Parajika 1: Sexual penetration

If a monk, having undertaken the training and livelihood of monks, having not disavowed the training, having not declared his inadequacy, should engage in a sexual act with even a female animal, he is parajika, no longer in communion.

Yo pana bhikkhu bhikkhūnaṃ sikkhāsājīvasamāpanno sikkhaṃ appaccakkhāya dubbalyaṃ anāvikatvā methunaṃ dhammaṃ paṭiseveyya antamaso tiracchānagatāya’pi pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso.

Quotation

“It were better for you, foolish man, that your penis entered the mouth of a deadly poisonous snake than it entered a woman. It were better that it entered a roasting-hot charcoal pit than it entered a woman. Why is that? For that reason, foolish man, you would merely die or suffer deadly pain, but you would not, at death, pass to the bad bourne, the abyss, hell; but for this reason, foolish man, at death, you would” (Vin.3.21).

Word analysis: declaring one’s inadequacy but not disavowing the training.

‘A monk feeling dissatisfied, unhappy, not wanting to be a recluse, troubled, ashamed, and detesting being a monk (bhikkhubhāvaṃ aṭṭīyamāno harāyamāno jigucchamāno), longing to be a householder, a novice, or a disciple of another sect, says:

“What if I disavow the Buddha (yaṃnūnāhaṃ buddhaṃ paccakkheyyan’ti)? the Dhamma? the Sangha? the Vinaya? the Patimokkha? the exposition (uddesaṃ)? the preceptor? the teacher?” the fellow monks? the fellow Brahmafarers?’
“What if I were a householder (yaṃnūnāhaṃ gihī assan’ti)? a novice? a disciple of another sect? not a son of the Sakyans?”
“But if I were to disavow the Buddha (yadi panāhaṃ buddhaṃ paccakkheyyan’ti)”.
“Come now, I should disavow the Buddha (handāhaṃ buddhaṃ paccakkheyyan’ti)”.
“The Buddha should be disavowed by me (me buddhaṃ paccakkheyyan’ti)”.
“I remember my mother (mātaraṃ sarāmī’ti); father; brother; sister; son; daughter; wife; relations; friends; village; town; rice field; property; gold coins (hiraññaṃ); gold (suvaṇṇaṃ); crafts, my early laughter, prattle and amusement (hasitaṃ lapitaṃ kīḷitaṃ)”.
“I have a mother; she should be supported by me (mātā me atthi, sā mayā posetabbā’ti); father; brother; sister; son; daughter; wife”.
“I have a mother; she will support me (mātā me atthi, sā maṃ posessatī’ti). A father. I have rice-fields; gold coins (hiraññaṃ); gold (suvaṇṇaṃ); crafts. I will live by means of them”.
“This is difficult to do (dukkaran’ti). This is not easy to do (na sukaran’ti). I am too weak (na ussahāmī’ti). I am unable (na visahāmī’ti). I don’t enjoy it (na ramāmī’ti). I find no pleasure in it (nābhiramāmī’ti).

Thus he declares his inadequacy, without disavowing the training’.

Word analysis: declaring one’s inadequacy and also disavowing the training.

‘A monk feeling dissatisfied, unhappy, not wanting to be a recluse, troubled, ashamed, and detesting being a monk, longing to be a householder, a novice, or a disciple of another sect, says:

“I disavow the Buddha (buddhaṃ paccakkhāmī’ti); the Dhamma; the Sangha; the Vinaya; the Patimokkha; the exposition; the preceptor; the teacher; the fellow monks; the fellow Brahmafarers”.
“Consider me a householder (gihīti maṃ dhārehī’ti); a novice; a disciple of another sect; not a son of the Sakyans (assamaṇoti maṃ dhārehī’ti)”.
“I’ve had enough of the Buddha (alaṃ me buddhenā’ti); the Dhamma; the Sangha; the Vinaya; the Patimokkha; the exposition; the preceptor; the teacher; the fellow monks; the fellow Brahmafarers (alaṃ me sabrahmacārīhī’ti)”.
“What is the Buddha to me (kiṃ nu me buddhenā’ti)? the fellow Brahmafarers to me?”
“The Buddha means nothing to me (na mamattho buddhenā’ti). The fellow Brahmafarers mean nothing to me”.
“I am well-liberated from the Buddha (sumuttāhaṃ buddhenā’ti)…. the Brahma life (sumuttāhaṃ sabrahmacārīhī’ti)”.

