善見律毘婆沙

Question: If one counts only to three or four, what is wrong with that?

Answer: If the breath is constrained, the mind becomes difficult to control, just as when too many cattle are crowded and jostling one another in a pen, they will break out of it. If one counts fully to ten, the body becomes comfortable, like a spacious pen. When the pen is spacious, the cattle are easily tended.

Question: If one counts to eight or nine, what is wrong with that?

Answer: It does not cause confusion, but it gives rise to uncertainty, or one may think that one has attained the savor of meditation and thus become deluded. You should abandon such faults. When counting the breaths, if one counts each number clearly, slowly, and gradually, it is like a person measuring grain: first he pours it in until the measure is full and then counts “one,” after which he measures out that portion. If there is grass or earth in it, he picks it out and throws it away. When he has poured it in until full, he counts “two” and then measures it out, proceeding in this manner up to ten. A bhikkhu practicing seated meditation likewise first counts the inhalations and exhalations.

If one counts quickly, it is like a cowherd counting cattle. How does he count?

An intelligent cowherd, holding a whip in his hand, sits directly upon the gatepost of the cattle pen, uses pebbles... as counters (sakkaram khipitvà), and drives the cattle outside. As he drives them out, he begins counting: one, two, three, four, five... up to ten head.

Why does he count in this way? At times, when the four great elements are not in harmony and inhalation and exhalation are rapid, one should count quickly in accordance with the breaths as they enter and leave: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. When counting cattle, the cowherd stands directly at the gate and counts; he does not count cattle that are inside or outside the gate.

By attending to the count, the mind becomes concentrated. Why? It is like a person traveling in a boat against a swift current (candasota), who plants his pole once, twice, three times, four times, five times, thereby keeping the boat steady as it moves upstream.

Inhalation and exhalation are likewise. Why? The mind is like the boat, inhalation and exhalation are like the pole.

The boat of the mind, drifting along the river of the five sensual pleasures, is restrained by inhalation and exhalation and thereby made steady. If the breath enters and the mind follows it inward, it is like nourishment entering the body and filling it. If the breath leaves and the mind follows it outward, the object of contemplation becomes extended and dispersed.

Because of this extensive dispersion, the mind is difficult to tame. Avoiding these two, if one fixes the mind only at the place where the breath makes contact—the tip of the nose or the upper lip—one will subsequently attain concentration. Therefore, the Vinaya text says: One must not count by following the breath inward or outward.

Until when should one continue counting? When the mind is no longer distracted and one still clearly knows the inhalations and exhalations, counting is no longer necessary. In this way, through the method of counting, one attains mindfulness by following.

What is mindfulness by following? It is clearly knowing the inhalations and exhalations without any further reliance on counting, while clearly knowing and establishing mindfulness at the three places traversed by the breath. In exhalation, the beginning is at the navel, the middle at the heart, and the end at the tip of the nose (nàbhi àdi hadayam majjham hàsikà poriyosàham).

In inhalation, the beginning is at the tip of the nose, the middle at the heart, and the end at the navel. If the mind follows the breath, it does not become concentrated. Because it is not concentrated, it is agitated.

Therefore, the Vinaya says: If the mind follows the exhalation and inhalation, it is not concentrated within, and both the mind within and the body without are agitated. Because of agitation, concentration is not attained. The same applies when one follows the inhalation and exhalation.

Therefore, one must not follow the inhalation or exhalation through its middle and later stages, but should focus the mind only upon the tip of the nose, hold firmly to that point, and note the inhalations and exhalations. When counting is abandoned, the mind, through noting, enters concentration by itself. It is like a lame person watching over a baby: he places the baby in a cradle suspended in the middle of the house, sits in one place, and rocks the cradle back and forth while remaining in that one place, rather than moving along with his hand.

A bhikkhu practicing seated meditation is likewise. It is also said: This is like a gatekeeper who need not question people in advance as they enter and leave, but questions them only when they arrive directly at the gate. Nor does he ask where they came from or what things they are carrying; he knows only that they enter or leave.

A bhikkhu practicing seated meditation is likewise: he need not know the breaths beforehand or conceive of inhalation and exhalation. You should understand it for yourself in this way.

The Buddha taught: “For one who clearly understands three qualities, the mind becomes concentrated.”

Those three qualities are:

One, delight in entering.

Two, method.

Three, attainment of growth.

It is like a great log placed firmly upon the ground. A person wishing to saw through it first examines its bark and then applies the saw. His mind remains continuously focused upon the place where the saw teeth contact the wood, keeping the saw moving in a straight line rather than watching the blade go back and forth.

Contemplation of inhalation and exhalation is likewise. One reflects upon the meditation subject being practiced, with the method fully established like the great log resting firmly on the ground. Carefully examining all around the log is like the mind skillfully reflecting upon the meditation subject.

Inhalation and exhalation are like the saw blade moving back and forth. Focusing the mind upon the saw teeth is like focusing upon the tip of the nose. A bhikkhu practicing seated meditation should understand this analogy: through the meditation presently being practiced and the complete method, he reaches the higher state.

Question: What is meditation concentration?

Answer: The vigorous exertion of body and mind and the attainment of mastery constitute meditation concentration.

Question: What is the complete method (payoga)?

Answer: Through courageous effort, one eliminates the defilements and completely extinguishes discursive thoughts.

Question: What does it mean to reach the higher state?

Answer: Through courageous effort, one eliminates the fetters (samyojana).

The three phenomena—the sign, inhalation, and exhalation—are not accomplished merely through one-pointed contemplation; they also require clear knowledge of those three phenomena. The mind is free from agitation through the meditation concentration presently being practiced, and the complete method leads to the higher state. Once this has been attained, the mind adheres firmly to anapana, and this is called accomplishment. Any bhikkhu who practices mindfulness of anapana illuminates the world like the moon emerging from the clouds.

In this meditation concentration, for some who have newly begun, an auspicious sign appears; for others, an auspicious sign appears through breath-counting.

What is that auspicious sign? Although this bhikkhu sits upon the ground or on a bed without a sitting mat, he feels that his seat is as soft as cotton. Why? Because, through counting the breaths, his body has become light and comfortable. Gradually, the coarse inhalations and exhalations cease, and body and mind become exceedingly light, as though suspended in midair. When the breath becomes subtle, it seems both to exist and not to exist. It is like striking a chime: the sound is loud at first and faint afterward. A bhikkhu practicing seated meditation and counting the breaths is likewise. Therefore, the Vinaya says that it is loud at first and then gradually becomes faint.

The Dharma master said: “This breath-counting meditation concentration differs from other meditation concentrations. In other meditation concentrations, it is subtle at first and coarse afterward. If a bhikkhu enters this breath-counting meditation but the meditation sign does not appear clearly, he should not rise.

He should calmly remain seated upright and reflect. How should he reflect? When he knows that the meditation sign has not appeared clearly, he should say to himself: ‘Where do this inhalation and exhalation exist, and where do they not exist?

For whom do they exist, and for whom do they not exist?’ He should then say to himself: ‘A person within the mother’s womb has no inhalation or exhalation; one submerged in water has no inhalation or exhalation; devas in the Realm of Long Life also have no inhalation or exhalation; one who has entered the fourth jhana has no inhalation or exhalation; a corpse has no inhalation or exhalation; in the form realm or formless realm there is no inhalation or exhalation; and in the attainment of cessation there is no inhalation or exhalation.’”

Having reflected in this way, the practitioner reproaches himself: You are a person of wisdom. You are not in your mother’s womb, not under water, not in the realms of form or formlessness, not entering the attainment of cessation, not in the Heaven of Long Life, not a corpse, and not abiding in the fourth jhana. Your inhalations and exhalations are extremely subtle, yet you are unable to discern them; therefore, gather your attention again. If one has a long nose, one should place the mind at the nostrils (nàsàputa). If one has a short nose, one should focus on the tip of the upper lip. Thus, one must hold firmly to this point.

