BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Saṅghādisesa Chapter 5bhikkhu who succeeded in causing an emission by stimulating any of the erogenouszones of his body aside from his penis would incur no penalty. The Commentaryitself actually makes this point, and the Sub-commentary seconds it, although theV/Sub-commentary says that such a bhikkhu would incur a dukkaṭa — what it basesthis opinion on, it doesn't say: perhaps a misreading of the Case of the SleepingNovice, which we will discuss below.At any rate, the Commentary in adding this last factor runs up against a number ofcases in the Vinita-vatthu in which the effort does not involve the penis: the bhikkhuwarming his belly, the bhikkhu rubbing his preceptor's back, a bhikkhu having histhighs massaged, and others. The Commentary deals with these cases by rewritingthem, stating in most cases that the effort somehow had to involve the penis. Thisin itself is questionable, but when the Commentary actually contradicts the Vinitavatthuin the case of the bhikkhu who warms his belly, saying that this sort of effortcould not involve an offense at all, even if one aims at and succeeds in causing anemission, the commentators have moved beyond the realm of commenting into therealm of rewriting the rule.As stated in the Introduction, we have to go on the assumption that the compilers ofthe Vibhaṅga knew the crucial factors of each offense well enough to know what isand is not an offense, and were careful enough to include all the relevant factswhen describing the precedents in the Vinita-vatthu in order to show how theBuddha arrived at his judgments. Because the Commentary's position — adding theextra factor that the physical effort has to involve one's own penis — directlycontradicts the Vibhaṅga on this point, the extra factor cannot stand.The question then is why the commentators added the extra factor in the first place.An answer may be found in one of the cases in the Vinita-vatthu: the Case of theSleeping Novice."On that occasion a certain bhikkhu grabbed hold of the penis of a sleeping novice.His semen was emitted. He felt conscience-stricken... 'Bhikkhu, there is nosaṅghādisesa offense. There is a dukkaṭa offense.'"The issue here is whose semen was emitted. Pali syntax, unlike English, doesn'tgive us a clue, for there is no syntactical rule that the pronoun in one sentenceshould refer to the subject of the preceding sentence. There are many cases underPr 3 that follow the form, "A stone badly held by the bhikkhu standing above hit thebhikkhu standing below on the head. The bhikkhu died. He felt consciencestricken."In these cases it is obvious from the context within the story whichbhikkhu died and which one felt conscience-stricken, while with the sleeping novicewe have to look for the context in other parts of the Vibhaṅga.If the bhikkhu was the one who emitted semen, then perhaps there is acontradiction in the Vibhaṅga, and the Commentary is justified in saying that theeffort must involve one's penis, for otherwise the case would seem to fulfill theVibhaṅga's general definition for the factor of effort: The bhikkhu is making an effortat an outside body and has an emission. Following the general pattern of the rule,he would incur a saṅghādisesa if he intended emission, and no penalty at all if he81