English
nor the commander is freed." For, by determining and specifying a place, he intends to kill whoever is sitting in that place, but he himself is not there at that time. Therefore, it should be understood that the life faculty is the object for one sitting there with the space, not for oneself. But if one sits there oneself and specifies one's own sitting place, and when told "kill him," another person sitting there is killed, then for that person too, and for oneself, the intention to kill arises concerning life. When another is killed there, it should be understood that the instigator is bound by kamma. The determination of the mind's occurrence in such a situation is within the Buddha's domain, not that of others. Therefore, it is said, "Here, there should be no carelessness." If the one who gives such an order, the teacher, incurs a dukkaṭa (minor offense) if the one ordered does not act according to the intention, then the teacher's dukkaṭa occurs at the moment of the order. But if that person acts according to the intention, then what is later called a thullaccaya (grave offense) occurs at the moment of the order. If that person definitely kills, then what is later said "the offense is a pārājika for all" (Pārā. 174), from that, a pārājika occurs for this person at the very moment of the order, not a dukkaṭa or thullaccaya. "Dukkaṭa for them too" means that for Buddharakkhita and others, a dukkaṭa arises due to the reporting. This applies if Saṅgharakkhita's life is not taken, according to the order. If it is taken, then for them too, a pārājika occurs at the moment of reporting. "Merely accepted" is said to indicate the nature of definite acceptance, not to show that a thullaccaya occurs at the moment of acceptance. For if that person will definitely accept, but will not complete the act, then it should be understood that a thullaccaya occurs for the teacher at the moment of the order. "Dukkaṭa for the original owner only" is merely a presentation of the method found in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, but it is not what is intended by oneself. Therefore, it is said, "if it is so," and so on. The meaning is: if there is a meaning in the way stated in the Mahāaṭṭhakathā. "There would be no offense in acceptance" means that for the killer, in the acceptance of death with "good, very well," there would be no dukkaṭa offense. Thus, even in such a subtle matter, so much... done. What is meant by "receiving death"? To show this, the acceptance of a messenger, etc., is illustrated. "Oh, if only so-and-so were slain!" When there is a dukkaṭa for rejoicing in death, such as rejoicing in the acceptance of a messenger, it means that "I will kill him" is an acceptance of death. By the emphasis that "this dukkaṭa is only for the one who accepts," it shows that the original perpetrator, due to the acceptance by Saṅgharakkhita, has no offense. Because it is a disengagement, he only has the dukkaṭa of the first command. Some, however, say that "the original perpetrator also has a dukkaṭa," but that is not appropriate, as two dukkaṭas cannot arise from one act. "In the former way" refers to the immediate past description of a disengaged messenger. This is a dukkaṭa. "Due to lack of opportunity" means that since the original perpetrator's offense is called a thullaccaya (grave offense), the dukkaṭa for the one who accepts is not mentioned due to lack of opportunity, not due to lack of offense. 175. Because he himself was the elder of the Saṅgha, it is said, "at the time of attendance." "Dukkaṭa by word, by word" means that even by words like "even thieves would not kill him," a dukkaṭa is incurred, because it was said merely by way of rejoicing in death, without the intention of "whoever hears my words, kill him." "Intending two" means intending two persons, or intending the death of two. When one praises death, intending both, even though the volition that initiates the act is one, it is said to be "two pāṇātipātas" (life-takings), indicating its strong nature, and it is called an "unwholesome heap" because of its great vipāka in the continuation of rebirths. The same method applies to praising death intending many. "So many pāṇātipātas" means that as many as will die upon hearing the praise, so many pāṇātipātas occur, because the volition operates by taking all their present and future life faculties as its object. This means that that one volition can give the vipāka of continuation that would be given by so many volitions. However, the vipāka of rebirth itself and prior and subsequent intention can give only one at a time, so it should be understood. 