English
Now, psychic power is of ten kinds: power of determination, power of transformation, mind-made power, power of knowledge-expansion, power of concentration-expansion, noble power, power born of kamma-result, power of the meritorious, power born of knowledge, achieving success due to proper application in each case. Among these, which power do you speak of? "Bhāvanāmaya" (power developed through meditation). Does the power developed through meditation cause harm to others? Yes, it happens once. Just as when a pot full of water is thrown onto a burning house, the pot breaks and the fire is extinguished, so too, the power developed through meditation causes harm to others once; but from then on, it perishes. Then, having told them, "The power developed through meditation does not cause harm to others even once, nor twice," when they came to an agreement, It should be asked: "Is psychic power born of development wholesome, unwholesome, or indeterminate? Is it associated with pleasant feeling, painful, or neither-painful-nor-pleasant? Is it with initial and sustained application, with only sustained application, or without initial and sustained application? Does it belong to the sense-sphere, form-sphere, or formless-sphere?" But those who know this question, they will say thus: "Psychic power born of development is either wholesome or indeterminate, only associated with neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, only without initial and sustained application, only belonging to the form-sphere." They should be told: "The volition of taking life, to which division among wholesome, unwholesome, etc., does it belong?" Those who know will say: "The volition of taking life is only unwholesome, only associated with painful feeling, only with initial and sustained application, only belonging to the sense-sphere." This being so, (it should be said): "Your statement does not accord with the wholesome triad, nor with the feeling triad, nor with the application triad, nor with the limited triad." Is such a great discourse then meaningless? No, it is not meaningless, but you do not know its meaning. For here, in "one who has psychic power, who has attained mastery over the mind," psychic power born of development is not intended, but psychic power of charms is intended. For that, being found here, is found. "That which should be carried and laid down" is 'hāra', and "hāra itself is hāraka," it says, starting with "or else." Or a weapon that takes life and should be laid down, is called 'satthahāraka', it says, with two alternatives. And where 'hārakasattha' should be said, 'satthahāraka' is said, by placing the qualifier last. "As one obtains, so one should do," it states the intended meaning. "Should lay down" shows the ultimate meaning of "should search for." "Otherwise" (means) if, not taking the meaning of "should lay down" for "should search for," only the mere searching is intended. "By the mere searching" (means) by the mere searching. The meaning expressed by "or one should search for a weapon-carrier," because it is not fully stated according to the letter, it says "disregarding the letter." "It injures, it harms" - therefore it is a 'sattha' (weapon). They injure, they harm, therefore it is a weapon. Because clubs, stones, etc., are also included in weapons, it is said: "Let it show only the weapon included in the application of immovables." The remaining of what was said: what remains after the mentioned swords, etc. Club: this is a name for a bludgeon. Inclusion of weapons: the inclusion of weapons mentioned in the mātikā, in "weapon-bearer." Because... therefore, the division of the word is said to be in two ways. This is to be understood as the showing of the distinction in the method of analysis mentioned below. "Or falls into hell," etc.: here, the word "etc." includes "or falls into a precipice," which is said later, and also all unsaid means of death, such as "or falls from a tree." Therefore, it is said: "Indeed, it is not possible to state everything in its exact form." Because of the method stated later: because of the method stated in the division of the second word, which is said later by way of conclusion. It is as if it were said in meaning: the intention is that for the purpose of showing the many kinds of means of death, when a part of it is shown, everything is as if said. Indeed, it is not possible... to state: the meaning is that it is not possible to state all means of death to their conclusion in their exact form, such as "or falls from a tree." "Death is better than life for you": the word "iti" (thus) indicates the death mentioned here. Therefore, taking that as well, that the death mentioned there is the meaning of the word "iti," he says, showing the meaning: "It means, 'with a mind for death, with a thought for death.'" Said for the purpose of clarifying the meaning of "citta": because the word "citta" has many meanings, such as "varied," this word "citta" here