English
For he among us is of a brave nature, capable of this deed. "An offense of wrong-doing" means: For the teacher who gives such an order, there is a dukkaṭa. "He informs the other" means: Buddharakkhita informs Dhammarakkhita, and Dhammarakkhita informs Saṅgharakkhita, saying: "Our teacher says thus – 'Indeed, deprive so-and-so of life.' 'You are indeed a brave man among us.'" Thus, for them too, there is a dukkaṭa. "The killer accepts" means: Saṅgharakkhita accepts, saying, "Good, I will deprive him of life." "The root-person incurs a grave offense" means: As soon as Saṅgharakkhita accepts, the teacher incurs a thullaccaya. For the great person (teacher) has instigated him to evil. "He (the killer)" means: If Saṅgharakkhita deprives that person of life, for all four persons, it is a pārājika. And not only for the four. If by this method, without breaking the chain, ordering in succession, be it a hundred monks or a thousand monks, for all of them, it is a pārājika. In the explanation of the "poisoned messenger" clause, "he orders another" means: That Buddharakkhita, ordered by the teacher, not seeing Dhammarakkhita, or not wishing to speak to him, approaching Saṅgharakkhita directly, says: "Our teacher said thus – 'Indeed, deprive so-and-so of life.'" Thus breaking the chain, he gives the order. In the case of breaking the chain... Indeed, for that reason, he is called "the poison-carrying messenger." "An offense of wrong-doing!" By this command, Buddharakkhita incurs a wrong-doing. "He accepts it, an offense of wrong-doing!" When Saṅgharakkhita accepts, it should be understood that the wrong-doing is only for the original instigator. If this were so, there would be no offense in the act of acceptance itself. But there is an offense in conveying, accepting, and rejoicing in death. How could there be no offense in accepting death? Therefore, this wrong-doing is for the one who accepts. That is why here "for the original instigator" was not stated. Even in the former method, this should be understood as for the one who accepts; but it was not stated due to lack of space. Therefore, whoever accepts, for that person, due to that cause, there is an offense. This is our conviction here. And just as here, so too in taking what is not given. But if he deprives him of life, then for both the commander Buddharakkhita and the killer Saṅgharakkhita, it is a pārājika offense. However, for the original teacher, due to his having renounced (the command), there is no pārājika offense. For Dhammarakkhita, due to his not knowing, there is absolutely no offense. Buddharakkhita, however, having ensured the safety of the two, is himself ruined. In the explanation of the messenger who went and returned: He goes and returns again. Having gone near the one to be deprived of life, due to well-arranged protection, being unable to deprive him of life, he returns. "When you can, then..." "Is he killed, killed today?" "Go, when you can, then deprive him of life." "An offense of wrong-doing!" Thus, even with a renewed command, it is only a wrong-doing. But if he is certainly to be deprived of life, the intention to achieve the purpose is like the fruit immediately following the path. Therefore, this one is pārājika at the very moment of command. Even if the killer kills him after sixty years, and the commander dies in the interim, or reverts to a lower state, or dies having become a non-monk, or reverts to a lower state. If the commander, while a layperson, (commands to kill) his mother, or his father, or an Arahant... Having ordered thus with a view to (killing), he goes forth. When he has gone forth, the one ordered kills him. The one who ordered, even in his lay life, becomes a matricide, a parricide, or a killer of an Arahant. Therefore, his going forth is not valid, nor is his full ordination. Even if the person to be killed is an ordinary person at the moment of the order, but when the one ordered kills him, he is then an Arahant. Or, having received a blow from the one ordered, relying on faith rooted in suffering, meditating, he attains Arahantship and passes away with that very affliction. The one who ordered is a killer of an Arahant at the very moment of the order. But the killer is everywhere guilty of a pārājika at the moment of making the attempt. Now, in all these cases of the mātikā (rules) stated by way of a messenger, for the purpose of showing agreement and disagreement. Three cases have been stated. In the first case, since he spoke softly or due to the other's deafness, he did not make him hear the words "Do not kill," therefore the principal is not freed. In the second case, because it was made to be heard, he is freed. But in the third case, because it was made to be heard by him, and the other accepted it saying "Good," and desisted, both are freed. The discourse on messengers is concluded. 