176. "From whose hand" means from the hand of relatives, invited people, and so on. This is said with reference to the monk's lack of money. If it is his own property, he himself takes the price and releases it. But even without taking the price, the fact that the book becomes the property of the book's owner is the criterion here, so it should be understood. "Those curious to see the writing" means those who, seeing beautiful writing, or thinking "what kind of book is it?", wish to look at it. "Because it is an application of taking life" means because it is an application that completes the separation of life from the body. But for one who digs a pitfall, or for the purpose of a spade and so on, extracts iron ore for the purpose of a spade, or for the purpose of spade handles and so on, disturbs living beings in the earth, it is indeed a pācittiya offense. Since there is no application of taking life, as in the prior application of taking what is not given, in the second search and so on, here too, a dukkata offense where there is a dukkata, and a pācittiya offense where there is a pācittiya, should be understood. "Estimates" means the estimate he himself has observed. "Having cut away" means having cut away the raised part. "The very last basket of earth" means the very last basket of earth. "This much is enough" means the intention to complete it, the final completing intention, which is the intention that makes the very last application effective. In the Mahāaṭṭhakathā, it is said that the final completing intention is spoken with reference to one who digs and completes it with an uninterrupted application on a single day. But in other aṭṭhakathās, it is said with the intention that "those who fall into this will die," and with reference to one who digs a little on one day, and then digs a little more on another day, and so completes it. Thus, the contradiction among the aṭṭhakathās should be understood. "By its own nature" means without knowing, or by mistake. "Even Arahants are included" means it is said that even Arahants, who are being struck by others and do not wish to die, can die. "In the former way" means in the way it was said, "those who wish to die will die here." "He has doubts" means those who wish to die, those who wish to kill. and the meaning is that for those who do not wish to die, whose karma is bound to death, there is no karma in dying. "Having pulled out what fell in there" this was said because death occurred due to falling in there. It should be understood that even if one falls into a pit, lingers a little, and then is caught and killed while going, or if one is afflicted with a disease from falling, and while going, stumbles and falls on rocks, etc., and dies, the pit-digger is not absolved. "Those who do not wish to die" means that even if one dies unable to escape the opapātika (spontaneous rebirth), due to the possibility of such an intention, the pārājika offense is stated. If it is asked, "Since 'having been reborn' is stated, is falling not seen?" There is no contradiction, for its rebirth there is itself falling. Since one who kills his mother, who fell and whose gender changed, is a matricide, not merely a killer of a human male, therefore, with the intention that the offense is based on the one who fell, it was said, "the form of falling is the measure." But this is without reason, for "even if the gender changes, the continuity of the single stream of being is not lost. Indeed, in the commentary it is said, 'For one who deprives of life a human mother or father, even if their gender has changed, the karma is anāntariya (immediate retribution).'" However, by whatever nature beings are born, by that same nature they die; that same nature is theirs even when they assume another form. Therefore, it was said, "the form of dying is the measure, therefore it is a pācittiya offense." The latter statement is the measure. If so, why is it said in the Pāli, "If a yakkha or a peta or a human-bodied animal falls into it, there is an offense of dukkata. If it falls, painful feelings arise, there is an offense of dukkata. If it dies, there is an offense of thullaccaya"? This is not a fault. For "a yakkha or a peta" was said first to show their own form, and then "or a human-bodied animal" was said to show the yakkhas and petas even when they have assumed another form. Therefore, the connection here should be made as: "a yakkha or a peta, whether in an animal body or a human body." Some, however, say, "the unique characteristic of animals existing in a human body..." ...having done, it seems to be said as a grave offense," they say. That is not appropriate, because it is said to be an animal or a human form, and because this distinction is not mentioned in the commentaries. Even if one dies in the form of a yakkha or peta, the same rule applies, because the form of death itself is the measure, thus it extends to a grave offense. "Mudha" means without cost. "He is blameless" means because there was no application made by him there. But if he also does something there, he is not released, showing this, it is said "thus fallen," etc. There, "thus" means "thus done by me." "They will not perish" means they will not go out of sight, they will not flee, is the intention.