Violating the First Precept without Karmic
Retribution
The first precept of the
Buddhist Faith is - "Do not kill", with the assumption that
Buddhist teaching fundamentally condemns killing. The Parikuppa Sutta listed five acts of deadly
sins that will ruin the spiritual cultivation of a person’s present
life. They are: One who has killed his/her mother,
one who has killed his/her father, one who has killed an arahant,
one who with a corrupted mind has caused the blood of a Tathagata
to flow, and one who has caused a split in the Sangha. The five grave deeds are also
listed in the Mahayana Buddhist literatures as the ‘sins of
immediate retribution’; the anantarya karma. These crimes are so
heinous that the karmic result will take place immediately with
descend into hell after physical death, rather than at some
unspecified point in the future as is usual for generic karmic
results. One would have notice that four of the five sins involve
the taking of lives and acts of violence.
Here we should also noted that
being put under arrest, being sentence to life imprisonment or even
punish with a death sentence that accompany the act of killing are
auxiliaries of murder in secular life. The effect of the karmic
action of killing will still work itself out eventually.
In Nagarjuna Treatise on the
Great Virtue of Wisdom, ten punishments on the act of killing are
listed as follows:
1) The mind is always infected by poison from
lifetime to lifetime without
interruption.
2) Beings abhor [the murderer] and feel no joy in
seeing him.
3) [The murderer], always full of evil
intentions, contemplates evil things.
4) Beings fear him, as though they saw a snake or
a tiger.
5) During sleep his mind is disturbed; when
awake, he is not at peace.
6) He always has bad
dreams.
7) At the end of his life, he dreads a bad
death.
8) He plants the causes and conditions leading to
a short life.
9) After the destruction of the body at the end
of life, he falls into hell.
10) If he reappears among men, he always has a
short life.
Why then are there acts of
killing that can be considered so "light" that no karmic
retribution would befall a person who committed them?
Chapter 22 of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra
states: "O
good man! The Buddha and Bodhisattva see three categories of
killing, which are those of the grades 1) low, 2) medium, and 3)
high. Low applies to the class of insects and all kinds of animals,
except for the transformation body of the Bodhisattva who may
present himself as such. O good man! The Bodhisattva-mahasattva,
through his vows and in certain circumstances, gets born as an
animal. This is killing beings of the lowest class. By reason of
harming life of the lowest grade, one gains life in the realms of
hell, animals or hungry ghosts and suffers from the down most
"duhkha" [pain, mental or physical]. Why so? Because these animals
have done somewhat of good. Hence, one who harms them receives full
karmic returns for his actions. This is killing of the lowest
grade. The medium grade of killing concerns killing [beings] from
the category of humans up to the class of anagamins. This is
middle-grade killing. As a result, one gets born in the realms of
hell, animals or hungry ghosts and fully receives the karmic
consequences befitting the middle grade of suffering. This is
medium-grade killing. Top-rank killing relates to killing one’s
father or mother, an arhat, pratyekabudda, or a Bodhisattva of the
last established state. This is top-rank killing. In consequence of
this, one falls into the greatest Avichi Hell [the most terrible of
all the hells] and endures the karmic consequences befitting the
highest level of suffering. This is top-grade
killing.
O good
man! A person who kills an Icchantika does not suffer from the
karmic returns due to the killings of the three kinds named above.
O good man! All those Brahmins are of the class of the Icchantika.
For example, such actions as digging the ground, mowing the grass,
felling trees, cutting up corpses, ill-speaking, and lashing do not
call forth karmic returns. Killing an icchantika comes within the
same category. No karmic results ensue. Why not? Because no
Brahmins and no five laws to begin with faith, etc. are involved
here [Maybe: no Brahmins are concerned with the
"five roots" of faith, vigour, mindfulness,
concentration, and Wisdom]. For this reason,
killing [of this kind] does not carry one
off to hell.
Again
in Chapter 40 of the same Sutra it is stated;
"O good man! Because the
Icchantikas are cut off from the root of good. All beings possess
such five roots as faith, etc. But the people of the Icchantika
class are eternally cut off from such. Because of this, one may
well kill an ant and gain the sin of harming, but the killing of an
Icchantika does not [constitute a sin]."
"O World-Honoured One! The icchantika possesses
nothing that is good. Is it for this reason that such a person is
called an "Icchantika"?
The Buddha said:
"It is so, it is
so!"
