Sharing merits, is it really useful for the departed one?

[Metta8]

I want to ask…sharing merits, is it really useful for the departed one?
Thank you

[raivo]

Generally your good actions and their results are your own and it’s not really possible to transfer them to other beings.

But in AN 10.177 the Buddha says that dead relatives can partake in offerings of food if they are reborn as hungry ghosts. Perhaps that is also applicable to other kinds of offerings such as thoughts of loving kindness etc.

“Then there is the case where a certain person takes life, takes what is not given, engages in sensual misconduct, engages in false speech, engages in divisive speech, engages in abusive speech, engages in idle chatter, is covetous, bears ill will, and has wrong views. With the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the realms of the hungry shades. He lives there, he remains there, by means of whatever is the food of hungry shades. He lives there, he remains that, by means of whatever his friends or relatives give in dedication to him. This is the possible place for that gift to accrue to one staying there.

“But, Master Gotama, if that dead relative does not reappear in that possible place, who partakes of that gift?”

“Other dead relatives, brahman, who have reappeared in that possible place.”

“But, Master Gotama, if that dead relative does not reappear in that possible place, and other dead relatives have not reappeared in that possible place, then who partakes of that gift?”

“It’s impossible, brahman, it cannot be, that over this long time that possible place is devoid of one’s dead relatives. But at any rate, the donor does not go without reward.

[dharmacorps]

Raivo said it. Since you can’t know for certain what realm someone ended up in (unless you are a Buddha), its best to make offerings to the departed. Probably best to do more of it for someone who engages in unskillful conduct.

[awarewolf]

I know that it helps me …, and the rest is a more or less qualified hope for something more

that’s not perfect, but about in the middle of the road somewhere …

I rest my in my case!

[ERose]

To think one’s efforts do not have effect, or that there are selves, is to feed delusion.

In other words, it is really useful, yes, have confidence in that, and do actually meritorious activities not just rites and rituals; become through word and thought and action; keep the training precepts, gradually becoming, as life exists…

With Metta, may all beings be happy, may all beings be well, may all beings be free.

[awarewolf]

It is just one single movement in right direction, but no one is moving back, forward or standing still now

[Gabriel_L]

Related to the topic’s question, I share below links to two interesting and related topics previously discussed here in D&D:

Sharing merit: a note on puñña and puññamahī

The concept of puñña, merit, and the offering or dedication thereof, is a central one in Buddhist culture. The idea is that by doing good one creates merit, experienced as happiness in future lives. While this teaching is central in the Early Buddhist Texts, the later traditions came to emphasize the idea of making merit on behalf of another. This idea is obviously problematic in the context of the teachings of kamma, which emphasize that one is the owner of one’s own deeds (kammasakomhi). Ther…

Sharing of Merit: Offerings To the Dead

Hello everyone, I would like to share with you all some interesting answers presented by the legendary Ven. Nagasena to the sceptical King Menander I Soter on the topic of dedication of merits to the dead: ‘Venerable Nāgasena, these givers when they bestow their offerings, devote them specifically to former (relatives) now departed, saying: “May this gift benefit such and such.” Now do they (the dead) derive any benefit therefrom?’ ‘Some do, O king, and some do not.’ ‘Which then are the…

[Gabriel]

I find the idea of sharing merits very problematic. It’s such a blatant breach of the ownership of kamma, and connects just very well with the sraddha ritual of brahmanism. It’s ‘religious’ in the sense of pure belief and doesn’t ‘invite us to see’. It has to be taken on pure faith and makes laity dependent on rituals.

We should at least collect also the passages that are incompatible, namely the simile in SN 42.6 with the oil in the water. Or that one is heir of one’s kamma, “beings are owners of their actions, heirs of their action”, AN 5.57, AN 5.161, AN 10.48, AN 10.216, MN 57, MN 135

[awarewolf]

It’s all about giving it all, all the time!

[ERose]

ah you think individuals actually exist. interesting.