五戒の細則
Chapter 3: Questions Concerning the Precept Against Killing
1. Is choosing euthanasia to end one's own life a sin?
Everyone's life belongs to the individual, and the individual has the power to take or relinquish life, but doing so is an irresponsible act. First, because a single individual life involves many causes and effects, exerting considerable influence on other lives, and it will also change the destinies of related people, such as parents and children, as well as other family members and relatives. Second, the existence of life carries many meanings and offers many opportunities to change one's destiny; giving up life is tantamount to giving up the opportunity to change one's destiny, and also giving up the opportunity to eliminate karmic retribution. When karmic retribution arrives, once it is endured it is gone; not enduring it in this life does not mean the karmic retribution disappears—it must still be endured in future lives. It is better to endure it all within one lifetime. Therefore, those who persuade others to undergo euthanasia and those who assist in euthanasia correspondingly bear negative karmic responsibility. Persuading someone to die and helping someone die constitutes an unpardonable offense.
However, some acts of suicide may be a form of karmic retribution; perhaps the suicide's karmic retribution for this life has ended and their lifespan is exhausted, and the karmic causes from past lives have determined that they had no choice but to take their own life. But even if the lifespan is exhausted, one can only decide one's own death oneself; one should not persuade others to die or help others die. If one persuades or helps someone die, one commits an unpardonable offense and will suffer evil retribution in future lives. Long ago there was an emperor of meager merit (alpa-puṇya); during his reign wars were incessant and the people lived in misery, and in the end this emperor, having no alternative, committed suicide. He did not want to die, but because he truly had no more blessings, he had no choice but to die. Some people commit suicide because they are forced by circumstances; this too is cause and effect, karmic retribution that must inevitably repay the sinful karma of past lives.
Asking someone to kill oneself belongs to the category of suicide, not homicide. When two armies face off, a captured prisoner, in order to avoid suffering or betraying intelligence, may ask his own comrades to kill him—these are acts of helplessness, not selfish acts. The person who accepts the request to kill is also compelled by necessity; in order to fulfill the other's wish, he has no personal motive for killing, nor did he persuade the person to die, so he has no crime of homicide. But cause and effect are still involved; it must be judged according to the specific circumstances—perhaps there will be a minor evil result, perhaps a good result.
If euthanasia is performed to help a patient escape suffering and also accords with the patient's own wishes, does it also fall under the above situation? There is still some difference between assisting someone in euthanasia and helping someone who is imprisoned to commit suicide to escape punishment: the latter is helpless and unavoidable, not proactive; the former could be avoided but was not avoided, which is tantamount to assisting death, and carries evil retribution. The two situations differ in intention and purpose, so the karmic retribution differs.
Why do some people want euthanasia? Because they cannot die by themselves; no matter how seriously ill they are, they cannot die naturally, and can only ask others to take measures to let them die. Since they cannot die naturally, it means the karmic retribution they should endure in this life has not been exhausted; since it is not exhausted, they should continue to endure it until it is. If one dies without exhausting one's karmic retribution, one will continue to endure it in future lives, and in future lives the retribution is often endured in the three evil destinies, where the suffering far exceeds the suffering endured among humans. Therefore, no matter what setbacks or tribulations one encounters in human life, no matter how severe the illness, no matter how great the pain, one must tenaciously endure and resolve them, and not choose death. Karmic retribution cannot be escaped; one must persist until the karmic conditions of this life are exhausted and the retribution of this life is complete.
How can karmic retribution be exhausted as quickly as possible? By enduring more—the heavier the endurance, the faster it is exhausted. This is a clumsy method, but also a necessary one. A faster method is to sincerely repent of karmic obstructions every day, repenting of the evil karma committed in the past. After repentance, first, the mind becomes pure and some karma is dissolved; second, if there are karmic creditors, they can forgive some of your faults and let you off.
2. Does dying of illness due to lack of will to live count as suicide?
The conditions constituting suicide are, first, having the desire to die, and second, having a concrete act of suicide—an act that may be taken by oneself, may be carried out by others on one's behalf, or may result from non-action, not saving oneself and not letting others save one.
