English
In the specific case, he is bound by kamma by the death of the one he intended to strike. In the non-specific case, saying "Let whoever dies, die," he is bound by kamma by the death of anyone due to the striking. In both cases, whether death occurs immediately upon striking, or later due to that same illness, he is bound by kamma at the moment of striking. "By command" is commanding another, saying, "Kill so-and-so." Here – The object, the time, and the place, the weapon, the posture; and the specific action – these are the six regulators of a command. Here, "object" means the person. If the person commanded to "kill that person" does indeed kill that very person, the commander incurs an offense. But if he kills another, or kills another thinking it is that one, the commander is absolved. However, if commanded "Kill this one," the commander incurs a minor offense. "Time" means the time before meals, etc. If commanded, "Kill before meals," If he kills before noon, the instigator incurs an offense. But if it was appointed before noon, and he kills after or before that, the instigator is freed. By this method, the decision should be understood everywhere. "Fixed" means for one wishing to kill with an immovable device, digging a pitfall, arranging a trap, placing swords and the like, mixing poison in ponds and the like, offering a figure (effigy), and so on. By the method stated, here too, the distinction of specified and unspecified should be understood. "By magic" means incantations for killing. "By psychic power" means the use of psychic power born of kamma-result. In "Or he should seek a weapon-bearer for him," "hārakaṃ" means "one who carries." What does he carry? Life. Or "hārakaṃ" means "that which is to be carried," meaning "that which is to be placed." "Satthahārakaṃ" means "a weapon and that which carries." "For him" means for the person (victim). "Pariyeseyyā" means "he should act so that he obtains it," meaning "he should place it." By this, it shows the "fixed" method. Otherwise, he would incur a pārājika merely by seeking, and this is not appropriate. But in the word-division, without taking the literal meaning, to show the very weapon that is included in the "fixed" method here, "or a sword" and so on was said. In "Or he should praise the virtues of death," either by speech or by writing on palm leaves and the like, by such a method as "whoever dies thus, obtains wealth," he should declare the good qualities in death. By this, just as because it is said "he should take" in "taking what is not given," one is freed by indirect speech, not here. But by the saying "he should praise," here, even by indirect speech, he is not freed – this meaning should be understood. In "Or he should incite him to death," by such a method as "bring a weapon" (Pārā. 172), he should make him adopt a means for death. By this, it shows the method of instigation. "Hey, man!" this is an address. "What is this to you?" and so on, is an example of the manner of praising. "Thus mind-thought" means "thus thought, thus mind." In "Death is better for you than life," the meaning is "thought of death, mind of death" as stated. And here, "mind" is said to clarify the meaning of "consciousness." Therefore, in its word-division, it says: "What is consciousness, that is mind." (Pārā. 172) "Intention of mind" means varied intention. Here too, the word "thus" should be supplied. And "intention" is merely a name for arrangement, not just for initial thought. And that arrangement, in this context, is included by perception, volition, and aim. Therefore, "thus, intention of mind" in "death is better for you than life" means: "perceiving death, intending death, aiming at death." Thus, this meaning should be understood here. Indeed, in the word-division too, this very method is shown. By this, it shows that without the mind intent on death, etc., there is no commendation for one who speaks the Dhamma in the manner of "one day's life is better, for one who firmly exerts effort" (Dhp. 112) and so on. "In many ways" means by various and diverse reasons. Again, "praise of death" and so on, is a concluding statement. "He becomes defeated" means: one who deprives of life a human being, even one who has just come into existence, in the manner stated, becomes defeated. It was laid down in Vesālī, concerning many bhikkhus who deprived each other of life. "Or praise of death" is an additional rule here, a general rule, with instruction. In digging a pit, etc., with the intention to kill, there is an offense of wrong-doing. If a pit is dug without specific intent, and anyone falls into it, there is an offense of wrong-doing. For beings in the form of yakkhas, petas, animals, and humans: in causing suffering to an animal, it is merely a wrong-doing. In causing suffering to a human being, it is a grave offense. Similarly, in the death of yakkhas, etc., but in the death of an animal, it is an offense of expiation. In the death of a human, it