Is Making Merit A Selfish Act?

[camerata]

in an exam there was a question asking whether Prince Siddhartha was selfish for leaving his family behind in search of the way to end it all. What's a twisted question to ask students in a predominantly buddhist country.

This question forms the climactic scene in the movie Samsara. The monk who has disrobed to marry and try out lay life finally finds it too much and goes back to the monastery, with his wife berating him and comparing him to Siddhartha abandoning his wife and child to go in search of enlightenment.

[IMA_FARANG]

Quote:

I am also sometimes struck by the great contrasts of the richness of the temples and the poverty of the living conditions next door. But may be by seeing and visiting the temples and offering something they feel part of it and they can accept their living conditions.

==================

You got it right. And is that such a bad thing to do really? Do the poor really have any real alternative, except hope?

(Well actually they do....but that's another long long topic.)

Life is a bitch...but then you die.

====================

Quote:

The rewards you get from supporting the Sangha are laid out in detail in the Pali Canon (at the top you have building a monastery and giving to an arahant) so many Buddhists tend to feel safe and comfortable with this. And it's easy. In reality, though, dana is the lowest form of kamma (leading to benefits in the next life), sila is the next, and meditation is the highest

As an American trained Buddhist I might not agree wholly, but I accept your point.

In my humble opinion, understanding is preferable to meditation. If meditation leads to understanding, so much the better.

Edited February 4, 2010 by IMA_FARANG

[IMA_FARANG]

Having read the comments in this posting I thought I would sort of add this story to the mix.

----------------------------------------

Publishing the Sutras

Tetsugen, a devotee of Zen in Japan, decided to publish the sutras, which at that time were available only in Chinese. The books were to be printed from carved wood blocks in an edition of seven thousand copies, a time consuming and expensive undertaking.

Tetsugen began by traveling and collecting donations for this purpose. A few sympathizers would give him a hundred pieces of gold, but most of the time he received only small coins. He thanked each donor with equal gratitude. After ten years Tetsugen had enough money to begin his task.

It happened that at that time the Uji Rive overflowed. Famine followed. Tetsugen took the funds he had collected for the books and spent them to save others from starvation. Then he began again his work of collecting.

Several years afterwards an epidemic spread over the country. Tetsugen again gave away what he had collected, to help the suffering people.

For a third time he started his work, and after twenty years his wish was fulfilled. The printing blocks which produced the first edition of sutras can be seen today in the Obaku monastery in Kyoto. It was a great achievement and the first sutras in Japanese characters ever printed.

Today Japanese parents still tell their children that Tetsugen made three sets of sutras, but that those first two invisible volunes by far surpass the last.

[Svenn]

there was a question asking whether Prince Siddhartha was selfish for leaving his family behind in search of the way to end it all.

Actually, that's a very interesting question. Shall we discuss it?

I would hope someone more articulate than me could answer the question, but the underlying assumption behind that kind of criticism of Buddhism isn't very logical- the so-called moralists out there that want to 'help' the world are always necessarily hypocritical- unless you go full blown like mother teresa and disown all interest in your own life, you're always going to be a hypocrite in your own moral standards. If the Buddha or any one of you reading this just spent your life passing out food or building schools, in the ultimate scheme of humanity he or you wouldn't make an ounce of difference, and no one by the name of Gautama would ever have been remembered.

The sea of causation in this world is so profoundly complex, who even knows if good acts are truly good: just as an example, one study I read stated that Gandhi's freeing of India actually probably did more long-term economic injury to the underclasses than had the british raj been allowed to more slowly dissipate like it did elsewhere commonwealth... who knows if that's right, but u get the point. I believe the Buddha realized this point and saw that he had to get to the true root of pain, not merely temporarily gloss over it with a life of charity. He did not attain buddhahood for humanity's sake, nor did he attain it for himself... that's why it is truly compassionate. If he ever outstretched a helping hand, it was not because of some moral or ethical impetus, but was completely natural and spontaneous- which Confucius aptly explained: when he said (I can't remember the exact story) no one would reflexively stick out their arm to stop a woman who was about to unknowingly fall into a rice-cooking pit.

