Parajika 3: Murder

If a monk intentionally deprives a human being of life, or provides him with a means to die, or glorifies the loveliness of death, or encourages him to die, saying “My good fellow, what use to you is this wretched and difficult life? Death for you is better than life”; or with this attitude and purpose glorifies, in various ways, the loveliness of death, or encourages him to die, he is parajika, no longer in communion.

Yo pana bhikkhu sañcicca manussaviggahaṃ jīvitā voropeyya satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyya maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyya maraṇāya vā samādapeyya: ambho purisa kiṃ tuyh’iminā pāpakena dujjīvitena? Matante jīvitā seyyo'ti. Iti cittamano cittasaṅkappo anekapariyāyena maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyya maraṇāya vā samādapeyya ayampi pārājiko hoti asaṃvāso.

Story extracts

The group of six monks were so infatuated with a certain lay-follower’s attractive wife, that they decided that he was better dead. They approached him and said: “You have done what is virtuous and skilful. You have offered shelter to the timid. You have avoided iniquity, cruelty, and sin. What use to you, then, is this brutal and difficult life? For you, death would be better than life, for, when you have passed away, following the death of the body, you will arise in paradise, in heaven, possessed of five kinds of divine pleasure”.

So inspired was the layfollower by this advice, that he applied himself to the consumption of harmful food and drinks, and before long he developed a terrible illness and died. His wife was distraught: “These recluses, sons of the Sakyans, are shameless, immoral liars. They pretend to be faring by Dhamma, faring peacefully, leading the brahmacariya, speaking truth, virtuous, and of good conduct; but amongst these there is no recluseship and no brahmanhood. Perished is recluseship, perished is brahmanhood amongst these. Fallen from recluseship, fallen from brahmanhood are these. They praised the beauty of death to my husband. By these my husband has been killed”.

Word analysis

intentionally (sañcicca): a transgression committed knowingly, consciously, deliberately (jānanto sañjānanto cecca abhivitaritvā vītikkamo) [i.e. conscious that it would cause death].
human being (manussaviggaho): from the first moment of consciousness in the womb till death (yaṃ mātukucchismiṃ paṭhamaṃ cittaṃ uppannaṃ paṭhamaṃ viññāṇaṃ pātubhūtaṃ yāva maraṇakālā etthantare).
deprives of life (jīvitā voropeyyāti): cuts off the faculty of life, destroys it, harms its duration (jīvitindriyaṃ upacchindati uparodheti santatiṃ vikopeti).
provides him with a means to die (satthahārakaṃ vāssa pariyeseyya): literally means: ‘or should seek out a knife-carrier for him,’ but the word analysis explains this by saying, ‘a knife, a dagger, an arrow, a cudgel, a stone, a sword, poison or a rope,’ and does not mention murderers or executioners, which suggests that the phrase means ‘or should he seek out an instrument by which he could kill himself’ without needing a ‘knife-carrier’. However, it would be difficult to kill oneself with a cudgel or stone. Thus I translate satthahārakaṃ as 'means to die' to cover both terms, ‘instrument of death’ and ‘executioner’.
glorifies the loveliness of death (maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyyāti): shows the disadvantage of living, speaks of the loveliness of death (jīvite ādīnavaṃ dasseti, maraṇe vaṇṇaṃ bhaṇati).
encourages him to die (maraṇāya vā samādapeyya): he says “Take a sword, or, eat poison, or, die by hanging yourself with a rope, or, fall into a ravine or down a steep precipice”.
attitude and purpose (cittasaṅkappoti): thinking of death, intending death, wishing death (maraṇasaññī maraṇacetano maraṇādhippāyo).
glorifies the loveliness of death (maraṇavaṇṇaṃ vā saṃvaṇṇeyya): “Dying here you will pass to heaven, where, possessed of five sense pleasures, you will enjoy yourself”.

