X. THE ETHICS OF BUDHISM.

1. THE TAKING OF LIFE.-II. THEFT.-III. ADULTERY.-IV. LYING.-V. SLANder. -VI. UNPROFITABLE CONVERSATION.-VII. COVETOUSNESS.-VIII. SCEPTICISM. IX. INTOXICATING LIQUORS.-X. GAMBLING.-XI. IDLENESS.-XII. IMPROPER ASSOCIATIONS.-XIII. PLACES OF AMUSEMENT.-XIV. THE PARENT AND CHILD:-XV. THE TEACHER AND SCHOLAR.-XVI. THE PRIEST AND HOUSEHOLDER.-XVII. THE HUSBAND AND WIFE.-XVIII. THE MASTER AND SERVANT.-XIX. THE FRIEND.-XX. MISCELLANEOUS ADVICES.-XXI. THE SÍLA PRECEPTS.-XXII. TERMS AND CLASSIFICATIONS.

THERE are three sins of the body:-1. The taking of life, Murder (1). 2. The taking of that which is not given, Theft (2). 3. The holding of carnal intercourse with the female that belongs to another, Adultery (3).

There are four sins of the speech:-1. Lying (4). 2. Slander (5). 3. Abuse. 4. Unprofitable Conversation (6).

There are three sins of the mind:-1. Covetousness (7). 2. Malice. 3. Scepticism (8).

There are also five other evils that are to be avoided :—1. The drinking of intoxicating Liquors (9). 2. Gambling (10). 3. Idleness (11). 4. Improper Associations (12). 5. The Frequenting of Places of Amusement (13).

There are additional obligations that are binding upon particular classes of individuals, among whom may be reckoned: -1. The Parent and Child (14). 2. The Teacher and Scholar (15). 3. The Priest and Householder (16). 4. The Husband and Wife (17). 5. The Master and Servant (18). 6. The Friend (19).

There are Miscellaneous Advices and Admonitions (20) that form another section.

The Síla Precepts are almost limitless in their extent (21). The most celebrated are the ten Obligations of the Priest.

In the native works, certain terms are continually met with, an understanding of which is necessary to a right acquaintance with Budhism. A few of the more important of these Terms are inserted, with their explanation (22).

1. The Taking of Life.

Pránagháta is the destruction of the life of any being, the taking of it away. The prána is here put for the being, but it is only by a figure of speech. In reality the prána is the same as the jíwitindra (the eighteenth rúpa-khanda), the principle of life. He who takes away this principle, whether it be done immediately or by instigation (by the body or by the speech) is guilty of this crime. He who takes away the life of a large animal will have greater demerit than he who takes away the life of a small one; because greater skill or artifice is required in taking the life of the former than of the latter. When the life of a man is taken, the demerit increases in proportion to the merit of the person slain; but he who slays a cruel man has greater demerit than he who slays a man of a kind disposition.

There are five things necessary to constitute the crime of taking life. 1. There must be the knowledge that there is life. 2. There must be the assurance that a living being is present. 3. There must be the intention to take life. 4. With this intention there must be something done, as the placing of a bow or spear, or the setting of a snare; and there must be some movement towards it, as walking, running, or jumping. 5. The life must be actually taken. (Sadharmmaratnakáré.)

Again, it is said, when any one injures a tree, or root, or rock, with the intent to take life, not knowing its nature; when any one takes life, knowing it is life that he takes; when any one intends to take life; when any one actually takes life, whether it be done by himself or through the instrumentality of another, he is guilty of this crime. (Milinda Prasna.)

Pránagháta may be committed by the body, as when weapons

are used; by word, as when a superior commands an inferior to take life; or by the mind, as when the death of another is desired.

There are six ways in which life may be taken:-1. By the person himself, with a sword or lance. 2. By giving the command to another. 3. By the use of projectiles, such as a spear, an arrow, or a stone. 4. By treachery, as the digging of pits and covering them slightly over, setting springs, or poisoning ponds. 5. By magical rites. 6. By the instrumentality of demons. (Pújáwaliya.)

There are eight causes of the destruction of life:-1. Evil desire. 2. Anger. 3. Ignorance. 4. Pride. 5. Covetousness. 6. Poverty. 7. Wantonness, as in the sport of children. 8. Law, as by the decree of the ruler.

This crime is committed, not only when life is actually taken, but also when there is the indulgence of hatred or anger; hence also lying, stealing, and slander, may be regarded in some sense as including this sin. (Sadharmmaratnakáré.)

Under certain circumstances one's own life may be given up, but the life of another is never to be taken.

