English
"For the principal, there is an offense of grave transgression," it should be understood that in the case of misunderstanding, there is an offense of wrong-doing. "The slayer accepts, there is an offense of wrong-doing," this wrong-doing belongs to the slayer himself. For he, having first caused the commander Buddharakkhita to incur the offense of defeat, and having himself deprived him of life, will commit it. Even though it is not stated in the Pāli, "He deprives him of life, and for the commander and for the slayer, there is an offense of defeat," nevertheless, it is stated in meaning. And because it was stated earlier in the manner of "from which the defeat was laid down," it was not stated. "He deprives him of life, an offense for all It was said before: "It is a pārājika for all." Here, the teacher's disciples, who were previously mentioned as having committed dukkaṭa and thullaccaya offenses, did not commit them first, but rather committed a pārājika offense. Even so, because their pārājika status became evident through the executioner's pārājika offense, it was stated collectively, "It is a pārājika for all," not "It is a pārājika for the one who ordered and for the executioner." Why? Because the executioner committed a dukkaṭa offense. He first commits a dukkaṭa offense and then a pārājika. However, if the disciples merely convey the message out of respect for the teacher, without intending to kill themselves, they are not guilty of a pārājika. A dukkaṭa offense certainly arises due to conveying an improper message. To prove this point, some cite the example of the Sotāpanna hunter's wife giving a bow, arrows, and spears in the Dhammapada stories. This aligns with the Tittira Jātaka (Jā. 1.4.73 onwards), therefore, the teacher says, "It is not our reasoning that it contradicts the Sutta and the Commentary." Here, however, because it is stated without distinction in the chain of messengers, "Tell so-and-so, and so-and-so should tell so-and-so," whether it is conveyed by speech, hand gesture, letter, or messenger, there is no doubt. If the original sender or an intermediate messenger specifies, then a doubt arises if that is transgressed. Now, in these two sections, the method stated in the sub-commentary is explained: "The executioner accepts, it is a dukkaṭa offense." The offense is only for the executioner, not for Buddharakkhita, who gave the order. However, if he (the executioner) certainly performs one of the two—killing or not killing the one to be executed—then at the moment of Buddharakkhita's command, it would be one of the two, a pārājika or a dukkaṭa. From the context of "thus with a mind," just as the word "iti" is used in "cittasaṅkappo" (intention), from the context of "the executioner accepts, it is a thullaccaya for the original sender," it is a dukkaṭa for the original sender. is said. Why is it not said in its own form? To give a further method. For if it were said, "The original offender incurs a dukkaṭa," because it is restricted to the original offender, it would not be known that "the receiver incurs a dukkaṭa." For if it were said without restriction, "The slayer receives, a dukkaṭa offense," it would be possible to apply the dukkaṭa to both. That is why the Aṭṭhakathā teachers, taking the context, said, "When Saṅgharakkhita receives, it should be known that the dukkaṭa is only for the original offender." For the receiver, it is neither permitted nor forbidden; it is merely forbidden for Buddharakkhita due to its being unrestricted. But the meaning conveyed is that his offense would be one of the pārājika or dukkaṭa offenses. Therefore, that too is well said. Since it is possible to apply it to both, the teachers said, "This dukkaṭa is for the receiver." There, the original offender is neither permitted, due to the absence of the phrase "for the original offender," nor forbidden, due to the absence of the Pāḷi "the receiver incurs a dukkaṭa." To give the method that the slayer incurs a dukkaṭa due to receiving, since it is not said in the Pāḷi "for the original offender," what was said, "This dukkaṭa is for the receiver," is also well said. For there, it is forbidden for Buddharakkhita, but by the method stated, his offense is indeterminate. Why, in the Aṭṭhakathā, without saying that the slayer incurs a dukkaṭa due to receiving, is the dukkaṭa said only with reference to the original offender? To prevent an undesirable consequence. For if it were said, "When Saṅgharakkhita receives, he incurs a dukkaṭa due to receiving," then, because it is stated in its own form by the immediately preceding method, it would follow that the original offender's thullaccaya is also stated in the Aṭṭhakathā here. Thus, to avoid that thullaccaya, which would thus follow, being explicit, the dukkaṭa for the receiver was stated. To avoid this undesirable interpretation of the Aṭṭhakathā being implicit, to prevent it, it was said, "This is a dukkata for the root-dweller." For the dukkata