The ethics and implications of giving and receiving alms

The Watercooler
21

On your question about the deception of living on alms.

I mostly live in a monastery and the food ‘magically’ shows up from our faithful supporters or our kitchen team. On the chances I have had to go for random alms round I have alway had such an amazing time and met some extraordinary people. Most aren’t buddhist. They aren’t looking to make merit, they just feel the joy in giving and rejoice in the simplicity of monastic life.

Wearing the robes is a sign of a very simple and pure way of living. It’s a symbol non-buddhists recognise on some level. You can live similarly as a lay person, but that isn’t visible. Symbols are powerful and the world needs simplicity and peace.

If I go to collect alms I give myself all morning. People will invariably stop and have a long chat, because they can see I am someone not in a hurry to dismiss them. The most valuable things I’ve collected on alms round are the stories people have shared with me. The people who give food do so without me asking. They might see me turning down money and be curious why I would do such a thing and come and ask what I am. Most haven’t seen a ‘lady monk’ before.

If you are not sure about the joy of giving, then I would suggest doing some volunteer work. If you don’t think the sangha are deserving then volunteer somewhere else; a soup kitchen, animal shelter or old-folks home. Volunteering has always brought me such joy!

5 Likes
22

Thank you. As I mentioned before, my concern wasn’t about giving, but about receiving. I have done years of volunteer work, so I understand the value from that.

I don’t necessarily agree that you need a symbol for people to recognise goodness and peace. Similar to yourself, I’ve had many satisfying encounters with people, I think we recognise goodness in other people and reach out and connect automatically.

Lately I have been practising being as nice to people as I possibly can, and it’s gratifying to see the response. When I was working, I made it a point to talk and be nice to all the people that most don’t notice - the janitor, the doorman, the security guard. Nowadays, I apply it to complete strangers. Kindness and friendship is automatic, the best giving is when one has no expectations or conditions, it comes from the heart.

My issue with giving and receiving alms is that whether we like it or not, it is a structured giving, like a church collection. Whilst I would like to think some people will do it from the heart, the structure of the process will necessarily overload the merit and the transference of goodwill.

I find it even harder to accept when the receiver expects it, or even think that it is their due and entitlement. Or when the giver expects a blessing, or a fortune told, or forgiveness for a sin. I have seen the bad side of alms at temples, from both givers and receivers to know that it is common, and a way of life.

PS and Addendum: I do also want to comment on your statement about the food appearing “magically”. Yes, this does tend to happen in a large monastery, especially in an area where the daily collection of alms may not be practical. This actually exacerbates the issue in my opinion - since it now creates a disconnect between the giver and receiver. After a while, the tendency is we take it for granted, it is part of life, we “forget” that every morsel of that food at the end of the day came from the generosity of someone. Soon, we feel it is our entitlement, and we “forget” that it is a debt that potentially should be repaid. Of course, I am not saying this is how you, or necessarily any other individual, think. But I have seen it before in others. Tons of food go wasted every day in some monasteries, but the monks/nuns don’t think about it - it’s someone else’s problem. If it was a for profit operation, someone would manage supply and demand but when it’s a religious tradition it’s much harder to say enough to givers and perhaps the receivers don’t necessarily appreciate that every grain of rice that is thrown away could have fed a needy mouth in the community.

23

I think I forgot to respond earlier, but I agree completely with you on this. The act of begging for and receiving alms seems natural, but effectively what a bhikkhu or bhikkhuni does is ask someone else to do all the karmic resultant actions in terms of procuring and making food, so that the receiver does not incur any karmic burden. This is an enormous debt when one thinks about it, multiplied by all the centuries that this has happened, and the end result is zero - we’ve had zero arahants, so the debt has never been repaid.

When one looks at the impact on Buddhist countries, this debt accumulated over centuries has taken its toll - these countries are dysfunctional compared to their neighbours. Violence, corruption, genocide and political upheaval have made these countries some of the most unstable in the world. Worse still are reports that monks/nuns have participated or even encouraged the genocide of marginal groups (whether they be Tamils or Rohingyas). In Burma, the tradition is for all males to undergo ordination for a period, much like national service in other countries, but it has not created a kinder, gentler society but one that is very much the opposite. I could go on, and some might say correlation does not imply causation, and they would be right, but all is not well.

24

This means the receiver (monk) hasn’t understood about the food (ahara). See AN 3.16. But a giver can still purify the offering if the precepts have been observed by them.

And how does a mendicant eat in moderation?

It’s when a mendicant reflects rationally on the food that they eat: ‘Not for fun, indulgence, adornment, or decoration, but only to sustain this body, to avoid harm, and to support spiritual practice. In this way, I shall put an end to old discomfort and not give rise to new discomfort, and I will live blamelessly and at ease.’ That’s how a mendicant eats in moderation.

Similarly the giver hasn’t understood why the gift of meal donation is being given. Usually, the giver will get little to no benefit from the gift/dana as well.

Gift/dana needs to be given with wisdom.

If you see a temple has received many food donation, maybe it is not wise to give extra. It is possibly better to help in other way. Or give to a temple who need more help such as other temples (especially those who doesn’t have famous “monk” or “teacher” or “guru”).

I have seen at one time, a famous monk meal donation is like eating in a big feast for 1 person. I reflected well, possibly this monk will no need extra. So i go for others that may need it more.

