English
Atharvan practitioners apply Atharvan spells; when a city is besieged, or when battle is imminent, among the enemy forces, among the adversaries, among the foes, they cause calamity, they cause misfortune, they cause disease, they cause fever, they cause stabbing pain, they cause dysentery, they cause diarrhea. Thus Atharvan practitioners apply Atharvan spells. Spell-holders, having recited spells, when a city is besieged... (and so on)... they cause diarrhea." Thus, having shown the magic-based application, many stories are told of those killed by Atharvan practitioners and spell-holders. What's the point of those! Here, this is the characteristic: the incantation of spells for killing is a magic-based application. The application of power born of kamma-result is a power-based application. This power born of kamma-result is called the power of nāgas, the power of supaṇṇas, the power of yakkhas, the power of devas, the power of kings, and so forth, being of many kinds. Therein, the power of nāgas should be understood as the causing of harm to others by nāgas whose poison is seen, bitten, or touched, by seeing, biting, or touching. The power of supaṇṇas should be understood as the lifting of nāgas measuring two or three hundred fathoms from the great ocean. Yakkhas, however, are not seen coming or striking, but beings struck by them die in that very place. Therein, their "yakkhiddhi" should be seen. The death of kumbhaṇḍas looked upon by Vessavaṇa with his eye-weapon before he became a stream-enterer, and the respective power and might of other devas, is "deviddhi". should be understood. In the case of a Wheel-turning Monarch, with his retinue, flying through the air and so on; in the case of Asoka, his command extending a league below and above; in the case of the Lion King, his father, the death of the householder Cūḷasumana by the breaking of a tusk— in these, "royal power" should be seen. Some, however, citing suttas such as: "Again, monks, a recluse or brahmin, endowed with psychic power, master of mental faculties, looks upon a fetus in another's womb with an evil mind, thinking: 'Oh, may this fetus in the womb not emerge safely!' Even so, monks, there is destruction of the family," say that even power born of development can perform acts harmful to others; and they desire the destruction of such power upon the performance of harm to others, like the breaking of a water pot thrown into a burning house. But that is merely their wish. Why? Because it does not accord with the triplets of wholesome feeling and thought. How? This power born of development is, in the wholesome triplet, both wholesome and indeterminate; killing is unwholesome. In the feeling triplet, it is conjoined with neither-painful-nor-pleasant; killing is conjoined with painful. In the thought triplet, it is without initial and sustained thought; killing is with initial and sustained thought. In the limited triplet, it is exalted; killing is limited. "Or he should seek a weapon-carrier for him"— here, "hārakaṃ" means that which carries. What does it carry? Life. Or, "hārakaṃ" means that which should be carried; the meaning is, that which should be deposited. "Satthahārakaṃ" is a weapon and that which carries it. "Assa" means for the person. "Pariyeseyya" means he should act so as to obtain it; the meaning is, he should deposit it. By this, he shows a permanent application. Otherwise, he would be defeated by the mere seeking; and that is not proper. In the Pāli, however, disregarding all the phrases, to show only the weapon that is included in permanent application, the phrase division "a sword or... ...a rope or" is stated. There, "sattham" (weapon) should be understood as any remaining sharp object. And the life of clubs, stones, poisons, and ropes The collection of weapons is to be understood as being for the purpose of destroying oneself. In "describing death" and so on, because even when showing the danger in life, saying "What is this evil, wretched life to you, by which you do not obtain delicious foods to eat?" and so on, and even when speaking in praise of death, saying "You, O lay follower, have done good deeds... you have done no evil, death is better than life for you; having passed away from here, you will wander surrounded by nymphs in the Nandana Grove, experiencing happiness," and so on, it is still only a description of death. Therefore, the division of the phrase is stated in two ways: "he shows the danger in life, he speaks in praise of death." "Or he might incite to death" means he might cause one to adopt a means for death. In "or he might bring a weapon" and so on, even that which is not stated, such as "or he might fall into a pit, or into hell, or into a precipice," all of that is to be understood as having been stated in meaning, because it is stated later. For it is not possible to state everything in its exact form. "Thus mind" means thus thought, thus mind; in "death is