As stated in the sutra, the Buddha told the bhikkhus: One who is forgetful and cannot focus with clear comprehension cannot enter anapana meditation. This applies not only to anapana meditation but also to other meditative attainments. If one can establish right mindfulness, the meditation will become clear. This anapana meditation is of great importance. Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas, and great arhats (Buddhapahà) all use this mindfulness of anapana as their foundation and only thereafter attain the path, with continuous mindfulness leading to supreme purity. Therefore, in this concentration, continuous mindfulness must be developed together with wisdom.

When sewing very fine cloth, one must use an exceedingly fine needle and thread. The needle is like continuous mindfulness, and the thread is like wisdom; joined together without interruption, these two qualities prevent one from losing awareness of inhalation and exhalation. It is like a farmer plowing a field: when the ox has grown weary and the farmer is also tired, he releases the ox to rest.

Once released, the ox goes into the forest. After resting, the man goes to look for it, but he need not follow its tracks. Instead, he goes directly into the forest to the place where the ox habitually goes to drink water and lies or sits there waiting.

When the ox has finished drinking, he threads a rope through its nose, takes up his staff, and drives it back to continue plowing the field. In the same way, when a bhikkhu meditating on inhalation and exhalation becomes too weary, he temporarily stops and rests. He no longer follows the inhalations and exhalations but simply establishes mindfulness at the tip of the nose, attending to and counting them.

Right mindfulness is like the rope through the ox’s nose, and wisdom is like the staff; he thus continues attending to the place where the breath enters and leaves.

If this is done, before long the meditation sign (nimitta) will become clear once again, and the body will feel comfortable, as though touching cotton wool; the body will feel soft and pliant. Some perceive it as though touching kapok cloth; some, as though touching a strong current of wind; some, like stars; some, like a string of jewels; some, like scattered white pearls; some, as though touching kapok seeds; some, like a cord; some experience a rough, hard contact; some perceive it like a flame; some, like a monkey; some, like floating clouds; some, like a lotus; some, like a wheel; and some, like the full moon.

Why is this? As stated in the sutra: Bhikkhus gather to recite the sutras, yet each perceives a different auspicious sign. Some perceive mountains, some a river, and some forest trees, although they all begin in the same way.

Question: Why are there such differences as mountains, rivers, and forest trees?

Answer: They arise from mental perception. Because each person’s conception differs, different signs arise. Some contemplate exhalation, some contemplate inhalation, and some contemplate the meditation sign (nimittàranamana). Without such contemplation, one cannot discover the practice of anapana (anapana-sati), nor can one attain the first jhana. When these three qualities are present, meditative concentration is accomplished.

If such a sign appears to a bhikkhu practicing seated meditation, he should report to his teacher: “I have perceived a sign of this kind.”

The teacher replies that it is a perceived sign, but does not say that it is a meditation sign, nor does he say that it is not a meditation sign.

Having instructed him in this way, the teacher says: “Venerable One! Apply your mind still more diligently.”

The Dharma teacher says: Why does the teacher not say whether it is or is not a meditation sign?

Answer: If he specifically tells the practitioner in each instance, “This is a meditation sign,” the practitioner may become negligent through conceit and abandon the practice. If he says that it is not a meditation sign, the practitioner may lose heart. Therefore, he does not specify it but merely instructs him earnestly, whereupon the meditation sign will manifest by itself.

There is an ancient verse:

Fasten the mind upon the object of contemplation,

And many signs will appear.

If one possesses wisdom,

One keeps the mind continuously mindful

Of inhalation and exhalation,

Diligent and undistracted.

When the meditation sign appears, the hindrances are restrained, and the defilements grow still and cease of themselves. Through these two qualities, the mind becomes established and concentrated. One may attain the preliminary stage, attain the stage in which defilements are removed, or, through the manifestation of the jhana factors, attain the preliminary stage (access concentration). This is the attainment of the preliminary stage of concentration.

Question: Are establishment in concentration (absorption concentration) and preliminary concentration (access concentration) different or the same?

Answer: They are different. Preliminary concentration—access concentration—is when the mind has become mature and enters the mind’s resting place (Bà-bàn-già—Bhavanga, the life-continuum: the place where the mind rests). Establishment in concentration—absorption concentration—is when the mind remains mature within this object throughout the entire day and is no longer dependent upon Bà-bàn-già. Thus, these two qualities are different.

Once the meditation sign has become clear, it should be further developed by contemplating its form or appearance. It is like a Wheel-Turning King while still in the womb: cherished and protected by his parents, kept in a place with a temperate climate, and nourished with suitable foods. If he is carefully nurtured, excellent results will follow.

The bhikkhu’s protection of the meditation sign is the same. If it is not constantly protected, it will be lost. How, then, should it be protected?

One: Dwelling in a suitable residence.

Two: Having a convenient area in which to travel for alms.

Three: Associating with virtuous people.

Four: Having suitable food.

Five: Having a temperate climate.

Six: Choosing suitable postures of walking, standing, sitting, and lying down.

Seven: Avoiding commotion, especially in relation to eating and drinking.

When protected by these seven qualities, the meditation sign becomes firmly and securely established.

As the meditation sign gradually develops and becomes clear, and the faculties become exceedingly pure, gentle, and pliant, one can easily retain or release the mind at will, arouse or subdue it, gladden it or regard it with equanimity. One associates with those who have attained the meditation sign and avoids those who have not attained it, directs the mind wholeheartedly toward meditation, and clearly understands the meditation sign.

With regard to these ten qualities, the wise person skillfully establishes the mind, does not become indolent, and diligently cultivates the practice. He should reflect: “May I become firmly established in concentration, abandon the Bà-bàn-già mind (the life-continuum), and arouse the intention to advert the mind (manadvàvajjanam uppajjati).” This remains for one mind-moment and then ceases, after which four or five (4 or 5) xà-bà-na (javana—impulsion consciousnesses) arise.

These five consciousnesses are: 1. The preparatory consciousness; 2. The learning consciousness (access); 3. The conformity consciousness; 4. The intermediate consciousness; 5. The absorption consciousness.

If these five consciousnesses are condensed into four, they are: 1. The preparatory access consciousness; 2. The conformity consciousness; 3. The intermediate consciousness; 4. The absorption consciousness. This fourth consciousness is also called the fifth consciousness; there is no sixth or seventh.

The preceding minds belong to the sense sphere; this fifth mind, that of abiding, belongs to the form sphere. By means of this mind, the five factors of the hindrances are eliminated, and the five jhana factors—initial application, sustained application, rapture, bliss, and one-pointedness—arise. When the ten characteristics are complete and all three stages are excellent, one attains the first jhana. Then applied thought within this contemplative practice is entirely eliminated, and the second jhana is attained. When this characteristic too is eliminated, one realizes the third jhana, and then the fourth. Thus one trains the mind and rises ever higher.

The Dharma teacher said: “This is stated in brief. For a detailed explanation, consult the Visuddhimagga (Path of Purification).”

After attaining the fourth jhana, the bhikkhu properly apprehends and develops it. If he wishes to reach complete truth, this fourth jhana possesses five excellent qualities: first, the mind’s abiding; second, entering; third, resolution; fourth, emerging; and fifth, reviewing. By means of these five qualities, he reaches the truth.

Having thoroughly cultivated and mastered this meditation practice, the bhikkhu may begin contemplation with form or with the formless. Having contemplated form and the formless, he further develops the practice of Vipassana, mindfulness meditation. How does he develop it further?

After emerging from the fourth jhana, the bhikkhu still firmly apprehends the jhana factors (jhānanga). Having firmly apprehended these jhana factors in his mind, he contemplates the body composed of the four great elements, while the mind depends upon the four great elements (cattāri bhūtāni). Spoken of from the standpoint of these jhana factors, the starting point is the formless sphere of mind.

Through form and the formless mind, consciousness is discerned. Beginning with the four great elements, there is form together with the material phenomena associated with consciousness, while consciousness itself is not form. If he emerges from concentration and resumes breathing in and breathing out, body and mind are the conditions for it.

Just as air enters the leather bellows of a smith through the force of its movement, so too inhalation and exhalation occur in dependence upon body and mind. Seeing inhalation and exhalation, this bhikkhu sees the body, sees form and mental factors, and so forth, together with these formless mental phenomena. By clearly seeing name-and-form in this way, he further contemplates and clearly sees the causes and conditions through which name-and-form continues without interruption throughout the three times.