Who are these Icchantikas
where taking their lives does not even incur any karmic
returns?
[The Buddha]
said: A monk, nun, male or female lay disciple may be one. One who
having rejected the scriptures with unpleasant speech does not,
subsequently, even ask for forgiveness has entered into the path of
the Icchantika. Those who have committed the four parajikas and
those who have committed the five sins of immediate retribution, who
even if they are aware that they have entered into a fearful place
do not perceive it as fearful, who do not attach themselves to the
side of the true teachings and without making any efforts at all
think "Let’s get rid of the true teachings," who proclaim even that
that very [teaching] is blame-worthy - they too have entered into
the path of the Icchantika. Those who claim ‘‘There is no Buddha,
there is no teaching, there is no monastic community’’ are also
said to have entered the path of the
Icchantika.
Chapter 39 of the Mahayan Mahaparinirvana Sutra
also describes the Icchantika as follows: "O good man! The
Icchantika has six causal relations. He falls into the three
unfortunate realms and cannot get out of them. What are the six?
They are:
1) His evil mind
burns,
2) He does not see the
after-life,
3) He takes pleasure in seeking
defilement,
4) He walks away from
good,
5) Evil actions hinder his way,
and
6) He associates with an evil teacher of the
Way.
This again possesses five things, by which the
person falls into the three unfortunate realms. What are the five?
They are:
1) He always says that there can be no karmic
results to come about in regard to good or bad
actions,
2) He kills a person who has aspired to
Bodhi,
3) He takes pleasure in speaking about the evils
committed by priests,
4) He says that what is right is not right and
what transgresses Dharma is lawful,
and
5) He gives ear to Dharma just to pick up what
goes against [i.e. to find fault].
Also, there are three things by which the person
falls into the three unfortunate realms. What are the three? These
are saying that:
1) The Tathagata is non-eternal, and goes away
eternally,
2) Wonderful Dharma is non-eternal and changes,
and
3) The Sangha Jewel gets destroyed. For this
reason, he always sinks into the three unfortunate
realms.
The definition of an Icchantika
is certainly diverse. It consisted of those who are considered to
be spiritual dead such as the skeptics, materialists and the
communists. Others who blaspheme the religion and those who do not
believe in the Doctrines of the Buddha are also Icchantikas.
Basically, this would include all non-Buddhists since the Buddhist
teachings of no-self, impermanence, Emptiness, stress and suffering
are unique to the religion itself and not found in other
Faiths.
How much of this doctrine which
states that the taking of another life without any karmic
retribution has in history lend legitimacy to the justification for going to war when the dharma is perceived to
be threatened, and it is necessary to fight against such forces of
evil threatening the religion? Or as a justification for killing
when it comes to the defense of a Buddhist community against
enemies from a different faith? Or among Buddhists, disguise as the
protector of the true dharma to wage wars against other traditions
over issues of ideological supremacy? Or being exploited by
monastic leaders who lent their legitimacy to wars that are nothing
more than wars of defense or simply for conquest is however, anyone
guess.
Although the notion of taking
life without the fear of karmic retribution does sound very
un-Buddhist in nature, there indeed exists a potential for Buddhist
militants to justify the use of force from the quotes in the
Mahayana Mahaparinirvana texts. To try and minimize the negative
effect of this teaching, the Nichiren Daishonin
Buddhists has gone as far as to re-interpret the "killing of an
Icchantika" to mean not killing the individual himself but
stopping the act of slander and destroying the mind of slender
which products it, so that the person can incline toward the
good.
As Buddhists, we should guard
against any particular bad attempts going too far beyond the
underlying Buddhist teaching that non-violence is nearly always
preferred to violence, even though the act could be as much a
reaction to some outside conditions and circumstances as it is a
development of Buddhist doctrine. Violence and acts of killings
should always be regarded as an action of last resort.
Acts done out of hatred or
anger is morally unacceptable to an act done out of compassion,
loving kindness and equanimity. If killing of an Icchantika is
meant as an act to accomplish the lesser of two evils, and
undertaken with minimal karmic harm and maximizes karmic benefit to
sentient beings, and the intent is carried out in a selfless manner
that prevent greater harm happening, than the act of taking the
life of an Icchantika might be considered as ‘just’ in the Mahayana
tradition. But then again, it might not be so for the Theravada,
where the doctrine of the Icchantika does not even existed and
where the precept - "Do not kill" does not allow for any exceptions
whatsoever.