better than life for you," the meaning is "thus thought of death, thus mind of death." Because here "mind" (mano) is stated to clarify the meaning of the word "thought" (citta), but in meaning, both are one and the same, therefore, to show their non-difference in meaning, it is said, "what is thought, that is mind; what is mind, that is thought." However, even by removing the word "thus" (iti), the meaning is not yet fully stated. In the phrase "thought and intention," the word "thus" (iti) should be brought in by way of context. For this, even though not stated as "thus thought and intention," it is to be understood as stated by way of context. Thus, to show that very meaning, it says "perceiving death" and so on. Because here "intention" (saṅkappo) is not a name for initial thought (vitakka). Rather, it is a designation for mere arrangement. And that arrangement, in this context, is included by perception, volition, and aim. Therefore, the meaning should be seen as "thought and intention" (cittasaṅkappo), meaning "he has various kinds of intentions." Thus, its word The term "receptacle" is used in the sense of perception, volition, and intention. Here, "intention" should be understood as thought. "By various means" means by great and small expedients. In the praise and commendation of death, the low aspect is to be understood as seeing the danger in life, and the high aspect as speaking in praise of death. In the act of instigating, the high aspect is to be understood as instigating death by striking with the fist, knee, etc., and the low aspect is to be understood as instigating death by putting poison on the nail of one who is eating together. "In a pit, or in hell, or in a precipice" - here, a "pit" is a deep hole with banks cut all around. "Hell" is a great chasm that arises naturally from the earth splitting here and there, where even elephants fall, and thieves hide. A "precipice" is a place cut off on one side, either in a mountain range or on a plateau. "Concerning the former" refers to a person who has committed a pārājika offense by engaging in sexual intercourse and taking what is not given. The rest is clear, as it has been stated before and is easy to understand. 174. Having thus divided the outlined training rule according to the sequence of words, now, since the pārājika concerning the killing of a human being was shown only briefly in the word-division below, and the rule was not established by extensively imposing the offense; and since bhikkhus cannot grasp the method in all its aspects when the meaning is shown briefly, and there is also an opportunity for evil persons in the future, therefore, in order for bhikkhus to grasp the method in all its aspects and to prevent opportunities for evil persons in the future, the detailed pārājika concerning the killing of a human being is shown again by establishing the mātikā with the method beginning with "sāmaṃ adhiṭṭhāya" (by oneself instigating), and it says, "sāmanti sayaṃ hanatī" (by oneself kills), etc. Here is the decisive explanation, along with the commentary on the obscure words: "By the body" means with the hand, or foot, or fist, or knee, or any limb or minor limb. "Connected with the body" means with a weapon such as a sword, not separated from the body. "Nissaggiya" (to be relinquished) means k released from a long and body-bound state by an arrow, a spear, and so on. Thus, two kinds of application are stated: that by one's own hand, and that by sending forth. Therein, each one is twofold by way of specified and unspecified. Therein, in the specified, he is bound by the deed through the death of the one whom he intended to strike. In the unspecified, thinking, "May anyone die," he is bound by the deed through the death of whosoever dies as a result of the blow. In both cases, whether he dies immediately after being struck, or later from that same illness, he is bound by the deed at the very moment of striking. If, having struck with the intention to kill, the person does not die by that, and then another blow is given with a different intention, and later he dies from the first blow, then he is bound by the deed. But if he dies from the second blow, there is no offense of taking life. If he dies from both, he is bound by the deed from the first blow. If he dies from neither, there is no offense of taking life. This principle applies when many strike one person. Therein, too, he whose blow causes death is bound by the deed. For the clarity of the offense of action here, the case of the four sheep should also be understood. One observes a sheep lying in a certain place, thinking, "I will come at night and kill it." But in the place where the sheep was lying, its mother or father, or an Arahant, covered in a yellow robe, is lying. He comes at night, and thinking, "I will kill the sheep," he kills the mother, or the father, or the Arahant. Since there is the intention to kill "this object," he is a killer,