David N. Snyder wrote:
Sekha wrote: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.
And in virtue of what?
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).
Of course. I mean to question the use of the word "NEVER".
SDC wrote:Sekha wrote:And in virtue of what?
What David said.
If you disagree it is likely that we share different views of the characteristics of an arahant.
What if the arahant is subject to a serious disease that makes him look that way?
clw_uk wrote:sekha wrote:it is always better to help an arahant (if he truly is one and we're being really helpful) than helping anyone else, not for one's own sake but for the world.
But you need a humanity to be there, I.e. fed, in order to be "saved"
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.
clw_uk wrote:More generally speaking, it is always better to help beings who have a higher sense of morality because they will in turn take advantage of the help we have provided them to help others
First of all you haven't defined morality
Secondly Buddhist ethics rests on the intention, not the outcome, of an action
So you reasoning is baseless because of my first point, and invalid in Buddhist terms because of my second point.
Well, 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.
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. So please be less aggressive and reflect a bit more before attacking people.
clw_uk wrote:Once again, self-merit is gathered through "helping" the world as a whole, so it does make sense to choose one's gift's recipient carefully. That said, we should always try to be responsive to those who are in need and ask for help, no matter who they are.
A nice footnote to a post that seems to glorify a transaction based morality
I do X because it gives me maximum return.
This is nothing but your own idiosyncrasy, my friend. Morality as a whole has little to do with "transactions," if not "transactions" of metta. I repeat the logic you do not seem to be willing to understand: I do X because it is to the best advantage of the world as a whole, or just because it would be too uncharitable to not be responsive to a needy person when one can.