is a defeat. In this way, the distinction of offenses should be understood everywhere according to the distinction of application. For one who kills unintentionally, for one who does not know, for one without the aim of killing, and for the insane, etc., there is no offense. Here, "unintentionally" means: by an action done without thinking, "I will kill this one by this means," as in the case of lifting a pestle (Pārā. 180). even if others die, there is no offense. Without knowing, means without knowing, "by this, this one will die," even if others die by the means, as in the story of the poisoned alms-food, there is no offense. Without the intention to kill, means not desiring death, even if others die by the means, as in the story of the medicine, there is no offense. Thus, the determination regarding "without intention," and so on, should be understood. Violation of morality, a human being, perception of a living being, intention to kill, an effort, and death by that effort— these are the five factors here. Arising from taking what is not given, action, release from perception, with intention, blameworthy by the world, bodily action, verbal action, unwholesome mind, and painful feeling. The explanation of the third Pārājika is finished. 4. Explanation of the Fourth Pārājika In the fourth, "not knowing" means not knowing the existence of it in oneself, because it has not arisen in one's own continuum. "Superior human states" means the states of superior humans, both meditators and noble ones. "Attributing to oneself" means attributing it to oneself, saying, "it is in me," or bringing oneself to it, saying, "I am seen in this," thus, "attributing to oneself"; that which is attributed to oneself. The connection is: "should declare having done so." Regarding "sufficient noble knowledge and vision," here, the great and transcendent wisdom is knowledge in the sense of knowing, and vision is in the sense of direct experience, like seeing a phenomenon with the eye, thus, knowledge and vision. Noble, pure, supreme knowledge and vision is noble knowledge and vision. "Sufficient," meaning adequate, capable of destroying defilements, is noble knowledge and vision in these superior human states, such as jhāna. Or, "he has sufficient noble knowledge and vision," thus, "one with sufficient noble knowledge and vision"; that one with sufficient noble knowledge and vision. "Should declare" means that one should declare this superior human state, as described, attributing it to oneself, by body, or by speech, or by both, to an intelligent human being. "Thus I know, thus I see" is a demonstration of the manner of declaration, for when one attributes it to oneself, Therefore, whatever distinction is stated in the word analysis (Parajika 209) such as "I attained the first jhana, I attain, attained," all of that should be understood as included right here. Indeed, one who says "Thus I know, thus I see," does not merely say these words. Rather, he reveals, "For this and that reason, this teaching exists in me." And by saying "I attained," etc., the existence (of the attainment) is revealed by the reasons of attainment, etc. Therefore it was said: "Whatever distinction is stated in the word analysis such as 'I attained the first jhana, I attain, attained,' all of that is included right here." "Then at a later time" means at some other time than the time of declaration. This is a showing of the time of confessing the offense. But this one commits the offense at the very moment of declaration. But since one who has committed an offense confesses, whether reproved by another or not reproved, therefore it was said, "whether being exhorted or not being exhorted." "Has committed" means has committed a parajika offense at the very moment of declaration. "Desiring purity" means desiring, wishing for his own purity, such as the state of a layperson. Indeed, since this one has committed a parajika offense, therefore, remaining in the state of a bhikkhu, he is unable to attain jhanas, etc. Thus, his state of a bhikkhu is not called purity. But since, having become a layperson or one of the male devotees, monastery attendants, or novices, he is able to achieve the path to heaven through generosity, etc., or the path to liberation through jhanas, etc., therefore, his state as a layperson, etc., is called purity. Therefore it was said, "desiring purity, such as the state of a layperson." "Should say thus" means should speak thus. How? "Not knowing thus, friend," and so on. There, "not knowing" means not knowing. "Not seeing" means not seeing. "I spoke vainly, falsely" means I spoke vainly due to the absence of the meaning of the words, and falsely due to the intention to deceive. "Except for over-estimation" means whatever three characteristics... Having set aside the formations, for one who is contemplating, for one who has begun insight, there arises overestimation, which is the perception of attainment in what is not attained.