Expert: Justin Choo - 6/15/2011

Question
I converted to Theravada Buddhism about three years ago but I'm still a little confused about some of the beliefs.

According to Theravada Buddhism, who or what metes out karmic retribution for unskillful behavior?

Also, I enjoy hunting, fishing and vegetable gardening. (The gardening involves killing a lot of insects.) What impact do these activities have on my karma? Keep in mind I eat all of the animals I hunt and fish. Whatever's left over I feed to feral ducks in my neighborhood.

Answer
Hi Luis,

Karma or kamma is a universal law, applicable to all humans.  In plane language, it is the law of retribution.  A volitional act will produce a corresponding effect, sooner or later.  Since our actions are so diverse, some may lie dormant, while other stronger effects will take precedence to emerge. This is a natural phenomenon.  No one or not a thing is controlling and making kamma works. Kamma is not moral or immoral; it is amoral.  Just like electricity; you plug in, switch on, and it works.  If you put your finger in the plug hole, you get electrocuted. Ignorance has no mitigation effect here.  So is the law of kamma.  

As you have correctly chosen the right word "unskillful", it is exactly what you are doing.  Hunting and fishing are unskillful ativities, because they involve willful killing. I don't know how you hunt.  But have you ever witnessed the fear of the animal before it was killed by you?  Or just imagine this; how would you feel if someone is going to kill you?

Gardening is a choice you have to decide.  I like gardening; and in the course of this activity, many lives (no matter how insignificant) have to be sacrificed.  If the person insists that he or she MUST not kill anything, then it's up to him or her.  Sometimes we need to use our common sense in order not to become extremists.

About impact of kamma on killing; one school of thought insists that killing is killing irrespective of the value of the life killed.  Another school of thought rationalizes that the type of life killed will weigh on different intensities of the kammic effect.  Take for example, killing of a human against killing a mosquito.  Amongst other considerations, we should also consider the life-span and usefulness of this "living being", and the danger posed by this "living being", and the circumstances leading to this killing.

My personal opinion is that we should consider all these aspects, although killing per se is an unwholesome act.

Hope this helps.

Take care.

Justin Choo