I have read that in the vinaya, sex between men is different rhan sex between a man and a pandaka. Where in the texts is that stated?
Have you seen this post by Ven. Vimala? It offers a very detailed and interesting exploration of this topic. I think that it’s mentioned or cited in the paper too if you want to cruise its bibliography.
Thank you, just scrolled down to the word pandaka.
It answered my other question the text said it seems that novice ordination is allowed for pandakas.
I don’t understand this part:
There are a couple of interesting things to note about this passage. First of all, the
paṇḍaka in question was already ordained at the time of this incident. The rule against
ordination of paṇḍakas clearly mentions that full ordination of these individuals, the up-
asampadā, is not allowed. This really only makes sense if we understand the word pabbajjā
(translated by Ajahn Brahmali as ‘gone forth’) here to be equivalent to upasampadā. In
fact this equivalence between pabbajjā and upasampadā is what we find throughout the
earliest Vinaya, and indeed the Suttas.
In any case, the rule itself is clearly limited to
upasampadā (full ordination) and novice ordination seems to be allowed.
The Theravāda commentary, both in regards to the paṇḍaka and the ubhatob yañ janaka,
differs from the Vinaya in making a distinction between pabbajjā (in the meaning of novice
ordination) and upasampadā (full ordination) and does not allow either.
As I understood it the vinayatext states upasampadā is not allowed and then the author said pabbajjā and upasampadā is the same and then goes on to say pabajjā is allowed. Is that not a contradiction? And then that the commentaries say that pabbajjā is not the same as upasampadā and both are denied.