I recently listened to a desana by Waharaka Thero, where he explained kammapatha.
The discussion about kamma patha begins at 17:00 in this video.
Now, I firmly believe that kammapatha is part of the Buddha Dhamma.
However, while contemplating kammapatha, I encountered a difficult question.
As far as I know, even if someone is unaware that the other person is an arahant, fully carrying out the act of killing results in anantarika kamma.
Furthermore, even if the person who dies is not the intended target, the intention to harm still constitutes the kamma of killing.
For example, if a hunter shoots at a deer but accidentally kills an arahant instead, he would have committed anantarika kamma.
This is where things start to get complicated.
A sotapanna may not always be able to discern whether someone is an arahant.
So, what if a sotapanna tries to swat a tiny mosquito but accidentally strikes an arahant instead, causing the arahant to fall, hit their head on a rock, and die? In this case, what kind of kamma would the sotapanna generate?
As far as I know, a sotapanna cannot generate the kamma of killing an arahant.
If this is true, is such a situation karmically prevented?
In other words, is it absolutely impossible for such a situation to even exist, where a sotapanna accidentally kills an arahant while trying to swat a mosquito?
Or is it prevented in a way that a sotapanna simply cannot form the intention (cetana) of panatipata in their mind?
If a sotapanna were capable of committing panatipata, the possibility of the former scenario must necessarily be excluded.
Let’s consider a similar situation.
Imagine a child who was separated from their parents at a young age, and later grew up to listen to a desana and became a sotapanna.
One day, the sotapanna sees a villain about to launch nuclear weapons around the world and, thinking to neutralize him, aims at the villain’s leg and fires.
However, the bullet unexpectedly ricochets and ends up killing the villain.
It turns out that the villain was actually the sotapanna’s biological father.
In such a case, would the sotapanna have committed anantarika papa kamma?
Of course, a sotapanna cannot commit anantarika papa kamma.
Does this mean that a sotapanna cannot commit panatipata at all?
Or is it that they can commit panatipata, but such exceptional situations are excluded?
