English
Therein, the destruction of life is killing living beings; it is said to be killing, slaughtering living beings. Here, "living being" in conventional terms is a sentient being, but in ultimate terms, it is the life faculty. In that living being, the intention to kill, arising from the effort to sever the life faculty, operating through either the door of body or speech, in one who perceives it as a living being, is killing living beings. In living beings devoid of qualities, such as animals, it is a minor offense for a small creature, a major offense for a large body. Why? Because of the greatness of the effort. Even with equal effort, because of the greatness of the object. In humans and others with qualities, it is a minor offense for one with few qualities, a major offense for one with great qualities. However, when the bodily qualities are equal, it should be understood that it is a minor offense if the defilements and effort are mild, a major offense if they are intense. It has five factors: a living being, perception of it as a living being, the intention to kill, the effort, and death resulting from it. There are six methods: done by oneself, commanded, thrown, fixed, by magic, by psychic power. If this meaning is elaborated, it becomes too extensive. Therefore, it is not elaborated. Yes. And further, those who are interested should consult the Samantapāsādikā Vinaya commentary (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 2.172) and take it from there. Taking what is not given is ‘adinnādāna’; it is said to be taking another’s property, theft, stealing. There, ‘adinna’ means what is possessed by another, where another, acting as he pleases, is not liable to punishment and is blameless. In that which is possessed by another, the intention to steal, arising from the effort of taking it, with the perception that it is possessed by another, is adinnādāna. That is of slight fault if the property of another is inferior, of great fault if it is superior. Why? Because of the superiority of the object. When the object is equal, it is of great fault if the object belongs to those of superior qualities. Taking that particular superior quality into account, it is of slight fault if the object belongs to one of inferior qualities. It has five factors – what is possessed by another, the perception that it is possessed by another, the intention to steal, the effort, and the taking by that effort. There are six modes of action – beginning with acting by one's own hand. And those occur according to the suitability of the five modes of taking: taking by stealth, taking by force, taking by concealment, taking by contrivance, taking by deceit. This is the summary here. The detailed explanation, however, is stated in the Samantapāsādikā (Pārā. Aṭṭha. 1.138). Here, in ‘kāmesu micchācāro,’ ‘kāmesu’ means in sexual practices; ‘micchācāro’ means utterly reprehensible, base conduct. In terms of its characteristic, kāmesumicchācāro is the intention to transgress in forbidden places, proceeding through the bodily door with the aim of unrighteousness. There, a forbidden place is – for men, firstly, those protected by the mother, protected by the father, protected by both mother and father, protected by the brother, protected by the sister, protected by relatives, protected by lineage, protected by the Dhamma, those under protection, those with a penalty; these are the ten beginning with those protected by the mother; those bought with wealth, living at will, living for enjoyment, living for payment, those who lower the price, those who are publicly known, a female slave who is a wife, a female worker who is a wife, those brought by the flag, those for a moment; these are the ten beginning with those bought with wealth, making twenty. Women. Among women, for two, protected by relatives and with punishment, and for twelve, including those bought with wealth, other men, this is called an unapproachable place. That misconduct, without qualities like virtue, in an unapproachable place, is of slight offense, with qualities like virtue, of great offense. Its four requisites are: an unapproachable object, a mind to engage in it, an effort to engage, and acceptance of the wrong path through the act. One effort is self-initiated. 'Falsehood' is a verbal or physical expression that destroys meaning, with the intention of deceiving. The intention to deceive, the consciousness that arises from physical or verbal expression causing others to be deceived, is falsehood. Another way: 'falsehood' is something unreal, untrue. 