A person without the will to live has not taken any means of suicide, nor does he deliberately want to die; he has simply become disheartened, causing his life to end quickly. There is no act or behavior of suicide, so it does not count as suicide, much less a sin. Not wanting to live, having no hope in life, one dies faster, but it does not count as suicide.
Suppose a person falls seriously ill, is unwilling to endure the suffering of illness, wholeheartedly seeks death, and finally dies of the illness—does this count as suicide? If this person gives up treatment and does not give himself the chance to continue living, it counts as suicide; if he deliberately refuses food, it counts as suicide. If the patient could press the call button before dying to let the doctor come and rescue him, but ultimately chose not to press the button to call the doctor and died of the illness, does this count as suicide? This kind of deliberate failure to save oneself, not giving oneself the chance to live and causing one's own death, counts as suicide. But it is not a crime. Whether it is killing another or suicide, there must be not only subjective intent but also expedient means; killing requires the six conditions to be complete before it constitutes the crime of killing. Not saving oneself and seeing death without saving are the same principle; seeing death without saving is not illegal, only contrary to worldly moral concepts, and not saving oneself is even less illegal.
In the Buddha's time, after bhikṣus attained the first through fourth fruits, because they had no longing for their own lives and no interest in the world of the five aggregates (pañca-skandha), they took action to end their lives, or sought others' help to die. These all count as acts of suicide, but none were sinful. Because the destination of one's own life is decided by oneself, as long as one does not harm the interests of others, there is no crime. But bodhisattvas absolutely never commit suicide, because bodhisattvas have higher aspirations in their hearts; their hearts hold the Buddha's teaching and sentient beings, and they have great vow-power, so they cherish life and time greatly.
3. To whom does the sin of forced abortion belong?
In the era of the family planning policy, when women were pregnant with a second or third child, they were forced to abort for fear of being fined for exceeding the birth quota. To whom does the sin of this abortion belong? If one is forced by authorities or compelled by external conditions to abort against one's will, the one who aborts is without sin. Those who formulated the policy, executors at all levels, and those who actually performed the abortion all bear sins of varying degrees. Therefore, those who hold high office and wield great power bear great responsibility; whether a policy is appropriate affects the interests of tens of millions and hundreds of millions of people, including their lives—the cause and effect is especially grave.
The doctors and nurses who perform abortions all have evil karma, have formed evil karmic bonds with sentient beings, and bear karmic responsibility. Even apart from abortion and other killing issues, as long as one saves a person, one forms an evil bond with that person's karmic creditors and will bear karmic obstructions on the patient's behalf. That is why hospital doctors have relatively shorter lifespans than ordinary people; the virtue of healing the sick and saving lives in the eyes of the world is actually not beautiful at all. There are also professions like lawyers and judges—all professions that bear karmic obstructions and must shoulder others' cause and effect.
Bodhisattvas generally do not choose to hold official positions; they could be kings or prime ministers but decline. Governing a country requires establishing prisons and other institutions of confinement, dealing with criminals, and handling wars, thus involving grave matters of life; if handled poorly, it becomes grave evil karma. There are also policy issues concerning people's livelihood such as taxation, and issues of laws, rules, and regulations—if handled poorly, all are grave evil karma.
Within the teaching profession, there are also those who transmit the afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion; most of society's elites have transmitted some afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion, because they themselves have not eradicated afflictions, and their bodily, verbal, and mental actions all correspond to greed, hatred, and delusion. There is also the gaming industry, and the film, television, and short-drama industries, all of which spread the afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion and methods of creating evil karma. Even within Buddhism, which advocates eradicating the afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion, there are many people who transmit these afflictions to sentient beings; among them, laypeople transmit the most, after all, because they are too close to worldly life—greed, hatred, and delusion are hard to subdue and arise constantly, so afflictions are unknowingly transmitted out, tainting sentient beings. Some people do not transmit afflictions unknowingly, but knowingly commit transgressions, deliberately letting sentient beings be tainted by afflictions while they themselves profit from it.