Was it selfish for the Buddha to leave his family... or was it selfish for him to have stayed? Buddhism is ultimately amoral, just like the universe we inhabit... don't make the mistake of interpreting that as immorality or as moral compassion in any normal sense of the word.

[phetaroi]

...the underlying assumption behind that kind of criticism of Buddhism isn't very logical- the so-called moralists out there that want to 'help' the world are always necessarily hypocritical- unless you go full blown like mother teresa and disown all interest in your own life, you're always going to be a hypocrite in your own moral standards. If the Buddha or any one of you reading this just spent your life passing out food or building schools, in the ultimate scheme of humanity he or you wouldn't make an ounce of difference, and no one by the name of Gautama would ever have been remembered.

The sea of causation in this world is so profoundly complex, who even knows if good acts are truly good: just as an example, one study I read stated that Gandhi's freeing of India actually probably did more long-term economic injury to the underclasses than had the british raj been allowed to more slowly dissipate like it did elsewhere commonwealth... who knows if that's right, but u get the point. I believe the Buddha realized this point and saw that he had to get to the true root of pain, not merely temporarily gloss over it with a life of charity. He did not attain buddhahood for humanity's sake, nor did he attain it for himself... that's why it is truly compassionate. If he ever outstretched a helping hand, it was not because of some moral or ethical impetus, but was completely natural and spontaneous...

Was it selfish for the Buddha to leave his family... or was it selfish for him to have stayed? Buddhism is ultimately amoral, just like the universe we inhabit... don't make the mistake of interpreting that as immorality or as moral compassion in any normal sense of the word.

First, with all due respect, and acknowledging that everyone has the right to their own opinion, I think you have the selfish/negative view that some -- unfortunately and wrongly -- have about Buddhism. You don't have to give up the world to help the world. And individuals and groups have made a world of difference to the world. Hence, Margaret Mead's famous line: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." When you say, "in the ultimate scheme of humanity he or you wouldn't make an ounce of difference", it seems as if you are saying that ending slavery, or the concentration camps of WWII, or national starvation isn't a noble task.

"who even knows if good acts are truly good". As the Thais often say, I think you "think too mutt". Usually it's pretty easy to know whether something is good or bad, although the level of goodness and badness may be more difficult to ascertain. I don't think it's wise to your argument to bring up the enslavement of a nation (India) and try to compare that poverty is as bad as enslavement. Particularly when they were in poverty whether free or enslaved.

A life of charity is not simply "a gloss over" (slightly paraphrased). It's a dedication to morality.

If Buddhism is amoral, then it has no value to mankind, and I know that is not what Buddha was talking about. All of his tales involve some aspect of morality and/or wisdom.

[rockyysdt]

First, with all due respect, and acknowledging that everyone has the right to their own opinion, I think you have the selfish/negative view that some -- unfortunately and wrongly -- have about Buddhism. You don't have to give up the world to help the world. And individuals and groups have made a world of difference to the world. Hence, Margaret Mead's famous line: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." When you say, "in the ultimate scheme of humanity he or you wouldn't make an ounce of difference", it seems as if you are saying that ending slavery, or the concentration camps of WWII, or national starvation isn't a noble task.

"who even knows if good acts are truly good". As the Thais often say, I think you "think too mutt". Usually it's pretty easy to know whether something is good or bad, although the level of goodness and badness may be more difficult to ascertain. I don't think it's wise to your argument to bring up the enslavement of a nation (India) and try to compare that poverty is as bad as enslavement. Particularly when they were in poverty whether free or enslaved.

A life of charity is not simply "a gloss over" (slightly paraphrased). It's a dedication to morality.

If Buddhism is amoral, then it has no value to mankind, and I know that is not what Buddha was talking about. All of his tales involve some aspect of morality and/or wisdom.

Hi Phetaroi.

I thought this post wasn't about how moral or immoral nor how much value our actions might have, but rather "are they selfish".

What is the motivator for ones Merit Making?

Example:

I pasted gold leaf on the Buddha statue.

I donated money to the local temple.

I offered food to the monk on alms rounds.

I volunteered my labor to help build a Wat.

I perform charitable work assisting orphans.

I donate a percentage of my income towards the needy in our community.