Thus he declares his inadequacy and disavows the training'.

Word analysis: invalid disavowal of the training

Disavowal of the training is not valid:

if the monk is mad (ummattako), mentally disturbed (khittacitto), or in pain (vedanāṭṭo).
if it is done in presence of someone mad (ummattakassa santike), mentally disturbed (khittacittassa santike), or in pain (vedanāṭṭassa santike). These terms are explained in appendix 16 - where I show that, in the context of disrobing they must mean mental disturbance or pain outside of the normal range.
if it is done in presence of deities or animals, or in presence of someone who does not comprehend what is happening (na paṭivijānāti).
if done for a joke, for fun (davāya; ravāya).
if the monk announces what he does not wish to announce (asāvetukāmo sāveti).
if the monk announces to those who are not intelligent enough to understand (aviññussa sāveti).
if the monk makes an incomplete announcement i.e. not announcing the whole thing (sabbaso vā pana na sāveti).

Word analysis: sexual act

sexual act (methunadhammo): what is not Dhamma; village dhamma; low-caste dhamma; wickedness; the final ablution (odakantikaṃ); secrecy; obtained in couples.
engages in (paṭisevati): enters (paveseti) a sexual organ with a sexual organ (nimittena nimittaṃ aṅgajātena aṅgajātaṃ) even to the depth of a sesame seed. [However, Cases 20, 21, 75,77 and 79 of the illustrative stories show that for a monk to penetrate an anus or mouth with his aṅgajātaṃ is a parajika offence; and parajika to consent to his own anus or mouth to be penetrated by an aṅgajātaṃ. Because a woman also has an aṅgajātaṃ, if this enters a monk's mouth, this is likely also to be a parajika offence].