4. Following Along with Afflictions Is Not the Conduct of Sages
Killing people with mantras and corpse-raising ghosts—such methods of killing are very secretive; others do not know you have a motive to kill, do not know you have killed, do not know you kill without drawing blood. If one follows along with such afflictions, one is an evil person; acting them out constitutes the sinful karma of killing. Following along with such afflictions makes one not merely a person lacking virtue, but one lacking great virtue; such a person cannot possibly be a person of great virtue or a bodhisattva. Such evil people and criminals will never appear in the ranks of bodhisattvas.
Some people, though they do not kill people and do not wish to see others kill people, nevertheless kill animals—this is also the karma of killing. For example, when one craves meat and wants fresh meat, rather than killing it oneself, one hints for others to kill on one's behalf; by muttering that one wants to eat meat, others will find a way to procure a living creature, slaughter it, and cook it before letting him eat. Thus his hands are clean, unstained by blood, but his mouth is no longer clean, and his mind even less so. Can such afflictions be followed along with? To follow along with them is killing, an unpardonable offense; instigating others to kill carries an even heavier sin. Such a sinner cannot possibly be a sage or bodhisattva.
Some people make excuses, saying: "We bodhisattvas all know that animals are manifestations of the tathāgatagarbha, and eating meat is also manifested by the tathāgatagarbha; therefore everything is illusory and false. As long as you know this clearly, eating is equal to not eating, and killing is equal to not killing." What he means is that knowing all dharmas are manifested by the tathāgatagarbha, one can do anything, and doing nothing is also fine. Then let me ask: what is the purpose of studying the Mahāyāna dharma of the tathāgatagarbha? Is it used to cover up evil karma and one's own afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion? Is the tathāgatagarbha a tool for committing evil deeds? The more one studies the tathāgatagarbha dharma and the longer one studies it, the more unscrupulously one commits evil deeds? Is studying the Buddha-dharma ultimately meant to reach such a state?
Some people talk about the tathāgatagarbha every day, yet commit evil karma every day, with boundless afflictions daily and no bottom line. Even ordinary worldlings are not like this. Not studying Buddhism or the tathāgatagarbha, and being a good worldling with peace of mind, a modest gentleman of the highest grade—is that not good? I have met many people who have been indoctrinated with wrong notions. They say: "Don't look at these surface phenomena; these are all matters of phenomenal appearances. You should look at our dharma—our dharma is the best and most noble Mahāyāna tathāgatagarbha dharma, rare and hard to obtain." I find it strange: having studied such rare and precious Mahāyāna tathāgatagarbha dharma, yet unable to resolve matters of phenomenal appearances, and the more one studies, the more chaotic and filthy the phenomena become, running contrary to the Path—then what is this dharma for? Is it to endorse oneself and serve as a facade, or to eliminate ignorance and attain liberation?
Speaking of liberation, some people have more to say: they claim, "We Mahāyāna bodhisattvas do not seek liberation; only arhats go for liberation. Bodhisattvas do not liberate." What is implied here? It means that bodhisattvas are all bound by the dharmas of the five-aggregate world, bound by afflictions, bound by ignorance; at death, because of these bonds, they are bound in the three evil destinies, bound in the six paths of saṃsāra, no different from worldlings—is that so? If so, then such bodhisattvas are no different from worldlings, and there is no point in being one.
5. Does Having a Thought of Killing Without Acting Violate the Precept?
In the Hīnayāna teaching this does not count as violating the precept: without action, the event has not occurred, no one has been killed, so the killing precept is not violated. But in the Mahāyāna it counts as a violation, because the mind is the master of all things and also the master of all evils; only with mental thoughts do subsequent bodily and verbal actions appear. Only when the mind gives rise to a thought of killing does the karma of killing arise. Therefore, having a thought of killing counts as violating the precept in Mahāyāna precept codes, regardless of whether one actually killed. Thoughts play the decisive role; thoughts represent the mind's wholesomeness or unwholesomeness. When a thought arises, there is karma; karmic retribution manifests according to the mind, and birth and death exist according to the mind. Because the moment a thought arises, before action follows, the tathāgatagarbha has already made a record, and in the future the tathāgatagarbha will realize the karmic retribution of wholesome and unwholesome karma according to this record. If action then follows, the evil karma is further consolidated and the retribution becomes more solid. True practitioners do not give rise to thoughts casually; if thoughts arise, they are pure thoughts, thoughts of benefiting sentient beings.
