English
For the word 'sañcicca' (intentionally), when it should be said in the word analysis, making it correspond to the meaning as a prior action, such as "having known, having fully known, having decided, having considered", thus... Not saying "knowing, fully knowing" but making it a personal designation, and because "having deliberately and excessively transgressed" is specified in the sense of taking life, it is said "without paying attention to the expression." Even though "knowing" is said without distinction, because it is said "having deliberately deprived a human body of life," it is said that here "knowing" refers to a living being, thus "knowing as a living being," meaning "knowing that this is a living being." For "living being" by conventional usage is a sentient being, but in ultimate sense, it is called the life faculty. Not saying "knowing as a human body," but the statement "knowing as a living being" is said to show that even one who kills merely with the perception of a sentient being, without knowing "this is a human," incurs a pārājika offense. For that very reason, in the section on the four sheep, the incurring of a pārājika offense by one who kills a human being with the perception of a sheep is shown. Therefore, not saying "a human body," but "knowing as a living being" is said without distinction. Here, in "fully knowing," it is said that the prefix "saṃ-" has the same meaning as "saha-" (with). Thus, "knowing together with that very mode of knowing a living being." The meaning is: "knowing, together with that very mode of knowing a living being, 'I am depriving of life'." Although it is not possible for a single consciousness to have two objects simultaneously, and knowing "I am depriving of life" together with knowing "this is a living being" cannot occur in one moment, yet, "knowing together with that..." is said with reference to knowing "I will kill" without abandoning the perception of a living being. Therefore, it means "without abandoning the 'together with'." But some say: Just as, in phenomena whose nature is seen through 'knowing comprehension,' by applying the three characteristics through 'investigating comprehension,' one knows the characteristics of impermanence, etc., in one moment together with their nature, such as 'form is impermanent,' so too, one knows "I will kill this living being" together with one's own action. But other teachers do not explain it thus even there. "Having intended by way of murderous volition" means: having thought with murderous volition, "I will kill this." "Having resolved" means: having thus with the mind... having cut off. Having made the determination, "having given up," therefore it is said, "having sent forth a mind free from anxiety." By way of effort, by way of effort such as with one's own hand. For one who acts thus, for one who acts in the manner described. Although "intentionally" is a word that refers to a past action, and "deprive of life" is a verb referring to a later action, and thus a transgression that is completely finished is stated, nevertheless, to show that even an unfinished transgression referred to by "intentionally" is brought to completion, the analysis of the word "transgression" is given. Therefore it is said, "this is said to be the ultimate meaning of the word 'intentionally'." From the very beginning, from the kalala form that arises with the rebirth consciousness. They lie in it, thus "seyyā" (bed), the womb, which is the mother's belly, is their bed, thus "gabbhaseyyakā" (womb-born), egg-born and womb-born. To show the extreme subtlety of existence in the case of these womb-born beings, "that which is in the mother's womb," etc., is said, not to restrict the object of the pārājika. For even spontaneously arisen and moisture-born humans are indeed objects of the pārājika. And it is not possible to deprive this very first human form of life. For with the rebirth consciousness, thirty karma-born forms arise, but while these are still present, sixteen bhavanga consciousnesses arise and cease. During this interval, there is no danger to the child who has taken rebirth, nor to the mother. This is indeed called "no opportunity for death." For in a single period of sixteen thought-moments, there is no death for the child because at that time the death consciousness cannot arise, nor for the mother, because she does not pass beyond that much time and immediately thereafter is subject to passing away, so the very conception is impossible. Since the taking of consciousness is inseparable from the other formless phenomena, and since the mind-body, supported by the form-body, exists in the five-constituent existence, it is said, "the entire five-constituent rebirth is shown." There, the entire five-constituent Rebirth means the complete, not lacking, re-linking of the five aggregates (form, etc.). This meaning should be taken, not rebirth in the entire