, a genitive tatpurisa compound. One who consents to that, or one who consents in that, one who consents to insertion...etc. The word "khaṇa" here should be joined individually, because it's a dvanda compound: the time of insertion, the time of remaining, the time of withdrawal, the time of having been inserted. Or, consenting in that. Thus, the meaning here should be understood. Thus, by the presence of the mind of indulgence, one who consents bhi is to be joined with 'cut'. There, making it enter into the aforementioned place is called 'pavesanaṃ' (insertion). It is called 'ṭhitaṃ' (standing) when it is stopped until the beginning of withdrawal. However, in the Commentary, regarding the time when a woman has emitted semen and has completely exerted herself, and has descended and stood, it is said: "at the time of semen emission." Withdrawing it to the tip is called 'uddhāro' (withdrawal). It is called 'paviṭṭhaṃ' (entered) when it has been made to enter to the place suitable for insertion. First. 3-4. Now, to show the second, it says "ādiyeyya" and so on. There, the connection is: "If he takes what is not given with the intention of stealing... ...or passes the boundary, he is defeated." "Adinnaṃ" (what is not given) means what has not been given by human owners by body or speech. "Theyyacittena" (with the intention of stealing): "theno" is a thief, "theyyaṃ" is the state of a thief, by changing 'na' to 'ya' and doubling it. "Bhāvo" is that from which understanding of a designation arises, the cause of the word's occurrence, such as genus or quality. Here, however, "theyyaṃ" is the object called the intention to appropriate. And that "theyyaṃ" is "cittaṃ" (mind), so "theyyacittaṃ" (mind of stealing), by that. "Ādiyeyya" (should take) means he should seize and take a monastery or the like. "Hareyya" (should carry away) means he should take by carrying. "Avahareyya" (should appropriate) means he should take a deposited article while being asked "Give me my article," by saying "I did not take it" and so on. "Iriyāpathaṃ kopeyya" (should disturb the posture) means he should take by interrupting the posture of walking or the like of the carrier of the article. For in this sense, "kopī" is a verbal root, meaning he takes by disturbing. "Ṭhānā cāveyya" (should move from its place) means he should move it from the place where it was put. "Saṅketaṃ vītināmaye" (should pass the boundary) means he should pass the designated place or the customs barrier. And here, in seizing a monastery or the like, in placing the burden of doubt on the owner, in causing the head-load of the article carrier to shake and tremble, and placing it on his shoulder, in placing the burden of doubt by saying "I did not take it" when being asked "Give me my article" regarding a deposited item, and in moving the land-dweller from his place by causing him to shake and tremble with the intention of stealing— in these four cases, respectively, there are offenses of dukkaṭa, thullaccaya, and pārājika. are to be known. When one intends, "I will take it with the goods," at the first and second step of moving, and at the first and second step of passing beyond the designated place for evading customs, in these two instances, respectively, a grave offense and a defeat are to be known. Here, this application is in terms of various goods, due to the mixture of animate and inanimate. But in terms of a single item, the application should be seen in the manner of taking and carrying away, etc., by the aforementioned method of accusation, etc., of a slave with an owner, or an animal. Furthermore, in explaining these six terms, twenty-five types of theft (avahārā) should be shown, by combining them into five groups of five, which are: various goods, single goods, by one's own hand, by prior arrangement, and theft, as all thefts are included in these six terms. These thefts, however, differ only by the variety of accusation, etc., by whatever means, and in that way, the "five groups of five" are formed. Indeed, when the offense of taking what is not given is explained in this way, it is considered well-explained. Therein, the first two groups of five are obtained by means of the five terms starting with "should take." But as for this sixth term, "should pass beyond the appointed place," it should be applied to the third and fifth groups of five, in terms of abandonment and planned theft. Therein, by the word "by one's own hand," metaphorically taking the associated group of five, it is the "group of five by one's own hand," either as "that group of five by one's own hand," or as "the group of five beginning with by one's own hand," by way of elision of the middle term. And similarly above. That is: by one's own hand, by command, by abandonment, by accomplishing the purpose, and by entrusting the burden. Therein, "one's own hand" is sahattha; that which is done by one's own hand is sāhatthika. Similarly, "by command." Abandonment (nissaggo) is placing something outside while remaining inside the designated places for evading customs; that is nissaggiyo. And from the taking of goods by one commanded without specifying a time, and from pouring out oil from another's oil jar, oil that is worth a quarter (of a coin), or from pouring oil from deposited sandals, etc., which are certainly for drinking, the defeat, which is called a pārājika, occurs even before... "accomplishes the purpose" thus, "purpose-accomplisher". And that is the application of commanding, and the application of depositing shoes and so on. And in the case of a charge concerning a monastery, and in the case of deposited goods, and in the case of not giving temporary goods to be given, the abandonment of responsibility is "abandonment of responsibility". The group of five preliminary applications are: preliminary application, joint application, agreed removal, signaling act, and indicating act. Therein, commanding, being prior to the taking of goods, is called preliminary application. Occurring together with the application of moving from a place, or removing a stake, or shifting a boundary marker, is joint application. When, after having agreed and gone, even by one person, goods are moved from their place, the removal by all is agreed removal. Signaling act means making known by defining a time, such as the forenoon. Indicating act means winking the eye and so on, for the purpose of producing a sign. But to show the group of five removals by theft itself, it begins by saying "or else". Was it not said "of all removals" because it is included in the six categories? If so, why is this group of five mentioned separately, as if by way of an alternative? Did we not say that they are "distinguished by the mere difference in the manner of charge and so on"? Since such a distinction is possible, it is appropriate to speak of it by way of an alternative. But the separate mention of this group of five should be understood as being by way of common usage, and by the word 'kusa' is meant the shifting of a boundary marker, by way of non-difference. Theft, and force, and boundary marker, and concealment, and planning, (are) theft... and planning, lengthened by sandhi. The connection is that the remover thereby becomes subject to a pārājika offense. But the one who removes by concealment, that one is in essence a remover of what is concealed; thus, even though it is included in a dvanda compound, the word 'channa' here should be understood as establishing the absence of contradiction. Therein, one who takes by making breaches and so on, or by deceiving with false scales, false measures, false coins and so on, is a remover by theft. One who takes another's property by force is a remover by force. One who takes by shifting a boundary marker is a remover by boundary marker. is far. Having concealed something with grass, leaves, and so on, and later, for whom it was concealed, he is a concealer-thief. Concealing by means of garments and other goods, or by means of a room, a doorway, or other space, and taking it, he is a planner-thief.