I performed what I believed are acts of merit in order to reduce my future karmic suffering, pave the way for positive re birth & aid my path towards enlightenment.

All these things are benefits to me (ego).

As I'm ego based (unless already enlightened) I acted in my interest.

If there was no perceived gain to be made from these acts would I still have performed them?

Does that make these "acts of selfishness?".

Similar situation to my Christian friend who I posed a question to:

If everything was as prophesied, that God lives in heaven, he loves you & he sent Jesus to show you the way & everything in the bible is as it was written, with the exception that when you die, that's it, there is no afterlife, & your reward is knowing that you served God knowing & that he loved you, would you still be a Christian?

To my surprise he said, "No".

He is selfish.

He desires eternal life after death.

The non enlightened Buddhist is also selfish as he or she desires reduction in suffering, a happy re birth & Nirvana.

I don't think it's a bad thing to be selfish.

Whilst we are anchored to the ego it serves to motivate us until realization takes place.

Without it we would have no motivation.

The positive is that as we progress on our Buddhist path, actual experience will subtly reveal our selfless nature.

Until this happens we can only pretend to be selfless.

Edited February 5, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

He is selfish.

He desires eternal life after death.

The non enlightened Buddhist is also selfish as he or she desires reduction in suffering, a happy re birth & Nirvana.

I think you're redefining the world selfish here. It doesn't mean wanting something for oneself as opposed to wanting nothing for oneself. From the dictionary:

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

That's the normal definition of selfish. We can say that the ideal of a Buddhist is total selflessness, but that doesn't mean wanting something - especially something good - for ourselves is selfish. In essence, making merit (properly) can't possibly be selfish. Making merit with the right intention makes you a better person, which then has a ripple effect on those around you, and then on those around them, out into infinity. As long as the merit-making is part of mental cultivation, it will have this infinite ripple effect.

[dutchguest]

I think theoretically and ideally merit making can only be unselfish. In so far it is selfish their will be no merit. Merit is something else as respect from other people or self-complacency. Merit is not feeding the false, social self, the ego, it is a reward for a real, deeper self.

So (theoretically and ideally) offering something, prostrating can only be done if you really feel a humbleness and are not hindered by egoistic motives. Only then you are opened enough to be able to receive some merit. Mostly it is done half/half mechanically and only the movements are imitated without much feeling. I think for most westerners and richer Thais it is very hard to distinguish between getting merit or getting respect. They tend to be more rational and calculating: if I give this I will automatically receive merit. I think mostly they will only receive respect.

I have been embarrassed a few times in Thailand by poor people prostrating for me with a real humbleness and when I had that feeling I was always very glad that I could give something. But generally we live in a world of pretence, also in the wats, so if I give something in those cases it is mostly out of a feeling of obligation or social convenience.

[phetaroi]

I think you're redefining the world selfish here. It doesn't mean wanting something for oneself as opposed to wanting nothing for oneself. From the dictionary:

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

That's the normal definition of selfish. We can say that the ideal of a Buddhist is total selflessness, but that doesn't mean wanting something - especially something good - for ourselves is selfish. In essence, making merit (properly) can't possibly be selfish. Making merit with the right intention makes you a better person, which then has a ripple effect on those around you, and then on those around them, out into infinity. As long as the merit-making is part of mental cultivation, it will have this infinite ripple effect.

You've said it so well that I hardly need reply.

But I would add one thing. I'm not at all convinced that karma extends beyond the current life. So, when I do good things, I do them because they're good and right. If I'm wrong, and karma does extend into a future existence...okay, I get a bonus.

I think it's very much like in the States when I was (obviously) living in a basically Christian society. For my whole life -- before I became Buddhist and afterward -- when possible, acts of charity I did, I did anonymously or in the most private way that I could. And a lot of stuff I did -- opening the door for someone, as a minor example -- I did because that's the way I was raised, and it had nothing to do with getting something out of it.

But I think camerata hit it on the head, and I believe I mentioned earlier in the thread, that doing something for oneself, doesn't make it a negative thing...a bad thing. I eat for myself. I bathe for myself (that just happens to benefit others!). I think we have corrupted the definition of selfish.

[rockyysdt]

He is selfish.

He desires eternal life after death.

