I'd feed a starving child before a healthy arahant

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Buckwheat »

manas wrote: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.
It seems likely the arahant would be rather pleased to see you giving the apple to the child, and therefore you would also be giving the arahant a brief moment of pleasure (mudita - altruistic joy).

The Buddha said to give where one feels inspired. Of course there are non-arahants who give with selfish motives, but just because their practice is imperfect does not require one to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Ceisiwr »

The Buddha said to give where one feels inspired. Of course there are non-arahants who give with selfish motives, but just because their practice is imperfect does not require one to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Unless the bath water is position, oes?
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Buckwheat »

clw_uk wrote:
The Buddha said to give where one feels inspired. Of course there are non-arahants who give with selfish motives, but just because their practice is imperfect does not require one to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Unless the bath water is position, oes?
I don't understand your post. The bathwater is OK to get rid of, it represents the imperfect practice of selfish generosity. What should be protected is the baby, which represents the Buddha's teaching to be generous where one feels inspired, which I believe to mean where there is the greatest perceived need. In the case of the OP, this would mean feeding the starving child. Does that clarify?
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Ceisiwr »

I don't understand your post. The bathwater is OK to get rid of, it represents the imperfect practice of selfish generosity. What should be protected is the baby, which represents the Buddha's teaching to be generous where one feels inspired, which I believe to mean where there is the greatest perceived need. In the case of the OP, this would mean feeding the starving child. Does that clarify?
"Poisonus bath water" was a metaphor for context x :)
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Ceisiwr »

However I do like the rest of your post atm :)


:group:
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22286
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Ceisiwr »

which I believe to mean where there is the greatest perceived need
Although this can be subjective and fall into the trap of "me"
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Buckwheat
Posts: 970
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Buckwheat »

clw_uk wrote:
In what circumstances is it better to act immorally than to act morally out of mere prudence?
Your question is loaded from the start. You also haven't defined, or proved, what "immorality" is. Yet no matter, I"ll give you "immorality" (assuming we agree on the definition of the word, which would seem the best starting place).


Yet if you was a time traveler and had the option of killing Hitler as a baby, or letting him live, what would you do?



Or if you hid some Jews, homosexuals and Jehovah's witnesses in your house/monastery, and the SS came knocking, would you lie or tell the truth?

In both cases to kill hitler, and to lie to save the "subhumans", is immoral in "Buddhist" terms, yet the context demands a differenent perspective that colours it.


Therefore assuming you wouldn't give up a gay man to the SS, you would lie due to the situation. Thus context defines, or at least influneces, morality (if it exists). :)
A time-traveler would have many more options than that of

a) kill Hitler

b) Let things go down exactly as they did.

There are other options, and we only have to look at the suttas that the Buddha dealt with moral dilemma's in creative and beautiful ways.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.
User avatar
robertk
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:08 am

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by robertk »

the texts merely point out that giving to an arahat may bear more positive fruit than say giving to a monk from a different religion. This is largely due to the citta that gives: the one who gives with great confidence and understanding of the real virtues of the arahat is more 'pure', of a higher level, than the one who gives to say a naked ascetic believing(wrongly) that he has special purity.

Bodhisattas always give to where it is needed and requested and don't make any calculation hoping to get more material rewards in the future.
User avatar
Aloka
Posts: 7797
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Aloka »

After reading the thread so far, my opinion is to set aside any ideas about personal "merit" or whatever and just act spontaneously to help others as occasions arise.

Hopefully, If one just keeps practising, awareness increases and appropriate behavior happens naturally.


:anjali:
User avatar
Sekha
Posts: 789
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 12:32 am
Location: Earth
Contact:

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Sekha »

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. :shrug:
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.
Where knowledge ends, religion begins. - B. Disraeli

http://www.buddha-vacana.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Mr Man »

How about would you feed a starving child rather than giving something to yourself? In my opinion that makes the dilemma more real.
User avatar
equilibrium
Posts: 522
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by equilibrium »

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.
What is real?.....everything is nothing but an illusion.....is it not?
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."
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?
Sounds like we will only do if there is a favourable return?.....base on what exactly?
mamas wrote:"I miss out on a million 'merit points' and a thousand years of feasting in Heaven."
Being in Heaven isn't escaping samsara is it?
mamas wrote:"Give where there is the greatest need, not where it will make things better for oneself."
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?
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Mr Man »

equilibrium wrote:
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.
What is real?.....everything is nothing but an illusion.....is it not?
Real in contrast to hypothetical.
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 9058
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by SDC »

Sekha wrote:
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?
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.

Sorry, manas, for somewhat disregarding your main point.
So I think we are in agreement here.
“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
Jhana4
Posts: 1331
Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2011 5:20 pm
Location: U.S.A., Northeast

Re: I'd feed a starving child before a plump arahant

Post by Jhana4 »

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 feel pretty much the same way you do.

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.
Post Reply