English
that the noble disciple, grasping as impermanent, painful, not-self, withdraws his grasp from. In "mother" and so on, a mother is simply the one who gives birth. "A human being" is intended to mean an arahant, a noble one with defilements destroyed. "But would a noble disciple deprive another of life?" This too is not possible. Even if... Even if someone were to say to an Ariya disciple who has overcome becoming, not knowing their state of Ariya discipleship, "Deprive this small ant of life and attain the universal sovereignty within the entire universe," they would never deprive it of life. Or even if they were to say, "If you do not kill this, we will cut off your head," they might cut off their head, but they would never kill it. This is said to show the great fault of the state of a worldling and to highlight the strength of an Ariya disciple. The meaning here is this: the state of a worldling is faulty, for a worldling will commit even matricide and other heinous deeds. The Ariya disciple is very strong; they do not commit these actions. "With a corrupted mind" means with a mind associated with hatred, a murderous mind. "Draw blood" means to draw even a small amount of blood from a living body, even the amount a small fly drinks. "Divide the Sangha" means to divide the Sangha that lives together and is situated within the same boundary, by five means. For it has been said: "In five ways, Upali, the Sangha is divided: by action, by recitation, by declaration, by proclamation, and by the taking of lots." There, "by action" means by one of the four actions, such as the motion of non-approval. "By recitation" means by one of the five recitations of the Patimokkha. "By declaration" means by speaking, declaring the eighteen divisive matters, such as "what is not Dhamma is Dhamma," with various justifications. "By proclamation" means by making a verbal distinction near the ear, proclaiming in this way: "Do you not know that I ordained from a high family and am very learned! It is not fitting for you to even think that someone like me would accept false Dhamma, false discipline, and the Teacher's teaching. Is Avici hell cool for me like a blue lotus pond? Am I not afraid of the lower realms?" "By the taking of lots" means after proclaiming thus, supporting their minds, in matters of non-returning. Having done so, "Take this ticket," by taking the tickets. Here, the act itself is the designation, or the measure, while the announcement of the usage and the taking of tickets are preliminary acts. For by announcing to create interest when declaring in terms of the eighteen grounds, even when tickets are taken, the Sangha is not divided. But when four or more take tickets in this way and perform a separate act or designation, then the Sangha is said to be divided. Such a person endowed with views could divide the Sangha, such a thing is not possible. Thus, the five heinous deeds, beginning with matricide, have been shown, which an ordinary person does, not a noble disciple. For their manifestation: From the act, and from the means, and from the duration of the aeon, and likewise from the commonness of result, the decision should be understood. There, 'from the act' means: Here, for one who is a human being and deprives of life another human being, either mother or father, even of changed gender, the act is heinous. Even if, to ward off its result, one were to fill the entire universe with golden stupas the size of the Great Cetiya, or give a great offering to a Sangha of monks filling the entire universe, or wander about without removing even the edge of the Buddha's robe, at the breaking up of the body, one is reborn in hell. But if one, being a human being, deprives of life a mother or father who is an animal, or one, being an animal, deprives of life a human being, or an animal deprives of life an animal, the act is not heinous, but the act is weighty, and the heinous act remains as it was. But this question has been discussed in terms of human beings. Here, the four sheep, the four battles, and the four thieves should be spoken of. For even with the intention "I will kill a sheep," if a person standing in the place of a sheep kills a human mother or father, he incurs a heinous deed. But with the intention of a sheep, mother and father... By intending to kill a goat, one does not incur an ānantarika karma. But by intending to kill one's parents, and killing them, one incurs it. This principle applies to the other pairs of four as well. And as with parents, so too with arahants, these four categories should be understood. One incurs ānantarika karma only by killing a human arahant, not a yakkha or ghost; but the deed is weighty, like an ānantarika one. If a weapon is struck or poison given to a human arahant while he was still a worldling, and he attains arahantship and dies from that very cause, it is still arahant murder. But if he enjoys alms given when he was a