|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Changing Principle in the Samantapāsādikā's Commentary on the First Rule of the Defeat Peculiar to the Nuns |
|
|
|
| Author |
Shih, Juo-hsueh
|
|---|
| Source |
佛學研究中心學報=Journal of the Center for Buddhist Studies
|
|---|
| Volume | n.5 |
|---|
| Date | 2000.07 |
|---|
| Pages | 135 - 158 |
|---|
| Publisher | 國立臺灣大學佛學研究中心=The Center for Buddhist Studies, National Taiwan University |
|---|
| Publisher Url |
http://homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~ntucbs/
|
|---|
| Location | 臺北市, 臺灣 [Taipei shih, Taiwan] |
|---|
| Content type | 期刊論文=Journal Article |
|---|
| Language | 英文=English |
|---|
| Keyword | Vinaya; Buddhist Ethics; Buddhist Nuns |
|---|
| Abstract | The ruling against physical contact with the opposite sex is shared by monks and nuns. In commenting on this rule for nuns, the Samantapāsādikā—the commentary on the Pāli Vinaya—raises a hypothetical case of physical contact between a monk and a nun. In the same situation, the monk is not to be accused of an offence, but the nun is. The reason given is because the rule for nuns contains the word sādiyeyya(should consent to). Consent indicates passivity.
The investigation of this issue involves three criteria: consent, activity vs passivity, and immobility. As the rule for nuns is expressed passively but that for monks actively, this paper firstly demonstrates that passivity or activity is no crucial factor. So the word sādiyeyya is irrelevant to deciding penalties. Secondly, this paper looks carefully into the rule prohibiting sexual intercourse in order to extract some principles for determining guilt in sexual offences. This discussion shows that the offender's mental attitude (I.e. consent to the act after its performance or initial intention to do the act), not his/her physical reaction to the act serves as the criterion for determining guilt. In the rule against monks' physical contact with women, however，there exists one dubious case, which seems to present conflicting principles. But our interpretation excludes the superficial inconsistency. Moreover, immobility as a factor for innocence is fairly likely to be of later origin. This paper goes on to examine the corresponding or relevant texts of the other Vinaya traditions. We find consistency in the primary principle (I.e. consent or no consent) for determining guilt. The consideration of immobility is shared only by the Dharmaguptaka Vinaya, and for this Vinaya immobility never leads to innocence. The Chinese recension of the Samantapāsādikā also demonstrates that immobility does not guarantee innocence. Thus we may conclude that the Samantapāsādikā switches the principle for determining innocence from mental attitude to physical reaction. This new principle, however, applies only to monks. So in the case of physical contact if a monk is the passive partner and he remains motionless, he is not to be accused of an offence even though he consents to it. Consent implies pleasure derived from the act. Such growing tolerance does not apply to nuns.
|
|---|
| Table of contents | 1.Introduction
2.Physical contact with the opposite sex by monk or nun: the Pāli tradition
3.Physical contact with the opposite sex by monk or nun: the other traditions
4.Conclusion |
|---|
| ISSN | 10271112 (P) |
|---|
| Hits | 1968 |
|---|
| Created date | 2000.07.13; 2002.03.05
|
|---|
| Modified date | 2017.06.29 |
|---|
 |
Best viewed with Chrome, Firefox, Safari(Mac) but not supported IE
|
|
|