The non enlightened Buddhist is also selfish as he or she desires reduction in suffering, a happy re birth & Nirvana.

I think you're redefining the world selfish here. It doesn't mean wanting something for oneself as opposed to wanting nothing for oneself. From the dictionary:

1. devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

Isn't wanting to reduce my suffering, have a happy re birth & to reach Nirvana primarily for myself & therefore not selfless?

Don't Thais offer food to monks in preference to a poor wretch because there is more merit?

The merit making appears the motive rather than the charitable act of help.

Isn't the difference between a non Buddhist who acts selflessly & a non enlightened Buddhist who also acts selflessly the added goals which are primarily for oneself?

Also isn't the operative word, "act"?

There are many acts which are noble but the performer will always directly benefit from them.

I gave millions to this charity.

I gave up my time to help build housing for the poor.

I donate 10% of my income.

Benefits:

I derive tax deduction.

It makes me feel good.

The merit I've made will reduce my suffering.

People think I'm a good guy.

I did it so people will like me.

I can't think of any case in which an ego attached person can do anything meritoriously without self interest.

One does these things primarily to reduce their suffering, have a happy re birth & reach Nirvana.

The catch 22 being to act selfishly to be selfless.

That's the normal definition of selfish. We can say that the ideal of a Buddhist is total selflessness, but that doesn't mean wanting something - especially something good - for ourselves is selfish. In essence, making merit (properly) can't possibly be selfish. Making merit with the right intention makes you a better person, which then has a ripple effect on those around you, and then on those around them, out into infinity. As long as the merit-making is part of mental cultivation, it will have this infinite ripple effect.

This is the key.

Making merit properly.

I think you can only do this if you are totally selfless.

I felt that to do this one must be detached from their ego (enlightened), otherwise our selflessness is pretense isn't it?

Edited February 5, 2010 by rockyysdt

[dutchguest]

But generally we live in a world of pretence, also in the wats, so if I give something in those cases it is mostly out of a feeling of obligation or social convenience.

I will give a short explanation of how I see this:

In the world the ego is nourished by richness, status etc. On the spiritual path of both the monks and the laity the ego can be nourished by the special status (of monks), by ideas how far they stand above wordly affairs of ordenary people, how far they are progressed on the spiritual path compared with others etc.

You have to drop both ego-nourishments, drop everything, become a "total loss" with no relation to anything. Only if you have lost everything, dropped everything, you have found (the universe, the whole world).

[Xangsamhua]

I don't know that anyone can be entirely selfless. In fact, I don't know if a person can be selfless at all, even when, e.g. a mother sacrifices her life for that of her child. In a case like that, it seems that the identity, the selfness of the mother and the child, are inseparable in the mother's psyche.

We all act according to what we see as beneficial to our selves. In that sense, we are all selfish, all of the time. However, if one's self-concept is extended through mind-training and practice to incorporate the selves of all other beings, to "exchange one's self with that of others", as a Bodhisatthva does, then selfishness and selflessness become identical, as in the case of the mother.

Although the Buddha and subsequent masters have consistently taught that the "self" is a "category mistake", having no independent existence, nevertheless I suspect no one has denied that there is a self functionally. We may not have an ontological self, but we have an operational self, and in some way this cohesive "fictional" self acts in its perceived interests and leaves karmic imprints. Hence, it is perfectly reasonable and morally acceptable for one to try to understand the meaning of one's life, set goals and decide on priorities in order to reach those goals, as the Buddha did in deciding to leave his loved ones and take up the homeless life.

Making merit, therefore, is neither selfish nor unselfish. It benefits not the ontological self (because there isn't one), but it benefits the karmic, operational self, which, though entirely caused by (inter)dependent origination, exists as the perceived organizational principle that manages one's life in the world of cause and effect, attachment and suffering. Whether the merit earned is greater from supporting a "worthy cause", such as the sangha, or giving alms to a crippled beggar or supporting a wayward relative, depends on the circumstances, I would think. I doubt any of these acts would gain much merit for the donor if they were based largely on a cost-benefit analysis, but the recipients might benefit and, if so, doesn't some karmic reward accrue to the giver?