'Speech' is the declaration of that as real, as true. In terms of characteristic, the consciousness that arises from declaring something untrue as true to another, with the desire to make it known as such, is falsehood. That which it destroys, if small, is of slight offense, if great, of great offense. Moreover, a householder, unwilling to give away his own possessions, saying 'there is none' etc., is of slight offense. Speaking as a witness to destroy meaning is of great offense. For renunciants, having obtained even a little oil or ghee, saying jokingly, 'today in the village, I think a river of oil is flowing,' is of slight offense. But saying what has not been seen as seen, etc., is of great offense. Its four requisites are: an untrue object, a mind to deceive, the effort involved, and the other person's understanding of that meaning. One effort is self-initiated. And that should be seen as the act of deceiving another, through the body, or something connected to the body, or speech. If by that act the other person understands that meaning, at the moment of the consciousness arising from that act, one is bound by the act of falsehood. Since just as one deceives another through body, things connected to the body, and speech, so also, ordering another, 'speak this,' Even if writing on a leaf and throwing it in front, or writing on walls and such, saying, "This is how this matter should be seen," then applications of command, relinquishment, and permanence are fitting here. But these are not found in the Commentaries, so they should be considered carefully before being accepted. Among "divisive speech" and the like, divisive speech is that speech by which one makes oneself beloved in the heart of the person to whom one speaks, and makes another empty. Harsh speech is that which makes both oneself and others coarse, that speech which is itself coarse, neither pleasing to the ear nor touching the heart. Frivolous talk is that by which one babbles nonsense, without purpose. The underlying intention of these also receives the name of divisive speech, etc. And that itself is what is intended here. Here, the intention arising from bodily and verbal effort, due to a defiled mind, either for the sake of dividing others or for the sake of making oneself beloved, is called divisive speech. It is greatly blameworthy if it causes division in one of great qualities, and slightly blameworthy if in one of few qualities. Its four requisites are: the thought that "another should be divided," or "these will become separate," or the intention of separation, thinking they will become divided; or the desire to be beloved, thinking "thus I will become beloved and trustworthy"; the effort arising from that; and the understanding of its meaning. But there is no division of the path of action in regard to those who are not divided; it exists only in regard to those who are divided. Harsh speech is the intention, utterly coarse, arising from bodily and verbal effort that cuts into another's heart. To illustrate its manifestation, there is this story: it is said that a boy, disregarding his mother's words, went into the forest. His mother, unable to turn him back, cursed him, saying, "May a fierce buffalo chase you!" Then, indeed, a buffalo arose in the forest for him. The boy made a truth-act, saying, "May what my mother spoke with her mouth not happen, but may what she thought with her mind happen!" The buffalo stood there as if bound. Thus, even an application that cuts into the heart is not harsh speech if the mind is gentle. For parents sometimes say harsh words to their children. The vampires say, "May thieves cut you to pieces!" Yet they don't want even a lotus leaf to fall on them. Teachers and preceptors sometimes say to novices, "Why do these shameless, reckless ones wander about? Expel them!" Yet they wish for their attainment of learning and realization. Just as harsh speech does not arise from a mind full of affection, So too, gentle speech does not arise from a mind devoid of affection. Indeed, saying "Lay him down comfortably" to one you want killed Is not gentle speech. It is harsh speech because of the mind's harshness. Depending on what it is directed towards, it is of little fault if of little worth, Of great fault if of great worth. Its three requisites are: Another who can be reviled, A mind full of anger, And the act of reviling. Pointless talk is unwholesome intention That arises from actions of body and speech, Informing of what is unprofitable. It is of little fault through infrequent practice, Of great fault through frequent practice. Its two requisites are: Giving precedence to pointless talk such as talk of battles, Carrying burdens, removing cold, etc., And speaking such talk. But if others do not heed that talk, there is no breach of the path of action; It exists only when pointless talk is heeded by another. That which intensely desires is "covetousness." It proceeds with inclination towards another's goods, With the thought of possessing them. It is characterized by intensely desiring another's goods, Thinking, "Oh, may this be mine!" Like taking what is not given, it is of little fault and great fault. Its two requisites are: Another's goods, And transforming them into one's own. For even when greed arises with another's goods as its object, There is no breach of the path of action until one transforms it into one's own,