Exploring the Path - Pāli Course

Mental consideration, micchāsaṅkappo or sammāsaṅkappo, precedes every action. That is why the Buddha often said that intention or volition is what generates kamma: ‘Cetanāhaṁ kammaṁ vadāmi’ and thus determines the ethical quality of one’s deeds. It’s this very intention that generates the necessary effort to perform an act and accomplish a task. The commentary brings the subtle details of this process to light and also portrays the different consequences as can be seen by the following:

Killing and killing naturally are not the same, and the kammic consequences vary. Different boys may perform the very same act - one boy, out of his desire to help a spider that has fallen in water may accidentally squeeze one part of the spider’s body causing the spider to die; another boy may step on a spider unintentionally without even noticing it, also causing the spider to die; another boy may playfully destroy a spider’s web and thus cause the spider’s death; while another boy may aggressively and intentionally hurt and kill a spider.

Pāṇātipāto refers to deliberate, intentional destruction of the life of any sentient being’s life. This act can be motivated by greed, aggression, or delusion, requiring varying degrees of effort to carry it out. Furthermore, the various motives behind the act – i.e., killing may be spontaneous, out of the need to defend oneself, premeditated or well-planned out of greed or hatred, even with the intention to torture – result in different kammic effects. For the act of killing (pāṇātipāto) to be accomplished and to produce kammic consequences, the following five constituents have to be present:

Tassa pañca sambhārā honti pāṇo, pāṇasaññitā, vadhakacittaṃ, upakkamo, tena maraṇanti.

A living being, consciousness of that living being, the intention to kill, undertaking the act and the death of that being.

The commentary,¹ with its detailed analysis, once more points to the respective underlying volition² as the source from where heinous acts like killing or injuring another spring:

Tasmiṃ pana pāṇe pāṇasaññino³ jīvitindriyupacchedakaupakkamasamuṭṭhāpikā⁴ kāyavacīdvārānaṃ aññataradvārappavattā⁵ vadhakacetanā⁶ pāṇātipāto.

Therefore “killing living beings” results from the volition to kill by someone with full consciousness of that living being. This volition manifests itself through one or the other of the doors of body and speech and initiates action that leads to the approach and cutting off of the life faculty.

The meaning of ‘killing a living being’ in its final sense refers to the destruction of the life-faculty:

Asādhāraṇesu⁷ pana pāṇassa atipāto⁸ pāṇātipāto, pāṇavadho pāṇaghāto⁹ti vuttaṃ hoti. Pāṇoti cettha vohārato¹⁰ satto, paramatthato¹¹ jīvitindriyaṃ.

Looking at the phrase in particular, when it is said: ‘the killing of a living being’ the phrase killing living beings means the slaughter of a living being, the destruction of a living being. And here a living being is, according to common sense, a being; in the ultimate sense it is the life-faculty.

In order to put one’s unhealthy, unwholesome intention into practice and actually kill a living being, different grades of effort have to be summoned. The kammic effects will manifest in respect to these efforts which correspond on one hand to the strength and size of the being that is killed, if they are lacking moral criteria in the case of animals (guṇavirahitesu tiracchānagatādīsu pāṇesu) – the stronger and larger a being the more exertion is needed! On the other hand, in case of humans, beings with moral quality and ethical standards (guṇavantesu manussādīsu) the kammic effects manifest according to the moral quality of the being to be killed:

Sarīraguṇānaṃ pana samabhāve sati kilesānaṃ upakkamānañca mudutāya¹² appasāvajjo, tibbatāya¹³ mahāsāvajjoti veditabbo.

When the size of the body and moral qualities (of the victim) are equal, it is less blameable when the defilements and attacks (of the killer) are less, and more blameable when the defilements and attacks are strong.

Referring to the next constituent of sammākammanta,¹⁴ adinnādāna, the commentary likewise highlights the disruptive motivation that generates acts that misappropriate the rightful belongings of others by ways of theft, robbery, snatching, trickery, deception, etc.:

Tasmiṃ pana parapariggahite¹⁵ parapariggahitasaññino tadādāyakaupakkamasamuṭṭhāpikā¹⁶ theyyacetanā adinnādānaṃ.

Taking “what is not given” is the volition to steal by being fully aware of this act of theft, and of the others' possession, that it belongs to another, which initiates action that leads to the approach and the act of stealing.

Adinnādānais defined as:

Adinnassa ādānaṃ adinnādānaṃ, parassa haraṇaṃ theyyaṃ, corikāti vuttaṃ hoti. Tattha adinnanti parapariggahitaṃ, yattha paro yathākāmakāritaṃ¹⁷ āpajjanto¹⁸ adaṇḍāraho¹⁹ anupavajjo ca hoti.

The carrying off of others' goods, stealing and robbery. Herein, “what is not given” is another's possession, which the other may use according to his wish without incurring punishment or censure.

The moral shame derived and kammic effects to be expected depend on the value of the stolen object, the higher its value, the more blameworthy the deed. In respect to the theft of objects with the same value, the act becomes more blameworthy according to the moral standard of the deprived; the higher the moral standard the greater the consequences:

Vatthusamatte²⁰ sati guṇādhikānaṃ²¹ santake vatthusmiṃ mahāsāvajjaṃ. Taṃ taṃ guṇādhikaṃ upādāya tato tato hīnaguṇassa santake vatthusmiṃ appasāvajjaṃ.

In case of equal value of the objects, the act is more blamable when the object belongs to one of supreme virtue, and less blameworthy when the object belongs to one with inferior moral qualities.

For an act of theft to be accomplished, likewise, the following five constituents have to be present:

Tassa pañca sambhārā honti parapariggahitaṃ, parapariggahitasaññitā, theyyacittaṃ, upakkamo, tena haraṇanti.

Another's possession, consciousness that it is another's possession, the intention to steal, the approach and the act of theft itself.²²