Principle underlying the illustrative stories

When judging acts that led to someone’s death, the Buddha would ask monks what had been their intention, or attitude. The following answers led to a verdict of ‘no-offence’:

“It was not intentional” (asañcicca ahaṃ, bhagavā’ti) [that I dropped brick on him];
“I was not wanting to kill him” (nāhaṃ, bhagavā, maraṇādhippāyo”ti) [when I slapped him on the back when he was choking];
“I did not know (nāhaṃ bhagavā jānāmī”ti) [that the almsfood I gave him was poisoned]”.

Illustrative stories: 103 cases

Out of compassion for a sick monk, monks praised the beauty of death to him (kāruññena maraṇavaṇṇaṃ saṃvaṇṇesuṃ) and [because of their well-meant words] he died. Verdict: parajika.
A monk on almsround took a seat. He did not notice a boy under a cloth, and killed him. Verdict: no offence; but it is a dukkata offence to take a seat without checking it.
A monk, preparing seats in a refectory, accidentally dislodged a pestle. It hit a boy’s head, and he died. Verdict: no offence, because it was not intentional (anāpatti bhikkhu asañciccā’ti).
A monk, preparing seats in a refectory, accidentally knocked over a mortar and pestle, and killed a boy. Verdict: no offence, because it was not intentional (anāpatti bhikkhu asañciccā’ti).
A father and son were monks. The father, pushed by the son, fell and died. Verdict: no offence, because the son was not meaning to kill him (anāpatti bhikkhu na maraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
A father and son were monks. Meaning to kill him (maraṇādhippāyo) the son pushed his father, who fell and died. Verdict: parajika.
A father and son were monks. Meaning to kill him, the son pushed his father, who fell but did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
When meat stuck in the throat of a certain monk, another monk slapped his neck. The monk died. Verdict: no offence, because he did not mean to kill him (na maraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
When meat stuck in the throat of a certain monk, another monk, meaning to kill him, slapped his neck. The monk died. Verdict: parajika.
When meat stuck in the throat of a certain monk, another monk, meaning to kill him, slapped his neck. The monk did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk unknowingly received poisoned almsfood. He offered it to other monks, who died. Verdict: no offence, because he did not know [it was poisoned] (anāpatti bhikkhu ajānantassā’ti).
A monk wanting to investigate the effects of a poison, gave it to another monk, who died. The Buddha asked him what his intention had been (kiñcitto tvaṃ bhikkhū’ti). He explained he was wanting to experiment (vīmaṃsādhippāyo ahaṃ bhagavā’ti). The Buddha said this was a thullaccaya offence (anāpatti bhikkhū pārājikassa āpatti thullaccayassā’ti).
On a building site, a monk accidentally dropped a stone on a monk’s head. He died. Verdict: no offence, because it was unintentional (anāpatti bhikkhu asañciccā’ti).
On a building site, a monk dropped a stone on a monk’s head, intending to kill him. He died. Verdict: parajika.
On a building site, a monk dropped a stone on a monk’s head, intending to kill him. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
Similar to Case 13; dropping a brick not a stone: no offence.
Similar to Case 14; dropping a brick not a stone: parajika.
Similar to Case 15; dropping a brick not a stone: thullaccaya.
Similar to Case 13; dropping an adze, not a stone: no offence.
Similar to Case 14; dropping an adze, not a stone: parajika.
Similar to Case 15; dropping an adze, not a stone: thullaccaya.
Similar to Case 13; dropping a roof-beam, not a stone: no offence.
Similar to Case 14; dropping a roof-beam, not a stone: parajika.
Similar to Case 15; dropping a roof-beam, not a stone: thullaccaya.
Monks were assembling a platform in a tree. A monk told a monk to “fix it standing here”. The monk did so, but fell and died. Verdict: no offence because he did not mean to cause his death (anāpatti bhikkhu na maraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
Monks were assembling a platform in a tree. A monk, aiming at another monk’s death, told him to “fix it standing here”. The monk did so, and fell and died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks were assembling a platform in a tree. A monk, aiming at another monk’s death, told him to “fix it standing here”. The monk did so, but though he fell he did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk told a monk who had finished thatching a dwelling to “come down this way”. The monk did so, but fell and died. Verdict: no offence, because he did not mean to cause his death.
A monk, intending to cause a monk’s death, told him to “come down this way”. The monk did so, and fell and died. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, intending to cause a monk’s death, told him to “come down this way”. The monk did so, but though he fell he did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk attempting suicide, jumped off Vulture’s Peak. He landed on a basket-maker and killed him: no parajika offence, but ‘throwing oneself off’ (attānaṃ pātetabbaṃ) is a dukkata offence.
