The butcher went to tell a fortune.

The story comes to the following conclusion: what you did was right, but not necessarily right. Judging from the story, there is nothing wrong with monks going to hell. On the one hand, he actually made friends with the butcher; Secondly, even if you make friends, why not persuade the butcher to put down his butcher's knife and become a Buddha? But told him to get up early every day to kill people! However, on reflection, I think this story is worth pondering. One is whether monks should make friends with butchers. From my superficial understanding of Buddhism, Buddhism is merciful to the whole world, and monks are children of Buddhism. He should be generous to all beings, and don't be as picky as looking for an object when dealing with people. So it shouldn't be a problem for monks to make friends with butchers. Well, the question is-second, should the monk let the butcher get up early to kill? This question is a bit complicated. Because the butcher's occupation is killing people. Why did the butcher kill people? Because there is a market. Butchers kill people for a living and serve the people. Think about it, if no one is a butcher, how can we satisfy the appetite of meat eaters? If the butcher's final destination is to go to hell because of his killing, then in a sense, they are just victims and should be respected by everyone. Who wants to go to hell? (A famous person's phrase "If I don't go to hell, who will go to hell" has become a tragic rhetoric widely spread, which is a good example. Besides, it doesn't matter whether the monk calls the butcher up or not. Because, as long as the butcher doesn't act, his family will starve and everyone can't eat meat. Of course, as far as the monk's profession is concerned (I don't know whether a monk is a profession or not, it is a crime for me to say it casually), he advises goodness, and he should advise the butcher not to kill. However, there is still a problem. Butchers have to have something to support their families when they change careers. Also, the livelihood of all sentient beings who raise chickens, pigs and cattle has become a problem. It's hard for the monk, and there's so much work in his hand! It can be seen that doing good is not a simple thing. There is a verse in the Bible that says, "I am determined to do good, but I can't do it." There is also a saying in Buddhism: "Bodhisattva is afraid of cause, but mortal is afraid of fruit." The monk's ambition is of course to do good, but sometimes the result is beyond his control. Stories are just stories. Only when this "conclusion" is reached, the monk and the butcher are the protagonists of the story. For the sake of "conclusion", the story does not mention whether the monk advised the butcher not to kill. A storyteller doesn't care about this. Here, we can assume: 1 The monk advised the butcher not to listen; Second, the monk did not persuade, because the monk knew that many people wanted to eat meat; Third, the monk is a confused monk. He never thought about the butcher killing people. Of course, it can also be assumed that the monk is irresponsible. He asked the butcher to kill things, which seems untenable, because he told the butcher to get up early every day and behave very responsibly. So, there are only the above three assumptions. Well, in the first case, according to the Bible, monks are innocent; In the second case, monks consider the needs of a wider range of meat eaters. He can't deprive those meat eaters of their needs just for the benefit of the butcher, and there seems to be nothing wrong with it. Judging from the third situation, since he became a monk in a daze, the fault should not lie with him, but with the host or abbot who accepted him into Buddhism. Heaven and hell are two imaginary places, set by the teachings of various religions. Who knows what they are like now? Russell said, "Religion originates from terror". The clay figurine once said, "God is made by good people". Good people hope that those who do good will enjoy bliss in heaven after death, and curse those who do evil to be punished in hell after death. Punishing evil and promoting good is a kind of moral ethics, and heaven and hell are just a kind wish expressed by kind people. Speaking of the conclusion of the story-what you did was right, but it's not necessarily right. This is very correct nonsense. Anyone with a little knowledge of dialectics knows that there are always two sides to everything. Right and wrong, good and evil, right and wrong have always been opposites and mixed. I don't really believe in absolutely pure things. Like doing good deeds. You pity the beggar, give him money, give him something. In the end, he was totally dependent on others and lived on their charity. Is it good or evil? Let alone those unscrupulous beggars who beg during the day and have fun with donations at night. Some poor villages, watching the food funds allocated from above, completely gave up self-reliance, even cooked and ate the distributed food seeds, killed the excellent breeding animals given away for free, and gambled on the low-income insurance. Is this right or wrong? You give love, but he uses the money you saved to buy a high-end off-road vehicle. How do you feel? I also have a story here. Wittgenstein, a British Austrian philosopher, 19 13, left a large legacy to 24-year-old Witter after his father died. Later, he divided these heritages among his brothers and sisters. Why not give it to the poor? He explained: He doesn't want to see the once-nice poor people degenerate because of money. Anyway, his relatives are already rich and degenerate. How to evaluate the practice of philosophers? Wittgenstein lived a simple life, and his wealth, power and position did not attract him at all. In real life, we play different roles at different times, sometimes monks and sometimes butchers. Or, the same thing, some people will treat you as a monk, and some people will treat you as a butcher. Who is in charge of going to heaven and hell? What is his basis? In other words, each of us is our own judge and also the judge of others. If I am to be the judge of all sentient beings (this is an atypical thankless job, please don't give it to me), I must first make a detailed and detailed rule, then give it to all sentient beings for democratic judgment, and then make a quantitative evaluation according to the rules adopted by most people, and then decide who will go to heaven and who will go to hell after death. I estimate that there will be far fewer people going to heaven than to hell. Or on the contrary, because the rules are passed by most people, everyone wants to go to heaven (another inconvenient reason is that my heart is too soft, and now I am more and more harmonious, and my principles are getting worse every day, so I don't want to offend people). Maybe at that time, hell will become an admirable place, one is "scarcity is precious" and the other is tranquility. As for myself, of course, I have to hand it over to everyone for a referendum. The biggest possibility I can think of is: going to hell -If I don't go to hell, who will! Ha ha. That's it.