Because name-and-form continues in this way, doubt arises. After abandoning doubt (kaṅkhā), he contemplates the three characteristics of name-and-form—suffering, impermanence, and non-self. Having contemplated the three characteristics, he then contemplates arising and passing away.

Through contemplating arising and passing away, he first sees light and becomes free from the ten corruptions of Vipassana (dasavipassanūpakilesa). After becoming free from these ten corruptions, knowledge of the path of practice (paṭipadā-ñāṇa, knowledge and vision of the course of practice) arises in him. Having gone beyond the phenomena that have arisen, he again clearly sees the arising and dissolution of phenomena (udayaṃ pahāya bhaṅgānupassanaṃ patvā), and successive thoughts are destroyed.

When these two knowledges—knowledge of the path and knowledge of dissolution—have arisen, the practitioner becomes disenchanted with all conditioned phenomena in the three realms (sabbasaṅkhāresu nibbindanto). Thus, successively attaining the four paths, the practitioner reaches the fruit of arhatship. He attains the culmination of the nineteen kinds of reviewing knowledge (ekūnavīsatibhedassa paccavekkhaṇa-ñāṇassa pariyantappatto sadevakassa lokassa aggadakkhiṇeyyo hoti), fully knowing all phenomena to their ultimate end, and becomes the unsurpassed field of merit for the three realms, including Brahmas, Māras, ascetics, and brahmins.

This is the practice of mindfulness of inhalation and exhalation. The first four statements of the first section—the four subjects of mindfulness of the body—have now been explained.

The four statements in each of the remaining three sections are no different from the other jhanas. Therefore, I shall explain them.

“Experiencing” means experiencing rapture: “Clearly experiencing rapture, I breathe in and breathe out.” Rapture is experienced in two ways. They are:

1. Through the object of contemplation.

2. Through freedom from delusion.

How is rapture experienced through the object of contemplation? Rapture is present when entering the first two jhanas. While in these jhanas, when one wishes to experience rapturous feeling with wisdom, one naturally experiences rapturous feeling through the object of contemplation. Thus, rapturous feeling is experienced by means of the object of contemplation.

How is rapturous feeling experienced through freedom from delusion? Rapture is present in both of the first two jhanas. After entering and emerging from these jhanas, wisdom contemplates how that rapture passes away within insight meditation and penetrates its characteristic—the characteristic being contemplated—without delusion. Through freedom from delusion, one comes to experience rapturous feeling.

The Paṭisambhidāmagga (Path of Discrimination) states: Through inhalation and exhalation, one attains one-pointedness of mind. When the mind is undistracted, one knows with clear awareness. Through knowing with clear awareness, one experiences rapturous feeling. Through a long exhalation and a short inhalation, one experiences the whole body and experiences the calming of the bodily formation. Through attaining one-pointedness by inhaling and exhaling, one knows clearly. Through these two qualities, experience arises.

Because the mind is settled, one experiences rapturous feeling. Through clear knowledge and through contemplation—contemplating forward and backward—one stabilizes the mind. With resolute mind, one maintains effort, and understanding arises.

With the mind concentrated and stable, one clearly knows by wisdom: what must be known is clearly known; what must be abandoned is abandoned; what must be contemplated is contemplated; and what must be manifested through cultivation is manifested. This leads to the experience of rapturous feeling. In this way, rapturous feeling is attained.

The meanings of the following statements should likewise be understood. There is a difference in that bliss is experienced in the first three jhanas, whereas in all four jhanas the mental formation is experienced (cittasaṅkhārapaṭisaṃvedī—experiencing the mental formation).

Question: “What is the mental formation?”

Answer: “The aggregates of feeling and perception (vedanādayo dve khandhā) are the mental formation.”

The experience of bliss here belongs to Vipassana insight meditation. Bliss is of two kinds: first, bodily bliss; second, mental bliss. The Paṭisambhidāmagga states: Calming the mental formation means settling and bringing the gross mental formation to cessation (oḷārikaṃ cittasaṅkhāraṃ passambhanto nirodhento ti attho); this is also called concentration through cessation.

For a detailed explanation, this is clarified in the section on the bodily formation; study it for yourself (yasaṅkhāra). The rapture in the statement “experiencing rapture,” when considered in relation to feeling, belongs to formations. If bliss is selected, it belongs to the aggregate of feeling.

In both of the above cases, the statement “experiencing the mental formation” includes the mental factors of both perception and feeling (saññā vedanā cetasikā). These two phenomena are inseparable from mind; therefore, when the mental formation is selected, both perception and feeling are included. The four statements in this section complete the explanation of contemplation of feelings; study them for yourself.

The statement “experiencing the mind,” among the four statements of the third practice—mindfulness of mind—pertains to all four jhanas.

What does “gladdening the mind” (abhippamodaya-citta) mean? It means experiencing a gladdened mind, a thoroughly gladdened mind, a greatly gladdened mind: “I breathe out and breathe in, experiencing the mind in this way.” The mind is gladdened in two ways: through concentration and through insight contemplation.

How is it gladdened through concentration? One experiences rapture and enters the first two jhanas; once one has entered them, rapture is present. In a single mind-moment accompanied by rapture and so forth, gladness enters the mind, and the mind becomes greatly gladdened.

How is it gladdened through insight contemplation after entering the first two jhanas? Rapture varies according to entering and emerging from jhana. By seeing that rapture is subject to dissolution, one continually makes contact with meditative rapture through wisdom. Thus, at the moment of Vipassana insight (vipassanākkhaṇa), rapture continually operates in every mind-moment. In this way, through insight contemplation the mind possesses rapture, and gladness arises in accordance with the mind.

I breathe in and breathe out with a completely stabilized mind. By means of the first jhana, one places the mind in complete stability upon the object of contemplation; or, after entering and emerging from jhana, the practitioner sees that the mind in meditation ceases in accordance with each phenomenon in this vipassana contemplation. The concentrated mind in a single moment transcends perception through direct contemplation. The concentration that arises in that single moment is one-pointed concentration. And the mind abides completely in this insight contemplation.

The phrase, “I experience breathing in and breathing out with a liberated mind,”

means liberation from the defilements: liberation from thought and examination—initial and sustained application—in the second jhana; liberation from rapture in the third jhana; and liberation from pain and pleasure in the fourth jhana. Liberation occurs successively in this manner. After entering and emerging from jhana, one clearly sees the mind cease in accordance with each phenomenon in this vipassana insight meditation.

When the practitioner sees impermanence, the notion of permanence is abandoned; when the practitioner sees suffering, the perception of pleasure is abandoned; when the practitioner sees non-self, the perception of pleasure (self?) is abandoned, and the mind is no longer attached. Because it is unattached, one contemplates dispassion; from desire, one contemplates the cessation of perception; from where perception arises, one contemplates relinquishment of clinging; and from clinging, the mind is liberated.

Therefore, the Vinaya says: By contemplating the in-breath and the out-breath, the mind is liberated. The foregoing explains the fourth statement in the section on contemplation of mind.

Of the four statements in the fourth section, contemplation of impermanence is the perception of impermanence. One should clearly understand the contemplation of impermanence and clearly understand the continuous contemplation of impermanence.

Question: What is impermanent?

Answer: The five skandhas are impermanent.

Question: Why are the five skandhas impermanent?

Answer: Because they are phenomena subject to arising and ceasing.

Question: How do they arise and cease?

Answer: They are phenomena whose characteristics change. Because they change, phenomena that have arisen possess no fixed characteristic from moment to moment. This is called contemplation of impermanence. One begins by contemplating form. To contemplate form as impermanent is to contemplate form as perpetually impermanent. Examining the cause of form, one sees that in-breath and out-breath exist because of the four great elements, and that they are phenomena subject to destruction; therefore, this is called contemplation of impermanence.

The subject of contemplating freedom from craving and desire.

There are two kinds of contemplation of freedom from craving and desire: first, contemplation of the elimination of craving and desire; second, contemplation of the complete absence of craving and desire.

Question: What is the elimination of craving and desire?

Answer: Phenomena cease in each moment—momentary cessation.