The group of six monks, in fun, threw a rock off Vulture’s Peak and killed a cowherd: no parajika offence, but throwing down a rock in fun (davāya silā pavijjhitabbā) is a dukkata offence.
Monks heated a sick monk. He died. Verdict: no offence because they did not mean to kill him (na maraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
Monks heated a sick monk, intending to kill him. He died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks heated a sick monk. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
Monks treated a monk's headache, by treatment through the nose. He died. Verdict: no offence, because they were not meaning to kill him.
Monks, intending to kill, treated his headache, by treatment through the nose. He died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks, intending to kill, treated his headache, by treatment through the nose. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
Monks rubbed an ill monk. He died. Verdict: no offence, because they did not mean to kill him.
Monks rubbed an ill monk, intending to kill him. He died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks rubbed an ill monk, intending to kill him. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
Monks bathed an ill monk. He died. Verdict: no offence, because they did not mean to kill him.
Monks bathed an ill monk, intending to kill him. He died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks bathed an ill monk, intending to kill him. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
Monks anointed an ill monk with oil. He died. Verdict: no offence, because they did not mean to kill him.
Monks anointed an ill monk with oil, intending to kill him. He died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks anointed an ill monk with oil, intending to kill him. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
Monks made an ill monk get up. He died. Verdict: no offence, because they did not mean to kill him.
Monks made an ill monk get up, intending to kill him. He died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks made an ill monk get up, intending to kill him. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
Monks made an ill monk lie down. He died. Verdict: no offence, because they did not mean to kill him.
Monks made an ill monk lie down, intending to kill him. He died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks made an ill monk lie down, intending to kill him. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
Monks fed an ill monk. He died. Verdict: no offence, because they did not mean to kill him.
Monks fed an ill monk, intending to kill him. He died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks fed an ill monk, intending to kill him. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
Monks gave an ill monk drink. He died. Verdict: no offence, because they did not mean to kill him.
Monks gave an ill monk drink, intending to kill him. He died. Verdict: parajika.
Monks gave an ill monk drink, intending to kill him. He did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk gave a woman an abortive preparation. The child died. Verdict: parajika.
A monk gave a woman an abortive preparation. The woman survived; the child died. Verdict: parajika.
A monk gave a woman an abortive preparation. The woman died; the child survived. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk gave a woman an abortive preparation. Both the woman and child died. Verdict: parajika.
A monk gave a woman an abortive preparation. Both woman and child survived. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A woman asked a monk for an abortive preparation. He told her to crush the foetus (tena hi bhagini maddassū’ti), which caused an abortion. Verdict: parajika.
A woman asked a monk for an abortive preparation. He told her to scorch herself. This caused an abortion. Verdict: parajika.
A monk gave a woman a fertility drug which killed her. Verdict: dukkata.
A monk gave a woman a contraceptive drug which killed her. Verdict: dukkata.
The group of six monks tickled to death one of the seventeen monks. Verdict: no offence of parajika (but Pacittiya 52).
The group of six said to one of the group of seventeen “We will do some work/ make some kamma” (kammaṃ karissāmāti) and treading on him, accidentally killed him. Verdict: no offence of parajika (but Pacittiya 52).
A monk exorcised and killed a yakkha. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk sent a monk to a dwelling occupied by a carnivorous yakkha (vāḷayakkha). It killed the monk. Verdict: no offence, because he did not intend the monk’s death (na maraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
