SuttaCentral
How would you define “merit”?
What are you claiming “cannot be shared”?
It seems that he is proposing that “food and other gifts can be shared”?
@Ceisiwr Does that mean that you think that “merit” is defined as “food and other gifts”?
I think defining merit could help clarify this the topic of this thread. What is the Pali word? What is the literal and intended meaning?
Maybe that could shed some light on this?
https://suttacentral.net/define/puñña
Merit sharing or transfer contradict Buddhist law of kamma which said each individual being is the owner of his/her own kamma and the heir of his/her own kamma.
Maybe it is worth considering what is found in Milinda Pañña of Pali Canon and Nāgasena Bhikṣu Sūtra of the Chinese Canon.
This topic from a few years back looked at that.
It is interesting that Kathavatthu denied possibility food or other gift can be shared to the death:
Inviting the petas to come and rejoice in the good deep, thus benefiting them through the generation of wholesome kamma.
Later he change his mind and propose food sharing:
I didn’t change my mind at all. I said that its not a transfer of merit but a sharing of merit, in the sense of inviting the petas to share in the rejoicing of the good deed.
It is interesting that Kathavatthu denied possibility food or other gift can be shared to the death:
The Kathavatthu objection centred around the petas being literally sustained by the nutriment in the food.
I am confused
Do you define merit as “good deeds” or “food and/or gifts”?
Do you define merit as “the giving of gifts” and the “gifts that are given”?
This way I can understand what you are claiming can be “shared” or “transferred” or etc.
Good deeds are intentional acts (kamma), as would be rejoicing in the good deeds and merit of others.
So how can one’s “good deeds” be “shared with others”?
Could you provide a common sense example how an intentional action can be “shared” or “transferred”?
I said it isn’t transferred. You invite the petas to come and rejoice in your good deed, thus they create good kamma.
Thanks for clarifying.
Are you “sharing” “your own good deed with them”?
Or are you “encouraging” them to “do their own good deeds” by “rejoice in your good deed.”
Also, there seems to be a discrepancy between:
and
Is one sharing “food and other gifts” with the petas?
or
Is one sharing “one’s own good deeds or ‘merit’” with the petas?
I am not seeing how “inviting petas to rejoice in your good deed” is related to “sharing” - that seems to be “inviting,” not “sharing.”
One invites the petas to rejoice in ones act, thus encouraging them to create good kamma which benefits them.
Where is the part where “one’s own good deeds/merit” gets “shared” with another being?
They come to share in the act by way of rejoicing in the act. If I attend a wedding I am rejoicing in the act of the bride and groom getting married. We are sharing a moment as a condition for rejoicing.
It seems when we share merits with others in our mind or dedicate by reciting verses of dedication , the other being may have benefits from it in certain way . The petas didnt rejoice in ones act because they do not know it when we perform the dedication until they felt some obvious changing in their state of being . And in the case of foods offering , certain petas may benefits from it by sniffing the smells .
So it seems like you are re-phrasing “sharing the good act/good deed/merit” as “share in the act” and then equating that with “rejoicing in the act.”
So now where do you make an argument that “one’s own good deeds/merit” itself are the very things that are being “shared” the way that “food and other gifts” can be shared, right?
Can this be found in the EBT’s?
At this point I would merely be repeating myself.
In the Janussonin Sutta, the Buddha states that food offerings to the dead cannot reach them if they are reborn in hell, as animal, as human or as devas (heavanly beings). However, food offerings to the dead would reach them or other ancestors who are born as hungry ghosts or petas.
You have literally been repeating your claim again and again as opposed to providing any actual reasoning or evidence for your claim.
I really couldn’t be any clearer. I’m sorry if you are having trouble understanding. Merit is not “transferred”. A person will give gifts or will do a meritous deed. They then invite the petas to rejoice in this act. That very act of rejoicing is good kamma for the peta. If you still do not understand it then I’m afraid this conversation has exhausted itself, since I cannot explain it any other way than what I have done already.
I often feel like you seem more interested in “defending Theravada Buddhist dogma and positions” than you are interested in learning and figuring out what Dhamma-Vinaya the Buddha actually taught.
Its best not to try to psycho-analyse me, or others for that matter. It will likely result in failure, which this just has. My motivations are also irrelevant to the argument, as are yours. Play the ball, not the man.
You seem to claim that one’s actions/merit can be shared.
But instead of showing how one’s actions can be shared with another being such that they can receive and possess it (which is what shared means), it seems like you just redefined the word “shared” to defend the claim that “merit can be shared” rather than merely acknowledging that material resources and Dhamma can be shared, but merit cannot be.