[Yash RS]

Since all the animals don’t have a free will, they live like “puppets” of the nature. So will an animal (wild ) attack any noble person? I saw some videos in which some bhikkus were playing with a tiger and the tiger was very calm towards them.

[Lal]

Getting attacked by an animal is a kamma vipaka. It can happen to even an Arahant.
– For example, bāhiyo dārucīriya was killed by a cow just after attaining the Arahanthood. See, “Bāhiya Sutta (Ud 1.10)”
– The same thing happened to Pukkusāti: “Dhātuvibhaṅga Sutta (MN 140)”
– See the end of the sutta in both cases.

Also, we remember that Ven. Moggalana was killed by a bunch of people.
– Thus, as long as one lives with a human body, any kamma vipaka corresponding to the human realm can take place (good or bad).
– Of course, only a Buddha’s life cannot be taken by anyone. But a Buddha can be injured, as Devadatta did to Buddha Gotama.

P.S. Cultivating Metta Bhavana can get rid of some such kamma vipaka, but not all.

[Yash RS]

So did the cow in the first case commit an anantariya papa kamma?

[buddhas_disciple]

What Is Anantariya Papa Kamma?

Anantariya (अनन्तरिय) papa kamma refers to five extremely heavy bad kammas that immediately lead to hell (apayā) without any intervening rebirth:

1. Killing one’s mother
2. Killing one’s father
3. Killing an Arahant (fully enlightened being)
4. Shedding the blood of a Buddha or attempting to kill a Buddha
5. Creating a major schism in the Sangha (monastic community)

 Why Didn’t the Cow Commit Anantariya Kamma?

• Anantariya papa kamma requires intentional killing.
• Animals do not have moral discernment—they act out of instinct, not with the intention to commit evil.
• Kamma is based on “cetana” (intention or volition). Since the cow did not intentionally kill the Arahant with a malicious mindset, it did not accumulate anantariya kamma.
• The cow’s action was merely a natural occurrence—it was not a deliberate act of harming a holy person.

What may have Actually Happened?

• The Arahant’s past kamma had ripened, leading to death in that manner.
• The cow was just a medium, not the root cause of the Arahant’s death.
• Since animals lack the ability to consciously create good or bad moral kamma, they cannot commit anantariya kamma.

Conclusion:

The cow did NOT commit an anantariya papa kamma because it did not have any intention to kill.
The Arahant’s death was simply the ripening of their own past kamma, not the cow’s fault.For anantariya kamma to occur, the killing must be deliberate and intentional!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Yash RS

[Lal]

Possibly, but not definitive.
– Animals do things like robots. So, their kamma generation is different. But it requires an Abhidhamma analysis involving what types of citta can be generated by animals.
– We need to worry about the types of kamma humans can do. A human is capable of doing ALL types of kamma, good and bad.

[Lal]

Regarding the comment by Buddhas_disciple above and specifically the following comment:

“What may have Actually Happened?

• The Arahant’s past kamma had ripened, leading to death in that manner.
• The cow was just a medium, not the root cause of the Arahant’s death.
• Since animals lack the ability to consciously create good or bad moral kamma, they cannot commit anantariya kamma.”

Yes. That could be valid.

Please see the following thread by Jittananto: “Bāhiya, Pukkusāti, Tambadathika – All Killed by the Same Cow“

• Since a cow could not have planned and killed all three of them, it is likely that the “cow was just a medium.”

1 user thanked author for this post.

Yash RS

[Author]

Posts