The fundamental reason sentient beings violate the precept against killing lies in the mind of hatred and the mind of competing to win. As long as the afflictive mind of hatred is subdued, one will not violate the killing precept. Distance yourself from people and situations that easily give rise to hatred, distance yourself from competitive environments, do not compete with people or with circumstances, subdue the self-mind—then basically one will not violate the killing precept.
What heavily taints the mind of hatred are various forms of entertainment and games, in which various wars and fights are simulated, all involving fighting and killing, bloodshed and violence. People immersed in such games severely pollute their own minds; steeped in these defilements, they unknowingly come to accept bloodshed and violence, considering fighting and killing normal. In the future, when encountering adverse conditions in real life, they will easily give rise to a combative mind and may even commit violence.
In the precept sutras the Buddha said that even an imagined killing, with no real person or real event, is a violation of the precept, because the mental thought was stirred and the mental action arose, so the seed of evil karma is stored, and when conditions ripen there will be evil retribution. Mental thoughts determine everything. Only by removing all evil and unwholesome thoughts and being replete with wholesome thoughts can one avoid violating precepts and creating evil karma, avoid the evil retribution of the three evil destinies and evil retribution among humans, and gradually attain the fruits of realization and escape the birth-and-death cycle of the six paths.
6. The Sin of Abortion
Question: If a woman becomes pregnant and decides to abort, and the fetus dies, what sin does the woman commit? Does the man commit a sin? If the man decides on the abortion and the woman agrees, and the fetus dies, what sin does each of the two commit? If the woman does not agree to the abortion but is forced to abort, what sin does each commit? If the woman decides to abort and the man knows but does not participate, is he guilty? If the man does not know, is he guilty?
Answer: If the woman herself decides to abort and the fetus dies, she commits the sin of killing. If the man knows and agrees without obstructing, he equally commits the sin of killing; if he did not agree and his obstruction failed, then he commits no crime.
If the man decides on the abortion and the woman agrees, and the fetus dies, both commit the sin of killing; if the woman does not agree and is forced to abort, she commits no crime, and the man alone commits the sin of killing.
If the woman decides to abort and the man knows but does not participate and expresses no opinion, he still bears guilt; he should have obstructed but did not—through non-action he commits a pardonable sin of killing; if the man did not know of this matter, he commits no crime.
7. The Karmic Retribution of Killing
When a country is attacked by invaders who burn, kill, and plunder, committing every evil, everyone hates the invaders' cruelty and viciousness—yet in the past, they themselves were also cruel and vicious; they have merely forgotten the past and only see the present, not knowing it is cause, condition, and karmic retribution. Those who once slit open fish bellies are now themselves disemboweled, seething with resentment—were they not also cruel back then, heedless of the fish's suffering? Even today, for the pleasure of the palate, such evil deeds have never stopped. Many Buddhist practitioners, though they no longer eat meat themselves, must buy fish and meat because their families want it; they buy live creatures and then slaughter them, disemboweling them—the evil karma continues to be created. Though they study Buddhism and cultivate, their evil deeds and evil retribution have never paused.
My mother had a Buddhist friend who recited the Buddha's name for twenty or thirty years, but in the end fell ill and lay in bed. As a child she had poked open ant nests, and at this time those ants she had killed, not yet reborn, crawled over her body in their subtle bodies, occupying her body, leaving her unable to control body or mind. After decades of vegetarianism, she now ate meat, no longer believed in the Buddha, and no longer recited his name. The local temple performed rites to save and draw her out (of suffering), but she flew into a rage and forbade the deliverance. In the end she died—certainly gone to the three evil destinies to suffer. Among my mother's cohort of Buddhist practitioners and Buddha-name reciters, there were many people; in their later years many fell ill, obstructed by karmic obstructions and unable to continue cultivation, and in the end none escaped the three evil destinies.