Question: What is the complete absence of craving and desire?

Answer: Contemplation of the complete absence of craving and desire is nirvana.

Through these two phenomena one reaches the vision of the Path; through the vision of the Path one sees the Dharma of quiescent cessation.

Having seen quiescent cessation, one contemplates relinquishment. Through vipassana insight, one relinquishes the defilements and turns toward nirvana.

Thus concludes the explanation of the final section of mindfulness of breathing.

Here ends the section on mindfulness of breathing (ānāpānasatisamādhikathā niṭṭhitā).

–

“At that time, the Blessed One...” is an abbreviated reference to the following passage: At that time, the Blessed One taught the bhikkhus the practice of mindfulness of breathing. Because the bhikkhus contemplated impurity, they killed one another. On account of this matter, the Blessed One assembled the Sangha and reproved them: “Bhikkhus, why did you help one another commit suicide and also ask the ascetic Migalaṇḍika to kill the bhikkhus...?”

After reproving the bhikkhus, the Tathagata established the third pārājika rule: “Should any bhikkhu kill a human being...” It begins in this way because among the disciples who were hearers there were both noble ones and ordinary persons, and therefore the bhikkhus could not be rebuked with expressions such as “foolish man” or “worthless man” (moghapurisa). After laying down the fundamental provision of this rule, the Buddha later added a supplementary provision beginning with the prohibition against praising death and instructing another to die.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall explain the fundamental provision.” Thus the Buddha completed the formulation of this rule.

A mind bound by desire (paṭibaddhacitta) means that desire has arisen and bound the mind.

Praising death means saying: “While living, you suffer much affliction. You have performed meritorious deeds, so after death you will be reborn in heaven.”

“Having done good...” means saying: “You have performed wholesome karma, so after death you will certainly be reborn in heaven; there is no longer any doubt.”

“Having committed no evil karma...” means saying: “You have not killed living beings, spoken falsely, or committed any evil deed whatsoever, yet you are suffering from this grievous illness. What use is there in living? Since you have created wholesome karma, if you die and depart from this place, you will be reborn in heaven and enjoy the five kinds of sensual pleasure.”

Evil karma here means urging someone to die quickly.

Because the sick person hears the bhikkhu’s words, he kills himself. This is called killing.

Knowing that the being is a living being, one thinks, “I wish to cause him to die,” with a firm and unwavering resolve.

Here, “living being” refers to a human being from the time of being in the womb until death.

The initial mind of a human being means the mind at the very moment it assumes a human body.

This expression refers to the realm of the five sensual pleasures and is therefore called the initial mind. The mind, together with the three immaterial skandhas—feeling, perception, and formations—unites to form the embryo.

Kalala-form (kalarūpa) is the earliest stage of the human body.

Within this very kalala-form, if it bears the characteristic of a male or female, there are thirty forms; the bodily constitution of a paṇḍaka has twenty.

Question: What is the kalala-form of a male or female?

Answer: When the kalala has just formed, it is like a clear drop of oil on the tip of a goat’s hair.

There is a verse:

Like a tiny drop of oil,

Clear and free from sediment,

The newly formed kalala

Is likewise in its appearance.

The human body begins in such an extremely subtle form. Human beings in the past had lifespans of two thousand years. The kalala gradually develops in due sequence until old age and death. At that time, the existence of one human body is said to have ended.

With regard to a kalala, if one uses manual skill to strike it, rub it, administer medicine, or employ various methods to prevent the kalala embryo from being born, this is called killing.

There are two modes of birth: first, birth in the realm of form; second, birth in the formless realm. Among these, one born in the formless realm cannot be killed, whereas one born in the realm of form can be killed. When form is killed, the formless is also killed. Why? Because the formless depends upon form.

Question: In killing form, does one kill past, present, or future form?

Answer: There is a verse:

Past form is not present form;

Future form is likewise not present form.

Present form continually keeps arising;

Set aside past and future form and take present form:

To kill present form is to kill a living being.

Question: What is the present?

Answer: It is the uninterrupted duration of a single moment.

Question: What is a moment?

Answer: It is the interval in which something ceases immediately upon arising.

The Dharma teacher said: “If that is so, killing cannot be established. Why? Because phenomena arise and cease by themselves and do not depend upon being interrupted—that is, killed and caused to cease.”

Question: How can this be known?

Answer: The present is continuing while the past has not yet ceased. It is like a person who comes in from the heat outside and sits quietly inside a house: the heat subsides, and coolness arises in uninterrupted succession. The mind is likewise: arising from the past, it continues into the present without interruption. If one causes this consciousness to be interrupted, killing a living being is established, because life in the present is the cause for the continuation of life in the future.

The Dharma teacher said: “One must clearly understand the living being, clearly understand the taking of the living being’s life, and clearly understand the method used to kill.”

Question: What does it mean to understand the living being clearly?

Answer: People conventionally refer to one another by the designation “living being,” but in truth there is only the living breath.

Question: What does it mean to clearly understand the killing of a living being’s life?

Answer: It means bringing the living breath to an end and preventing it from continuing to live.

Question: How are the methods (of killing) understood?

Answer: There are six methods (chappayoga):

1. By one’s own hand (sāhatthika)

2. By commanding another (āṇattiya)

3. By throwing, shooting, and so forth (nissaggiya)

4. By setting a device (thāvara)

5. By magical spells (vijjāmaya)

6. By using psychic power (iddhimaya).

Question: What does “by one’s own hand” mean?

Answer: Killing by oneself.

Question: What does “by commanding another” mean?

Answer: Telling another person to kill: “Kill in this manner...”

Throwing or shooting means using bows and arrows and so forth, as well as other implements for shooting or throwing, to cause death.

Setting a device means placing sharpened stakes, spikes, pits, poison, and so forth somewhere so that contact with them causes death.

Magical spells are of two kinds:

a) Āthabbanika.

b) Numerical recitation.

Question: What does Āthabbanika mean?

Answer: Enemies or brigands use magical spells and curses to inflict pain in the head or abdomen and cause other illnesses that result in death.

Numerical recitation means relying upon a spell and reciting it ten, twenty, or as many as one hundred times (to cause someone’s death).

Psychic power means using supernatural abilities, as Nāga kings, supaṇṇas, yakkhas, devas, and human kings (Nāga, supaṇṇa, yakkha, deva, rājan) kill living beings by glaring at them, biting them, or spewing venom and thereby causing death.

Supaṇṇa birds are capable of pecking beings to death within a range of thirty fathoms. Nāgas, yakkhas, devas, and human kings can cause living beings to die according to their respective powers and means.

Providing a weapon means supplying items such as weapons, even down to a small knife, to help someone commit suicide, while expressly saying, “Your life is truly useless; it would be better for you to die.” After saying this, the person places implements for suicide—such as an iron club, stone, stick, rope, poison, and so forth—beside the other person and urges him: “While living in this world, you have performed meritorious deeds. After death, you will surely be reborn in heaven and enjoy pleasures with the devas and celestial maidens in Nandanavana, the Garden of Delight. Why, then, should you endure suffering in this life?”

Or he tells the person to leap from a rocky precipice. A rocky precipice is a deep chasm lying between two mountain slopes. Or he instructs the person to enter hell.

The Dhamma teacher says: Instructing someone to commit suicide in this manner constitutes a Pārājika offense. This applies only to killing a human being; killing another living being constitutes a Pācittiya offense.

Why did the Blessed One formulate this training rule in full detail? It was because of wicked bhikkhus in future generations. The sentences that follow are easy to understand.

If one kills by means of such implements as poison, stabbing, slashing, and so forth, but the victim does not die immediately and dies only later from that cause, the bhikkhu likewise incurs a Pārājika offense.

I shall explain four cases concerning a goat (eḷaka):

1. Seeing a goat sleeping in a certain place, a bhikkhu thinks, “Tonight I shall kill this goat.” Later, the goat goes to sleep elsewhere, while the bhikkhu’s father, mother, or an arhat comes to the place where the goat had been lying, covers himself or herself with a robe, and goes to sleep. Arriving there in the darkness, the bhikkhu does not know that it is a human being, assumes it is the goat, and strikes with a knife.

