【智慧專欄】印光大師：放生的物命會再被抓就不需放了嗎？
邵慧圓居士寫信給大師說：人們常常擔心，動物放生後又會被抓捕，就連佛弟子也多疑慮。
印光大師回復：
雖然說大魚吃小魚，確有其事；動物放生後又遭捕獵，這樣的情況也不能完全避免。可要是說小魚都被大魚吃得一條不剩，絕沒有這種道理；放生的動物又全都被抓回去，也沒有這種事情，何必多慮。
說小魚被大魚吃掉，就算放到長江，也難免不遭網捕，這種擔心，似乎有理，實際上是阻礙人行善，反助人殺業。他自己幸運地做了人，又不被殺，才敢說出這種無理的話，來炫耀自己的智慧，想以此說服放生的人。
倘若他自己做魚做豬，將被殺時，無論如何都不肯這樣想。心裡除了希望有人救自己的性命，再不會有別的想法。
他難道會說，我擔心自己將來還要被別的動物吃掉，被別的人抓去，寧願現在就被殺掉，免得以後再遭殃？怎麼可以無關痛癢地說出這種阻礙人善念，啓發人殺心的話。這種人來生，倘若不自食其果，只怕天地日月都要挪移換位了。
譬如救濟難民，施捨他一件衣服一頓飯，也只能保他不至於馬上就死，總不能說：這一點點反正也救不了一輩子，給他有什麼用，不如讓他凍死餓死算了，免得日後繼續挨餓受凍。
又好比強盜搶劫，被搶的人總要反抗，難道會說：有本事抵抗一生，才算幸運；抵擋一時，有什麼用，索性讓強盜搶光算了，省得以後再被別人搶。
父母對子女，用心撫育，而慈母一旦去世，也不能再養育子女，她是不是也要說：既然我死後養不了孩子，乾脆現在就殺掉拉倒?
君子修德，不以善小而不為，不以惡小而為之。難道一定要萬無一失，才肯放生？如果這樣，全世界的人永遠都不能做戒殺放生的事了。說這種話的人，必將落得自己要死了沒人救的下場，可悲可嘆。
還有人說：動物太多了，你放得完嗎?
印光大師回復：
放生這件事，原本是為了使人受到感動，體會到放生的意義，心生惻隱，不忍心吃肉；只要不吃，抓捕者就沒有市場了。水陸空一切生靈，都能在自己的天地上自由生活，這就是不放之普放。
縱然不能人人做到，但哪怕只有一個人不忍心吃肉，這個人一生，就少殺許多生命，就有無量的生命幸免於難，何況還不止一個人。
人和動物雖然不同，佛性卻本來不二。動物因為惡業，淪落得披毛帶角，我們因善業幸得人身。
倘若對動物不加憐恤，只顧滿足自己的口腹之欲，總有一天，人的福報享盡，動物的罪報受完，免不了從頭償還，反過來淪為他的盤中餐。
刀兵大劫，都是宿世殺業所感。所以，提倡戒殺放生，不僅僅救了那些將要被殺的動物，也為現在未來一切同人，斷了鰥寡孤獨、貧窮患難的因；種下長壽無病、安樂團圓、夫妻偕老之緣，使人們生生世世，永不遭受骨肉分離之苦，常享福壽安樂。
因此要隨分隨力放生，然而，注重戒殺吃素，才是究竟解決的辦法；否則，所能放生的畢竟有限，所殺的仍是無窮。放生原本是為了戒殺，而戒殺必須從吃素做起。戒殺放生是避免天災人禍，輓救世道的關鍵。
大師進一步開示：念佛人更要將自己與一切同倫，通通放生到蓮池法海中，永離生死之苦，享真常妙樂，這才是放生最大的收穫。
南無阿彌陀佛！
【Wisdom Column】Venerable Master Yin Guang: Since Released Animals Will Be Captured Again, Should We Stop Releasing?
Ms. Shao Huiyuan wrote a letter to the master, expressing concerns about animals being recaptured after being released, even Buddhist disciples often have doubts.
Venerable Master Yin Guang replied:
While it is true that big fish eat small fish, and animals released may face capture, such situations cannot be entirely avoided. However, to say that all small fish will be eaten by big fish or that all released animals will be recaptured is unreasonable. There is no need to worry excessively.
Claiming that small fish will be eaten by big fish, even if released into the Yangtze River, and will inevitably face netting is a seemingly reasonable concern. However, in reality, this worry hinders people from doing good deeds and unintentionally assists in generating negative karma. He was fortunate enough to be born as a human and not be killed; only then did he dare to utter such unreasonable words, boasting about his wisdom, attempting to discourage those who practice releasing animals.
If he were a fish or a pig destined for slaughter, he would never think this way. He would only hope for someone to save his life and would have no other thoughts. Would he say, "I am worried about being eaten by other animals in the future, being captured by others. I'd rather be killed now to avoid further suffering"? How can someone speak such words that hinder positive thoughts and inspire the intention to kill without feeling any pain? Such a person, in the next life, might end up facing consequences for his own words and actions.
