Matricide

Section One of the Upāsaka Five Precepts Sūtra:

If an upāsaka (layman) makes preparations intending to kill his mother but kills someone who is not his mother, this is a medium offense that can be repented. If an upāsaka intends to kill someone who is not his mother but kills his own mother, he commits a medium offense that can be repented, but not the heinous sin (of matricide). If an upāsaka makes preparations intending to kill a human but kills a non-human, this is a medium offense that can be repented. If an upāsaka makes preparations intending to kill a non-human but kills a human, he commits a minor offense that can be repented. If a human aborts a fetus that is an animal, he commits a minor offense that can be repented. If an animal aborts a fetus that is human, causing its death, he commits an unrepentable offense.

Explanation: If an upāsaka employs certain methods intending to kill his own mother but actually kills someone who is not his mother, this constitutes a medium offense that can be repented. This is because there was no subjective intent to kill the non-mother; it was an accidental killing. If an upāsaka intends to kill someone who is not his mother but ends up killing his own mother, he also commits a medium offense that can be repented. Since he did not have the intent to kill his mother, he does not incur the heinous sin of matricide.

If an upāsaka devises certain preparatory methods intending to kill a human but kills a non-human instead, he commits a medium offense that can be repented, because the offense of killing a non-human is lighter. If an upāsaka devises certain preparatory methods intending to kill a non-human but kills a human instead, he commits a minor offense that can be repented. This is because he did not intend to kill a human; the human was killed accidentally, so the offense is lighter. If a human aborts a fetus that is an animal, he commits a minor offense that can be repented. If an animal aborts a fetus that is human, he commits an unrepentable offense, because this is equivalent to intentionally killing a human.

Original Text:

If an upāsaka makes preparations to kill a person, but the upāsaka dies first, and afterward, if someone dies (due to those preparations), this offense is repentable. If an upāsaka intends to kill his parents but harbors doubt, thinking, "Is this my parent or not?"; but if he knows for certain that it is his parent and kills them, it is the heinous sin, unrepentable. If an upāsaka harbors doubt, thinking, "Is this a human or not?"; but if his mind knows for certain that it is a human and he kills them, he commits an unrepentable offense.

Explanation: If an upāsaka devises preparatory means to kill a person, but this upāsaka himself dies first, and afterward, if someone else dies due to the means he devised, the upāsaka commits a repentable offense. If an upāsaka intends to kill his parents but harbors doubt, uncertain whether the other is his parent or not, yet if he knows for certain that it is his parent and kills them, he commits the heinous sin, which is unrepentable. If an upāsaka harbors doubt, uncertain whether the other is a human or not, yet if his mind knows for certain that the other is a human and he kills them, he commits an unrepentable offense.