Do not think that because you are still young and healthy, you seem to have no obstructions. When the truly great karmic obstructions arrive, you will have no power to resist at all—you will collapse in an instant, unable to control yourself, unable even to believe in the Buddha, let alone study Buddhism. At the end of life, you will be led by karmic creditors to the three evil destinies, and family and Dharma friends will be helpless. So while your body is healthy, quickly repent of evil karma—all evil karma of this life and past lives must be repented. Though you do not remember past lives, just assume all evil karma has been committed. After repentance, some karmic obstructions will be lightened, so that at the end of life you will not be obstructed by evil karma to the point of disbelieving in the Buddha and the Three Jewels. When killing karma is abundant, repent regularly; after spring begins, find opportunities to release captive lives, which can compensate for some faults and dissolve some sinful karma.
As for the gravity of evil karma, no matter how many sentient beings one kills, the sin is not as great as slandering the Three Jewels. The sin of slandering and disparaging the Three Jewels is immeasurably vast. After receiving the retribution for killing, one can still encounter the Three Jewels' salvation; but those who slander and disparage the Three Jewels will not have this opportunity for long kalpas. Some people, after committing evil karma, are still smug about it—how foolish this is.
8. Is the Evil Retribution for Violating Precepts Prescribed by the Buddha or Determined by the Law of Cause and Effect?
To answer this question, one must understand the starting point and principles behind the World-Honored One's establishment of the precepts—why were these precepts established? If these precepts had not been established, would there be no cause and effect and no sinful retribution in the absence of precept violations? For example, the karma of killing people is a precept-violating act; if killing were not a violation of precepts, would one still fall into hell to receive retribution? Clearly, the law of cause and effect exists naturally regardless of whether there are precepts. Even if killing were not a precept-violating act, one would still fall into hell to receive evil retribution. Receiving evil retribution, or even good retribution, is not prescribed or willed by the Buddha; it is determined by the tathāgatagarbha's law of cause and effect.
The reason the Buddha established these precepts is to let sentient beings know what can be done and what cannot be done, and what retribution follows from what actions, thereby regulating sentient beings' mental actions so they create less or no evil karma and thus avoid evil retribution. Establishing precepts for sentient beings to observe is to avoid evil retribution. Even without the constraint of precepts, at every moment of each mental action of sentient beings, the tathāgatagarbha is recording and collecting karmic seeds; when the karmic seeds mature, karmic conditions will appear, and evil retribution will accordingly manifest. So everyone should consider: is it better to receive precepts and have constraints, or not to receive precepts and have no constraints? Sentient beings have more evil than good; without constraints, acting at will, they will inevitably follow evil habits to create evil karma, and evil retribution will be unavoidable—they will inevitably become frequent visitors to the three evil destinies.
Observing each person's bodily, verbal, and mental actions, one finds that the habits of the three evil destinies are numerous and obvious, yet they themselves are unaware and often self-righteous. Some people, lacking good habits of cultivation, upon seeing that my conduct is completely opposite to their own, will unconsciously instruct me on my cultivation and conduct, not knowing that it is precisely they themselves who are inverted, and they hope I will invert myself to be like them. If such people became familiar with the Buddha, they would likewise point fingers at the Buddha and instruct him on his cultivation.
If no Buddha had appeared in the world, there would be no precepts, but karmic retribution would still exist, and worldlings would only fall into an endless cycle of creating karma and receiving retribution, not knowing how to escape. Therefore, precepts are extremely important; without holding precepts, one's cultivation cannot make much progress.
9. Why Did the Buddha Establish the Precept Against Killing?
The Buddha established precepts, on one hand, to reveal cause and effect, letting disciples follow cause and effect, avoid its punishment, and prevent disciples from falling into the three evil destinies or cycling endlessly through birth and death in the six paths. The fundamental purpose is to protect disciples from harm and from harming sentient beings, so that there are no obstructive conditions on the path of cultivation and their progress is not interrupted in the three evil destinies, rendering their efforts in vain. On the other hand, the Buddha established precepts to nurture disciples' compassionate mind, to cherish sentient beings and protect their lives. The compassionate mind is originally the mind of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas; when sentient beings have a compassionate mind, they will draw near to all Buddhas and bodhisattvas and in the future will become one of the Buddhas and bodhisattvas. If the Buddha had not established precepts, disciples would have no code of conduct, their minds would have nowhere to rest, they would be at a loss, meditative concentration (samādhi) and wisdom could not arise, they could not attain liberation, and could not attain tranquil nirvāṇa.