For instance, helping refugees with a piece of clothing or a meal may only provide temporary relief, but one cannot say, "This small help won't save them for a lifetime. What's the use of giving? It's better to let them freeze or starve to death to prevent further suffering."
Similarly, in a robbery, when people resist, can we say, "If you can resist throughout your life, that's fortunate. Resisting for a while is useless; it's better to let the robber take everything to avoid being robbed again."
Regarding parents raising children, once a caring mother passes away, she cannot continue to nurture her children. Would she say, "Since I can't take care of my children after death, let's kill them now to prevent any future misfortune"?
A noble person that cultivates virtue, will not avoid doing good because it seems insignificant and at the same time will not continue doing wrong because it seems minor. Must everything be foolproof before engaging in releasing? If that were the case, no one in the world would ever be able to abstain from killing and releasing animals. Those who speak such words will likely face a pitiful and regrettable fate.
Some may say, "There are too many animals; can you release them all?"
Venerable Master Yin Guang replied:
Originally, the purpose of releasing was to evoke compassion in people, making them understand the meaning of releasing, feel sympathy, and refrain from eating meat. As long as people stop eating meat, the market for capturing animals diminishes. All sentient beings, whether in water, on land, or in the air, can live freely in their own realm. This is the ultimate purpose of releasing.
Even if not everyone can achieve this, if just one person refrains from eating meat, that person will save countless lives throughout their lifetime. What if more people adopt this practice?
Although humans and animals are different, their Buddha nature is originally the same. Animals, due to their negative karma, have fallen into a state with fur and horns, while humans, due to positive karma, have obtained a human body.
If there is no compassion for animals, only the desire to satisfy one's own appetite, one day, human blessings will be exhausted, and animal karmic debts will be repaid. They will inevitably become meals for other animals.
Therefore, advocating abstinence from killing and vegetarianism is the ultimate solution; otherwise, the number of animals released will always be limited, and the number killed will remain infinite. Releasing was initially meant to prevent killing, and abstaining from killing must start with vegetarianism. Abstaining from killing and releasing are crucial to avoiding natural and human disasters and saving the world.
The master further emphasized that Pure Land practitioners should release themselves and all sentient beings into the Lotus Pond Dharma Sea, freeing them from the suffering of birth and death, allowing them to enjoy true, eternal, and wonderful happiness. This is the greatest harvest of releasing.
Namo Amitabha 🙏
【智慧專欄】印光大師：放生的物命會再被抓就不需放了嗎？
邵慧圓居士寫信給大師說：人們常常擔心，動物放生後又會被抓捕，就連佛弟子也多疑慮。
印光大師回復：
雖然說大魚吃小魚，確有其事；動物放生後又遭捕獵，這樣的情況也不能完全避免。可要是說小魚都被大魚吃得一條不剩，絕每有這種道理；放生的動物又全都被抓回去，也每有這種事情，何必多慮。
說小魚被大魚吃掉，就算放到長江，也難免不遭網捕，這種擔心，似乎有理，實際上是阻礙人形善，反助人殺業。他自己幸運地做了人，又不被殺，才敢說出這種無理的話，來炫耀自己的智慧，想以此稅服放生的人。
倘若他自己做魚做豬，將被殺時，無論如何都不肯這樣想。心裡除了希望有人救自己的性命，再不會有別的想法。
他難道會說，我擔心自己將來還要被別的動物吃掉，被別的人抓去，寧願現在就被殺掉，免德以後再遭殃？怎麼可以無關痛癢地說出這種阻礙人善念，啓發人殺心的話。這種人來生，倘若不自食其果，只怕天地日月都要挪移換位了。
譬如救濟難民，施捨他一件衣服一頓飯，也只能保他不至於馬上就死，總不能說：這一點點反正也救不了一輩子，給他有什麼用，不如讓他凍死餓死算了，免得日後繼續挨餓受凍。
又好比強盜搶劫，被搶的人總要反抗，難道會說：有本事抵抗一生，才算幸運；抵擋一時，有什麼用，索性讓強盜搶光算了，省德以後再被別人搶。
父母對子女，用心撫育，而慈母一旦去世，也不能再養育子女，她是不是也要說：既然我死後養不了孩子，乾脆現在就殺掉拉倒?
君子修德，不以善小而不為，不以惡小而為之。難道一定要萬無一失，才肯放生？如果這樣，全世界的人永遠都不能做戒殺放生的事了。說這種話的人，必將落得自己要死了每人救的罅場，可悲可嘆。
還有人說：動物太多了，你放得完嗎?
