Chanting, Chanting.... And Yet More Chanting! (When Will It Ever End?)

[fabianfred]

Chanting has its uses, but like almost anything, taken to extremes is becomes a hinderance.

I very much doubt if they did much chanting during the Buddha's time....after all, they had the real thing.

Chanting, as I compare with my doctor simile, is praising the doctor (Buddha) for discovering the cure (for all beings' ills), praising the cure (Dhamma), and praising those who bring us the cure (Sangha) and those who have taken the cure and are cured ( Ariyachon).

Chanting can calm the mind and prepare a rough mind not yet ready for meditation, make it smooth and able to meditate, but will not get us to Nibbana.

Chanting our whole life, from dawn to dusk for a hundred years will not get us to Nibbana.

Practicing the Four Foundations of Mindfulness will.

The merit obtained from giving to animals, even 100 times, is less than the merit from giving to a human, even if it is a person without morals.

Giving to a human without morals, 100 times, is less than giving to one who keeps the five precepts just once.

Giving to one who keeps the five precepts, 100 times, is less merit than giving to one who keeps the eight precepts, just once.

Giving to one keeping the eight precepts, 100 times, is less than one who keeps the ten precepts (Novice).

Giving to one keeping the ten precepts, 100 times, is less than giving to a monk keeping 227 precepts.

Giving to a monk keeping the 227 precepts who is still Putuchon, 100 times, is less than giving to a Sotapanna.

Giving to a Sotapanna, 100 times, is less than a Sakgdagami.

Giving to a Sakgdagami, 100 times is less than an Anagami.

Giving to an Anagami, 100 times, is less than an Arahant.

Giving to an Arahant, 100 times, is less than a Padjekha Buddha.

Giving to a Padjekha Buddha, 100 times is les than a Buddha.

Giving to a Buddha, 100 times, is less than building a Viharn, Bote, Chedi, Sala, Guti etc.

Constructing these buildings, even 100 times, is less merit than teaching Dhamma to those who are ignorant of it.

Teaching Dhamma, even 100 times, is less than not getting angry, wanting revenge or to harm any beings, even enemies.

Forgiving, even 100 times, is less than keeping the five precepts just once.

Keeping the five precepts, 100 times, is less than keeping the eight precepts even just once.

Keeping the eight precepts,100 times, is less than keeping the ten precepts just once.

Ordaining as a Samanera (novice) keeping the ten precepts, even for 100 years, is less then one who ordains as a monk keeping 227 precepts, even for a single day.

Ordaining as a Monk keeping the 227 precepts absolutely unbroken for 100 years, is less than practicing Samatha meditation and making the mind still and quiet (kanika samadhi) for only as long as the flick of an elephant's ear.

One who achieves the yana in samatha meditation, even for 100 years, is less merit than one who sees the truth of the three characteristics, (suffering, impermanence and non-self), even if only for a moment. (Vipassana).

One who has the wisdom to know the truth about the three characteristics, that this body is only subject to suffering, impermanent and not-self, even for only a moment, as long as the flick of an elephant's ear, is better than one who lives for 100 years but hasn't the wisdom to see the truth.

When Dr. Aphisit was sick in hospital, a big ceremony was created, to 'Riak Kwan' (call his spirit back). Many hours of chanting was done by many monks, senior and junior, and many lay-followers. If this was intended to create merit to then be transferred to the Abbot, why then wasn't everyone just practicing meditation instead, which would have created thousands of times more merit?

When the temple recently decided to 'see in the New year' practicing, they did chanting (many hours), meditation (20 minutes) and dhamma talks. Again better use would have been made of the time by more meditation.

Yesterday morning on the 1st. day of the new year, the local market had a big merit-making ceremony. The owner of the land and market place organised it all with the help of the many stall-holders who sell at the market daily. They had 9 monks attending and filled our bowls with food and we also got other gifts. The chanting by the monks lasted a long time, the head monk seeming to add on just one more chant, and just one more chant, giving them everything in the book. Do monks feel that they have to chant for a long time to give the people their moneys-worth? The people have given alms and earned their merit. Chanting long or short doesn't increase their merit, in fact if they start to get bored and wish it would end or that they hadn't come it might reduce their merit. It was easy to see that everyone was bored. Then after the monks had chanted and gifts been offered the head lay chanter started. He attends all these kind of ceremonies and leads the lay-people in chanting, and also receives gifts for his services. Does he feel that he has to give them their moneys-worth too? Perhaps originally his type just gave a short introductory chant, but it seems to me that as time went on that each new person taking up the role added more and more, each trying to outdo each other, under the misapprehension that they were better for being able to chant longer, until now he chanted for over ten minutes, and if you can understand a fraction of what he is chanting it just seems to repeat itself and say the same thing over and over in different words. The lay-people will not tell him to shorten it...they do not understand and are just as ignorant of the truth as he is. The monks should point out the truth to the lay-people but often are just as ignorant of it as they are, and even if they do know they are afraid to upset the people who support them, afraid these people will go elsewhere with their offerings.

