^421:2 These words seem to refer to an apologue told by the commentator: King Ratnasekhara of Ratnapura, once making a pleasure trip, issued an order that nobody should remain in the town. Six brothers disobeyed, were brought before the king, and sentenced to death. Their father in vain implored the king to spare them, or to spare five, four, three, two of his sons. At last the king consented to pardon the eldest son, at which the old father rejoiced.--The six sons are likened to the six classes of living beings. As a householder cannot altogether abstain from injuring them, as monks do, he is content to abstain from injuring movable beings or animals.

^421:3 Viz. that by abstaining from slaughter of living beings they kill no living beings.

^422:1 I.e. by specifying the movable beings as beings which are movable ones for the time being.

^422:2 E.g. if a man vows to kill no Brahmana (and does not add the restriction 'for the time being'), he may kill no man or animal whatever; for the soul of that man or animal may, in the past, have been embodied in a Brahmana.

^423:1 Literally, the number. A sample of such vows is given in the beginning of the Uvasaga Dasao, see Hoernle's edition, section 16 ff.

^424:1 Abhiyoga. Silanka enumerates four kinds of abhiyoga: gana-, bala-, devata-abhiyoga, and gurunigraha.

^424:2 Nama, literally, name.

^424:3 They are called (vukkanti = ukyante) is apparently equivalent with: they get the name (nama); 'name,' however, means in Gaina and Bauddha terminology as much as 'the nature of the thing.' The words of the text, therefore, come to mean: 'they become or are animated beings,' &c.

^424:4 The question discussed in the following paragraphs is whether, at some future time, all movable beings in the Samsara might not die out, and none but immovable beings be left. This idea is combated at great length by Gautama.

^425:1 The meaning is, that at some future time movable beings may have ceased to exist, since they are all born as immovable beings, and vice versa. If the latter is the case, a layman, who abstains from killing animals, practically does injury to no being whatever; if the former is the case, he cannot transgress his vow even if he would.

^425:2 The text has the Sanskrit word asmakam, of which the commentator alleges that it was thus pronounced by all people in Magadha, compare note , <page 358>.

^426:1 Gautama.

^427:1 Se ge se give, literally, his soul.

^427:2 Here the last sentence but one of the preceding paragraph ought to be repeated. But there is no trace of it in my MSS. or the commentary.

^428:1 No in'atthe samatthe; I think the Sanskrit of this phrase, which is not explained by the commentator, is no ayam arthah samarthah.