A monk, intending a monk’s death, sent him to a dwelling occupied by a carnivorous yakkha. It killed the monk. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, intending a monk’s death, sent him to a dwelling occupied by a carnivorous yakkha. It did not kill the monk. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk sent a monk into the wilds of beasts. The beasts killed the monk. Verdict: no offence, because he did not intend the monk’s death (na maraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
A monk, intending a monk’s death, sent him into the wilds of beasts. The beasts killed the monk. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, intending a monk’s death, sent him into the wilds of beasts. The beasts did not kill the monk. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk sent a monk into the wilds of thieves. The thieves killed the monk. Verdict: no offence, because he did not intend the monk’s death (na maraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
A monk, intending a monk’s death, sent him into wilds of thieves. The thieves killed the monk. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, intending a monk’s death, sent him into wilds of thieves. The thieves did not kill the monk. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk killed the person he wanted to kill. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, thinking it was the person he wanted to kill, killed someone else. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, thinking it was someone else, killed the person he wanted to kill. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, thinking it was not the person he wanted to kill, killed him instead. Verdict: parajika.
When a monk was seized by a non-human being, another monk gave him a blow. The monk died. Verdict: no offence, because he did not intend to kill him (anāpatti bhikkhu na maraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
When a monk was seized by a non-human being, another monk, intending to kill him, gave him a blow. The monk died. Verdict: parajika.
When a monk was seized by a non-human being, another monk, intending to kill him, gave him a blow. The monk did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk talked about heaven to someone of good conduct. This persuaded him to die (so adhimutto kālamakāsi). Verdict: no offence, because the monk did not mean to kill him (anāpatti bhikkhu namaraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
A monk, intending to kill someone of good conduct, talked to him about heaven (maraṇādhippāyo kalyāṇakammakassa saggakathaṃ kathesi). This persuaded him to die. Verdict: parajika.
A monk, intending to kill someone of good conduct, talked to him about heaven. Although resolved on death, he did not die (so adhimutto na kālamakāsi). Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk talked about hell to someone doomed to hell (nerayikassa nirayakathaṃ kathesi). Petrified, the man died. Verdict: no offence, because he did not intend the man’s death (na maraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
A monk talked about hell to someone doomed to hell, intending to kill him. Petrified, the man died. Verdict: parajika.
A monk talked about hell to someone doomed to hell, intending to kill him. Though petrified, the man did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
When a monk was felling a tree, another monk told him to “fell it standing here”. Standing there, the tree fell and killed him. Verdict: no offence, because that other monk did not intend his death.
When a monk was felling a tree, another monk, intending him to die, told him to “fell it standing here”. Standing there, the tree fell and killed him. Verdict: parajika.
When a monk was felling a tree, another monk, intending him to die, told him to “fell it standing here”. Standing there, the tree fell but did not kill him. Verdict: thullaccaya.
The group of six set fire to a forest. People were burned and died. Verdict: no offence, because they were not meaning to kill them (namaraṇādhippāyassā’ti).
The group of six set fire to a forest, intending to kill people. People were burned and died. Verdict: parajika.
The group of six set fire to a forest, intending to kill people.. People were burned but did not die. Verdict: thullaccaya.
A monk told an executioner not to trouble the convict, but to kill him with one blow. “Certainly, bhante,” he replied, and killed him with one blow. Verdict: parajika.
A monk told an executioner not to trouble the convict, but to kill him with one blow. “I won’t do what you say” he replied, and killed him. Verdict. Verdict: dukkata.
Relatives of a man whose hands and feet had been cut off told a monk they wanted the man dead. The monk told them to make him drink buttermilk (takkaṃ). He died. Verdict: parajika.
Relatives of a man whose hands and feet had been cut off told a nun they wanted the man dead. The nun told them to make him drink salted sour gruel (loṇasovīrakaṃ). He died. Verdict: parajika.