If the person who is killed is the person who was intended to be slain, the crime of murder has been committed; but if it is intended to take the life of a particular person, by throwing a dart, or javelin, and the weapon kill another, it is not murder. If it is intended to take life, though not the life of any particular person, and life be taken, it is murder. When a blow is given with the intention of taking life, whether the person who is struck die at that time or afterwards, it is murder.

When a command is given to take the life of a particular person, and that person is killed, it is murder; but if another person be killed instead, it is not murder. When a command is given to take the life of a person at a particular time, whether in the morning or in the evening, in the night or in the day, and he be killed at the time appointed, it is murder; but if he be killed at some other time, and not at the time appointed, it is not murder. When a command is given to take the life of a person at a particular place, whether it be in the village, or city, or desert, on land, or on water, and he be killed at the place appointed, it is murder; but if he be killed at some other place, and not at the place appointed, it is not murder. When a command is given to take the life of a person in a particular position, whether it be walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, and he be killed whilst in the position appointed, it is

murder; but if he be killed whilst in some other position, and not in the position appointed, it is not murder. When a command is given to take the life of a person by a particular weapon, whether it be sword or spear, and he be killed by the weapon appointed, it is murder; but if he be killed by some other weapon, and not by the weapon appointed, it is not murder.

Were a command to be given to take the life of any person fifty years afterwards, or even at a period still more distant, and the person giving the command were to die a moment after it was issued, he would be guilty of murder, and as such would be born in one of the hells.

The crime is not great when an ant is killed; its magnitude increases in this progression—a lizard, a guana, a hare, a deer, a bull, a horse, and an elephant. The life of each of these animals is the same, but the skill or effort required to destroy them is widely dif ferent. Again, when we come to men, the two extremes are the sceptic and the rahat (as no one can take the life of a supreme Budha).

In the village of Wadhamána, near Danta, there was an upasaka who was a husbandman. One of his oxen having strayed, he ascended a rock that he might look for it; but whilst there he was seized by a serpent. He had a goad in his hand, and his first impulse was to kill the snake; but he reflected that if he did so he should break the precept that forbids the taking of life. He therefore resigned himself to death, and threw the goad away; no sooner had he done this, than the snake released him from its grasp, and he escaped. Thus, by observing the precept, his life was preserved from the most imminent danger.

A certain king, who reigned at Anuradhapura, commanded an upásaka to procure him a fowl and kill it. As he refused, the king issued a decree that he should be taken to the place of execution, where a fowl was to be put into his hand, and if he still refused to kill it, he was to be slain. The upásaka, however, said that he had never broken the precept that forbids the taking of life, and that he was willing to give his own life for the life of the fowl. With this intention he threw the fowl away unhurt. After this he was brought back to the king, and released, as he had been put to this test merely to try the sincerity of his faith. (Pújáwaliya.)

In the city of Wisála there was a priest, who one day, on going with the alms-bowl, sat down upon a chair that was covered with a

cloth, by which he killed a child that was underneath. About the same time there was a priest who received food mixed with poison into his alms-bowl, which he gave to another priest, not knowing that it was poisoned, and the priest died. Both of these priests went to Budha, and in much sorrow informed him of what had taken place. The sage declared, after hearing their story, that the priest who gave the poisoned food, though it caused the death of another priest, was innocent, because he had done it unwittingly; but that the priest who sat upon the chair, though it only caused the death of a child, was guilty, as he had not taken the proper precaution to look under the cloth, and had sat down without being invited by the householder.

It was said by Budha, on one occasion, that the priests were not to throw themselves down (from an eminence, in order to cause their death). But on another occasion he said that he preached the bana in order that those who heard it might be released from old age, disease, decay, and death; and declared that those were the most honourable of his disciples by whom this purpose was accomplished. The one declaration (as was observed by the king of Ságal), appears to be contrary to the other; but the apparent difference may be reconciled by attending to the occasions on which they were delivered. There was a priest who was under the influence of passion; and as he was unable to maintain his purity he thought it would be better to die than to continue an ascetic. He therefore threw himself from a precipice, near the rock Gijakúta ; but it happened that as he came down he fell upon a man who had come to the forest to cut bamboos, whom he killed, though he did not succeed in taking his own life. From having taken the life of another he supposed that he had become párájiká, or excluded from the priesthood; but when he informed Budha of what had taken place, the sage declared that it was not so (as he had killed the man unintentionally, his intention being to take his own life). Nevertheless, though Budha declared that he delivered the bana in order that old age and decay might be overcome, he made known that the priests were not permitted, like the one above-mentioned, to throw themselves from an eminence in order that their lives may be destroyed. The members of the priesthood are like a medicine for the destruction of the disease of evil desire in all sentient beings; like water, for the washing away of its dust; a talisman, for the giving of all treasures; a ship, by which to sail to the opposite