Killing and Karma: Understanding Consequences DMC Translor’s handbook หน้า 87
หน้าที่ 87 / 115

สรุปเนื้อหา

This text discusses how the karmic consequences of killing vary based on several factors, including the type and size of the animal, prior connections, and the intention behind the act. Killing humans carries the most severe retribution, while killing animals is assessed based on their size and usefulness to humans. The intention behind the killing, whether planned or accidental, also influences the severity of the retribution. Ultimately, the consequences highlight the moral complexities surrounding acts of killing and the long-lasting implications for the perpetrator in future lives. Serious offenses can lead to severe punishments in hell or rebirth in undesirable realms, while lesser acts result in diminished quality of life or personality issues.

หัวข้อประเด็น

-Karmic consequences
-Types of killings
-Human vs. animal killing
-Ethical considerations
-Moral implications of killing

ข้อความต้นฉบับในหน้า

Killing – How bad is your Karma? Not all killings are ‘equal’ in the sense of karmic consequence. The killing of humans is the most serious violation and receives the worst retribution. As for the killing of animals, the degree of seriousness and the resulting retribution is based on the following considerations: ● The size of the animal -- To kill an elephant is a worse evil than killing an ant. A large animal as a rule lives longer than a small animal. For example, the lifespan of a mosquito is as short as seven days, while the lifespan of an elephant could be as long as a hundred years. Killing an elephant is certainly a more frightening prospect than killing a mosquito. The retribution for killing an elephant is obviously greater than for killing a mosquito. It is not hard to agree that the retribution from killing animals with a long life has a longer duration than one with a shorter life. ● The usefulness of the animal -- If the animal is one that is helpful to us personally in the past, for example, a horse that rides us everywhere, a mule that carries our loads, or a dog that watches our house. To kill such an animal is a worse offense than killing an animal with which we have had no connections to in the past. On the same token, to kill a stranger is less evil than to kill someone who has done us good in the past. To kill a criminal is less evil than to kill a virtuous person. To kill our own parents is unspeakable. The retribution for such a crime will be the most severe punishment in hell forever. ● The intention and cruelty involved in the killing -- Killing with a planned effort is more serious than killing unintentionally. If you torture an animal before killing it, or kill an animal in a slow, painful way, the crime is much worse than killing it in one quick move to avoid prolonged suffering. ● The amount of effort put into the killing -- It is more evil to intentionally torture someone to death, than to kill in a quick and least painful way. Killing for revenge, or killing with premeditated effort, is more serious than killing by accident or unintentionally. The retribution for killing is severe. The degree of severity is based on the factors described above. The most severe act of killing will cause the offender to end up in hell or to be born in an unhappy realm, such as the realm of a demon, an animal, or a hungry ghost. Upon being born as human, he may suffer deformity, die prematurely, or die a violent death. On a lesser degree, he may be born with ill health, have a bad complexion, or at the very least to have unpleasant personality. 87
แสดงความคิดเห็นเป็นคนแรก
Login เพื่อแสดงความคิดเห็น

หนังสือที่เกี่ยวข้อง

Load More