English
for one who has gone “I will become a sectarian,” by the mere adoption of their insignia, their doctrine is also adopted; this is what is stated. However, some have said, “As soon as he adopts their insignia, whether the doctrine is adopted or not, he becomes an apostate to other sects.” This should not be accepted. For there is no other adoption of doctrine for one who has gone “I will become a sectarian” than the acceptance of their insignia. Indeed, by the acceptance of their insignia, he becomes one who has adopted their doctrine. Therefore, it is said, “For the purpose of testing, grass garments, etc. …as long as he does not accept them, that doctrine protects him; as soon as he accepts them, he becomes an apostate to other sects.” “He goes naked to the dwelling of the Ājīvakas; at every step, a dukkaṭa.” A dukkaṭa is stated due to going with an impure mind, “I will become an Ājīvaka.” It is also stated in the Sāratthadīpanī (Sārattha. ṭī. Mahāvagga 3.110) that he is not freed from a dukkaṭa at every step due to going naked. In the Vimativinodanī (Vi. Vi. ṭī. Mahāvagga 2.11) 0) Now, in stories like those about apostates to other sects, it is merely the intention of investigation, without the resolve of "I will become an apostate," that the symbol is adopted by the body. "By himself" means without going to the apostates, he himself, even in the monastery, wears grass robes and so forth. "They will become Ājīvakas... ...goes" means he goes to the Ājīvakas, with their ordination procedure, (thinking) "I will become an Ājīvaka." For him, even though the resolve to become an apostate exists, because it is conceived as "I will go and become," only a dukkaṭa is stated for the act of going. "Dukkaṭa" is stated even though not in the Pāli, in conformity with the previously stated preliminary dukkaṭas for sexual intercourse and so forth. And by this, it must be said that if the symbol is accepted with resolve, it is a pārājika, and for the preceding act, a thullaccaya. It should be understood that even if one turns back at the moment of thullaccaya, one is released by confessing the offense. Just as here, so too in schism and causing blood to flow, the limit of release from dukkaṭa, thullaccaya, and pārājika for the preliminary acts of monks should be known. Because of its opposition to the Dispensation, non-offense is not stated here even for the first offenders. And it should be understood that these and others are stated in the pārājika section among those unfit for ordination, without showing pārājika and so forth as a separate training rule, to show their unfitness even for ordination. "That doctrine" is stated referring to the acceptance of superiority in the guise of an apostate. For even if one holds the eternalist view of those apostates, if the symbol is not accepted, one is not an apostate. But even without holding that doctrine, if one accepts the symbol, thinking "their practices are good," one is indeed an apostate. "Due to the absence of the doctrine" means due to the absence of the doctrine of becoming an apostate, because of attachment to the state of a monk. And by this, it shows that even for one who wears grass robes and so forth in emergencies, there is no offense, like for a naked person. "Stated by an ordained monk" - here, even the schismatic is stated by an ordained monk, the matricide But those (like *taka*) should be seen as (performable) even by one not fully ordained, so it has been stated. 140. In the discourse on animals, by the statement, "Whoever is of a non-human species, all of them in this context are to be understood as having gone to the animal realm," it is shown that only those of human species are able to go forth or be fully ordained in the dispensation of the Blessed One, and no others. Therefore, the Blessed One said: "You, O Nāgas, are of a nature that cannot grow in this Dhamma and Discipline." (Mahāvagga 111) 141. In the discourse on deeds of immediate retribution, it says, "the mother, being a human female, the generator," meaning that in the children of human species alone, qualities like loving-kindness are sharp and clear, like supramundane qualities, unlike those of animal and other non-human species. Just as the course of wholesome action of humans alone is sharp and clear, so also the course of unwholesome action, it says, "by one who is oneself of human species," and so on. Or alternatively, just as the karma is heavier in harming one of the same species, not so for one of a different species, it says, "being a human female." The designation of mother and father is by relation to a child. The term 'child' is seen in the world even in the sense of adopted, artificial, and so forth, but that is by way of metaphor. To show its direct truth, it is said, "the generating mother." Just as for one established in the human state, there is the attainment of sharpness, clarity, and heroism of wholesome qualities, as in the arising of the three