If he kills his father, mother, or an arhat, he incurs a Pārājika offense involving an act of immediate retribution. Although at first he intended to kill the goat, when bringing down the knife he formed the thought, “Whether this is the goat or any human being, I shall kill whoever it is.” Therefore, he incurs a Pārājika offense involving an act of immediate retribution.

A bhikkhu comes and lies down to sleep in the goat’s place. If the instigator says, “Kill this person sleeping here,” the killer incurs a Pārājika offense, but not one involving an act of immediate retribution.

A yakkha or spirit comes and takes the goat’s place. If the instigator says, “Kill whoever is in this place,” he incurs a Thullaccaya offense, but not one of the five acts of immediate retribution. If the goat is killed, the offense is Pācittiya. If there is an intention to kill one’s father, mother, or an arhat, then accordingly one incurs a Pārājika offense involving an act of immediate retribution.

Knowing clearly that one’s father is in a particular army, one shoots at that army. If the father is struck and dies, one incurs a Pārājika offense involving an act of immediate retribution. If the person killed is not the father, the shooter incurs only a Pārājika offense.

If one orders the killing of a tall person but the killer kills a short person, or orders the killing of a person in red clothing but the killer kills a person in white clothing, the instigator does not incur the grave offense of Pārājika, while the killer incurs Pārājika. If the instigator says, “Kill whomever you encounter,” then no matter who is killed, the instigator incurs Pārājika.

The instigator orders the killing to be done today, but the person accepting the order kills on the following day. The instigator orders the killing to be done the following day, but the person accepting the order kills that very day. The instigator orders the killing to be done in the morning, but the killer kills in the afternoon. The killer incurs a Pārājika offense, while the instigator escapes the grave offense. If the instigator says that the killing may be done at any time, then once the killing has been carried out, the instigator incurs the grave offense.

The instigator says, “If anyone comes to this place, kill him.” Before the intended person arrives, the instigator himself goes there. The person who accepted the order, unable to distinguish who it is, mistakenly kills the instigator and incurs a Pārājika offense. Although he dies, the instigator incurred a Dukkaṭa offense at the time he ordered another to kill.

This bhikkhu orders another bhikkhu to kill a person. The bhikkhu who accepts the order then thinks, “I should first kill the person nearby.” If, when bringing down the knife, he kills the very person intended, both the killer and the instigator incur the grave offense. If the command to kill is transmitted successively through others, the offense is as previously explained; whether the killing occurs at the appointed time or at another time is likewise as stated above.

If a bhikkhu orders another bhikkhu to kill a bhikkhu, and at the time the order is given the intended victim has not yet attained the Path, but just before he is killed he realizes the fruit of arhatship, both the instigator and the killer incur a Pārājika offense involving an act of immediate retribution.

“To regard one who is present as absent” means that, because one’s eyes are inattentive and one does not see the person, one assumes that he is absent.

During an offering, a bhikkhu toward whom one bears enmity is among the attending bhikkhus, but because he is obscured by those seated in front, one does not know that he has come. One then says aloud, “Why has so-and-so not been killed by brigands? Why has he not been bitten by a venomous snake? Why has no one poisoned him to death? I would be very glad if that man died.” Speaking in this manner is called speaking as though a person were absent when he is present.

“To regard one who is absent as present” means that this bhikkhu came and sat at the offering. The bhikkhu who was previously cursed knows that this bhikkhu has come. After this bhikkhu leaves, the other does not know that he has departed, assumes that he is still present, and curses him. This is called speaking as though a person were present when he is absent.

Anyone who utters curses such as those above, wishing for another’s death, incurs a Dukkaṭa offense.

The Dhamma teacher explains praising death: “Praising by bodily means” means acting in a way understood by the other person—giving him a knife, club, poison, rope, or the like, or telling him to leap from a rocky precipice—and claiming that through such a death, after dying, he will obtain material wealth, be reborn amid immeasurable riches, or be reborn in heaven. This is exhortation by bodily means, whether through waving the hand, moving the foot, or signaling with the eyes.

“Calling out” means opening one’s mouth and verbally instructing and encouraging a person, according to one’s intention, to die.

When the person understands that the other is praising death, the one praising it incurs a Dukkaṭa offense. If the person who follows the exhortation and attempts suicide suffers severe pain but does not die, the other incurs a Thullaccaya offense. If the listener dies, the one who praised death incurs a Pārājika offense.

If the person in question does not understand the words praising death, but another person understands them as meaning, “If I die, I shall surely be reborn in heaven,” and therefore that other person chooses death, then the one who spoke the praise is not guilty. If the praise was directed at both persons, then whichever one dies, the speaker commits a Parajika offense.

If his mind is not directed toward anyone in particular, but he merely praises death generally before everyone, and someone consequently dies, he commits a Parajika offense.

If he sends a messenger to praise death and encourage person A to die, he commits a Dukkata offense as soon as he gives the instruction. When the messenger reaches the person and delivers the message, causing that person to act accordingly and suffer pain, he commits a Thullaccaya offense; if that person dies, he commits a Parajika offense.

If the messenger hears the praise that death leads to rebirth in heaven but does not repeat it to the intended person, instead repeating it to friends or relatives, and someone consequently dies, the messenger commits a Parajika offense, while the one who instructed him commits a Dukkata offense.

If the messenger hears that death leads to rebirth in heaven and therefore kills himself, the one who instructed him commits a Dukkata offense. If a letter is written and given to a messenger to carry, the messenger does not know its contents, and the recipient of the letter dies, the sender commits a Parajika offense, while the messenger is innocent.

If a letter is written without designating any particular person, and it causes the recipient to die, then if the deceased is the writer’s father, the killer commits a Parajika offense involving a heinous deed.

If, with the intention to kill, one fabricates various scriptures praising death, and someone reads these scriptures, sees that they praise death as leading to rebirth in heaven, follows the methods of dying taught in those scriptures, and dies, the author commits a Parajika offense.

If the author’s father or mother dies as a result, he commits a Parajika offense involving a heinous deed.

If he later regrets it and burns those scriptures before they have caused anyone to die, he commits only a Dukkata offense for having written them.

If many bhikkhus together write scriptures praising death, and someone reads them and consequently dies, all those bhikkhus commit a Parajika offense. If they cause their father or mother to die, they commit a Parajika offense involving a heinous deed.

If one writes a scripture praising death, someone steals it, reads it, and consequently dies, the bhikkhu who wrote it commits a Parajika offense.

If the scripture is dropped after one slips in the mud, someone finds the fallen scripture, follows its instructions, and consequently dies, the bhikkhu who composed it commits a Parajika offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “The first case concerning the taking of life will now be explained.”

If a bhikkhu, intending to kill, digs a pit so that person A will fall into it and die, he commits a Dukkata offense while digging it. If that person falls into the pit and suffers pain, he commits a Thullaccaya offense; if that person dies, he commits a Parajika offense. If another person falls into it and dies, that bhikkhu is innocent.

If he makes the pit to harm people generally, then whoever dies, that bhikkhu commits a Parajika offense. If it causes his father or mother to die, he commits a Parajika offense involving a heinous deed.

If the pit is deep and a person carrying provisions falls into it but does not die immediately, yet after consuming all the provisions will certainly die of hunger and has no possible means of escape, the digger of the pit commits a Parajika offense as soon as that person falls into it.

If one makes a pit intending to kill another person, but that person does not come and the maker himself falls into the pit and dies, he committed a Dukkata offense when digging it. If someone falls into the pit and breaks his arms or legs but does not die immediately and manages to escape, yet later dies because of those injuries, the maker of the pit commits a Parajika offense. If that person dies for another reason, he does not commit the offense.

The Dharma teacher said: “When one orders another person to make a pit, whether an offense is committed or not is as explained above.”

If one makes a pit to capture a spirit, he commits a Dukkata offense both when making the pit and when the spirit falls into it and suffers pain; if the spirit dies, he commits a Thullaccaya offense. If a human being or an animal falls into it and dies, he does not commit the offense. If he later regrets his action and fills in the pit, but they are harmed for another reason, the maker of the pit commits no offense.