Ignorance heaped upon ignorance!!!

[rockyysdt]

The monks should point out the truth to the lay-people but often are just as ignorant of it as they are, and even if they do know they are afraid to upset the people who support them, afraid these people will go elsewhere with their offerings.

Ignorance heaped upon ignorance!!!

What will happen to them at their next re birth?

[fabianfred]

What will happen to them at their next re birth?

[bankei]

What about giving to the poor or sick?

[udonguy]

I must admit I can't believe the Buddha had anything to do with that list. If it were true we would all sit outside temples and give to monks only and forget the old lady who has no food and the dog or cat? well they can starve!

[fabianfred]

It does not mean that we shouldn't give to anyone or help any being. It merely shows that when making merit, especially the act of giving, the merit we get depends upon both the receiver and the donor.

For example....giving alms to monks in the morning.

One person might do it hoping to bee seen and get a good name, or perhaps asked by a parent to go and do it for them, but they themselves are not really interested...

Another might give hoping to get lots of good karma..... to add to their store of karma in the karma bank we all have.

The best would be one who gives, hoping for nothing in return, just for the joy of doing good.

Of course we should try to help relieve all beings suffering if we are able to, not just go for the ones we get the most from in return.

[Xangsamhua]

Of course we should try to help relieve all beings suffering if we are able to, not just go for the ones we get the most from in return.

Isn't it self-defeating anyway to give in order to get the best return?

If we give to the monks in order to maximize our return, this is not really dhana, just a deposit in the Bank of Karma.

However, if we give to both the known worthy (monks) and the unknown poor and vulnerable, regardless of worth, with no expectation of a return, will not this combination of acts attract greater karma?

I'm not sure. The monks may not in fact need my gift as much as the beggar on the corner, but will probably put it to good use (assuming they're good monks), whereas the beggar may use it to drink or gamble, or may have to give part to the beggar-master as protection money, which in turn is used to fund crime.

With a bit of research I'm sure we can find worthy causes to support in addition to the Sangha and forget about trying to calculate the relative karmic exchange value of each.

Edited January 8, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[khaowong1]

This is pretty strange Fred, but I was having very similar thoughts today. We were doing a special Wan Phra day chanting at a chicken farm. Not only does the Buddha mention in "Right Livilihood" about raising and killing animals for food as being one of the no-no's, but the owner of the chicken farm had put out bottles of whiskey on every table for the guests. I don' t speak Thai well enough to discuss what I was thinking. But you know I wonder if the abbot and the other monks have the same thoughts? Or if they even think about these same things or not. I've read somewhere that Ajahn Chah said he found foriegn monks seem to be more aware of the Buddha's teahing than Thai monks.

Maybe we just expect more.

[udonguy]

Of course we should try to help relieve all beings suffering if we are able to, not just go for the ones we get the most from in return.

Isn't it self-defeating anyway to give in order to get the best return?

If we give to the monks in order to maximize our return, this is not really dhana, just a deposit in the Bank of Karma.

However, if we give to both the known worthy (monks) and the unknown poor and vulnerable, regardless of worth, with no expectation of a return, will not this combination of acts attract greater karma?

I'm not sure. The monks may not in fact need my gift as much as the beggar on the corner, but will probably put it to good use (assuming they're good monks), whereas the beggar may use it to drink or gamble, or may have to give part to the beggar-master as protection money, which in turn is used to fund crime.

With a bit of research I'm sure we can find worthy causes to support in addition to the Sangha and forget about trying to calculate the relative karmic exchange value of each.

I believe that this is so and that by giving, expecting no return, to a needy person/animal brings greater 'reward' than giving alms to the highest monk.

[udonguy]

Of course we should try to help relieve all beings suffering if we are able to, not just go for the ones we get the most from in return.

Isn't it self-defeating anyway to give in order to get the best return?

If we give to the monks in order to maximize our return, this is not really dhana, just a deposit in the Bank of Karma.

However, if we give to both the known worthy (monks) and the unknown poor and vulnerable, regardless of worth, with no expectation of a return, will not this combination of acts attract greater karma?

I'm not sure. The monks may not in fact need my gift as much as the beggar on the corner, but will probably put it to good use (assuming they're good monks), whereas the beggar may use it to drink or gamble, or may have to give part to the beggar-master as protection money, which in turn is used to fund crime.

With a bit of research I'm sure we can find worthy causes to support in addition to the Sangha and forget about trying to calculate the relative karmic exchange value of each.

another point to make is this. It matters not whether the beggar puts our money to use for drink or drugs. Naturally if we KNOW he/she will do this we should not give but we do not need extensive research if WE give with Right Intention our karma is not effected in a negative way as we are not responsible