I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
How about would you feed a starving child rather than giving something to yourself? In my opinion that makes the dilemma more real.
- equilibrium
- Posts: 523
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
What is real?.....everything is nothing but an illusion.....is it not?Mr Man wrote:How about would you feed a starving child rather than giving something to yourself? In my opinion that makes the dilemma more real.
When there is "oneself", there will be chances to "make merit" hence there will be either good/bad so we choose to do "good work".....What if there is no self?.....would these making merit and doing good work still exist?mamas wrote:"It is the idea of 'making merit' for oneself, by 'doing good works'. It sounds just a little calculating and self-serving to me."
Sounds like we will only do if there is a favourable return?.....base on what exactly?
Being in Heaven isn't escaping samsara is it?mamas wrote:"I miss out on a million 'merit points' and a thousand years of feasting in Heaven."
But we don't really see the greatest need do we?.....what about the other planes of existence?.....why just a child and an arahat?mamas wrote:"Give where there is the greatest need, not where it will make things better for oneself."
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
Real in contrast to hypothetical.equilibrium wrote:What is real?.....everything is nothing but an illusion.....is it not?Mr Man wrote:How about would you feed a starving child rather than giving something to yourself? In my opinion that makes the dilemma more real.
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
Sekha, the below quote is the first thing I wrote in this thread. I underlined the sentence I think you missed.Sekha wrote:What if the arahant is subject to a serious disease that makes him look that way?SDC wrote:What David said.Sekha wrote:And in virtue of what?
If you disagree it is likely that we share different views of the characteristics of an arahant.
So I think we are in agreement here.SDC wrote:You'll NEVER see a plump arahant. Ever. Unless of course it's due to a medical condition they have no control over.
Sorry, manas, for somewhat disregarding your main point.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
I feel pretty much the same way you do.manas wrote:Sorry if my post offends, but I just wanted to point out an issue in Buddhism, and some other religions, that I find a little disturbing. It is the idea of 'making merit' for oneself, by 'doing good works'. It sounds just a little calculating and self-serving to me. If I have an apple in my hand, and before me I see a starving beggar child, and a plump arahant on alms round, I will give the apple to the starving beggar child, yes even if that means I miss out on a million 'merit points' and a thousand years of feasting in Heaven. Give where there is the greatest need, not where it will make things better for oneself. And on the side of 'demerit' - the reason I don't kill little bugs, isn't because I would would incur a reaction for doing so; the reason I don't kill them, is because I feel for them, I have empathy for these little creatures. Same with human beings. How sad that some folks actually need to be threatened with pain and suffering, so that they restrain themselves from inflicting it on others.
I frequent a Sri Lankan vihara where this mentality is dominant. I understand that there are strongly emotional cultural differences and the fact that their generosity makes it possible for others to learn Buddhism (by paying for viharas, monks needs, books etc ). However, I still have a problem with feeling harshly about this and am looking for a way to live with it in good conscience.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
Hi David, it is more than just a cultural accretion. It has sutta support. Example AN 9:20. As an atheist westerner it looks like a classic example of people writing ( or altering ) religious texts to manipulate people. "Support us and you will get a good reward after death". Please note I mean no disrespect to anyone. I would like to find a way to look at it that isn't harsh but honest with myself ( no rationalizations ) at the same time.David N. Snyder wrote:
So you want a Buddhism without cultural accretions? Nothing wrong with that.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
Indeed, I had missed this sentence by the time I wrote the counter-argument. What I meant to underline though is that it's not because I can't think of a reason why an arahant may become plump other than medical, that such a reason CANNOT exist (I have studied maths enough to understand that). So I would be a bit more prudent before making bold statements. The only thing is I overestimated my ability to find such a reason. Who can say with absolute certainty it is impossible that it would come for example as part of a somewhat complex strategy to benefit a particular individual or group of people?SDC wrote: Sekha, the below quote is the first thing I wrote in this thread. I underlined the sentence I think you missed.
SDC wrote:You'll NEVER see a plump arahant. Ever. Unless of course it's due to a medical condition they have no control over.
I concede I am rather quibbling with this. But my main idea is that it is generally better to avoid making bold statements.