Illustrative stories

A monk had intercourse with a female monkey. Verdict: parajika.
Many monks had intercourse. Verdict: parajika.
A monk thought it would be no offence to have intercourse dressed as a layman (gihīliṅgena). Verdict: parajika.
... to have intercourse whilst naked. Verdict: parajika.
... if dressed in a grass garment. Verdict: parajika.
... if dressed in a bark garment. Verdict: parajika.
... if dressed in a garment of wood shavings. Verdict: parajika.
... if dressed in a hair blanket. Verdict: parajika.
... if dressed in a horse-hair blanket . Verdict: parajika.
... if dressed in a garment of owls’ wings. Verdict: parajika.
... if dressed in a garment made of strips of black antelope hide. Verdict: parajika.
A monk saw a young girl lying on her back. Lustfully, he put his thumb into her vagina. She died. Verdict: sanghadisesa [under Sanghadisesa 2].
A young man raped the nun Uppalavanna in her hut. Verdict: no offence for Uppalavanna as she did not consent (anāpatti bhikkhave asādiyantiyā). [This, and all illustrative stories involving nuns have been preserved with the monks’ rules].
A monk was transformed into a woman (itthiliṅgaṃ pātubhūtaṃ hoti). The Buddha allowed the ex-monk’s duties to a preceptor, validity of ordination and seniority in vassas to be transferred with him/her to the nuns (anujānāmi bhikkhave taññeva upajjhaṃ tameva upasampadaṃ tāni vassāni bhikkhunīhi saṅkamituṃ). If that ex-monk infringed rules which were shared by monks and nuns, he/she was to be rehabilitated in the presence of nuns (yā āpattiyo bhikkhunaṃ bhikkhūnīhi sādhāraṇā tā āpattiyo bhikkhunīnaṃ santike vuṭṭhātuṃ). If he/she infringed rules which were not shared, it would be no offence for him/her (yā āpattiyo bhikkhūnaṃ bhikkhūnīhi asādhāraṇā tāhi āpattīhi anāpattī’ti).
A nun was transformed into a man (purisaliṅgaṃ pātubhūtaṃ hoti). The Buddha allowed the ex-nun’s duties to a preceptor, validity of ordination and seniority in vassas to be transferred with her/him to the monks (anujānāmi bhikkhave taññeva upajjhaṃ tameva upasampadaṃ tāni vassāni bhikkhūhi saṅkamituṃ). If the ex-nun infringed rules which were shared by nuns and monks, she/he was to be rehabilitated in the presence of monks (yā āpattiyo bhikkhunīnaṃ bhikkhūhi sādhāraṇā tā āpattiyo bhikkhūnaṃ santike vuṭṭhātuṃ). If he infringed rules which were not shared, it would be no offence for her/him (yā āpattiyo bhikkhūnīnaṃ bhikkhūhi asādhāraṇā tāhi āpattīhi anāpattī’ti).
A monk thought it would be no offence if he had intercourse with his mother. Verdict: parajika. [cf. touching mother, sister or daught from affection: dukkaṭa Vin.3.126].
... with his daughter. Verdict: parajika.
... with his sister. Verdict: parajika.
A monk had intercourse with his former wife. Verdict: parajika.
A monk with a supple back gripped his penis with his mouth. Verdict: parajika.
A monk with a long penis put it into his anus. Verdict: parajika.
A monk saw a female corpse with a wound near the vagina. He thought it would be no offence to put his penis into the vagina, if it emerged through the wound (aṅgajāte aṅgajātaṃ pavesetvā vaṇena nīhari). Verdict: parajika.
A monk saw a corpse with a wound near the vagina. He thought it would be no offence if he put his penis into the wound, so it emerged through the vagina (vaṇe aṅgajātaṃ pavesetvā aṅgajātena nīhari). Verdict: parajika.
Lustfully, a monk touched (chupi) a beautiful, plaster figure with his penis. Verdict: dukkata.
Lustfully, a monk touched a wooden doll with his penis. Verdict: dukkata.
A woman paying homage to a monk lifted his inner robe and gripped his penis with her mouth. Verdict: no offence for the monk as he did not consent (anāpatti bhikkhu asādiyantassā’ti).
A monk rejected a woman’s request for intercourse, but then accepted her idea that it would be no offence if he remained a passive partner (ahaṃ vāyamissāmi tvaṃ mā vāyami). Verdict: parajika.
A monk rejected a woman’s request for intercourse, but then accepted her idea that it would be no offence if she remained a passive partner. Verdict: parajika.
A monk rejected a woman’s request for intercourse, but then accepted her idea that it would be no offence if he rubbed inside, but ejaculated outside. Verdict: parajika.
A monk rejected a woman’s invitation for intercourse, but then accepted her idea that it would be no offence if he rubbed outside, but ejaculated inside. Verdict: parajika.
A monk had intercourse with a fresh corpse (akkhayitaṃ sarīraṃ). Verdict: parajika.
A monk had intercourse with a corpse as good as fresh (yebhuyyena akkhayitaṃ). Verdict: parajika.
A monk had intercourse with a corpse, almost completely decomposed (yebhuyyena khayitaṃ). Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk inserted his penis into the mouth of a decapitated head (vattakate mukhe chupantaṃ aṅgajātaṃ pavesesi). Verdict: parajika.
A monk inserted his penis into a decapitated head, but avoided the mouth [using the severed neck] (vattakate mukhe acchupantaṃ aṅgajātaṃ pavesesi). Verdict: dukkata.
A monk gathered the scattered bones of a woman he had loved, and placed his penis in the sexual area (nimittena aṅgajātaṃ paṭipādesi). Verdict: dukkata.
A monk had intercourse with a magical serpent (nāgi). Verdict: parajika.
A monk had intercourse with a wrathful deity (yakkhini). Verdict: parajika.
A monk had intercourse with a eunuch (paṇḍaka). Verdict: parajika.
A monk had intercourse with a ghost (peti). Verdict: parajika.
A monk with no sense of touch thought he was allowed intercourse because he could feel neither pleasure nor pain. Verdict: parajika.
A monk intent on intercourse became remorseful on just touching the woman. Verdict: sanghadisesa [under Sanghadisesa 2].
