Donations for right people right channel!

What do you think ?
If I were to donate my money ,
which is the best solution ?
Straight to the charitable
organizations ,
the proper Sangha ,
set up a foundation ?
Or directly to the sick and
poor when I encounter one ?

Trying to be nice , kind ,
good intention to help ,
in giving suggestions ,
polite , sharing ,
simply enquiring ,
all these can leads to
disastrous event in our lives .

Hmm , doing wholesome things
does not guaranteed good result
in this life .

1 Like

Not true!

One of my favorite charity.

1 Like

The other day , I want to
give some medicine to
a poor and sick person ,
he said to me what is behind
my motive in giving aids to him ?

This is Santification of the gift by the giver.

I suppose this is your question on
the dhamma Wheel .

~This helps to explain why gangsters, crooked businessmen and corrupt politicians in Theravadin lands are amongst the more generous and visible supporters of the Sangha. It is assumed that generosity to the Sangha is sufficient to qualify being a good lay Buddhist just as it is assumed that any evil one might commit can be easily cancelled out by doing the greatest good - giving to the Sangha. Such types can also be quite confident that their donations will be graciously accepted and that the sermons they hear afterwards will make reference to moral behavior only in the most abstract terms. ~

P/s :
Does the above statement proves
the Sanctification of any party ?

1 Like

If you give to an organization, make sure it has good audit history, accountability and transparency. provides all the needed info. about a particular organization like its program expenses, admin expenses, etc. Check it out before you give.


The way I understand:
It depends on the virtuousness of the giver and the receiver.
If the monk is virtues it will be sanctified by the monk.
If the giver has a wholesome motive that will be sanctified by the giver, even though he earned his money by corruption.

It seems the theory of kamma
didn’t explain everything’s .
There are a limitation to it .
Example , taking birth in
human plane is good kamma ,
everything good you encounter
is wholesome kamma ripening
now, this is same go as the
bad kamma. Supposedly you
get cancer , that’s your bad
kamma ripening now , but you
don’t accept it just like you accept
good things happen to you !

[quote=“James, post:10, topic:5834”]
It seems the theory of kamma didn’t explain everything. There are a limitation to it. Example … [/quote]

I agree that kamma doesn’t explain everything, but your example seems a bit unclear. Why would people’s different responses to pleasant vipākas and painful vipākas amount to a limitation on what kamma explains?

“Fixed” is probably not the right term for kamma. Sure, whenever there’s an action, there’ll be a re-action. But the intensity/severity of the reaction is not “fixed”. The Buddha explained it in the Salt Crystal Sutta - AN 3.99 and the Angulimala Sutta - MN 86 . Just like a sown mango seed is bound to germinate, but whether it’ll grow into a big strong tree with many sweet fruits or a small weak tree with few bland fruits will depend on many other factors like the soil quality, air quality, water quantity, amount of sunlight, farmer’s care, etc. So whenever something bad happens to you, don’t just sit there and blame it all on kamma. While it might be the ripening of unwholesome kamma, remember there’re still many other variables in the equation. What you’re actively doing right now decides how big and strong or how small and weak that “mango tree” will be.

Theory of kamma according to…whom? Care to provide sutta references and any backup literature?

[quote=“James, post:12, topic:5834”]
Theory of kamma:
Example, let’s say you are encountering bad kamma which is ripening now, why would you want to change something already fixed?[/quote]

I suppose because I have no idea what is fixed and what isn’t. If a crocodile grabs me by the leg, perhaps it’s a certainty that my unripened unwholesome kammas will lead to my being devoured, but I don’t know that. Perhaps the unripened kammas are enough to produce the pain of the bite but not enough to bring about my demise. Not knowing either way, the rational course is obviously to try to free my leg.

Not according to the Suttas, which limit the effects of kamma to the circumstances of one’s birth and some (though not all) of the pleasant and painful experiences one undergoes in the course of one’s life. The belief that all occurrences are due to kamma, though often encountered in folk Buddhism, was explicitly rejected by the Buddha.

Your question seems to assume that your past kamma has the power to cause the arising of a volition to kill in another person. But the Suttas don’t credit kamma with any such power.

[quote=“James, post:12, topic:5834”]Another example is, it doesn’t apply to arahant and Buddha!

I always wonder, how about the 99 persons killed by Angulimala, where they are going to claim their debts?[/quote]

Your question seems to assume that if Smith is the victim of an unwholesome kamma performed by Jones, then Jones’s vipāka can only be experienced at the hands of Smith. Again this is a notion that belongs to vulgar folk Buddhism rather than the Buddha’s teaching (though admittedly there is a bit of this sort of thing in the Pali commentaries, e.g., the background story to Dhp. 4).

If one must think of kamma and vipāka in terms of incurring and paying off debts (though I don’t recommend it, for it’s not a trope the Buddha ever used) then Aṅgulimāla’s victims were merely paying off some past debt of their own by getting killed; this doesn’t mean that their violent deaths turned them into anybody’s creditors.

1 Like

Sure, but that’s not the answer to explain why you said that our actions in the here and now “is not exactly the theory of kamma”. Since I have already provided sutta references to prove my point, I’m curious if you can provide any to back up yours.

No offense , first of all , I suppose
we don’t know for sure in regards
to above , there are a lot of
believes involved in this .
We can not prove to our
self with regards to future
and past lives , much less
to others . In other words,
It is a belief system ,
we are engaged in
a " closed loop " situation .
It is anybody guess , we are in the position of taking " something "
to be the " ultimate " in spite of
we can not confirmed
for sure everything that
is happening to us .
It appears " logically " to us ,
but not to the Christian ?

I am not in anyway advocating
anything , but being truthful
that I am ignorant in many
things . Not knowing , seems
to be fitting where the situation
we are in all the while .

Yes, I quite agree that the doctrine of kamma and vipāka is a religious faith claim.

Nonetheless, in deciding whether to accept it or not, it would be prudent to first acquire an accurate understanding of what it’s all about.

1 Like

If you don’t mind , first can
you tell me what meaning
is the term (act of) “knowing” ?

[quote=“James, post:21, topic:5834”]
If you don’t mind , first can you tell me what meaning is the term (act of) “knowing” ?[/quote]

The question is too vague and general. I can’t give you any meaning unless you give me some context.

If this belief or view is present, then it results in non-action - a kind of fatalism. The Buddha rejected this explicitly in AN 3.61:

[quote=“James, post:24, topic:5834”]
Oh OK , for example , if you look at a tree , immediately you say this is a tree , how does this so called "knowing " happens?[/quote]

If the question interests you, it will be better to consult those who’ve thought often and deeply about it, rather than someone like me whose interrogation of trees tends to be xylological rather than epistemological.

1 Like