English
goes according to his intention, what is later said to be a grave offense, that very thing occurs at the moment of commanding. Then if that object is certainly to be taken, what is later said to be 'for all, the offense is a pārājika,' then for this one, at that very moment, it is a pārājika. This reasoning should be understood everywhere." "For them too, a dukkaṭa" means a dukkaṭa due to the announcement. "As soon as it is received." Here, if he certainly receives it, even before that, for the teacher, there is a grave offense, and it should not be seen as "not yet received." "But why is there a grave offense for him?" he says. "For the great mass of people is engaged in evil by him." "For the original perpetrator, a dukkaṭa"— this is merely a view presented in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, but it is not intended by the teacher. Therefore he says, "If it is so," etc. The meaning is that if there is a meaning in the way stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. "There would be no offense upon acceptance" means for the killer, upon accepting the killing with "Good, excellent!", there would be no dukkaṭa offense. Thus, even in a subtle matter, there is a dukkaṭa, how much more so... To show that it is not the acceptance of killing, the acceptance of a messenger, and so on, is indicated. Even in rejoicing in death, saying, "Oh, if only so-and-so were killed!" there is a dukkaṭa (minor offense), so it is all the more so in the acceptance of killing—this is the intention. By the determination that "this dukkaṭa is only for the one who accepts," it is clarified that the original perpetrator has no offense due to this acceptance. However, some say, "The dukkaṭa mentioned here is only shown by the determination that 'it is only for the one who accepts,' but the dukkaṭa of the original perpetrator, mentioned in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, is not rejected." According to the former method, in the immediately preceding description of the uncorrupted messenger. This is also a dukkaṭa. If so, why is it not mentioned in the Pāli text? It says, "due to lack of opportunity." There, since the original perpetrator is said to incur a thullaccaya (grave offense), there is no opportunity to mention the dukkaṭa of the one who accepts. So it is not mentioned due to lack of opportunity, not due to its non-existence—this is the intention. Here, "a common person at the moment of command," it should be understood that he becomes a killer of an Arahant, because it proceeds from a volitional act that accomplishes the purpose, in terms of the life faculty to be destroyed in the future. The description of the messenger story is finished. 175. Since he himself was the elder of the Sangha, it is said, "at the time of attendance." Dukkaṭa for each word, it is said that even in statements like "Even thieves do not kill him," there is a dukkaṭa, because it was said merely out of rejoicing in death, without the intention of "whoever hears my words, let him hold onto this." "This meaning was stated by him" is connected to "as he knows." "Vākyabheda" means "separation of words." "Uddissa dvinnaṃ" means "intending two," or "intending the death of two." Even if the volition is one for describing the death of both, since it should be said "two pāṇātipātā" (killings), it becomes powerful, and after the immediate result of rebirth, in the course of many existences, it causes suffering due to successive volitions, and because of its great result, it is called "a heap of unwholesome karma." The same method applies to describing the death of many. Thus by "having cut off the head or having fallen into a precipice," etc. "Just informed" means "just said." Just as at the moment of the noble path, the four foundations of mindfulness and the four right exertions are accomplished functionally, even so, though the volition is one, many acts of killing are accomplished functionally. Thus it is said, "so many acts of killing." Just as indeed, for one who wishes to show himself as a hundred, by means of the preparation "I am a hundred, I am a hundred," the supernormal mind, having obtained a present, limited object, even by making one color among the hundred included colors its object, accomplishes a hundred. And just as, even though the killing volition occurs at the death of one, because it cannot grasp the entire life faculty, which arises and ceases in the whole body, with a single stroke, it makes the life faculty, which has reached a certain state and is occurring in one part, its object, and destroys the entire life faculty that was its object. Just so, by the killing volition with a present, limited object, among the beings seized with the desire to kill, even when only the life faculty of one is made the object, all are killed by way of the accomplishment of the function. 