worldling after attaining arahantship, it is considered given to the worldling. There is no ānantarika karma for killing other noble individuals, but the deed is weighty, like an ānantarika one. In the case of causing blood to flow from a Tathāgata, because his body is indivisible, there is no such thing as cutting the skin by another's effort and causing blood to flow. But blood gathers internally in one place in the body. Even a splinter that broke off from a rock hurled by Devadatta struck the Tathāgata's foot. Like being struck with an axe, the foot was internally filled with blood. Doing so incurs ānantarika karma. But Jīvaka, according to the Tathāgata's preference, cut the skin with a knife and extracted bad blood from that place, making him comfortable. Doing so results only in meritorious action. Now, what happens to those who, after the Tathāgata's parinibbāna, destroy a cetiya, cut down a Bodhi tree, or attack a relic? A weighty karma results, like an ānantarika one. But it is permissible to damage a thūpa or image containing relics, and to cut down a branch of the Bodhi tree. Even if birds nested there drop excrement on the cetiya, it is permissible to cut it down. For a bodily cetiya is greater than a cetiya of use. It is permissible to cut down and remove even the root of the Bodhi tree if it obstructs the path of those destroying cetiya property. But a Bodhi branch that obstructs the Bodhi enclosure It is not permissible to cut it down for the sake of protecting the house. For the Bodhi tree is for the house, not the house for the Bodhi tree. The same rule applies in the assembly hall. But if relics are enshrined in the assembly hall, it is proper to cut a branch of the Bodhi tree for its protection. It is certainly proper to cut off a branch that draws away sap or a rotten part for the sake of tending the Bodhi tree; it is even meritorious, like tending to one's own body. In a schism of the Sangha, for one who, in a boundary-marker Sangha that has not assembled, takes a separate group and performs the act of reciting the declaration, distributing lots, or doing other acts, or for one who makes an announcement, there is both schism and an action with immediate result. But it is permissible with the agreement of the Sangha. For one who does it with the agreement of the Sangha, there is neither schism nor an action with immediate result. Likewise, in an assembly of less than nine. But for one who, with the final exception, divides the Sangha of nine people, there is an action with immediate result. For the followers who are speakers of unrighteousness, it is a greatly blameworthy action; for the speakers of righteousness, it is blameless. Here, regarding the schism of a Sangha of nine, this is the sutta: "On one side, Upāli, there are four, on one side there are four, and the ninth announces and distributes the lot, saying: 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the teaching of the Teacher; accept this, approve of this.' Thus, Upāli, there is both a faction in the Sangha and a schism of the Sangha. Or, Upāli, with nine or more than nine, there is both a faction in the Sangha and a schism of the Sangha." And among these five, schism of the Sangha is a verbal action, the rest are bodily actions. Thus, the decision should be understood also from the perspective of action. 'From the door' means all these arise from both the door of the body and the door of speech. Here, the first four, through the power of a command-based magical practice, arise from the door of speech but fulfill only the door of the body. Schism of the Sangha, for one who makes a division with a hand gesture, arises from the door of the body but fulfills only the door of speech. Thus, here, the decision should be understood also from the perspective of the door. 'From the duration of a kappa' means the schism of the Sangha. These have a lifespan that lasts for an aeon. For, while the aeon is enduring, one is released only by causing a schism in the Sangha in the middle of the aeon, at the very destruction of the aeon. Even if one causes a schism in the Sangha today, thinking, "The aeon will be destroyed tomorrow," one is released tomorrow, and suffers in hell for only one day. But such an action does not occur. The remaining four actions are immediately effective, not having a lifespan that lasts for an aeon. Thus, here, the decision should be understood even in terms of the lifespan of an aeon. 'Manifest' means that of those who have committed the five heinous deeds, only schism in the Sangha ripens as rebirth-linking. The remaining deeds are counted among those such as, "The deed existed, but the result of the deed did not." In the absence of schism in the Sangha, shedding blood, in the absence of that, killing an arahant, in the absence of that, if the father is virtuous and the mother is immoral or not so virtuous, patricide ripens as rebirth-linking. If the mother, matricide.