vipaka of dana to bad people

[Stephen K]

Generosity towards worthy people is good karma, isn't it?

Is generosity towards unworthy people bad karma?

If someone gives money to, let's say, a madman, does the giver accumulate negative karma from this act?

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Stefan,

Is generosity towards unworthy people bad karma?

Not unless you're giving it to them with the intention of them doing something unwholesome with it (e.g. funding an assassination attempt, giving drugs to someone so they can mess themselves up)

Metta,
Retro.

[Stephen K]

Greetings Stefan,

Is generosity towards unworthy people bad karma?

Not unless you're giving it to them with the intention of them doing something unwholesome with it (e.g. funding an assassination attempt, giving drugs to someone so they can mess themselves up)

Metta,
Retro.

I got it. Thanks.

[Individual]

Greetings Stefan,

Is generosity towards unworthy people bad karma?

Not unless you're giving it to them with the intention of them doing something unwholesome with it (e.g. funding an assassination attempt, giving drugs to someone so they can mess themselves up)

Metta,
Retro.

Willful ignorance, even subtle, is itself an intention. Naivety has consequences too, not merely pre-meditated acts of aggression.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Individual,

It's worth bearing in mind though that the Buddha did not discourage people from making offering to wanderers of other sects, even though their ascetics and practitioners were to certain extents ignorant.

Kamma is intention and it's not transcendent, so it's to be expected that there will be some degree of imperfection associated with any volitional act.

Metta,
Retro.

[thornbush]

It's worth bearing in mind though that the Buddha did not discourage people from making offering to wanderers of other sects, even though their ascetics and practitioners were to certain extents ignorant.

And it seems that 'charity begins at home' is the message forwarded here....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
"Endowed with these five qualities, a lay follower is a jewel of a lay follower, a lotus of a lay follower, a fine flower of a lay follower. Which five? He/she...
does not search for recipients of his/her offerings outside [of the Sangha], and gives offerings here first..."

[cooran]

Hello all,

dhammapal posted this as a response on E-sangha:
Should One Honour Shameless and Immoral Monks?
http://www.aimwell.org/Books/Ledi/Dhamm ... onour.html

metta
Chris

[Individual]

Greetings Individual,

It's worth bearing in mind though that the Buddha did not discourage people from making offering to wanderers of other sects, even though their ascetics and practitioners were to certain extents ignorant.

Ignorant, yes, but not necessarily malicious. I don't think the Buddha would've supported giving offerings to malicious people. As I understand it, the early Buddhists were ambivalent or supportive of the Jains, but hostile (that might be the wrong word to use) towards the Ajivikans and Carvakans; they didn't view all outside sects as equal. A religious sect or teacher can have ignorant views, but still be the basis for moral conduct, whereas other religious sects may be the basis for immoral conduct -- one could use extreme examples like suicide cults or the Islamic groups engaged in terrorism. If a person funds a Muslim group which funds terrorism, out of their own ignorance, they partially bear the consequence for the act. Teachers and groups which fall in between these extremes, those which are simply exploitative liars, like Madame Blavatsky and L. Ron Hubbard, are a grey area.

Kamma is intention and it's not transcendent, so it's to be expected that there will be some degree of imperfection associated with any volitional act.

But some forms of imperfection are more imperfect than others.