BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1didn't. Yet — deviating from the standard pattern for the Vinita-vatthu cases — theBuddha does not ask whether he aimed at emitting semen, and simply gives thebhikkhu a dukkaṭa, which suggests an inconsistency.If, however, the novice was the one who emitted, there is no inconsistency at all:The bhikkhu incurs his dukkaṭa for making lustful bodily contact with another man(see the discussion under Sg 2, below), and the case is included here to show thatthe full offense under this rule concerns instances where one makes oneself emitsemen, and not where one makes others emit. (Other than this case, there isnothing in the rule or the Vibhaṅga that expressly makes this point. The rule simplymentions bringing about the emission of semen, without explicitly mentioning whose.This would explain the bhikkhu's uncertainty as to whether or not he had committeda saṅghādisesa.) And the reason there is no mention of whether or not the bhikkhuintended to emit semen is because — as it comes under another rule — it isirrelevant to the case.Thus, inasmuch as the second reading — the novice was the one who had anemission — does no violence to the rest of the Vibhaṅga, it seems to be thepreferable one. If this was the case that led the commentators to add their extrafactor, we can see that they misread it and that the Vibhaṅga's original definition forthe factor of effort still stands: Any bodily effort made at one's own body, at anotherbody or physical object, at both, or any effort made in the air — like shaking one'spelvis or stretching one's body — fulfills the factor of effort here.One case that does not fulfill the factor of effort is when one is filled with lust andstares at the private parts of a woman or girl. In the case dealing with thiscontingency, the bhikkhu emits semen, but again the Buddha does not ask whetherhe intended to. Instead, he lays down a separate rule, imposing a dukkaṭa forstaring lustfully at a woman's private parts. This suggests that efforts with one'seyes do not count as bodily efforts under this saṅghādisesa rule, for otherwise thepenalty would have been a saṅghādisesa if the bhikkhu had intended emission, andno offense — not a dukkaṭa — if he hadn't. And this also suggests that the dukkaṭaunder this separate rule holds regardless of intention or result. The Commentaryadds that this dukkaṭa applies also to staring lustfully at the genitals of a femaleanimal or at the area of a fully-clothed woman's body where her sexual organ is,thinking, "Her sexual organ is there." At present we would impose the penalty on abhikkhu who stares lustfully at a woman's private parts in a pornographicphotograph.As we will see under the non-offense clauses, there is no offense in a nocturnalemission. The Commentary, however, discusses the question of conscious effortsmade prior to sleep aimed at a nocturnal emission, and arrives at the followingverdicts: If a bhikkhu, "usurped" with lust while lying down, grabs his penis with hisfist or thighs and drops off to sleep maintaining that position in hopes of inducingan emission, he incurs the full offense if the emission takes place. If, however, hesuppresses his "lust-usurpation" by reflecting on the foulness of the body and thendozes off with a pure mind, he incurs no offense even if an emission later occurs.The analysis here seems to be that the bhikkhu's change of mind would separatethe emission from the earlier effort enough so that it would not be regarded as a82