Causality and the Karma of Good and Evil

Question: Since all things arise from causes, conditions, effects, and retribution, what retribution do the jailers in hell who carry out daily punishments receive? And what retribution does King Yama, who presides over judgment and sentencing in the Hall of Darkness, receive?

Answer: Jailers, King Yama, and others in hell are all manifestations conjured by the evil karma of sentient beings; they are illusory projections arising from their own malevolent minds. Those without the karma for hell would not see the jailers upon entering hell, nor would they suffer punishment from them. Similarly, those without evil karma would not encounter King Yama presiding over their judgment. That some sentient beings become jailers, King Yama, and the like is also due to their own karmic force. This is not a wholesome vocation. While it upholds causality and justice, serving a certain purpose, it is displeasing to evil-doing sentient beings, thus the karmic connection is unwholesome. Only when they can cause sentient beings to repent of their sinful karma and vow to reform themselves do they form some wholesome karmic connections with them. Therefore, many things that appear wholesome or evil on the surface are, in essence, not necessarily so.

For example, is it sinful for prison guards in human jails to manage inmates? The Yogācāra-bhūmi-śāstra states that being a prison guard is not a wholesome vocation. Such questions cannot be fully explained in a few words; matters of karma are exceedingly complex. What kind of work a person does is also determined by their karma. In any occupation involving interaction with sentient beings, both wholesome and unwholesome karma exist; it entirely depends on how the individual handles it correctly. The teaching profession is very good; it also liberates sentient beings, yet many within it create evil karma. Expounding the Dharma is the work of liberating sentient beings, yet many who teach create the karma for hell. Is the profession of a doctor who treats illnesses and saves lives good? This is also uncertain. Why do patients fall ill? The vast majority suffer the ripening of karmic effects—merely retribution. This retribution ought to be endured, and indeed, there are often previously harmed sentient beings coming to demand repayment of debts. Yet, the doctor interrupts the ripening of this karmic cause and effect, preventing the creditor from obtaining what is due. Consequently, the doctor will bear a certain karmic burden.

It is the same when monastic members perform liberation rites for lay practitioners; whether it is wholesome or unwholesome is uncertain. For instance, suppose in a past life, A killed B. In this life, B comes to demand repayment, seeking to kill A. Then, if you save and liberate A, B fails to collect the debt and fails to take revenge. Is this fair to B? B might instead seek revenge against you. If during the liberation rite you could also liberate B, but B does not wish to be liberated and instead wants A to suffer retribution, then performing the liberation rite interferes with karma. For example, if A owes B ten million yuan, and B comes to collect the debt, but you intervene and prevent B from collecting it, what should happen to B’s ten million yuan plus interest? Might B come to demand it from you? However, performing liberation rites for one’s own parents or relatives is one’s inherent duty—an act of repaying kindness. It is proper and fitting to bear the karmic obstacles for one’s parents and relatives. It is also proper and fitting to bear the karmic obstacles for those who have shown one kindness.

Whether surface-level goodness is truly good and whether it yields wholesome results—ordinary people generally lack the insight to witness this directly. The Buddhist scriptures record only one instance of successful liberation: the Buddha, combining the power of all monastics, liberated Mahāmaudgalyāyana’s birth mother from hell. There is no second example. The scriptures never record Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, Arhats, or Pratyekabuddhas performing liberation rites for sentient beings in this way. Nor do they record monastic communities performing liberation rites for sentient beings. In past monastic communities, such things never occurred. In monasteries of the past, while there were many monastics, they never gathered together to chant and perform rituals for the liberation of lay practitioners. The Buddha’s precepts also forbid it. Monastics of that time focused primarily on personal practice. Those with the capability to propagate the Dharma could teach; all other activities, especially those involving money or other worldly benefits, were strictly prohibited.