Last edited by Sekha on Sun Sep 15, 2013 3:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Where knowledge ends, religion begins. - B. Disraeli
http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
I was at a sutta study group at a Sri Lankan vihara just this past Friday evening and that suttas was discussed. I was given the interpretation that donating to a Sangha member gets a person more merit that donating elsewhere. A friend of mine who teaches there was telling how a western monk friend gets inspired to devote more to his practice when he sees the locals taking food away from their own families to feed him. I also read in the book The Broken Buddha that sort of thing is common in Asia. No disrespect to anyone.mikenz66 wrote: There are many suttas on generosity: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#dana
One that might be relevant to the current discussion is:
AN 9.20 Velāma Sutta
Is it actually saying that we should feed a plump arahant ahead of a starving child?
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
Maybe if people gave as much to help the poor ( food, schools, hospitals, job programs ) as they do the empty parts of Buddhism ( temples made with gold, statues, etc ) they would develop personal and cultural qualities where keeping the sasana alive would matter less. In other words, a lot less suffering and learing to give at the same time.Sekha wrote: The greatest need in the world right now is to keep the sasana alive and healthy
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
David N. Snyder wrote:I think the OP was getting at something like what we often see here:
http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2013/08/u ... hamma.html
where it is used for gaining some merit or for some advantageous position, better health, etc. But with the important qualifier of the intention of the motivation and being self-less as Bhante and others have mentioned above, then it would be done the right way without a reward and punishment system.
A non-returner and higher has completely eliminated all sense cravings, so we would assume no longer has any food cravings, no longer overeats (if he/she did before).Sekha wrote:And in virtue of what?SDC wrote: You'll NEVER see a plump arahant. Ever. Unless of course it's due to a medical condition they have no control over.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
In Asia people take food away from their own children to feed monks. They also donate money to build statues while poor people live in horrible condtions.Mr Man wrote:How about would you feed a starving child rather than giving something to yourself? In my opinion that makes the dilemma more real.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
Would you care to elaborate on this statement and explain the second sentence in the context of the Four Nobel Truths and the Dhamma generally.Jhana4 wrote:In Asia people take food away from their own children to feed monks. They also donate money to build statues while poor people live in horrible condtions.Mr Man wrote:How about would you feed a starving child rather than giving something to yourself? In my opinion that makes the dilemma more real.
metta
paul
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
Agreed.Sekha wrote:But my main idea is that it is generally better to avoid making bold statements.
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
- Bhikkhu Pesala
- Posts: 4647
- Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:17 pm
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
By donating to the Arahant you could also feed the starving child.
A lot of monasteries in Asia provide a support structure for the very poor. Orphans and others who have no means of support may find food in the monastery, or somewhere to live by becoming a temple boy or novice.
If the monks are well-fed, as they nearly always are, then there will be plenty of left-over food to give to the temple boys and others.
A lot of monasteries in Asia provide a support structure for the very poor. Orphans and others who have no means of support may find food in the monastery, or somewhere to live by becoming a temple boy or novice.
If the monks are well-fed, as they nearly always are, then there will be plenty of left-over food to give to the temple boys and others.
Blog • Pāli Fonts • In This Very Life • Buddhist Chronicles • Software (Upasampadā: 24th June, 1979)
Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant
Is this making any contradiction with what I have said? It is not because one feeds an arahant that one won't feed the needy. It should be all the contrary.
Yet feeding the needy would be more "moral", since you get less return and give maximum happiness. The opposite of your original post.
I know what sila means to me however, as this thread shows, there is a difference of opinion of what Buddhist morality is, let alone what morality is. I was therefore justified in my original questionWell, 1) morality is a common translation for sila. I would have thought this was a no-brainer for someone who appears to be interested in the Buddha's teaching. FYI, sila can be defined in terms of the ten akusala kamma-patha, or for monks/nuns in terms of the 227 or 311 rules known to this day.
I actually agree with you, yet intention is what defines an action as moral or immoral, in buddhist terms.2) I agree intention is the most important factor, but it doesn't mean the outcome has no importance, and it is not difficult to find suttas where this is specified very clearly.
Its a discussion, dont take things to heartSo please be less aggressive and reflect a bit more before attacking people.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”