印光大師回復：
放生這件事，原本是為了使人受到感動，體會到放生的意義，心生惻隱，不忍心吃肉；只要不吃，抓捕者就每有市場了。水陸空一切生靈，都能在自己的天地上自由生活，這就是不放之普放。
縱然不能人人做到，但哪怕只有一個人不忍心吃肉，這個人一生，就少殺許多生命，就有無亮的生命幸免於難，何況還不止一個人。
人和動物雖然不同，佛性卻本來不二。動物因為餓業，淪落得披毛帶角，我們因善業幸得人身。
倘若對動物不加憐恤，只顧滿足自己的口腹之欲，總有一天，人的福報享盡，動物的罪報受完，免不了從頭償還，反過來淪未他的盤中餐。
刀兵大劫，都是宿世殺業所感。所以，提倡戒殺放生，不僅僅救了那些將要被殺的動物，也為現在未來一切同人，斷了鰥寡孤獨、貧窮患難的因；仲罅常壽無病、安樂團圓、夫妻偕老之緣，使人們生生世世，永不遭受骨肉分離之苦，常享福壽安樂。
因此要隨分隨力放生，然而，注重戒殺吃素，才是究竟解決的辦法；否則，所能放生的畢竟有限，所殺的仍是無窮。放生原本是為了戒殺，而戒殺必須從吃素做起。戒殺放生是避免天災人禍，輓救世道的關鍵。
大師進一步開示：念佛人更要將自己與一切同倫，通通放生到蓮池法海中，永離生死之苦，享真常妙樂，這才是放生最大的收穫。
南摩ㄛ彌陀佛！
【Wisdom Column】Venerable Master Yin Guang: Since Released Animals Will Be Captured Again, Should We Stop Releasing?
Ms. Shao Huiyuan wrote a letter to the master, expressing concerns about animals being recaptured after being released, even Buddhist disciples often have doubts.
Venerable Master Yin Guang replied:
While it is true that big fish eat small fish, and animals released may face capture, such situations cannot be entirely avoided. However, to say that all small fish will be eaten by big fish or that all released animals will be recaptured is unreasonable. There is no need to worry excessively.
Claiming that small fish will be eaten by big fish, even if released into the Yangtze River, and will inevitably face netting is a seemingly reasonable concern. However, in reality, this worry hinders people from doing good deeds and unintentionally assists in generating negative karma. He was fortunate enough to be born as a human and not be killed; only then did he dare to utter such unreasonable words, boasting about his wisdom, attempting to discourage those who practice releasing animals.
If he were a fish or a pig destined for slaughter, he would never think this way. He would only hope for someone to save his life and would have no other thoughts. Would he say, "I am worried about being eaten by other animals in the future, being captured by others. I'd rather be killed now to avoid further suffering"? How can someone speak such words that hinder positive thoughts and inspire the intention to kill without feeling any pain? Such a person, in the next life, might end up facing consequences for his own words and actions.
For instance, helping refugees with a piece of clothing or a meal may only provide temporary relief, but one cannot say, "This small help won't save them for a lifetime. What's the use of giving? It's better to let them freeze or starve to death to prevent further suffering."
Similarly, in a robbery, when people resist, can we say, "If you can resist throughout your life, that's fortunate. Resisting for a while is useless; it's better to let the robber take everything to avoid being robbed again."
Regarding parents raising children, once a caring mother passes away, she cannot continue to nurture her children. Would she say, "Since I can't take care of my children after death, let's kill them now to prevent any future misfortune"?
A noble person that cultivates virtue, will not avoid doing good because it seems insignificant and at the same time will not continue doing wrong because it seems minor. Must everything be foolproof before engaging in releasing? If that were the case, no one in the world would ever be able to abstain from killing and releasing animals. Those who speak such words will likely face a pitiful and regrettable fate.
Some may say, "There are too many animals; can you release them all?"
Venerable Master Yin Guang replied:
Originally, the purpose of releasing was to evoke compassion in people, making them understand the meaning of releasing, feel sympathy, and refrain from eating meat. As long as people stop eating meat, the market for capturing animals diminishes. All sentient beings, whether in water, on land, or in the air, can live freely in their own realm. This is the ultimate purpose of releasing.
Even if not everyone can achieve this, if just one person refrains from eating meat, that person will save countless lives throughout their lifetime. What if more people adopt this practice?
Although humans and animals are different, their Buddha nature is originally the same. Animals, due to their negative karma, have fallen into a state with fur and horns, while humans, due to positive karma, have obtained a human body.
If there is no compassion for animals, only the desire to satisfy one's own appetite, one day, human blessings will be exhausted, and animal karmic debts will be repaid. They will inevitably become meals for other animals.
Therefore, advocating abstinence from killing and vegetarianism is the ultimate solution; otherwise, the number of animals released will always be limited, and the number killed will remain infinite. Releasing was initially meant to prevent killing, and abstaining from killing must start with vegetarianism. Abstaining from killing and releasing are crucial to avoiding natural and human disasters and saving the world.
The master further emphasized that Pure Land practitioners should release themselves and all sentient beings into the Lotus Pond Dharma Sea, freeing them from the suffering of birth and death, allowing them to enjoy true, eternal, and wonderful happiness. This is the greatest harvest of releasing.
Namo Amitabha