enlightenments for the three Bodhisattas, so also for one established in the human state, there is the attainment of sharpness, clarity, and heroism of unwholesome qualities, it says, "by one who is oneself of human species." Here, concerning "by immediate retribution": the result of rebirth in hell immediately after death is called "immediate." That which is appointed to be the generator in that immediate (result) is *ānantariya*, by that (deed). Or alternatively, the result immediately after death is called "immediate." That which is appointed in that immediate (result), having the nature of causing immediate (result) by its production, or having immediate purpose, is *ānantariya*. By that *ānantariya* deed of matricide. Also in parricide: "By which the generating father, being a human, himself being of human species, was intentionally deprived of life, this is by immediate retribution (for) the father..." "By the act of killing, he is a parricide," and so on, all should be understood. Therefore, it is said: "The same method applies to a parricide." Even with changed gender, for one who deprives a mother or a father of life, it is indeed an anantarika kamma. For even with a change of gender, that very stream of existence, that stream of life, is produced by a single kamma, not another. But if one, being human oneself, deprives a father or mother who is an animal of life, or if one, being an animal oneself, deprives a human father or mother of life, or if an animal deprives an animal father or mother of life, that kamma is not anantarika. But it is heavy, and it stands close to anantarika. Here, the quadruplet of the ram, the quadruplet of battle, and the quadruplet of the thief should be explained. For even with the intention, "I will kill a ram," if a human, standing in the place of a ram, kills a human mother or father, he incurs an anantarika kamma, because the object of anantarika kamma is violated with the intention of killing. But with the intention of a ram, or with the intention of a mother/father, if one kills a ram, one does not incur an anantarika kamma, due to the absence of the object of anantarika kamma. With the intention of a mother/father, if one kills a mother/father, one certainly incurs it. This method applies to the other two quadruplets as well. And just as with mothers and fathers, so too with Arahants, these quadruplets should be understood. For in all cases, the initial intention-thought is immeasurable, but the thought of killing, and the life-faculty that is its object, are measurable. And one who has committed an anantarika kamma, even if thinking, "I will avert the result of that kamma," even if filling the entire cosmos with golden stupas the size of great stupas, even if giving a great offering to the Sangha of bhikkhus seated filling the entire cosmos, even if wandering without letting go of the hem of the Blessed Buddha's robe, upon the breaking up of the body, is reborn only in hell, and does not obtain ordination. "A parricide is the son of a courtesan" is merely an illustration. Even the son of an unchaste woman, who kills his own father without knowing him, is still a parricide. The kamma of killing an Arahant and they remain non-returners and so on. This is the summary here, but the detailed explanation should be taken from the description of the third Pārājika. The meaning stated as "with an evil mind" is clarified as "with a murderous mind." Indeed, a mind defiled by murderous intention is here called an evil mind. In "causes blood to flow," there is no such thing as blood gushing forth by cutting the skin through another's attack on the Tathāgata's invulnerable body, but within the body itself, blood gathers in one place, accumulating as it is agitated by impact. Even a splinter that broke off from the rock thrown by Devadatta struck the Tathāgata's foot, and the foot became full of blood inside, as if struck by an axe. But Jīvaka, with the Tathāgata's consent, cut the skin with a knife and removed the bad blood from that place, making it well, and thus it was a meritorious deed for him. Therefore it is said, "like Jīvaka," and so on. Now, for those who, when the Tathāgata has attained Parinibbāna, break a shrine, cut down a Bodhi tree, or attack relics, what happens to them? It is a grave deed, similar to an immediate retribution. However, it is permissible to cut a Bodhi branch that obstructs a stūpa or an image containing relics. Even if birds perched there drop droppings on the shrine, it is still permissible to cut it. For a bodily shrine is more important than a shrine of use. If the shrine's foundation is broken and moving, it is permissible to cut and remove it even at the root of the Bodhi tree. But a Bodhi branch that obstructs the Bodhi house may not be cut for the protection of the house. For the house is for the Bodhi, not the Bodhi for the house. The same principle applies to a seat-house. But if relics are enshrined in that seat-house,