10. Why Is Killing Microorganisms Not Within the Scope of the Precepts?
Microorganisms also belong to the category of animals. The varieties of animals are extremely numerous and complex, ranging from as large as dragons, golden-winged garuḍa birds, and elephants, to as small as ants, bacteria, and microorganisms. Microorganisms are everywhere—in the air and on objects. As long as a person has a breath to breathe, they inhale microorganisms into their nasal cavity and lungs and kill them. Food is full of microorganisms; modern food is almost inseparable from them—fermentation relies on microorganisms, and all fermented foods are made by microorganisms: fluffy soft breads, various pastries, alcoholic drinks and beverages, and countless others are all made with microorganisms; eating them is killing.
Because microorganisms are extremely tiny, invisible to the naked eye, imperceptible, unavoidable, and intimately connected with daily life, coexisting with the physical body and living environment, sentient beings have no alternative—they cannot avoid contact, cannot avoid killing and destroying them; otherwise sentient beings could not survive normally. Therefore, the Buddha's precepts do not include killing microorganisms; if they did, there would be no sentient being who does not violate the killing precept.
In the past, when bhikṣus went out and drank water from small streams, or stagnant water in puddles—which contained not only bacteria but also small worms and the like—they used a water-filtering bag to filter it before drinking. The filtered water still contained extremely many microorganisms, but as long as they were invisible to the naked eye, drinking it did not count as violating the precept; water with visible creatures must not be drunk—drinking it counts as a violation. The Buddha's precepts overlook killings too subtle to avoid—this too is a karmic obstruction sentient beings cannot escape.
Although killing microorganisms does not count as violating the precept, there is still cause and effect; evil bonds are formed between the parties. Moreover, because microorganisms are so tiny and insignificant, with extremely inferior five-aggregate functions—the weakest, most humble of all sentient beings, not a suitable vessel for the Path—if their survival conflicts with humans or with cultivators, humans and cultivators must be preserved and microorganisms abandoned, or microorganisms utilized to serve humanity. Through the merit thus accumulated and the bonds thus formed, these microorganism beings will gradually leave the bacterial colony and be reborn among animals with somewhat stronger five-aggregate functions, and finally obtain a human body—for microorganisms, this is also a channel of continual evolution.
11. Does Sending Chickens and Ducks to Eliminate Locusts Count as Killing?
Instigating others to create the karma of killing carries an even heavier sin than creating it oneself. Why? Because when you kill yourself, you alone create the evil karma and form evil bonds with sentient beings. But when you instigate others to kill on your behalf, the killing karma they create also has a share belonging to you; your intent to kill still exists, and you additionally cause others to form evil bonds and create evil karma, polluting others—this is double evil karma. Having chickens and ducks kill locusts on behalf of humans means the locusts died because of humans—it counts as humans killing them; the chickens and ducks are merely tools for humans to kill locusts. At the same time, the chickens and ducks also form evil bonds with the locusts and will receive evil retribution in future lives—this is caused by humans. Therefore, dispatching chickens and ducks to eliminate locusts carries even greater evil karma than eliminating them oneself.
But when encountering such a great locust disaster, should one eliminate the locusts or not? If the locusts threaten human survival, of course they must be eliminated, because human life is, after all, countless times more precious than locusts; comparing the two, human survival should be safeguarded first. Humans are a suitable vessel for the Path, capable of performing a great deal of wholesome karma, beneficial to all beings of the three evil destinies; as long as humans are alive, everything else can be managed. There will merely be some evil retribution in future lives, which is far better than losing one's life to locusts now or being trapped by disaster.
Every sentient being, over beginningless kalpas, has created far too much killing karma—countless deeds great and small—so every sentient being's karmic obstructions are deep and heavy, and their evil bonds are many. No matter how good you are, there are those who want to kill you, those who beat and scold you, those who insult and frame you, those who slander you, those who look down on you—adversaries who speak ill of you are many.