[Svenn]

First, with all due respect, and acknowledging that everyone has the right to their own opinion, I think you have the selfish/negative view that some -- unfortunately and wrongly -- have about Buddhism. You don't have to give up the world to help the world. And individuals and groups have made a world of difference to the world. Hence, Margaret Mead's famous line: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." When you say, "in the ultimate scheme of humanity he or you wouldn't make an ounce of difference", it seems as if you are saying that ending slavery, or the concentration camps of WWII, or national starvation isn't a noble task.

"who even knows if good acts are truly good". As the Thais often say, I think you "think too mutt". Usually it's pretty easy to know whether something is good or bad, although the level of goodness and badness may be more difficult to ascertain. I don't think it's wise to your argument to bring up the enslavement of a nation (India) and try to compare that poverty is as bad as enslavement. Particularly when they were in poverty whether free or enslaved.

A life of charity is not simply "a gloss over" (slightly paraphrased). It's a dedication to morality.

If Buddhism is amoral, then it has no value to mankind, and I know that is not what Buddha was talking about. All of his tales involve some aspect of morality and/or wisdom.

Oh I don't think we're in disagreement at all... maybe you misunderstand amorality to mean aversion or indifference to morality; in fact, I would say amorality is perfect morality and infinite compassion because it has no notion of self or distinction between the entities in the universe. I was not saying that one should avoid charity 'because it's pointless', rather, I was merely correcting the common misconception that the Buddha did what he did because of charity or morality. It is Christian concept to have morality be the motivation behind ones actions. I believe a Buddhist views moral actions to come spontaneously out of natural compassion, not out of artificial ethical convictions.

Selfishness means carrying about your ego self, often at the expense of others, which is the exact opposite of what the Buddha, or an solitary ascetic, did or does. Ultimately, it is true that I may be a bit radical in that I think a monk who spends his life alone in the mountains is no less moral than an activist one, but I never meant to imply that I advocated inaction in the face of atrocities, like you say, WWII. In sum, amorality does not mean indifference, it is merely the result of the wisdom that clinging and attaching to the value of life, the ultimate presumption behinds conceptual ethics, is what started our suffering in the first place! Anyway, I realize this is very amorphous subject, and is apt to being misunderstood.

[phetaroi]

Oh I don't think we're in disagreement at all...

No, we are very much in disagreement...but really...and I mean this...there is no problem with not agreeing. Makes for a great discussion!

[Loz]

my teacher Aurobindo summed it up in one of his books. If a poor man gives what he can aford and makes no fuss he has gained a higher standing than the man who gave millions who needed to advertise the event.

Reading this one can think of Bill and Melinda Gates, Ted Turner and Warren Buffet between them all billions of dollars but at each news conference called advertising how kind I am and how wonderful giving away billions. No merit there all about look at me.

Good question Simon43 a very good exchange.

Don't think Warren Buffet is much for drawing attention to himself. He has a very modest lifestyle. Doesn't he still live in the same house as some 30 od years ago and drive a Lincoln Town Car.

[Samuian]

Having read the comments in this posting I thought I would sort of add this story to the mix.

----------------------------------------

Publishing the Sutras

Tetsugen, a devotee of Zen in Japan, decided to publish the sutras, which at that time were available only in Chinese. The books were to be printed from carved wood blocks in an edition of seven thousand copies, a time consuming and expensive undertaking.

Tetsugen began by traveling and collecting donations for this purpose. A few sympathizers would give him a hundred pieces of gold, but most of the time he received only small coins. He thanked each donor with equal gratitude. After ten years Tetsugen had enough money to begin his task.

It happened that at that time the Uji Rive overflowed. Famine followed. Tetsugen took the funds he had collected for the books and spent them to save others from starvation. Then he began again his work of collecting.

Several years afterwards an epidemic spread over the country. Tetsugen again gave away what he had collected, to help the suffering people.

For a third time he started his work, and after twenty years his wish was fulfilled. The printing blocks which produced the first edition of sutras can be seen today in the Obaku monastery in Kyoto. It was a great achievement and the first sutras in Japanese characters ever printed.

Today Japanese parents still tell their children that Tetsugen made three sets of sutras, but that those first two invisible volunes by far surpass the last.

Breathtakingly ZEN and so true!

