- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 7 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
I have heard if someone has an intention to kill, and he kills, it doesn’t matter if he didn’t know that it was his father, the anantariya kamma would have been committed, as the nature knows everything.
But Ven. Amadassana Thero said that if we give alms to a Bhikku who has lied to be an Arahant,whom we think is an Arahant, we would receive immense merits as in our minds we are giving to an Arahant, but that Bhikku would suffer immensely as he is not an Arahant( he lied intentionally).
In the second case, why doesn’t nature “interfere”?
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
Yash: “I have heard if someone has an intention to kill, and he kills, it doesn’t matter if he didn’t know that it was his father, the anantariya kamma would have been committed, as the nature knows everything.”
1. “Nature knows everything” is a colloquial saying, not to be taken literally. No “entity” knows everything (like a God or Creator.)
- The world (nature) runs on a set of rules or laws. In Buddha Dhamma that is Paticca Samuppada. The Buddha did not come up with a set of rules (Paticca Samuppada). Rather, he discovered that Paticca Samuppada describes the rules of nature.
- Whether there is a Buddha in the world or not (some eons or maha kappas do not have a single Buddha) Paticca Samuppada still applies.
2. One aspect of nature’s laws is that everything is interconnected. Scientists are gradually coming to that realization. One aspect of this is “non-locality,” and a recent Nobel prize was awarded to scientists who confirmed this “non-local” nature. I discussed that in the “Quantum Mechanics and Dhamma” section. For example, see #3, #4 of “Quantum Mechanics and Dhamma – Introduction.”
- Specifically, see “Quantum Entanglement – We Are All Connected.” That post is in a different section.
3. With that background in mind, let us look at Yash’s question #1.
- All our actions in this life AND in all previous lives are interconnected with the lives of other sentient beings. Each “lifestream” flows according to Paticca Samuppada and takes into account what has happened up to now.
- That is why it is impossible to sort out kamma vipaka. There are too many factors involved. Thus, “kamma vipaka” is one of the four “inconceivable things” (acinteyya.)
- Suppose X gets separated from his biological parents (Y being the father) at birth. Yet, X and Y remain “connected.” Thus, even if X kills Y after growing up (without having any idea that Y is his father), the following holds: (i) X killed Y, and (ii) Y is X’s father.
- There, the intention was to kill. But with or without knowing “the killed” was the father. Hence it becomes an anantariya kamma.
- It works the other way, too. If X had become a Sotapanna, he would have been unable to kill Y. Nature’s laws (Paticca Samuppada) would have prevented that.
___________
Yash: “But Ven. Amadassana Thero said that if we give alms to a Bhikku who has lied to be an Arahant, whom we think is an Arahant, we would receive immense merits as in our minds we are giving to an Arahant, but that Bhikku would suffer immensely as he is not an Arahant( he lied intentionally).
In the second case, why doesn’t nature “interfere”?”
2. This one is easier to figure out.
- A bhikkhu who lies about being an Arahant does it with intention. Declaring Arahanthood falsely is done with greed.
- However, a person offering a meal to that bhikkhu, thinking he is an Arahant, has genuine faith (saddha.)
- In both cases, the javana power in one’s cittas (thoughts) is what counts. In the first case, those javanas are defiled greatly by greed. While knowing that the Buddha has taught that such a false declaration is an anantariya kamma, one must have a truly defiled mind to make such a declaration.
- In the second case, the Buddha has mentioned in many suttas that even offering to a bhikkhu who may be corrupt will not deter one’s merits as long as one intends to make the offering to the Sangha who represents the Buddha.
- There is no need to invoke the explanation for the first question here. Nature cannot/does not “interfere” in any situation; “interfere” implies an intention. Nature runs automatically based on Paticca Samuppada.
2 users thanked author for this post.
-
So it means that the offering is made to the Qualities of the Sangha which the Bhikkus represent, not to that Bhikku as an individual, but to the quality.
If a female gives alms to a Bhikku who has lustful thoughts towards that female, if the female is giving to the Qualities that the Bhikku is representing, she would receive immense merits.
But if she gives the alms to the Bhikku as an individual, to only that person, then the merits would be not that great as his mind is corrupted, purity is not there.
Am I right?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
- Exactly Yash! Offering to the Sangha is much more meritorious than offering to a single Bhikkhu. Even Lord Buddha told his adoptive mother that she would get more merit by offering it to the Sangha than to him alone. Read the Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasutta. It is not for nothing that it is said that the Sangha is the supreme field of merit. A person who offers to the Sangha with a pure heart and a good understanding of the Dhamma accumulates an immeasurable amount of Kusulas. You can see many arahants recounting how they offered donations in the Sasanas of the past. Read the Thera and Theri Gatha.
Sangha Vandana
Supati-panno Bhagavato sâvaka sangho, Ujupati-panno Bhagavato sâvaka sangho.
Ñâya-patipanno Bhagavato sâvaka sangho. Sâmici-patipanno Bhagavato sâvaka sangho
Yadidam cattâri purisa yugâni attha-purisa-puggalâ Esa Bhagavato sâvaka sangho.
Âhu-neyyo, pâhu-neyyo, Dakkhi-neyyo,añjalikaraniyo, anuttaram puññakkhetam lokassâti
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
- It’s important to consider the recipient’s disposition when donating. For instance, if a bhikkhu is tempted by luxurious robes, it’s better to offer a simple robe. Similarly, if we know that a bhikkhu has certain attachments, such as a strong liking for refined food, it’s wise to offer simple meals to avoid reinforcing those attachments.
- Even when our intentions are good, we can still make mistakes. For instance, offering money to a bhikkhu is not appropriate. If the bhikkhu accepts the money, it is considered unwholesome. This kind of action can lead to the corruption of the Sangha and the premature decline of the Sasana. That’s why it’s important for lay people to also learn about Vinaya. If a person didn’t know, it’s still an unwholesome action, but the impact will be less. Offering any inappropriate items to the Sangha is not right, even if done with the best intentions.
3 users thanked author for this post.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.