Alay said: “However, I am still a bit uncertain on the “Killing” cetana – the fact that the cetana would be the same for intentionally killing an animal vs killing one’s parent(s).
Anyway, there is much to learn and practice.”
Yes. It is a complex issue.
However, when one analyzes many examples one can come to conclusion that those two “rules” make sense.
To repeat those two rules in evaluating how to assess a kamma vipaka:
1. Which of the dasa akusala is the intention? That is the “cetana” in “cetana ham bhikkhave kamman vadami”.
2. Then the strength of the kamma vipaka is based on the “level of consciousness” or “qualities” of the living beings affected by that kamma.
That is the clearest way to analyze any given situation.
So, the intention here is NOT “I am going to kill so and so”, but just “I am going to kill”. That is all.
Vipaka or the result is always according to the damage done: Who got killed.
Therefore, even if the person killing his mother does not know it is his mother, it does not matter; “nature knows”. That action is a very strong action and thus the vipaka will materialize accordingly.
– The only question is “how does the nature know” that it is his mother that was killed. The nature knows because we are all connected. The preliminary evidence came from those experiments on quantum entanglement.
– In fact, I believe that we can show that even inert things are all inter-connected. I will be starting a new section at the site, “Quantum Mechanics and Kamma Vipaka”. It may take a while to get to the connection to kamma vipaka. I will first show the “connectedness” using reflection of light with a glass plate. That will be like the third post, because I need to setup the background with a couple of posts first.
Anyway, I will start a discussion forum on that section when I start posting. I hope you and others who are interested in this topic will make comments and ask questions “to keep me straight”.
Regarding your original question: There are five anantariya kamma: killing mother, killing father, killing an Arahant, injuring a Buddha (a Buddha cannot killed), causing schism among Sangha.
You asked: “My question is – When we define parents, are we referring to the “Biological” parents?”
Yes. That is where the “inter-connectedness” comes in. Nature knows who the parents are.
You asked: “ Is this purely dependent on the fact that since the gandhabba was able to come into the human world using this particular “Parents” and therefore, the child is indebted to the biological parents?
Yes. That is the reason.
A child killing a person who adopted him/her would NOT qualify as an anantariya kamma for the above reason. However, it will be a much stronger kamma than killing a normal, unrelated person, because he/she is in debt for the care that person had given.
Regarding the hunter shooting and killing one’s parent not knowing is again explained by the “connectedness”. As explained in the two-step process, the intention of killing is the first factor (the key is which dasa akusala is violated and NOT who was killed). The intention is simply “killing”. Who gets killed is the second factor (which he may not be even aware of) and it turned out to be his parent; the inter-connectedness!
I know it is a bit difficult to see. But this two-step process is automatically followed by nature. There is no one monitoring all that. The proof will come, hopefully with quantum mechanics, with the illustration of light particles and electrons. Even the motion of those particles are inter-connected.