Encountering adverse conditions and disasters and being forced to create killing karma is itself a manifestation of lacking blessings, and also a karmic obstruction, the retribution of evil karma. Without karmic obstructions, one would not encounter situations where killing karma must be created to solve one's own survival problems. The Buddhas and bodhisattvas have all eliminated the seeds of evil karma, so they will not attract such adverse conditions and will not be forced to create killing karma. Even if they encounter evil conditions, they can turn danger into safety and misfortune into fortune, and use their immeasurable power of merit (puṇya-bala) to compensate for and save their adversaries.
12. The Karmic Retribution of Selling Pork
Question: I do marketing for a company that sells black pork. You said I have the karma of polluting people's minds and the karma of inducement. Are these two kinds of sinful karma heavy or light karma? Will I go to hell?
Answer: If, in order to sell more pork, you conduct marketing, advertising, and planning activities, and such promotion can pollute and delude sentient beings' minds and induce sentient beings to eat more meat, this is auxiliary killing—not a light sin, but not enough to send you to hell. Selling pork is itself killing karma; marketing provides convenience for killing karma and belongs to assisting killing and indirect killing—you are equally guilty with the company boss. Furthermore, selling black pork involves deceiving customers, passing off inferior goods as superior and muddling through—this is false speech, assisting false speech, and you are equally guilty with the company boss. If you were forced or deceived into selling black pork and had no choice, then you are without sin.
This kind of evil karma is not direct killing, nor killing people, so it will not send you to hell. But by assisting the company boss in creating much killing karma, this evil karma is not light either; you have formed many evil bonds, and future-life retribution will be quite bad—you will naturally go to the three evil destinies to receive retribution, and the animal destiny in particular is a certainty. After being born in the animal destiny, you must repay the life-debt of the pigs. The evil karma that sends one to hell is that created with severe hatred, primarily karmic actions aimed at slaughter and revenge, with a mind of great and extreme hatred; whereas marketing aimed solely at making money is greed, without a mind of anger, so what is created is not hell-karma. The more pigs die, the heavier this person's killing karma; the future-life retribution is, first, much illness, and second, being killed by others. When karmic conditions ripen in the future, you too will be killed by pigs.
Many marketing activities in the world belong to defiling karma, capable of defiling oneself and others with the afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion, increasing sentient beings' greed. Using false and untruthful advertising to induce sentient beings into unreasonable consumption and excessive consumption, profiting from it and increasing sentient beings' greed—this sin is not small. If you and the company thereby make more money, this is not merit-creating karma but merit-depleting karma. If the marketing is so successful that pork sales are booming and more and more pigs die, what sin should this marketer bear? It is accessory evil karma—helping others do evil brings evil retribution. Many industries in the world belong to evil karma; for example, the usury (loan-sharking) industry is also evil karma: others suffer losses of money and interests, while you lose corresponding blessings; when conditions ripen, you will naturally repay a thousandfold what you gained.
13. The Difference Between Killing in Dreams and Killing While Awake
The difference between inside and outside a dream is that within a dream there is no external object-aspect (nimitta), nothing is changed, whereas outside the dream there are changes in the external object-aspect, and real events of benefiting or harming others occur. Therefore, karma created in dreams has no substantial, concrete retribution, while karma created outside dreams has substantial, concrete retribution. Apart from this, inside and outside dreams are the same—both are illusory and unreal.
Although in a dream one gave away a thousand yuan, no actual money was given away, and no actual person received this money, so in reality there was no genuine act of generosity (dāna); there was only a mental action of giving, a mental action of generosity toward others, a mental action of non-stinginess—and that is the mental action of the manas. That the manas's mental action in the dream is wholesome shows that this person's mental disposition is genuinely good; a wholesome mind generates blessings, and there will be blessings and good retribution. The more wholesome the mind, the greater the blessings and the greater the retribution. Giving in a dream shows that the manas's disposition is wholesome; a wholesome disposition brings good retribution, and after death one will go to a good destiny, to be born and live in a place corresponding to the manas's disposition. Goodness brings good blessings—this is the good retribution of mental disposition. If the manas's disposition is evil, blessings will be damaged, and one will receive retribution in an evil place corresponding to the manas's disposition—this is the retribution of good and evil.