While an arahant was asleep in a grove during the day; his limbs (penis) stiff with bodily energies (aṅgamaṅgāni vātupatthaddhāni honti), a woman took sexual advantage of him. When he awoke, he discovered the moistness and told the Buddha. The Buddha said that erections are caused by a distended bowel or bladder, by bodily energies, from the sting of hairy caterpillars [an aphrodisiac, maybe], or by lust. He said that an arahant does not get an erection from lust. There was no offence for the monk.
While a monk was dozing in a grove, a woman cowherd took sexual advantage of him. He consented to the entering, having entered, remaining and removing (pavesanaṃ sādiyi, paviṭṭhaṃ sādiyi ṭhitaṃ sādiyi uddharaṇaṃ sādiyi). Verdict: parajika.
While a monk was dozing in a grove, a woman goat-herd took sexual advantage of a him. He consented to the entering, having entered, remaining and removing. Verdict: parajika.
While a monk was dozing in a grove, a woman gathering firewood took sexual advantage of him. He consented to the entering, having entered, remaining and removing. Verdict: parajika.
While a monk was dozing in a grove, a woman gathering cowdung took sexual advantage of him. He consented to the entering, having entered, remaining and removing. Verdict: parajika.
A woman took sexual advantage of a sleeping monk. The Buddha asked him if he had consented. He replied, he had been unaware of what was happening (nāhaṃ bhagavā jānāmi’ti). The Buddha said it was no offence if one is unaware of what is happening (anāpatti bhikkhu ajānantassā’ti).
A woman took sexual advantage of a sleeping monk. The Buddha said it was no offence as he had not consented (anāpatti bhikkhu asādiyantassā’ti).
Similar to Case 49.
While an arahant was asleep in the Gabled Hall in the Great Wood at Vesali during the day, his limbs (penis) stiff with bodily energies, a group of women took sexual advantage of him. When he awoke, he discovered the moistness and told the Buddha, who said he was innocent, as in Case 43. The Buddha allowed monks, when they are practising in seclusion during the day (divā patisallīyantena) to close the door.
In a dream, a monk had intercourse with his wife. Venerable Upali said this was no offence (anāpatti āvuso supinantenā’ti).
Supabba, a foolishly-devoted (muddhappasannā) laywoman in Rajagaha, considered that intercourse was the highest gift. On nine occasions she invited monks for intercourse, and when told it was not allowed, on each occasion she made the following proposals, which all nine monks accepted. Thus all nine monks committed dual sanghadisesa offences (for touching a woman and emission of semen):
“Come bhante, rub between the thighs”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub on the belly”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub in the navel”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub in the armpit”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub on the neck”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub in the ear”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub in a coil of hair”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub between the fingers”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, I will pleasure you with my hands”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
Saddha was a foolishly-devoted laywoman in Savatthi. She too invited monks for intercourse, and made the same proposals: “Come bhante, rub between the thighs”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub on the belly”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub in the navel”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub in the armpit”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub on the neck”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub in the ear”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub in a coil of hair”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, rub between the fingers”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
“Come bhante, I will pleasure you with my hands”. Verdict: sanghadisesa.
Some Licchavi youths forced a monk to violate a nun (bhikkhuniyā vippaṭipādesuṃ). If both consented, both should be expelled; if neither consented, it is no offence for either (ubho sādiyiṃsu ubho nāsetabbā ubho na sādiyiṃsu ubhinnaṃ anāpatti).
Some Licchavi youths forced a monk to violate a female trainee (sikkhamānā). If both consented, both should be expelled; if neither consented, it is no offence for either.
Some Licchavi youths forced a monk to violate a female novice (sāmaṇerī). If both consented, both should be expelled; if neither consented, it is no offence for either.
Some Licchavi youths forced a monk to violate a prostitute. If he consented, he should be expelled; if he did not consent, it is no offence.
Some Licchavi youths forced a monk to violate a eunuch. If he consented, he should be expelled; if he did not consent, it is no offence.
Some Licchavi youths forced a monk to violate a female householder. If he consented, he should be expelled; if he did not consent, it is no offence.
Some Licchavi youths forced two monks to violate each other (aññamaññaṃ vippaṭipādesuṃ). If both consented, both should be expelled; if neither consented, it is no offence for either.
A certain monk, long gone-forth, went to see his former wife. She raped him. The Buddha said it was no offence as he had not consented (anāpatti bhikkhu asādiyantassā’ti).
A baby deer, wanting a drink of urine, approached a monk in a forest. The monk let it take his penis into its mouth. Verdict: parajika.