should not be seen as referring to another meaning, but should be understood as referring only to consciousness. It is said for the purpose of determining that meaning. By this, it is shown that the fault of repetition also has no place here. The meaning is not yet stated: this is said because, even when "iti cittamano" is extracted, the death indicated by the word "iti" has not been fully grasped. By the word "tāva" (yet), in the division of the word "cittasaṅkappo" (thought-conception) later, "maraṇasaññā" (perception of death)... "ñī" and so on, clarifies the meaning of the word "iti" as will be explained. For there, taking the meaning of death indicated by the word "iti", it is said: "conscious of death, intending death, having death as purpose." Therefore, he said: "In this phrase 'cittasaṅkappa', the word 'iti' should be brought in by way of context." Why should it be brought in? He said: "Because this..." and so on. How is this understood? He said: "Thus, indeed, its..." and so on. "Its" means of the word "iti". "That very meaning" means the meaning called death. In "conscious of death" and so on, "death" is the meaning of the word "iti", and "conscious" and so on, is of the word "saṅkappa". Here, the varied expression of the word "citta" is to be understood as clarified by showing the meaning of the word "saṅkappa" in three ways: by way of perception, intention, and purpose. Therefore, he said: "Citta is a thought of various kinds," and so on. What is meant here by the word "adhippāya"? He said: "Adhippāya should be understood as vitakka (initial thought)." "This is not the name of vitakka" – this is said to show that it is not merely the name of vitakka. Due to its obviousness and grossness, it should be understood as a high state; due to its non-obviousness and non-grossness, it is a low state. 174. That the word "kāya" (body) also applies to a part of the body, he said: "with the hand," and so on. "By striking" means with a weapon. For a weapon is called "paharaṇa" (striking instrument) because one strikes with it. "Is bound by action" means is bound by the action of taking life; it is said that the action of taking life is accomplished. "Whoever dies" – here, it should be understood that the intention to kill arises with respect to the life faculty of any single individual, not only with respect to the life faculty of one who dies due to the blow, nor of a group. "In both ways" means by way of exposition and re-exposition. That the murderous thought, even with a present object, arises by making the life faculty its object by way of severing the continuity, he said: "or later, by that very disease," and so on. For when the continuity is severed, the murderous thought, arising at that time, producing such an application, is only at the moment of striking. By action one is bound. If a blow or poison is given to a human being, who is an Arahant, but was given in his ordinary person state, and he dies by that after attaining Arahantship, he is indeed an Arahant-killer. But a gift given in the ordinary person state, which is consumed after attaining Arahantship, is considered given to an ordinary person. Now, just as a gift given in the ordinary person state, even if consumed after attaining Arahantship, is still a gift to an ordinary person, why is it that when a blow is given in the ordinary person state with the intention to kill, and one dies by that blow after attaining Arahantship, one is an Arahant-killer, and not an ordinary person-killer? Because there is a difference. A gift is merely the relinquishing of a giving-object. Thus, the intention of giving is merely the act of relinquishing, taking the object to be relinquished as its object; it is like making it another's property. Therefore, it is given to whoever it is made property of. Killing is not like this. For it occurs only with the fulfillment of these five factors: a living being, perception of a living being, intention to kill, effort, and death by that effort, not without their fulfillment. Therefore, since the death is of one who has attained Arahantship, one is indeed an Arahant-killer, not an ordinary person-killer. However, because the desire to kill, "I will kill this one," is directed at a particular continuum, and despite the difference in continuum due to the ordinary person or Arahant state, there is no difference in the moments of effort and death, and when the purpose is achieved, it is the Arahant state, therefore, it should be concluded here that one is indeed an Arahant-killer. "With a different intention" means with a mind of non-killing intention, a mind not wishing to kill. "There is no destruction of life" means because it was struck with a mind not wishing to kill. Although the first blow cannot by itself kill, yet receiving a second, it can be a cause for the destruction of life. Therefore, by correlating this with "effort and death by that," it is proper that one is bound by karma by the first blow,