No-offence clause

The no-offence clause originates from the illustrative stories:

the killing was unintentional (asañcicca).
he did not know (ajānanta) [that his conduct would kill].
he was not wishing death (namaraṇādhippāya).

Rule elaboration

The rule elaboration discusses the ways in which murder might occur.

with one's own hands, or with an instrument or tool.
telling another person to kill. If they kill the wrong person, there is no parajika for the instigator. If murder happens through a chain of command, the instigator is parajika. If one withdraws one's command, one avoids parajika.

Commanding can be done:

by secretly speaking words to oneself, wishing death on someone: a dukkata offence.
by speaking to the person himself, or though a messenger, or through writing (lekhāya), by exalting certain ways of death, saying they lead to wealth, glory or heaven. This is a dukkata offence. If this leads to the victim experiencing pain (dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ uppādeti), it is a thullaccaya offence. If he dies, it is parajika.

The rule elaboration lists various ways of murdering:

digging a pitfall
making a trap that involves a dagger, or poison, a knife, an arrow, a cudgel, a stone, a sword, a rope: a list which presumably comes from the word analysis
offering harmful medicines: ghee, butter, oil, honey, molasses
offering either dreadful sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, or a Dhamma talk on hell, or lovely sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches, or a Dhamma talk on heaven

The rule elaboration says if any of these lead to the victim experiencing pain (dukkhaṃ vedanaṃ uppādeti), it is a thullaccaya offence. If he dies, it is parajika.

However, there are 25 cases in the illustrative stories which show that the thullaccaya offence is for the failed attempt at murder, not for any pain caused. The cases show that even if the victim does not suffer, the offence would be a thullaccaya offence.

Cycle of permutations

No cycle of permutations.

Dhamma for the dying, from the suttas

When the brahman Dhananjani was dying, Venerable Sariputta visited him. Brahmans usually want to attain the Brahma realms (brahmalokādhimuttā) so Venerable Sariputta taught him the way to achieve this, by cultivating an attitude of mettā, karuṇā, muditā and upekkhā towards the whole world, in all directions. Shortly after Venerable Sariputta's departure Dhananjani died, and reappeared in the Brahma realms (M.2.194-5).
The Buddha said that a dying lay disciple should be consoled by reminding him of his unwavering confidence in the Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha and of his commitment to the virtues of the noble ones. Next, he should be told that, whether or not he has devotion to his parents, wife or children, he will die in either case; he should therefore discard his devotion (sace pāyasmā mātāpitūsu apekkhaṃ karissati marissateva; no ce pāyasmā mātāpitūsu apekkhaṃ karissati marissateva. Sādhāyasmā yā te mātāpitūsu apekkhā taṃ pajahā’ti). Next, he should be told that since celestial pleasures are more excellent and sublime than human pleasures, he should withdraw his attachment to human pleasures and incline himself towards the devas of the four kings (mānusakehi kho, āvuso, kāmehi dibbā kāmā abhikkantatarā ca paṇītatarā ca. Sādhāyasmā, mānusakehi kāmehi cittaṃ vuṭṭhāpetvā cātumahārājikesu devesu cittaṃ adhimocehī’ti). But because the Tavatimsa devas are more excellent and sublime than the devas of the four kings, he should incline himself towards them instead. And so on for all the heavenly realms up to the Brahma realms. But because the Brahma realms are impermanent, unstable and engrossed in Self view (anicco addhuvo sakkāyapariyāpanno) he should withdraw his attachment to the Brahma world and direct his efforts to the ending of Self view (sādhāyasmā brahmalokā cittaṃ vuṭṭhāpetvā sakkāyanirodhe cittaṃ upasaṃharāhī’ti). If the lay disciple is successful in this, then his liberation is no different from that of a monk who has been liberated for a hundred years (S.5.408-410).
When Anathapindika was dying, Venerable Sariputta taught him a meditation on non-grasping. “Householder, you should train thus:
“I will not lay claim to the eye (na cakkhuṃ upādiyissāmī); my consciousness will be free of the eye” (na ca me cakkhunissitaṃ viññāṇaṃ bhavissatī'ti).
“I will not lay claim to the ear; my consciousness will be free of the ear”.
“I will not lay claim to the mind; my consciousness will be free of the mind”.
“I will not lay claim to this world; my consciousness will be free of this world”.
“I will not lay claim to the next world; my consciousness will be free of the next world”.
“Whatever is seen, heard, sensed or cognised I will not lay claim to it; my consciousness will be free of it. Thus must you train yourself, householder”.