of one who accepts in the manner stated by the teacher is also clear. And if it is asked, "Why is it said that our patience is clear?" It is for the purpose of clarifying the practice. "Even teachers whose wisdom is unhindered in the Three Pitakas and so on, since it is not stated in the Pali or the commentary in its own form, they practice in such places in this way. How much more so should those good-hearted young men like me, in the future, without transgressing the stated method, avoiding the fault of mixing, and without overstepping the time for explanation, practice?" This was also said by others. However, since this is not stated in the commentary, such a reading, because it was later inserted by the teacher, is not found in some books. Therefore, we will write everything. If this is the case, there would be no offense in accepting. But there is an offense in accepting for a messenger, and in rejoicing in death. How could there not be an offense in accepting for killing? Therefore, this is a dukkata for the one who accepts. That is why "for the root-dweller" is not said here. Even in the former method, this is to be understood for the one who accepts, but it was not stated due to lack of space. Therefore, whoever accepts, for that person, due to that, there is an offense. This is our patience here. And as it is here, so it is in taking what is not given. 175. In the instructions regarding "worthy of secrecy" and so on, although only a dukkata is stated in the Pali and the commentary, nevertheless, if one speaks with the intention that he should die after hearing it through tradition, if there is a specific designation, with the death of the designated person, the offense is parajika. If there is no specific designation, with the death of anyone, the offense is parajika. If one designates and speaks, "Let so-and-so hear and report to the one to be executed," the lack of specific designation is to be understood as stated through the messenger tradition. If one speaks, "Let anyone who hears speak," and the one to be executed hears it himself and dies, due to the lack of specific designation, it is not parajika. If anyone hears and speaks, and that person dies, it is parajika. If one speaks, "Let anyone who hears my words kill him," whoever hears and kills, it is a pārājika. If one hears and kills by oneself, due to being in doubt, it is not a pārājika. Thus, the possibility should be understood. 176. “Giving the root and being freed” here means breaking, smashing, removing, crushing, or throwing into fire, one is freed beforehand; this is what is meant. “From whose hands the root was taken” means from whose relatives and attendants’ hands the root was taken by that bhikkhu. Having taken the root previously given by the owner of the book, and giving it back to those same relatives and so on, one is freed. Thus, it becomes the property of the owner of the book. In the Anugaṇṭhipada, it is said, “Even if he, regretting, quickly gives them the root and is freed.” That refers to the money with which the book was bought. Why? Because when money is taken from the owner of the book, one is freed even if the book is not given. If it referred to other money, it would not be proper, because the book would not have been freed from being one’s own property. If one gives the book to the owners but does not take the root, one is not freed, because it has not been freed from being one’s own property. If one offers the book, being given as the root, saying, “Let it be yours,” one is freed, because it has been freed from being one’s own property. Here is this consideration: Just as when a cetiya, or an image, or a pond, or a bridge is bought and taken, that merit belongs to the maker, not to the one who bought and took it, similarly, if the evil also belongs to the one who wrote the book, and not to the other, then? No, because of the saying, “Or he should search for a weapon-bearer for him.” For it is established that it is a pārājika for one who obtains a weapon made by another and places it there. Thus, it is established that if one obtains a book written by another and places it there, so that the condemned person sees it and dies, it is a pārājika. “Cetiya and so on” is an example. That action is a cause of making, this is a cause of death. Thus, it was considered by the teacher. But to me, that meaning also seems to be established by the example of the cetiya and so on. is destroyed. Regarding "so many lives destroyed," it is written: "Even one volition, in terms of its function, is called 'so many,' like the fourfoldness of mindfulness foundations and right endeavors." "Having set a measure" means the measure intended by oneself. If the killer, with the intention, "Let him fall into such a pit dug by me and die," determined the size of the pit and then dug it, then "in this pit" is said with reference to that. Now, since the measure of what is to be dug is not determined, "even with one stroke of the spade,"