No-offence clause: introduction

The no-offence clause says it is no offence for a monk to have sexual intercourse under the following conditions: if done unknowingly, not consenting, when mad, deranged, in severe pain, or if he is the first wrong-doer (ajānantassa, asādiyantassa, ummattakassa, khittacittassa, vedanāṭṭassa, ādikammikassāti).

Sources of the no-offence clause

The sources of the terms in the no-offence clause are as follows:

ajānantassa, asādiyantassa: from the illustrative stories e.g. Cases 48, 49.
ummattakassa, khittacittassa, vedanāṭṭassa: see Appendix 16.
ādikammikassāti: see Appendix 16.

Elision of the four terms

Four of the terms in the no-offence clause - ummattakassa khittacittassa vedanāṭṭassa ādikammikassai - occur in each and every Patimokkha rule. In most rules the sequence is elided to ummattakassa ādikammikassai – see Appendix 9.

Rule elaboration

The rule elaboration lists the sexual orifices (magga) of the four genders of the three classes of beings (see Appendix 18 for Pali): humans, non-humans and animals.

females have three sexual orifices: anus, vagina and mouth (vaccamagge, passāvamagge, mukhe);
intersexuals (ubhatobyañjanakā) have three: anus, vagina and mouth (vaccamagge, passāvamagge, mukhe);
eunuchs (paṇḍakā) have two: anus and mouth (vaccamagge, mukhe);
men have two: anus and mouth (vaccamagge, mukhe).

Thus, in the three classes of beings there are 30 sexual orifices.

This list is neat and comprehensive. Whereas in Cases 37-40 monks had intercourse with a magical serpent (nāgi), a wrathful deity (yakkhini), and a ghost (peti), in the rule elaboration these three types of beings are neatly grouped as non-humans. And whereas in Case 39 a monk had intercourse with a eunuch (paṇḍaka), the rule elaboration has included a reference to the intersexual - a term which elsewhere in Vinaya commonly occurs together with eunuch (e.g. Vin.1.89).

Cycle of permutations

Consensual sex

The cycle of permutations describes the 30 parajika offences that arise from a monk placing his penis in the 30 orifices described in the rule elaboration.

Forced sex

The cycle of permutations then develops the theme of forced sex in which there is consent to

entering,
having entered,
remaining and
removing

These four words come from the illustrative stories, Cases 44-47 (pavesanaṃ sādiyi, paviṭṭhaṃ sādiyi ṭhitaṃ sādiyi uddharaṇaṃ sādiyi). But whereas in the illustrative stories, monks agree to all four phases of intercourse; in the cycle of permutations' description, monks consent to one phase but not another. For instance, they do not consent to entering, having entered and remaining, but consent to removing. In which case they would be parajika (pavesanaṃ na sādiyati, paviṭṭhaṃ na sādiyati, ṭhitaṃ na sādiyati, uddharanaṃ sādiyati). To separate the phases like this is problematic: why should it be a parajika offence to consent to removing?

