Unjust Claims in Litigation Are Also Theft

Engaging in litigation to unreasonably seize land and winning the case—do the judge and lawyer bear karmic retribution for their sins? Certainly, they are guilty and will bear karmic retribution. Taking land that does not rightfully belong to them from others amounts to robbery and theft, while the judge and lawyer act as accomplices. The karmic consequences of this are immense.

Even if a judge’s ruling appears fair and reasonable in the secular world, it may not necessarily be so for both parties involved in the lawsuit. Matters that seem unreasonable in the secular world may have a reasonable aspect, and matters that seem reasonable may have an unreasonable side. This is because the dispute involves unresolved conflicts from past lives and the intricate relationships of karmic retribution. For example, one might see person A slap person B but fail to witness that person B had previously slapped person A. Thus, one might judge A’s action as unreasonable and criticize A. Only by connecting the entire sequence of events can one determine what is truly reasonable. Observing only an incomplete fragment of the situation inevitably leads to flawed judgment.

Precepts, however, are determined based on present phenomena in this lifetime, without considering the karmic causes and effects carried over from past lives. They require Buddhist disciples to maintain a pure mind and uphold the precepts under all circumstances. Tax evasion and tax fraud are matters governed by secular law, and tax codes are part of secular legislation. Yet, Buddhist precepts also address this, demanding that Buddhists—even monastics—abide by the laws and regulations of their respective countries and regions, without violating any institutional rules. Therefore, if Buddhists violate certain laws, they simultaneously violate the Buddhist precepts. As for unilateral contracts, they constitute acts of theft. From the perspective of karma, such contracts hold no validity, and violating them incurs neither legal nor precept-breaking consequences. Today, the world is rife with unilateral contracts, and every era witnesses the phenomenon of the strong preying on the weak.