176. "'From whose hands' means 'from the hands of those relatives and invited ones'." The statement "By giving them the price, he is freed" was said to show the bringing to an end of the effort made by him, restoring it to its original state. "However, having given the book bought with money to the owners of the book, he is indeed freed" — this is said in all three commentaries. But by someone, having said, "If, having given the book to the owners, he does not take the money, he is not freed because it is not released from his ownership," it has been extensively elaborated. That should not be essentially believed. For when the book is given to the owners of the book, having received what was done by another, because the effort made by oneself is destroyed, how would he not be freed? And ownership of what has been abandoned is not seen. But in the commentary, (it is said): "If it was bought with money, the book to the owners of the book, to those from whose hands the money was taken, to them..." having given the root, is released? Because the root was taken for the book, this is not allowable. If, having given the book to the owner of the book, he himself were to take the root, that would indeed be not allowable. Or if, without taking the root from the owner of the book, he himself were to burn that book, even so, there is an offense by another who causes the loss of a gift of faith. Therefore, it is said, "Thus he spoke." That, too, should not be essentially believed. Therefore, the method stated in the knot-sections should be seen as essential here. "We will write a description of death" —having been of one intention— this is said with reference to those acting in that way. But even without such an arrangement, for one acting in the manner described in that book with the intention of death, it is a pārājika offense. "Measures" means the measure he himself has determined. "Having trimmed" means having trimmed the raised part. "The last layer of earth" means the very last layer of earth. "This is enough" —the intention that completes the final action with the desire to finish— is the completing intention. "Suttanta elders" means Suttanta reciters who are not skilled in Vinaya. Some also say, referring to the Mahāaṭṭhakathā teachers, "They are called Suttanta elders in a mocking way, saying 'they do not know the Vinaya'." And here, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, the final completing intention is stated with reference to one acting with this intention: "Let them die by falling into the pit when it is finished; let them not die if it is not finished." But in the Mahāpaccari and Saṅkhepa Aṭṭhakathās, from the first blow onwards, for one acting with this intention: "Let them fall into this pit and die," wherever they fall and die due to an action performed, the completing intention that accomplishes that particular action is referred to when it is said, "even when one spade blow is given," and so on, as stated in all three knot-sections. Therefore, the non-contradiction of the Aṭṭhakathā statements by those various methods is appropriate. Or, in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, one who digs and finishes with an unceasing effort on a single day, Referring to the final intention to complete, it is said, but in other cases, with the intention, "Let them fall into this and die," by digging a little on one day, and likewise digging a little on another day, and completing it, it is said to refer to that. Even so, the non-contradiction of the commentaries with each other is reasonable, so it is acceptable to us. "By its own nature," means without knowing, or by slipping. It is said that Arahants also come under this category, meaning that even Arahants who do not wish to die, when thrown down by others, their death is possible. "In the former way" means in the way it was said, "Those who wish to die will die here." Regarding "having fallen there and taken out," here, because there is no rule, "Let them die in this pit itself," even if taken out and killed, a pārājika is said to occur. They say, "If someone falls into a pit, lingers for a while, and then is taken out and killed, since they were not seized in the pit itself, a pārājika does not occur." But that, because the reason "seized by the act of falling" mentioned in the commentary is possible here too, should be examined and accepted. Or, because the intention "not wishing to die" is possible, even if one dies, being unable to escape from an opapātika (spontaneous birth), a pārājika is said to occur. If it is said, "Since 'having arisen' is mentioned, falling is not seen?" For an opapātika, arising there is itself falling, so there is no contradiction. Because when a mother, having fallen and changed gender, dies, he is a matricide, not merely a killer of a human person, therefore, with the intention that the offense is based on the falling itself, it is said, "the form of falling is the measure." But this is not the reason. For only this much is said in the commentary: "The action of depriving a human mother or father, even if of changed gender, of life, is an anantariya kamma (an immediate retribution)." And there, even if the gender changes,