| Что нового | Оглавление | Поиск | Закладки | Словарь | Вход | EN / RU |
| пали | Abrahmacariyanti aseṭṭhacariyaṃ. |
By the phrase "lives the life of chastity,” abstinence from sexual intercourse is meant;
by the phrase “he dwells remote” abstinence from the seven bonds of sexuality is shown.1
Here "unchastity” denotes the volition of indulgence in impure conduct, reaching expression through the bodily door and occasioning sexual union. But in the offence of sexual misconduct (in the third precept for lay people), the volition of having sexual intercourse with an inviolable person, such as a girl under the care of her parents, etc., should be substituted.
Transgression against persons of inferior moral qualities is less blameworthy.
But forceful compulsion is highly blameworthy, even in the ease of persons of inferior qualities. If the persons transgressed against are of equal qualities and give their consent, then the act is less blameworthy when the defilements and force of the effort are mild, more blameworthy when they are strong.
For unchastity there are two components: the lustful thought of indulgence and the union of sexual organs.
For sexual misconduct there are four components: the inviolable person, the thought of indulgence, the effort to indulge and the tolerance of sexual union.1
Some, however, say that in the case of a forceful transgression, there is no offence of sexual misconduct for the violated individual even though he or she tolerates the union, since he or she made no effort for union prior to the act of intercourse.
But others reply that so long as the lustful thought or desire for indulgence arises, the lack of effort is no criterion, since women generally do not make effort for indulgence (even when they consent beforehand to the relationship). (So on the first position) one would be led to the untenable conclusion that a woman incurs no offence of sexual misconduct even when she has already moused the lustful thought of indulgence beforehand.
Therefore it should be understood that four factors are mentioned as the maximum in the case of a man. Otherwise there would be no offence of sexual misconduct even for a man at a time when a woman is playing the active role, since the effort lor indulgence would be lacking on his part.
This, then, is the ruling: For one who engages through one’s own desire, there are three components [the inviolable person, the effort to indulge and the tolerance of union, the lustful thought of indulgence being already implied by the effort to indulge). For one who engages because one is forced to, there are three components. [Because of the absence of any effort for union prior to the act, there are only the inviolable person, the lustful thought of indulgence, and the tolerance of union]. But when all are mentioned without omission, there are four.
There is only one means: one's own person.