five-constituent existence. Therefore it is said: "Thus that first consciousness... ...is the kalala-form; this is the very first human body." "The wool of a sheep born on that very day is 'jātiuṇṇā'," say some. "In the Himalayan region, the wool of a specially born sheep is 'jātiuṇṇā'," say others. Indeed, some sheep with very fine wool are found in the Himalayas. "The wool of a sheep taken by cutting open the womb is 'jātiuṇṇā'," say still others. "By a single strand" is said according to the opinion of the Minor Reciters. For thus, it is said: "At the moment of re-linking for beings in the womb, the five aggregates arise together, neither before nor after. The stream of form, called kalala, that arises at that moment is tiny, just enough to be drunk by a small fly in a single gulp." Having said this, it was again said: "That is too much; it is merely the size of a drop standing at the tip of a fine needle, after being dipped in oil and lifted out, and having dripped." Rejecting even that, it was said: "It is merely the size of a drop standing at the tip of a single hair, after being lifted from oil and having dripped." Rejecting even that, it was said: "If the hair of humans in this country is split eight ways, the hair of the people of Uttarakuru is the size of one such part; it is merely the size of a drop standing at the tip of that hair, after being lifted from clear sesame oil." Rejecting even that, it was said by the Minor Reciters: "The so-called jātiuṇṇā is extremely fine; it is merely the size of a drop standing at the tip of a single strand of that, after being dipped in clear sesame oil and lifted out, and having dripped." (Vibh. Aṭṭha. 26). But the Saṃyutta Reciters say: "The kalala is the size of a drop of oil resting on the tip of a thread made from three strands of jātiuṇṇā." (Saṃ. Ni. Aṭṭha. 1.1.235). The meaning expressed by "clear" is explained in another way as "very clear." "Sappimaṇḍa" means clarified ghee. The word "as" should be brought and connected here too, the drop of clarified ghee also mentioned... Just a measure is intended here. "Thus-colored-and-shaped-like" means delimited by the described measure and shape. Or else, "thus-colored-and-shaped-like" means thus colored and thus shaped. Or "sharing" is "likeness," meaning attaining similarity. Such a likeness of color, in form and in shape, is the attainment of similarity for it, thus "thus-colored-and-shaped-like." It is called "kalala" because the individual being, reckoned as the form of the great elements and their derivatives, continuously flowing in a stream, is called "kalala." "Of one whose lifespan is twenty thousand years" is just an example, because there are also humans with shorter or longer lifespans. "Even in the kalala stage" refers to that individual being called kalala, continuously flowing in a stream within the first week, which can be deprived of life. Or "beyond that" is said with reference to having reached the stage of abbudha and so on, in the second week and so on. But then, since phenomena that have arisen cease by their own cessation, an interruption in between cannot be made. Why is it said, "therefore... (etc.)... one cuts off, one obstructs the life faculty"? He says, "the breaking of the stream of the life faculty... (etc.)... is called obstructing." And how is this meaning to be understood? He says, "this meaning (is as follows)" and so on. Here it is said: In formations whose nature is to cease moment by moment, who kills, or who is killed? If it is the stream of consciousness and mental factors, it, being formless, is not capable of being disturbed by cutting, breaking, etc., nor is it to be disturbed. If it is the stream of form, it, being inanimate, is like a log or a piece of wood. There, killing by cutting, etc., is not obtained, just as in a dead body. And the application of killing, as described, by striking, hitting, etc., would occur in past formations, or in future or in present ones. There, it is not possible in past or future ones due to their non-existence. And in present formations, due to their momentariness and their nature of ceasing by themselves, it is useless in those facing destruction. It would be improper, and because there is no cause for destruction, death would not be caused by the application of striking or hitting, and so on. And because formations are inert, to whom does that application belong? And since that which breaks up at the same time as the intention to kill is momentary, and does not persist until the completion of the action, to whom then is the karma of life-taking bound? It is said – The heap of formations, called a being, accompanied by the intention to kill, kills. Due to that, as a result of the application of killing set in motion, the group of material and immaterial phenomena, whose consciousness and life-faculty have departed, and which is bound to the occurrence of the designation "dead",