If one makes implements intended to cause a person’s death, whether an offense is committed or not is as explained above. If one acts without intent, or makes a pit for another purpose and someone falls into it, no offense is committed.

If one teaches about suffering, impermanence, and contemplation of the body’s impurity, and someone who hears the teaching consequently kills himself, no offense is committed.

The preceding section has extensively explained the root Vinaya text and the conditions concerning the precept against killing. If an action arises from the body together with the mind, or from speech together with the mind, an offense is committed; if body, mind, and speech are all involved, an offense is likewise committed. This is an offense that is wrong by its very nature. Bodily and verbal actions accompanied by a harmful mind produce suffering.

Compassion: Suppose the bhikkhus see a bhikkhu who is gravely ill and, out of compassion, say: “Venerable sir, you have fully observed the precepts. Because you fear death, you must endure such suffering. If you were to die, how could you fail to be reborn in heaven?”

Hearing this, the sick bhikkhu thinks, “All the bhikkhus praise me for fully observing the precepts. If I die, I shall certainly be reborn in heaven.” He therefore refuses food and dies. Those who praised death commit a Parajika offense.

Therefore, when a wise bhikkhu visits a sick bhikkhu, he should take care not to praise death. He may instead say: “Venerable sir, you have fully observed the precepts. You should not be attached to your dwelling, robes and requisites, acquaintances, friends, and so forth. You should only recollect the Three Jewels and contemplate the body’s impurity. While living in these three realms, do not be negligent, whether your life is short or long.”

If, after hearing such praise, the sick bhikkhu passes away, he has died after hearing the Dharma taught, and the bhikkhu who spoke commits no offense.

When wishing to sit down, bhikkhus should first place a hand upon the seat and then sit.

The Dharma teacher said: “Upon which seats must one first place a hand before sitting, and upon which seats may one sit without first placing a hand?”

Answer: “If a mat has been spread upon the platform, there is no need to place a hand on it first. If the platform has a cushion made of fur, felt, wool, or the like, one must first place a hand upon it and then sit down. If the bhikkhu arrives first and the donor afterward spreads a cushion of felt, wool, or the like, he need not place a hand upon it again.

“If the donor says, ‘This is the Dharma teacher’s seat,’ the bhikkhu may sit upon it without first placing a hand there.

“If another bhikkhu is already seated there, a bhikkhu who arrives later may sit without first placing a hand upon it.”

The phrase “stone mortar” (udukkhalavatthu) means “in the stone-mortar garden” (a garden of boulders, or a stone mortar?).

“Without intent” means having no deliberate intention to kill.

The meaning of the passage concerning the stone mortar is easy to understand and requires no explanation.

The case of the elderly renunciant (Buddhapabbajitavatthu) contains three passages:

The first passage: A son said to his father, “Do not keep the Sangha waiting; go quickly.” He pushed him forward, causing his father to fall to the ground and die. Therefore, he was innocent.

The second passage: Why did he wish his father to die? Because, in the midst of the Sangha, the Sangha asked, “Whose son is he?”

The reply was: “He is the son of the old man (Mahallaka).”

Upon hearing this, the old man’s son felt ashamed and deliberately knocked his father down, causing him to die. Therefore, he committed a grave offense.

The third passage: It is indeed a Thullaccaya offense.

From this point there are another three passages whose meanings are easy to understand and require no explanation.

In the section on almsfood, there are three passages.

First: This alms-seeking bhikkhu holds the Dharma in the highest regard. Therefore, upon receiving food, he first shares it with his fellow student. Since he had no intention to kill, he is innocent even if the other dies.

From the most senior bhikkhu down to the most junior, all died. The other passages are easy to understand.

The second passage: If, while seeking alms, one receives food from the house of a non-Buddhist and finds that the food is excessively refined and fragrant, one should not accept it.

If one has already accepted it, one must neither give it to another nor eat it oneself, but should secretly discard it. Nor should one give it to animals.

One who does it merely as a test commits a Thullaccaya offense. Why? Because he only intends to test it. If he clearly knows that the person will die yet still does it, he commits a grave offense.

The next three statements are easy to understand.

In the statement concerning lust disturbing the mind, it means that throughout seven days and nights he continually considered how to subdue his lustful mind but could not extinguish it. This bhikkhu thought: “I have observed the precepts fully; how could I renounce the precepts and return to lay life? I should therefore kill myself.” Accordingly, he climbed to a rocky precipice on Mount Gijjhakuta and leapt down to take his own life. At that time, someone was cutting wood below the mountain. The bhikkhu fell upon him and killed the woodcutter. Since he had no intention to kill, he was innocent.

The Buddha told the bhikkhus: “One should not take one’s own life. Anyone who kills himself, even by fasting to death, commits a Dukkata offense.”

If a bhikkhu is gravely ill and sees that the Sangha and the bhikkhu nursing him are undergoing excessive hardship in caring for him, he may think: “These venerable ones are enduring such hardship solely because of me.”

If he examines his own life and sees that he has little time remaining, he may cease eating and taking medicine.

Again, a bhikkhu may think: “My illness causes me extreme suffering; my life is also coming to an end, and I know the path and its fruits as clearly as though seeing them in the palm of my hand.” If he sees this and fasts to death, he is innocent.

A bhikkhu who enters meditative concentration, wishing to attain the path, and therefore does not enter the village for alms, may also go without food when none is available.

In the statement concerning stones, a bhikkhu must not dig into stone. This applies not only to stone but also to grass, trees, and earth.

If stone must be broken or excavated to build the wall of a monastery or stupa, it is permitted; it is likewise permitted when repairing living quarters.

After the midday meal, it is also permitted to toss food upward for birds to eat.

If wild beasts approach intending harm, one may throw stones or earth to drive them elsewhere.

The statement concerning illicit intercourse is easy to understand.

Pregnancy through adultery: The husband of this woman had traveled far away, and she committed adultery with another man and became pregnant. When the fetus had grown, she went to a bhikkhu to request medicine for an abortion.

The statement concerning the wife is easy to understand. According to this passage, the woman asked the bhikkhu: “How can the fetus be destroyed?”

The bhikkhu replied: “Press upon it, and the fetus will die and come out by itself.”

Following the bhikkhu’s instruction, she was to kill it by pressing, but instead she used heat to expel the fetus; therefore, the bhikkhu was innocent.

If the bhikkhu told her to press upon it herself and kill it, but she had someone else press upon it and kill it, the bhikkhu was innocent.

If a bhikkhu instructs a person to press upon a fetus and kill it, then whether that person presses upon it personally or tells someone else to press upon it and kill it, the bhikkhu commits a grave offense.

The statement concerning a childless woman: All women can conceive, so why is one called childless? At the beginning of conception, if a woman has committed unwholesome karma, the being who enters her womb will die immediately after only a brief moment; therefore, she has no child. If a woman’s four great elements are out of balance, the fetus dies as soon as the wind element is disturbed; or if the fetus is situated where it is consumed by worms, it dies. She is therefore called childless.

This bhikkhu did not know this and gave her medicine intended to preserve the fetus. When she took that medicine, she died. The bhikkhu committed a Dukkata offense.

Therefore, in the future, bhikkhus must not practice as physicians. Anyone who practices as a physician commits a Dukkata offense. If medicine is prepared for monastics such as bhikkhus, bhikkhunis, sikkhamanas, samaneras, or samaneris, there is no offense.

One may prepare medicine for a fellow practitioner if medicine is already available, and if that person has no medicine, one may give it to him. If one has none oneself, one may go and request it at the house of a donor. If medicine is unavailable there, one may request it at another house.

Furthermore, medicine may be given in five cases: to one’s father, mother, a person who cares for one’s parents, one’s monastery attendant, or a bhanda-palasa companion.

Question: “What is a bhanda-palasa companion?”

Answer: “A virtuous man who wishes to seek ordination but does not yet possess robes and an alms bowl, and who wishes to reside in the monastery.”

If one’s parents are wealthy and have sufficient good medicine, the physician need not prepare any. If the parents are members of the royal household and become ill, however, one cannot refrain from preparing medicine for them.

If one’s parents are poor and lowly, when they become ill they should, as appropriate, be brought into the monastery and cared for.

