thepea wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:55 pm
What exactly is the training issue for these restrictions?
As I've already said, this is one of the cases where the Vinaya narrative doesn't report the Buddha as giving any reason. Of course we're free to speculate on what the reasons
might have been, but the status of the fruits of any such speculation will be merely personal opinion (
attanomati), which is traditionally classed as the weakest source of authority.
My own conjectures would be as follows:
In the case of the man
born without testicles I think the reason would be the same as for animals: the impossibility of decisive progress in the Dhammavinaya for such persons. By this I don't mean that the testicles themselves play any particular role in a man's progress in Dhamma, but rather, that being born without them may have been taken as a sign (and in later texts
was taken as a sign) that the man hadn't been born with the type of relinking consciousness that makes progress in Dhamma possible.
In the case of a man who was born with testicles but later lost them, I suspect the Vinaya ordinance was more socially engineered. Since the commonest reason for getting castrated in those days was in order to become a particular sort of sex worker, the presence of eunuchs in the bhikkhusaṅgha would likely have given rise to ill rumours and damaged its reputation.
thepea wrote: ↑Fri Feb 07, 2020 4:55 pmYour a monk you are an arahant, you get into a car wreck in transportation your testicals become infected they are surgically removed. Ex-communicato.
Ridiculous.
Your quarrel here is with Ven. Paññobhāsa, not me. I've already voiced my scepticism about his opinion.