BUDDHIST MONASTIC CODE I

Buddhist Monastic Code 1— Telling a person to go to a dangerous place where he/she might die of thedangers.— Arranging a terrible sight, sound, etc., to frighten a person to death, or abeautiful, "heart-stirring" one to attract a person who will then pine away to deathwhen it fades.Four issues arise in relation to the above ways of killing:Command. Giving a command or recommendation to get another person to performany of these last three types of action — arranging an assassin, describing theadvantages of dying, or inciting another person to die — would also fulfill the factorof effort under this rule.Inaction. Given the Vibhaṅga's definition of taking life, we can infer that inactiondoes not fulfill the factor of effort here, for it does not cut off the life faculty. Thus ifa bhikkhu sits idly when seeing a flood sweep a person downstream, he commits nooffense — regardless of his feelings about the person's death — even if the personthen drowns. Recommending that another person sit idly as well would also notfulfill the factor of effort here, because the category of command covers only theact of inciting the listener to do any of the four actions that would fulfill the factor ofeffort under this rule.Medical care and life-support. The same holds true if a bhikkhu decides not to givea patient a treatment — or to discontinue treatment — that might conceivablyextend the patient's life: It does not fulfill the factor of effort, for such acts do notcut off the life faculty. At most they simply allow it to end on its own. The Canonsupports this inference by treating such actions not under this rule but underMv.VIII.26.3-4, where it imposes only a dukkaṭa on the act of refusing to give anytreatment at all to an ill bhikkhu, or of discontinuing all care for an ill bhikkhu prior tohis recovery or death. This shows that the compilers of the Canon did not regardthese acts as cutting off the life faculty. (Mv.VIII.26.8 lists the ideal characteristicsof a bhikkhu who tends to the sick, but does not impose a penalty on a bhikkhu whocares for the sick but lacks the ideal qualities; at no point does the Canon impose arequired level of care for the sick. The compilers' refusal to mandate a level of careis wise. If there were a case in which the bhikkhus did not feel that that level of carewas appropriate for their patient, they would have only one option: to abandon thepatient, so as to incur only a dukkaṭa and not the potentially higher penalty for notmeasuring up to the mandated care. Thus, instead of protecting the patient, ahigher level of mandated care would expose the patient to abandonment.) For thisreason, deciding to withhold or discontinue a particular treatment — while stillcontinuing otherwise to care for the patient — would not be grounds for an offense.If, however, a bhikkhu caring for a patient acts in a way to cut off the patient's lifefaculty, that would fulfill the factor of effort here. The Vinita-vatthu makes this pointwith a set of cases in which bhikkhus give patients treatments that are actuallyharmful for the patients. In the instances where the other factors for an offense arepresent — the bhikkhus mean to kill the patient, and the patient dies — the bhikkhusincur the full offense. In another set of cases, a bhikkhu feeling pity for a friend in58