Minor cycle of permutations (1)

Definition of sex: word analysis plus illustrative stories

The word analysis says the parajika offence occurs if a sexual organ enters a sexual organ (nimittena nimittaṃ aṅgajātena aṅgajātaṃ) even to the depth of a sesame seed. However, Cases 20, 21, 75, 77 and 79 of the illustrative stories show that for a monk to penetrate an anus or mouth with his sexual organ is a parajika offence; and parajika to consent to his own anus or mouth being penetrated by a sexual organ. But if the sexual organ entering his mouth was a female sexual organ, it would be in accordance with the four standards to call this a parajika offence, too.

Parajika: technical definition

The illustrative stories plus word analysis effectively result in the final version of the rule by which it is a parajika offence for a sexual organ to enter an anus or a mouth or female genitals. For definition purposes, these sexual parts can be classed as either 'entering sexual organs' or as 'entered sexual organs'.

The penis is an entering sexual organ. It is not an entered sexual organ.
The female genitals are entering sexual organs and are also entered sexual organs.
The anus and the mouth are entered sexual organs. They are not entering sexual organs.

The parajika offence occurs only if penetration involves BOTH

an entering sexual organ
an entered sexual organ

Maggas and amaggas: the puzzler

The minor cycle explains the four combinations of sex possible between an entered sexual organ (magga) and an amagga. The word magga was coined by the author of the rule elaboration, who explained that women have three entered sexual organs (anus, vagina, mouth) whereas men have just two (anus, mouth).

The word amagga has been coined by the author of this minor cycle of permutations - a word which presumably means not-maggas. Not-maggas would likely include penises, as well as the terms mentioned in the illustrative stories: the thighs, the belly, the navel, the armpit, the neck, the ear, a coil of hair, the fingers, the hands.

The minor cycle of permutations (1) explains the offences for the combinations of body parts:

Magga enters a magga. Verdict: parajika. [Possibly true - if female genital enters a mouth. But if a mouth enters a mouth (i.e. tongue entering a mouth) there is no entering sexual organ, so the act is not parajika].
Not-magga enters a magga. Verdict: parajika. [Possibly true - if a penis enters a mouth, an anus or a vagina. But if a finger enters a vagina, there is no entering sexual organ, so it would not be parajika].
Magga enters a not-magga. Verdict: parajika. [For parajika, there needs to be an entering sexual organ plus an entered sexual organ. The only entering sexual organ that is also a magga is the vagina. But the entered sexual organs (vagina, mouth, anus) are all maggas, not not-maggas. So a magga entering a not-magga could not be parajika].
Not-magga enters a not-magga. Verdict: thullaccaya. [The only thullaccaya offence for sex is where genitals enter one of the three maggas of a rotted corpse - see case 33 of the illustrative stories. But if genitals enter a rotted corpse through a not-magga, this is a dukkata offence, not thullaccaya - see case 35].

Minor cycle of permutations (2)

This minor cycle concerns homosexual intercourse that involves monks and novices who are asleep. The defiler should be expelled (nāsetabbo); and if the partner awakens and consents to it, he should be expelled too.

Points for discussion:

A monk says “I’m fed up of being a monk”. Does this count as disrobal?
A monk says “I’d like to disrobe”. Does this count as disrobal?
A monk, on the day of his disrobal, has a tooth abscess. Could this disqualify the ceremony?
A monk, praying to a deity, tells him that he renounces the Buddha. Does this count as disrobal?
A monk arguing with his mother, jokingly says “Okay, mum, I disrobe”. Is he still a monk?
A monk arguing with his mother, angrily shouts “Okay, mum, I disrobe”. Is he still a monk?
A monk tells an old drunken friend “I disrobe”. Is this disrobal?
A monk wants to disrobe in a proper manner. What do you suggest?
A monk doing yoga, accidentally catches his penis with his lips. Is he parajika?
A monk commits a parajika offence. Would the Sangha let him ordained as a novice?
A monk receives oral sex. Is it an offence?