When bathing one’s mother, one must take care not to touch her body. When providing food and drink, one may personally hand them to one’s father, just as a samanera may. In washing their hands and applying oil to them, one may use one’s own hands and care for them until they recover from their illness.

As for monastery attendants, if people have been hired to enter the forest, cut trees, and gather firewood, and they become ill and cannot yet return home, a bhikkhu should provide them with medicine. If they have already returned home, the bhikkhu should not provide medicine. If a virtuous layman who depends upon a bhikkhu and assists with work becomes ill, the bhikkhu may provide medicine.

Furthermore, there are ten kinds of people to whom a bhikkhu may give medicine: an elder brother, younger brother, elder sister, younger sister, paternal aunt, maternal aunt, paternal uncle, elder paternal uncle, maternal uncle, and elder maternal uncle. If these people already have medicine, the bhikkhu may prepare it for them; if they have none, he may lend it to them. If they later return it, that is good; if they do not, he should not demand it.

In this way, this may extend to relatives within seven generations. A bhikkhu may request medicine from them and prepare medicine for them without committing the Sanghadisesa offense of bringing disgrace upon a household, known as kula-dusaka.

If a younger brother’s wife or an elder sister’s husband is ill, one may give medicine to one’s elder or younger sister and tell her to give it to the sister-in-law or brother-in-law.

If there is no younger brother or elder sister, one may give it to a maternal nephew or niece—or to a disciple—and say: “Give this medicine to your parents.”

If the preceptor’s father or mother is ill and staying in the monastery, the disciple is also permitted to prepare medicine to treat them.

If the preceptor has no medicine but his parents have medicine, that is good. If the preceptor has no disciple but his parents have medicine, that is good.

If the preceptor has no disciple but his parents have medicine, he may prepare medicine for his parents himself. A preceptor caring for his disciple is likewise.

If other people are ill, or if bandits or armed soldiers enter the monastery and threaten it, a bhikkhu who has relatives may request medicine from those relatives and give it to them. If he has no relatives but there is a virtuous female lay devotee, it is also good to request medicine from her and then give it to them.

Even if a donor supports the Sangha like a father or mother, when that donor becomes ill, the Sangha still may neither prepare medicine for the donor nor give medicine to the donor.

Furthermore, if the donor merely asks: “Venerable sir, so-and-so is ill. How should the illness be treated, and what medicine should be prepared?”

One should reply: “If this medicine is used, the illness will be cured.”

It is proper for the Sangha to answer in this way. If the donor then asks a bhikkhu: “Venerable sir, my mother is ill. Please give me a prescription to treat her illness,” the bhikkhu must not give him a prescription. The bhikkhu should employ an appropriate means and ask a venerable bhikkhu nearby: “When Bhikkhu so-and-so was ill, what medicine was used to treat him?”

The other replies: “That elder used such-and-such medicine, and his illness was cured.”

After hearing the two bhikkhus speak in this way, the donor follows that method and obtains medicine for his parents.

If a bhikkhu speaks in this manner, there is no offense.

At that time, Queen Vasabha (Vasa-bha-rajan) became ill and sent a palace maid to question the Venerable Maha Paduma (Maha Padumatthera). The venerable one remained silent and did not reply, but employed an appropriate means by speaking with a nearby bhikkhu about this method of treatment.

After hearing the two bhikkhus’ conversation, the palace maid returned and prepared the medicine accordingly, and the queen recovered from her illness.

After the queen had recovered from her illness, she prepared a set of three robes, 300 coins (kahāpana—kālīsa-pana), and a jar filled with medicine, and brought these together with clothing and requisites, placing them before the venerable elder and saying: “The queen recovered through this medicine and therefore offers the venerable elder the expenses for flowers and incense.”

Paduma thought: “This incense belongs to the physician’s share.”

The venerable one accepted those articles with purity and made an offering of them.

The Dharma teacher said: “A wise person acting in this way can benefit sentient beings while remaining free of offense. Such conduct is good.”

If a layperson says: “We request the venerable elder to compose protective verses (paritta) for such-and-such a person,” a bhikkhu must not do so.

If they say: “We request the venerable elder to recite protective verses,” then he may recite them.

At such a time, the bhikkhu should reflect: “This layperson does not understand the Buddha-Dharma. If I do not make an invocation of blessing, they will give rise to an unwholesome thought.” Therefore, he should recite verses of blessing for them.

He may hand them the water-cord for purification by sprinkling. If he himself prepares the water for sprinkling and the cord, he commits a dukkata offense. (At a protective ceremony, a bowl of water for sprinkling is placed in the donor’s house, with a cord attached to the bowl and extending to the hands of the bhikkhus conducting the rite.—Translator)

If a king or a great donor in the village falls ill and sends someone to the monastery to invite bhikkhus to make an invocation of blessing for him, they should recite the Āṭānāṭiya Sutta, a discourse of protection, for him.

They are permitted to go to the sick person’s place to teach the Dharma or confer the precepts. If a donor says: “When the king, or a donor, is being taken out for burial, we request the venerable one to accompany the procession,”

a bhikkhu must not accompany it merely in obedience to their request. Instead, he should form the thought: “I should go to the burial place to contemplate impermanence, and thereby I may attain the path and fruition.”

If he goes in this manner, there is no offense.

Food obtained on the alms round is almsfood. There are those to whom it may be given and those to whom it may not be given. It may be given to one’s parents, but not to others. One may give another person a coin to support one’s parents. It may be given to a steward, and it may be given to one preparing to go forth (paṇḍupalāsa). A bhikkhu may give it to such persons and may also hand it over to robbers who come demanding it.

Question: “When giving to whom must one first make careful inquiry, and when giving to whom is no inquiry necessary?”

Answer: “If someone comes to the monastery, whether noble or lowly, or even a robber, one must question him carefully upon his arrival. If he requests some article, one is permitted to give him something belonging personally to oneself. If it belongs to the Sangha, one must first report the matter; it may be handed over only when the Sangha has reached concord and granted permission.”

If a powerful or influential evildoer comes demanding property, the custodian of that property may give whatever he deems appropriate if he wishes to preserve the dwelling place, the monastery.

After he has given it, the Sangha must not rebuke or revile him with words such as: “You handed the property over to that evildoer on your own authority.”

Why? Because he wished to protect the monastery.

The Dharma teacher said: “I shall provide proof of this matter. At that time, on the island of Sinhala, there was a kingdom named Anurādhapura. In that kingdom was a band of 500 robbers led by Abhaya. They gathered together, occupied a place, established a stronghold, and plundered the surrounding regions within approximately one yojana of their camp.”

The passage concerning separation is easy to understand. Regarding the offense, consult the Khuddaka Nikāya.

Concerning either lifting up or pressing down: The Group of Seventeen bhikkhus saw that only one member of the Group of Six bhikkhus was present. One member of the Group of Seventeen seized that bhikkhu’s bowl, while six others lifted him up and threw him to the ground; then they took turns sitting upon him. Consequently, the elderly bhikkhu of the Group of Six died.

The offense was established as stated in the Vinaya.

Subduing a spirit means killing a yakkha. This yakkha used to seize people. A bhikkhu recited a scripture and mantra, ordering it to depart, but it did not obey. The bhikkhu said: “If you do not obey, I shall kill you.”

Still the yakkha did not desist. Therefore, the bhikkhu used rice flour or clay to fashion an image of the yakkha, then recited a mantra and broke its arms and legs. As the arms and legs of the spirit-image broke, the yakkha died. For this reason, the bhikkhu committed a thullaccaya offense.

This applies not only to a yakkha; even killing Sakka, Lord of the Devas, entails a thullaccaya offense.

Concerning the passage about a malevolent yakkha: A malevolent yakkha dwelt in a certain monastery. A bhikkhu, unaware that a malevolent yakkha was in that room, sent another bhikkhu into the room so that he might dwell there in peace, thereby inadvertently causing that bhikkhu’s death. There was no offense. If, however, he sent the bhikkhu into the room with a malicious intention that he should die, he committed a pārājika offense if the bhikkhu died, and a thullaccaya offense if he did not die.