175. In the explanations of "in front, thinking it's hidden," etc.: "in front" means face-to-face. "Hidden" means out of sight. Therein, one who, at the time of attendance, comes with other monks when the enemy monk is present, and sits in front, yet due to darkness, not knowing of his arrival, utters such words, rejoicing in his death, saying, "Oh, if only so-and-so were killed! Why don't thieves kill him? Or a snake bite him? Or a weapon or poison be brought to him?" This one is called "speaking in front, thinking it's hidden." The meaning is, he is face-to-face with him, but perceives him as out of sight. But one who, having seen him sitting in front, and then after the attendance, even when he has gone with the other monks, perceives, "He is still sitting right here," and speaks in the same manner as before, this one is called "speaking hidden, thinking it's in front." By this same method, "speaking in front, thinking it's in front" and "speaking hidden, thinking it's hidden" should be understood. Of the four... And it should be understood that in each and every one of these there is an offense of wrong-doing by speech. Now, in order to show the distinctions in the description of the praise of death, among the five initial statements of description by body, etc., that were mentioned: "By body, one makes a gesture" means that in such a way that the other person knows, "This meaning, 'whoever dies by bringing a weapon, or eating poison, or hanging oneself with a rope, or falling into pits, etc., he indeed obtains wealth, or obtains fame, or goes to heaven,' this meaning has been stated by this person," so he shows with hand gestures, etc. "By speech, one speaks" means one states that same meaning by making a sentence. The third instance is stated as being by both. In every case, for each and every application of praise, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If suffering arises from it, the praiser incurs a grave offense. If the one for whom the praise was made dies, at the very moment of praise, the praiser incurs a defeat. If he does not know it, but another, having known, thinking, "Indeed, I have found a way to happiness," dies by that praise, there is no offense. If praise is made for two, and one, having known, dies, it is a defeat. If both die, it is a defeat and a heap of unwholesome karma. This method applies to many. If one wanders about praising death without specifying anyone, whoever, having known that praise, dies, all of them are killed by him. In the case of praise by a messenger, as soon as the message is conveyed, "Go to such and such a house or village and praise the description of death to so-and-so in this way," there is an offense of wrong-doing. If suffering arises for the one for whom he was sent, the principal incurs a grave offense; if death, a defeat. If the messenger, thinking, "Now this path to heaven is known," without conveying it to that person, conveys it to his own relative or blood relation, and that person dies, the intention is broken, and the principal is freed. If the messenger, thinking the same, does what was said by the praise himself and dies, the intention is broken. But if the message is conveyed without specifying anyone, as many as die by the messenger's praise, so many are the acts of taking life. If parents die, it is also an immediate retribution. 176. Le For describing perishing – he writes letters on a leaf or in a book, saying: "Whoever, having taken a weapon, or having fallen from a precipice, or by other means like entering fire or entering water, dies, he obtains this and that" or "that is his dhamma." Here too, minor and grave offenses are to be understood in the manner stated. But if written with specific intent, by the death of the one for whom it was written, it is a pārājika. If written with specific intent for many, as many as die, so many are the acts of killing. By the death of parents, it is an anantariya kamma. Even if written without specific intent, the same rule applies. If remorse arises, thinking "many will die," by burning that book or by making the letters unrecognisable, one is freed. If that book belongs to another, whether written with specific intent or not, by placing it where it was taken from, one is freed. If it was bought for a price, by giving the book to its owners, and giving the price to those from whom the price was taken, one is freed. If many, with the same intention, thinking "we will write a description of death," one climbs a palm tree and cuts a leaf, one brings it, one makes a book, one writes, one, if it is an inscribed writing, smears ink, and having smeared ink and prepared that book, they all place it in an assembly hall or a market or wherever many curious people gather to see writings. If even one dies after reading it, it is a pārājika for all. If many die, the rule is as stated. But if remorse arises, even if they hide that book in a box, and another sees it, takes it out, and shows it to many again, they are not freed. Let alone a box, even if they throw that book into a river or the sea, or wash it,