Anathapindika shed tears of joy at this magnificent talk. Shortly after Venerable Sariputta left, Anathapindika passed away and reappeared in the Tusita heaven (M.3.258-264).
While Venerable Vakkali lay dying on the Black Rock on the Isigili Slope near Rajagaha, two devatas of stunning beauty approached the Buddha during the early morning. One devata told him that “the bhikkhu Vakkali is set on deliverance” (vimokkhāya cetetī'ti); the other told him “Surely, bhante, in freedom, he will be truly free” (so hi nūna bhante, suvimutto vimuccissatī'ti). The Buddha sent a messenger to Venerable Vakkali to inform him of this event, and added his own message: “Fear not, Vakkali, fear not. Your death will be innocent. Your dying will be innocent (mā bhāyi vakkali mā bhāyi vakkali apāpakaṃ te maraṇaṃ bhavissati apāpikā kālakiriyā’ti).
Venerable Vakkali asked his attendants to tell the Buddha that, having fully realised that the five khandhas were impermanent, he had no attachment or love for them (natthi me tattha chando vā rāgo vā pemaṃ vāti). Shortly after his attendant monks had gone, Venerable Vakkali took his own life. Although Mara the Evil One could be seen, like a dark shadow, searching for the consciousness of Venerable Vakkali, wanting to know where it had been re-established (kattha viññāṇaṃ patiṭṭhitanti) the Buddha said that Venerable Vakkali, with consciousness unestablished, had attained final Nibbana (appatiṭṭhatena viññāṇena vakkali kulaputto parinibbutoti). (S.3.122-3).

When Venerable Dabba announced that it was time for his parinibbana (parinibbānakālo me'dāni sugatā'ti) the Buddha told him to do what he thought it was time to do (yassa dāni tvaṃ dabba kālaṃ maññasi'ti). Venerable Dabba bowed to the Buddha, rose up in the air, and sat cross-legged in space. Having entered the fire element and emerged from it, he attained final Nibbana. His body then burned so thoroughly that it left neither ash nor soot. Then the Buddha exclaimed:

"The body disintegrated,
Perception was destroyed,
All sensation was cooled,
Activities were stilled:
And consciousness came to an end" (Ud p92).

Death delaying treatment

Persuading or organising a patient not to undergo death delaying treatment is no offence because withholding treatment does not hasten the natural course of illness. This is illustrated by Phra Ajahn Lee’s description of the dying moments of Somdet Phra Mahawirawong: “Looking at the Somdet’s condition, I knew he wouldn’t last. Monks and novices were running around in confusion, and the doctors were all upset. One of them had stuck his finger down the Somdet’s windpipe to remove some phlegm, but to no avail. When I could see there was no hope, I ordered the doctor to stop: “Don’t touch him.” And a moment later the Somdet breathed his last” (The Autobiography of Phra Ajaan Lee. Tr. Thanissaro, p123).

Points for discussion:

A monk persuades a dying person to stop eating as he approaches death, is this parajika?
A monk tells a dying nun “Go into the light, sister”. Is it parajika?
A monk tells the doctor to turn off a life support machine. Is it parajika?
A dying monk is in much pain. Another monk offers him a high dose of opiates. Is it parajika?
A monk tells a woman with a huge family that she should take the pill or use an IUD. Is it an offence?
A monk tells a doctor not to give his dying father antibiotics. Is it parajika?