This applies not only to a malevolent yakkha. A place where there are venomous snakes, tigers, wolves, and so forth should also be treated in the same way as one containing a malevolent yakkha. Whether an offense is committed or not is as explained above.

Concerning the passage about a dangerous place: If a place is perilous and contains many robbers, but the person sending another there does not know this, there is no offense. If he knows the circumstances clearly and the person sent there dies, the sender commits a pārājika offense; if that person does not die, he commits a thullaccaya offense.

Killing the intended person is the first case. A certain bhikkhu and another bhikkhu bore enmity toward each other. The first bhikkhu wished to kill the bhikkhu against whom he held a grudge, and thought: “If I kill him during the day, everyone will know clearly. I shall therefore wait until night to kill him.”

With this thought, the bhikkhu went to inspect the other’s dwelling place and then returned. When night came, he went to the place of the hostile bhikkhu. At that time, the other bhikkhu had many companions with him. In the darkness, the first bhikkhu searched among them, identified the man he suspected to be his enemy, and killed the very bhikkhu who was his enemy. He thereby committed a pārājika offense.

A bhikkhu suspects one person but mistakenly kills another: Many companions of the bhikkhu against whom he bears enmity are sleeping together in a dark place. The other bhikkhu searches among them, says, “This is my enemy,” and mistakenly kills someone else.

There is also the case of a bhikkhu who says to kill this person but kills another, and the case of one who says to kill that person and does indeed kill that very person. In all such cases of killing a human being, a pārājika offense is committed.

Concerning a nonhuman being, the first case is this: Wishing to drive out a spirit, a bhikkhu strikes a sick bhikkhu who is possessed by the spirit with a stick, and the sick bhikkhu dies unexpectedly. There is no offense.

Question: “If one wishes to drive out a spirit, what should one do?”

Answer: “Use palmyra leaves or silk cloth to bind the sick person’s hands and feet and restrain him. Recite the Ratana Sutta, the Discourse on the Three Jewels, and then say to the spirit: ‘You must not trouble one who observes the precepts. Depart!’”

It is permitted to teach the Dharma. The Dharma teacher said that this passage is easy to understand.

The Dharma teacher said: “The passage about cutting down a tree has various detailed meanings. Suppose a bhikkhu is pinned beneath a fallen tree but is not dead. Although he holds a sharp knife in his hand, he would rather die than cut the tree or dig the earth to escape death.

For if he digs the earth or cuts the tree, he commits a pācittiya offense. A pācittiya offense is called transgressing the teaching of the Noble Ones, an offense of violating the Dharma. Therefore, a wise person would rather die while preserving the precepts than violate the precepts in order to live.

It is good if someone else digs the earth or cuts the tree to rescue him. If there is an expedient means, that is also permissible. An expedient means here would be, for example, if there is a dead, dry tree and the bhikkhus use it to lever up the tree pinning him down; that is good.”

If a bhikkhu falls into a pit, another bhikkhu may lower a rope to pull him up. He must not cut down a tree himself, but he is permitted to tell a layperson or a novice to cut it down for him.

Concerning the passage about setting a fire, there is another meaning: Someone lights a fire, and it spreads until it approaches a monastery. To protect the monastery, bhikkhus are permitted to clear grass and dig the earth to extinguish the fire, and they commit no offense.

The phrase “setting fire and burning” also has another meaning. If one thinks, “I shall burn all living beings,” and any living being dies in that fire, that bhikkhu incurs offenses such as one of the five heinous crimes, Parajika, Thullaccaya, or Pacittiya. If he says, “I am only burning grass,” he commits a Pacittiya offense; if he tells another person to burn it, he commits a Dukkata offense. Fire may be lit only to protect the dwelling place. Why? Because the Buddha permitted it.

The phrase “sour fermented liquid” means curds, sour curds, and ripened curds.

Question: What is suviraka liquid?

Answer: First take haritaki, amalaka, and vibhitaka fruits.

There are seven kinds of grain. The first consists of rice bran, seeds of sweet plantain, various fruits, meat, fish, bamboo shoots, honey, granulated sugar, and coarse salt, all mixed together and placed in a jar or small vessel. Seal it tightly with a lid and coat the top with clay, then leave it for three or four years until it ripens. When ripe, its color resembles honey. It is used to treat illnesses such as wind disorders, leprosy, and so forth.

When taking this medicine with food or drink, a fatty substance should be added. No other medicine surpasses it; it is highly efficacious. A bhikkhu who is ill and takes this medicine is permitted to use it after midday. If he is not ill, he is permitted to mix it with water before using it.

Here ends the section on the third Parajika precept.

The Blessed One, knower of the Four Truths,

Taught the fourth grave precept.

I shall now clearly distinguish it;

It is called Parajika.

At that time, the Buddha was dwelling in the country of Vesali. The meaning of this has already been explained clearly above and will not be repeated. What follows concerns matters not yet discussed.

Being employed by laypeople: whether plowing fields or tending orchards and forests for laypeople, saying, “We shall perform all those tasks.”

Bhikkhus should not perform such tasks, but should have laypeople perform them, as stated in the Vinaya.

Messenger: Acting as a messenger for laypeople. Conduct in accordance with the noble attainment is the unsurpassed Dharma among human beings. It is also called the Dharma of superior persons, the holy Dharma, and the Dharma of nirvana. This Dharma belongs to the Buddhas, Pratyekabuddhas, and arhats.

The matter began with a certain bhikkhu attaining the first jhana. The bhikkhus deliberated together in this way and then told the laypeople: “The bhikkhu named Buddha-rakkhita has attained the first jhana; Dhamma-rakkhita has attained the second jhana; Sangha-rakkhita has attained the third jhana.” They spoke thus to the laypeople, continuing through the fourth jhana, the threefold knowledge, and arhatship with the exhaustion of the defilements.

Whether or not the laypeople asked, the bhikkhus praised one another to them. Having received offerings from the laypeople, the bhikkhus’ complexions became radiant and joyful, and their strength became abundant. After receiving offerings and consuming fragrant and delicious foods and drinks, these bhikkhus became heedless and amused themselves, no longer practicing meditation.

For this reason, their complexions became radiant and joyful.

The bank of the Vaggumuda River: Because the bhikkhus spent the rains retreat on the bank of the Vaggumuda River, they were called the bhikkhus of the Vaggumuda River.

The phrase “The Buddha asked the bhikkhus, ‘Have you dwelt together in harmony and ease?’” means that he asked the bhikkhus whether their bodies, with their four limbs and nine apertures, were at ease and free from weariness.

After comforting them, the Blessed One rebuked the bhikkhus of the Vaggumuda River, saying:

“By acting in this way, you are indeed great robbers.”

On account of this matter, the Buddha prohibited bhikkhus in the future from acting in this way. Therefore, the Vinaya states: The Buddha told the bhikkhus, “There are five kinds of great robbers in this world.”

A large group, numbering from one or two hundred to five hundred people, may band together to plunder cities and villages, breaking through walls and demolishing partitions. These are great robbers in the world.

In the same way, there is a bhikkhu who commits a Dukkata offense, then a Pacittiya offense, and successively proceeds until he commits a Parajika offense, yet accepts offerings, honor, praise, and the homage of others with palms joined. In this life, such an evil bhikkhu abandons his teacher and fellow practitioners to engage in schemes for material gain. Having obtained gain, he heedlessly indulges in food and drink; his body grows stout and strong, and his vigor becomes abundant.

Such bhikkhus amuse themselves together, speaking either about the delicious flavors of food, about sexual desire, about the wealth and pleasures of countries and villages, or about pleasure gardens with sweet and delicious foods. They entertain all manner of thoughts, converse in coarse language, and let their minds run heedlessly without knowing restraint, thereby bringing about the breaking of the precepts. Some enjoy the robes, food, medicines, dwellings, blankets, furnishings, tables, and seats offered as donations by faithful donors.

They are not true sons of the Sakyan, yet they call themselves sons of the Sakyan; they do not possess the holy life, yet they claim to practice the holy life. Those who consume offerings in this way are called the first kind of great robber.

Commentary on the Vinaya, the Samantapasadika.

— Volume Eleven —