Does anyone know the name of the Sutta about unintentional patracide?

[KeepCalm]

Hello,

There is a Sutta I have heard of where a person kills a prisoner he has and doesn't realize the prisoner is his own father.

The Buddha then says (I think) that the person definitely go to hell as the karma is so serious (because the person killed his own father) even though he didn't know it was his father at the time...

Does anyone know where this is from?

[KeepCalm]

I wonder if I am getting mixed up with the story of Ajātasattu and King Bimbisara?

[BKh]

It appears there is already a long thread with a very closely related question. Here is where answers start to come:
viewtopic.php?p=391363#p391363

I haven't read through the whole thread, but this seems relevant:

This is what Anguttara Nikaya Attakatha (commentaries) says about unintentional patricide.
“During the day time a person sees a goat sleeping in the shade. In the night he comes to kill the goat. In the dark the kill was done. Later he finds that what he has killed is not the goat, but the father. He has committed an unintentional heinous crime of patricide.” Bhikku Sepala also agrees me on this.

Piyatissa

Unfortunately it is not cited, so I would want to see the direct translation before coming to any conclusions.

There is also this... (not related to the quote above)

Maybe, what the elder actually said was that one commits the crime of matricide or patricide whether one knows that the victim is one's mother or father, or not. If there is the intention to kill a human being, one knows it is a human being, one makes an effort, and their death results, then it is the intentional killing of a human being. If they turn out to be one's own mother or father, even if one did not know that they were, then it amounts to a heinous crime. (That would make sense).

Unintentional killing does not even break the first precept.

This is in line with the general Vinaya concepts of killing. For example, if you plan to murder someone and you think it is them walking down the road in the dark, but it is actually someone else, when you kill that person it is counted as killing a human according to the Vinaya. Because even though you didn't plan on killing the other person, you fully had the intention to kill the human you knew was a human in front of you.

But I'm not familiar with the original story you asked about. Perhaps Bhante Pesala will.

[Inedible]

It has always seemed weird to me that killing one's parents should be on the list with creating schism, wounding a Buddha, and killing an Arhat. The only thing I can think of to explain it is that it must be common to see the benefits of killing your own parents. Otherwise why emphasize it so much by including it with the others. And yet, I actually have only heard very few people admit to having had serious inclinations to kill a parent. Or both.

[un8-]

It has always seemed weird to me that killing one's parents should be on the list with creating schism, wounding a Buddha, and killing an Arhat. The only thing I can think of to explain it is that it must be common to see the benefits of killing your own parents. Otherwise why emphasize it so much by including it with the others. And yet, I actually have only heard very few people admit to having had serious inclinations to kill a parent. Or both.

It was probably more common during that time as family had a lot of power back then such as arranged marriages, doweries, inheritance, etc.. You can see in the Payasi Sutta that a woman would get inheritance if she gave birth to a son, etc.. It's common for asian families to all live in one house, even today. The more you're around people who try to control you, and you live with them, the more chance for conflict.

So because there was so much dependence on parents, there was probably more patricide. In modern first world countries, a child usually moves out for college, gets a job, a home, and a wife, and visits his parents for holidays.

[cappuccino]

In modern first world countries, a child usually moves out

Data shows millennials are living at home with their parents in record numbers

curbed.com

[TRobinson465]

im following this because this seems interesting if such a sutta exists. As for unintentionally killing a parent. I think it would make sense that it is anantariya kamma or close to it if you kill someone intentionally who turns out to be one of your parents, but not so much if you accidentally kill a parent.

I believe in the vissudhimagga or some other commentary Buddhaghosa says that reviling a noble one, or a well practicing recluse/Bhikkhu, even if you do not know they are a noble one or are well practicing is extremely bad kamma. But this is not the case if you unintentionally revile a noble one or well practicing bhikkhu (thru poor word choice but with no intent to revile).

Assuming Buddhaghosa is right on that it would make sense intentionally killing a someone who turned out to be your parent is basically anantariya kamma if reviling a bhikkhu you thought was bad but was actually good is extremely bad kamma.

[TRobinson465]

It has always seemed weird to me that killing one's parents should be on the list with creating schism, wounding a Buddha, and killing an Arhat. The only thing I can think of to explain it is that it must be common to see the benefits of killing your own parents. Otherwise why emphasize it so much by including it with the others. And yet, I actually have only heard very few people admit to having had serious inclinations to kill a parent. Or both.

how is this weird? killing your parents is extremely heinous. As is wounding a Lord Buddha or killing an arahant. Its lumped together because of how heinous the acts are.

[cappuccino]

because of how heinous the acts are.

[Inedible]

You haven't met my parents.

[un8-]

In modern first world countries, a child usually moves out

Data shows millennials are living at home with their parents in record numbers

curbed.com

We'll see if this eventually correlates with patricide, but it's still nowhere near the Indian level of having the wife and kids living with everyone else in one home, sometimes even multiple families. Not to mention the other variables such as arranged marriages, and all the baggage that comes with that.

[DooDoot]

It was probably more common during that time as family had a lot of power back then such as arranged marriages, doweries, inheritance, etc..

The above sounds irrelevant. There are five heinous crimes, which all show the most extreme ignorance of Dhamma. For example, parents fed us food, just like the Noble Dhamma Teachers take an interest in our Dhamma Welfare. That is why it is heinous to kill your parents and cause a schism with the Noble Sangha. 0% gratitude. 100% delusion. Kind regards

[un8-]

It was probably more common during that time as family had a lot of power back then such as arranged marriages, doweries, inheritance, etc..

The above sounds irrelevant. There are five heinous crimes, which all show the most extreme ignorance of Dhamma. For example, parents fed us food, just like the Noble Dhamma Teachers take an interest in our Dhamma Welfare. That is why it is heinous to kill your parents and cause a schism with the Noble Sangha. 0% gratitude. 100% delusion. Kind regards

I was responding to inedible about why patricide is less common today in modern society, your comment is irrelevant to my response.

[KeepCalm]

It was probably more common during that time as family had a lot of power back then such as arranged marriages, doweries, inheritance, etc.. You can see in the Payasi Sutta that a woman would get inheritance if she gave birth to a son, etc.. It's common for asian families to all live in one house, even today. The more you're around people who try to control you, and you live with them, the more chance for conflict.

So because there was so much dependence on parents, there was probably more patricide. In modern first world countries, a child usually moves out for college, gets a job, a home, and a wife, and visits his parents for holidays.

Is Patracide less common today per head of capita? Where are you getting that information?