And contains the Bodhisattva Ideal!

The idea of sacrifice, of giving, stands symbolic for sharing, otherwise the whole concept of

"merit" making would imho be senseless and without any genuine value and a dead ritual only!

Still consider overly rich, gold, jewel and artifacts encrusted Temples, Churches etc. a waste of

money, time and effort!

All of it directed towards the needy, the one next to oneself, on a daily base, would be much, much more efficient!

and we would have a better world already!

Just think!

I one day became witness of one of these alms giving events:

"A monk passed bay, some people rushed to hand over some money or something, others who became aware of the others giving, and rushed to, to make "merit" .... every day a wee bit further down the road in front of a 7/11 sits a begging women... the monk passed by on many other day's nothing, none, even doubt if someone even noticed....!"

There's a lesson there somewhere!, isn't it?

Edited February 17, 2010 by Samuian

[phetaroi]

First of all hate to tell you this Buddhism is not, never has been and never will be a religion-it is a philosophy

What is practiced here is NOT Buddhism.

And you cannot just decide to make something a religion like what has been done here to suit.

You cannot " make merit". Its a s simple as that.

Read what Buddha said and ask yourself this- is Thailand Buddhist? is Thailand a good shining example of a Buddhist country?

We have people shaving their heads for something, I will not be specific,that Buddha himself was opposed to.

I have been warned not to talk about certain places that charge non Thai to enter( great shining example of the darma there-all it takes its one bad apple, if I saw one church in europe do something like that I would picket it- I wonder what buhhda would say " okay, you thai, your not really practing what I taught, but in you go for free, oh, but your not, your white, you have some cash, you have to pay, you know, for the upkeep of this place, the locals do not, but you do...."

I guess this will close the topic, people here hate the truth.

First of all, I hate to tell you that I doubt very much that you and you alone have solved the debate that has been going on for centuries about whether it is a philosophy, religion, both, or neither.

What is practiced here is not YOUR definition of what Buddhism is. Your definition is no more correct than anyone else's definition. In fact, it is not yours to define, except for your personal use.

When we read what we read, we are not literally reading what Buddha said.

You don't own the truth. In fact, as Francis Bacon asked...What is truth?

[agent69]

What is truth?

haha I have been asking myself that question for ages. at this point I have concluded that the truth is something that enough people believe in, 'enough' being the variable here.

[CPH]

One aspect of Thai Buddism that I cannot 'accept' is the act of making merit, because for me, merit making is an act of selfishness. (Perhaps this is a naive and incorrect understanding, so please bear with me)

AFAIU, making merit is done to accumulate good merit upon oneself, so that one can reap the rewards of this good merit in the next life. How does one make merit? In many cases, one makes merit by giving money to the local temple. How selfish is that?!

It all depends on your intent. See the Dana Sutta.

The rewards you get from supporting the Sangha are laid out in detail in the Pali Canon (at the top you have building a monastery and giving to an arahant) so many Buddhists tend to feel safe and comfortable with this. And it's easy. In reality, though, dana is the lowest form of kamma (leading to benefits in the next life), sila is the next, and meditation is the highest.

I showed the Dana Sutta to some Thai friends. They claim that this is not from the Buddha Bible they follow. They claim that you gain most merrit from donations to a Munk or a Temple. If you donate to the poor it does not give so much merrit as giving to the other two mentioned. Is this correct.

[camerata]

I showed the Dana Sutta to some Thai friends. They claim that this is not from the Buddha Bible they follow. They claim that you gain most merrit from donations to a Munk or a Temple. If you donate to the poor it does not give so much merrit as giving to the other two mentioned. Is this correct.

In Thailand, the "Buddha Bible" is the Pali Canon. That's where the Dana Sutta is from. It's in the Anguttara Nikaya, the fourth section of the suttas. It deals with the intent behind giving, not the recipient of the gift.

There is another part of the Pali Canon that mentions getting great merit from donating to the Sangha, but this is still dependent on one's intent.

Ultimately, it depends on yourself and how the act of giving affects your mental state and improves your mental cultivation. It's impossible to prove that giving to the Sangha will result in a better next life. You can only prove that giving to the poor or the Sangha brings you benefit in this life.