The consequences of breaking precepts

Discussion
1

Reading DN2, at the tail end, King Ajatasattu admits to killing his father. Then:

Soon after the king had left, the Buddha addressed the mendicants, “The king is broken, mendicants, he is ruined. If he had not taken the life of his father, a just and principled king, the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma would have arisen in him in that very seat.

Obviously harming/killing a living being is the first precept, a serious crime with major kammic consequences. In the king’s case, it was his father, a just and principled king. That would seem to add more layers of bad kamma.

The Buddha said not only did his crime shut out Ajatasuttu from the stainless, immaculate vision of the Dhamma in that very seat, but that he was broken and ruined. What did the Buddha exactly mean by broken (khatāyaṁ) and ruined (upahatāyaṁ)? How severely was he impaired, injured, done in? Like, so impaired and disturbed that there was no possibility of overcoming his bad kamma in his current life? How extensively would he suffer?

In my mind, breaking one of the first five precepts reinforces a tendency towards defilements that result in unwholesome action which sets one back in progress on the path to one degree or another. Killing seems monumentally more severe than say, getting intoxicated. But does breaking any of the first five precepts make one broken, ruined?

Obviously, monastics have many more layers of rules of conduct than lay people, so how would this apply to lay persons on the gradual path, learning the way, breaking unwholesome lifelong patterns?

4 Likes
2

It’s because killing your parents is a grave offense for anyone (including killing an arahant, wounding the Buddha with malice, and causing a schism in the Sangha). It cuts off enlightenment in this life and guarantees direct rebirth in hell in the next life. index.readingfaithfully.org/#heinous-actions-five-aanantarika-kamma

I don’t think the suttas mention this, but the commentaries also say that until all of the bad karma from that act bears fruit you can’t attain final nibbana. Which explains Ven. Moggallana’s death.

8 Likes
3

I wonder if it’s such a heinous proscribed act, killing ones father? Aṅgulimāla killed many human beings with intent and obtained liberation in his lifetime.

“Then Aṅgulimāla, living alone, withdrawn, diligent, keen, and resolute, soon realized the supreme end of the spiritual path in this very life. He lived having achieved with his own insight the goal for which gentlemen rightly go forth from the lay life to homelessness”. MN 86

He was able to burn off the karma of killing many humans. He copped a bit of a flogging and Lord Buddha said to him;

“Endure it, brahmin! Endure it, brahmin!You’re experiencing in this very life the result of deeds that might have caused you to be tormented in hell for many years, many hundreds or thousands of years.”

It appears this isn’t an option with the grave offence of patricide?

2 Likes
4

Correct. As we seen in the definition of (mundane) right view, our parents are special individuals.

The commentarial story of Ven. Angulimala has him about to kill his mother at the point where the Buddha intervenes.

6 Likes
5

Parents are roots of goodness. They give us life. They raise us, feed us, teach us language, teach us how to act and be human beings. Our parents are a necessary cause for the fruits of life we enjoy, including the ability to practice Dhamma. The sacrifices our parents made for us are incalculable. It’s impossible to repay them materially/physically; the only way to repay them is establishing them in goodness, in Dhamma (AN 2.33).

Killing one’s parent is like destroying your own good roots, your own causes for the arising of goodness. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot, only much worse. It’s completely self-destructive, even worse than suicide—notice how suicide is not an anantarika kamma, but patricide/matricide is. The other anantarika kammas similarly attack the other roots of goodness: the Triple Gem.

5 Likes
6

I have never understood why killing one’s parents is supposed to result in extra bad karma. Why is that worse than killing any other being? As far as I know the suttas only speak of good parents. Imagine a child has bad parents. Parents who abuse them. Would such a child receive extra bad karma if they were to kill their parents? I believe the point of such stories has nothing to do with parents as such, but rather with people who love us and are good to us.

2 Likes
7

The suttas have lots to say about parents, e.g. CIPS.

You are correct that the suttas don’t talk much about bad parents, although some do hint at it, e.g. Iti74.

I think those teachings have to be taken along with the very clear and frequent admonition to stay away from bad people. If someone honestly believes their parents are bad people (in the Dhamma sense) then avoiding them and their abuse is following the Buddha’s instructions. I wouldn’t want anyone to think they need to take abuse from someone just because they are their parents.

To take it in another direction, when the Buddha talks about killing, I’m not aware of anywhere he says that killing bad people is of lesser bad karma than killing good people. He does, though, talk about giving to good people bringing better karma.

But as far as the texts, I think we simply have to recognize that they view parents in a class of their own when it comes to karma. In a way this is good news because it means that if you care for, respect, and practice dana to your parents then no matter how bad they are you are collecting good karma.

6 Likes
8

TBH, I too have also wondered why parents are held in such high regard in the suttas. I’ve known people with the most heinous of parents. We’ve all heard stories of the worst of the worst. Personally, this is a situation where I just trust the Buddha’s knowledge and wisdom until I see for myself how and why he said what he said. I always think of the Handful of Leaves in issues like this.

6 Likes
9

I’m just guessing.

To be born to certain parents has a lot of karma. There’s some sort of connection, whether good or bad. If you are born to neglectful or abusive parent(s) you have the opportunity to weaken or end that karma. To escalate the level of bad karma by killing them makes sense to me to then result in extra heavy results.

This is not to say that a child ever deserves to be treated badly. Thinking of it as just a continuation of momentum rather than karma as retribution makes this easier to take on board.

7 Likes
10

Another angle for consideration is that: as parents are unique for us, there is simply no replacement. Killing parents will result in no redemption because one can’t no longer ‘prevent it to happen in the future’ in the sense that there are no more parents in that life for one to practice ‘preventing’. That’s why it becomes an unfixable remorse that unavoidable dragging one to bad realms.

4 Likes