phetaroi Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Well what karma commands the taking of Antibiotics and the administering of them, is the doctor prescribing them also effected by it ? I think it's a lot of blown up BS! Sorry guy's isn't meant to offend - my view of these things... What offends is that, in my view, you have broken the precept of "right speech". Being part of the discussion is good. Arguing points in the discussion is good. Saying that others' views of karma is b--ls--t is not appropriate in this type of forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jts-khorat Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 and in reverse...one can gain more merit giving dana to an Arahant than an ordinary monk.... which is why Thais prefer donating alms food to monks instead of novices or nuns... and flock to visit famous monks thought to have attainments... I have heard this before and it baffles me. Why is giving to one who already gets a lot, or giving to one who is already doing well, credited with more merit than say giving to one knows nothing of your faith and learns through your action? Or even why not give to the monk no one likes? Wouldn't this have a larger merit? Wouldn't giving to one with a lot be a big waste of time? This seems connected to the idea that you benefit from closeness to somebody who has already gone further on the path to enlightenment; monks select their teachers carefully because faster enlightenment is gained by learning from more enlightened masters. Just being in physical proximity to the Buddha could make you enlightened instantly. I would assume the same applies to merit gained. Lots of quotes from the Suttas where the Buddha himself appoints merit in exactly this way. This could be construed that the Buddha quite cleverly built a base for a stable Sangha that is hierarchical and will always have sufficient support from the laypeople around; following the stories in the Suttas the Buddha was a very practical man who, with his upbringing, had a good understanding of diplomacy and constructing a stable politic structure able to endure the pressures of the real world on his followers. Seeing it in line with the philosophical background, there must be more merit in helping somebody reach enlightenment who is closer to it and has it therefore the much harder to make further progress if still held down by mundane tasks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockyysdt Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 Well what karma commands the taking of Antibiotics and the administering of them, is the doctor prescribing them also effected by it ? I think it's a lot of blown up BS! Sorry guy's isn't meant to offend - my view of these things... I have to say Samuian, you're the coolest dude on this forum. Your way with words is surpassed by no one. Having said that, are you for hunting or against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brucenkhamen Posted April 25, 2009 Share Posted April 25, 2009 I have heard this before and it baffles me. Why is giving to one who already gets a lot, or giving to one who is already doing well, credited with more merit than say giving to one knows nothing of your faith and learns through your action? Or even why not give to the monk no one likes? Wouldn't this have a larger merit? Wouldn't giving to one with a lot be a big waste of time? I have to say I agree with you here. Mind you if the motivation of someones giving is based on accumulating some kind of spiritual brownie points then that's not the Buddhas path to awakening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 Even though he justifies the slaughter by indicating it's for food, his intention differs.The primary reason is the thrill of killing wild animals & collecting their hide and horns as trophies. Is he off the hook or very misguided in a karmic sense? You don't get "off the hook" for killing with intent to kill, whatever the reason. There's always a karmic consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 I have heard this before and it baffles me. Why is giving to one who already gets a lot, or giving to one who is already doing well, credited with more merit than say giving to one knows nothing of your faith and learns through your action? Or even why not give to the monk no one likes? Wouldn't this have a larger merit? Wouldn't giving to one with a lot be a big waste of time? What I've read is it's due to "the ripple effect." The more advanced a practitioner is, the more able and likely he is to be able to spread the true Dhamma to others. So by supporting an arahant, you support the spread of the Dhamma more than by supporting a newly ordained monk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 I have heard this before and it baffles me. Why is giving to one who already gets a lot, or giving to one who is already doing well, credited with more merit than say giving to one knows nothing of your faith and learns through your action? Or even why not give to the monk no one likes? Wouldn't this have a larger merit? Wouldn't giving to one with a lot be a big waste of time? What I've read is it's due to "the ripple effect." The more advanced a practitioner is, the more able and likely he is to be able to spread the true Dhamma to others. So by supporting an arahant, you support the spread of the Dhamma more than by supporting a newly ordained monk. So why give to a novice, or person in need? All offerings should then go to whoever is determined to be the highest level of arahant. It sounds like I am being cheeky, but I perceive a paradox here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 First, on a practical level, there are very few arahants and nobody can be sure who they are. Also, few people have the opportunity to make merit with monks who have high attainments because they are out in the remote jungle. So you give to who you can, which is usually the monk passing your house on his alms rounds. Second, the Buddha made it crystal clear in the Dana Sutta that the best form of giving is giving without expecting anything concrete in return. It's a matter of intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuckamuck Posted April 26, 2009 Share Posted April 26, 2009 Well that helps your large animal theory too, because it boils down to intent. However, some smaller animals are the most difficult to find or kill. They would require a great deal more determination and intention and some rare and hard to kill species have very little sentience; certain parasites for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camerata Posted April 26, 2009 Author Share Posted April 26, 2009 Right. I don't think this question is answered in the Theravada suttas, which was why I asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotYetArahan Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 A monk said somewhere jokingly (forgive me: I can not remember the name of the monk and neither the book I read it in) that if you have to eat the meat, better to eat the elephant because less animals have to be killed in your lifetime. The quote does not take greater negative karma due to killing a bigger animal into equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now