If outside the dream one gave away a thousand yuan, then actual money was given away, an actual person received this money, and there was the act of giving—with all three complete, the retribution will be received in full. In the future there will be at least a hundred-thousand-millionfold return of wealth, and corresponding blessings will also arise, with good retribution and blessings. If the manas, due to its wholesome or unwholesome disposition, directs the six consciousnesses to create wholesome or unwholesome karmic actions, then besides the retribution of disposition, there is also the karmic retribution of the actions. Karmic retribution is a very concrete retribution, exacting to the last penny—the karmic fruit must be repaid.
The difference between killing in a dream and killing while awake follows the same principle. In a dream, no actual person is killed and there is no actual act of killing, but there is the mental action of killing; its retribution is based primarily on the mental action. Because the disposition is evil and unwholesome, blessings will be damaged, and in future lives one will be reborn in an evil place corresponding to that disposition, receiving evil and unwholesome retribution. But killing while awake involves an actual event—a person is truly killed, and the actual external object-aspect is gone—so one must repay the karmic fruit of killing; in the future there will be the retribution of an evil, hateful disposition, as well as the retribution of repaying the life-debt. For example, if one violates precepts after receiving them, some precept-violating acts carry not only the sin of disposition but also the precept-sin of the karmic action, and both are received together as retribution. A person who has not received precepts, having created evil and unwholesome karma, though without precept-sin, still has the sin of an evil disposition and still receives evil retribution. In doing evil deeds, whether or not one has received precepts, there is evil retribution; receiving precepts provides a certain constraint on one's own mind and is more beneficial for cultivation.
The manas represents the fundamental mental disposition of a sentient being. The mind consciousness can whitewash and disguise itself, but the manas cannot—it cannot pretend, cannot falsify, and can absolutely truthfully display its own disposition. In dreams, the manas is in absolute control, while the mind consciousness's function is very weak, extremely weak, almost unable to regulate the manas; therefore in dreams one cannot falsify or disguise—what is displayed is the manas's disposition, the most genuine.
14. Fighting and Killing in Games Is Defiled Mental Karma
The Buddhist practitioner Ru She said: I used to think that fighting and killing in games were fake and did not count as killing karma. But after studying Buddhism in depth, I feel that as long as hatred and the intent to kill arise, it contradicts the Buddha's teachings and is impure and contrary to the Dharma. After reading the Sutra on the Marks of the Five Precepts, I learned that even killing an imagined insect violates the precepts. Practitioners should constantly be alert to all greed and evil thoughts within worldly dharmas in their minds, and only by striving to distance themselves from them can they possibly subdue them, until they are cultivated away and severed. From studying the precepts to holding the precepts is truly very important.
Ru She is right. Fake fighting and fake killing in games are also a form of the mind of hatred, also indulging in and habituating hatred—equally defiled and equally evil karma. Whether or not the event exists, whether it truly exists or falsely exists, the stirring of the mind and arising of thoughts is mental karma, is afflictive defilement, is a violation of precepts—just as Kṣitigarbha Bodhisattva said, sentient beings' every stirring of mind and thought is a sin. Game developers only want to exploit human psychology to make money, without considering whether they are indulging and habituating humanity's afflictions of greed, hatred, and delusion. Game players also cannot consider this level; they simply indulge themselves and derive pleasure from it. Not only does the secular world exploit sentient beings' greed for personal gain, but people with ulterior motives within Buddhism likewise seek private gain, exploiting sentient beings' greedy psychology—knowing what sentient beings want and like, they give them exactly that. Once sentient beings have tasted the sweetness, they will desperately protect and support them, doing every kind of un-dharmic thing without being aware of it.
Everyone regards the five precepts as precepts, but in fact these are worldly dharmas, the conduct of good and virtuous gentlemen—cultivation of character, personal integrity, virtue—things every person should do well. Those who wish to be reborn as humans in future lives, or even to be reborn as humans life after life, must constantly and everywhere examine their bodily, verbal, and mental actions and not create karma recklessly. Obtaining a human body requires conditions—can you satisfy these conditions? Is there evil karma obstructing your obtaining a human body?