The best of course if there is still (ariya) sangha, then one can be for sure know they are supporting true dhamma.

25

I think this is a perfect example of why the system can lead to potential issues.

Of course, in a perfect world, one would sincerely hope all givers have pure motives, and all receivers are properly thankful and find a way to repay that debt in the future.

Ironically, it is the person who gives daily alms which are more modest who is probably purer, but this person can be easily overlooked and forgotten. It is the provider of the big feast who is remembered, even though their motives may well be questionable.

Similarly for large donations from people with questionable reputation or a shady past. It creates a moral dilemma, do we just close one eye or question their motives? What if the donation was the difference whether a monastery can sustain itself or not?

I’ll stop now because I think I am starting to focus on the negatives. I like to think in the majority of cases, goodwill is genuine and merit is accumulated on both sides.

26

Well, this has been a very interesting discussion… I wanted to read it again before commenting! I contemplated ordination in the past as well and have compromised to a laylife, with a “Right Livelihood” and following most of the precepts (a drink with meals occasionally being a vice I admit :)!

When my father taught me Buddhism 40 years ago he made a very specific point of saying it isnt begging, as Monastics here have also pointed out. I think language and stigma is much more powerful than given credit (I have issues with us using the word “nun” as well as Bhikkhunis are not the same as Catholic nuns*
(**Buddha ordained women using the exact words for men, other than the feminine declension, he had female chief disciples, he had the 10 foremost laywomen list alongside the 10 foremost laymen list and there are tens of thousands of female Noble Ones in the texts, and female authors in the scriptures as well as male…I dont know what else people could ask of the Buddha??? Asking that he then makes the next 2,500 years of human expression of his teaching “perfect”, I would argue, shows a lack of understanding of the very first of the Noble Truths…“Samsara be samsara” you might say- ie what exactly did you think was going to happen to Buddhism in the next 2+ millenia??? You didn’t expect contamination of what the Buddha said once unenlightened beings got involved!!!)

Establishing the sangha this way in my reflection on the topic for many decades actually, was brilliant. This contributed to:

  1. humility- (sangha is dependent on layfolk so wholesome monastics would be supported and others not, like a Darwinian incentive to excellence)
  2. health- (we now know that prolonged periods of fasting are actually healthy
  3. mediation- in my personal experience not eating dinners has greatly helped my evening meditations)
  4. generosity- providing a means for anyone, even the poor, to give to something that is worthwhile is an incredible thing. I recall somewhere in the text a beggar offering something v small and the Buddha (or ?Sariputta) stating this was an incredibly powerful karma (ie action).
    That is not to say it is perfect…nothing is. But look at the alternative, working for money, then you want more, then one monk will be competing with another to have a bigger temple etc etc.

My view is that you do whatever you think is right, but I am very glad to be born in a time with the teaching still available and a Sangha that is “striving diligently”. To suggest that it isn’t valuable as we don’t have Enlightened beings is (not withstanding the inherent assumption there…how do you know?) a bit like saying its not worth eating in moderation and engaging in exercise unless you win a Gold Medal at the Olympics…

Anyway, I hope you look after yourself (Buddha advised we are one of the beings we can be generous to after all), eat healthily and if that means eating in the evenings there is nothing “immoral” about that and keep struggling along the path like the rest of us…its better than the alternative of blindly being swept up by Samsara and chasing its sensations like a child running after bubbles :slight_smile:

1 Like
27

Thanks for your contribution, and I am glad you took the time to read it carefully before responding.

Just a point on begging … The word “bhikkhu” literally means “one who begs” and begging is an important aspect of renunciation and joining the sangha. Whilst bhikkhus and bhikkhunis do not literally “beg” in the same way that we normally associate with beggars, the concept is important.

When one becomes a bhikkhu, one not only renounces worldly possessions and a worldly life, one places one’s future literally in the hands of others. A bhikkhu will not survive without the support of the lay community, the bhikkhu is “begging” to be allowed to realise the truth under the gracious hospitality of others.

This is a very important point, and to deny that bhikkhus beg is to lose the significance of the sacrifice that is made both by the bhikkhu and the generosity of society in supporting that bhikkhu.

Yes, it is true that Bhikkhus are not monks and Bhikkhunis are not nuns, translations are never perfect, but sometimes it’s easier to use to closest English words to avoid too many mixed language words in a sentence. I hope you will forgive me for this.

As for whether there are any living arahants or not, I don’t know. If you know of any, do let me know. When I asked the question previously, no one could name a single arahant. Some believe they exist, but have not declared themselves. As I mentioned, many believe there has not been a single arahant for over 2000 years, and that it is impossible to be enlightened without a Buddha currently.

I remain open to the possibility that this is not true, and I certainly wish it wasn’t, but I am careful in not letting my wishes influence my actions. What I do know is that there is no concrete evidence that a single monk from any monastery has achieved enlightenment in living memory, and therefore this cannot be the path for me, and therefore a different path must be found.

Clearly, the Dhamma has been corrupted - we all know that, even though some of us choose to brush that aside. We don’t know how it is corrupted, and in what way, that is part of the problem. I don’t think it was done intentionally.

I suspect part of the issue is that puting the Dhamma in writing has contributed to the corruption. It may not be a coincidence that the last known arahant lived around the same time as the texts were written down (very roughly). It may well be that in writing the texts down, we fossilised them and they became subject to misinterpretation. Maybe the teachings became over-rigid and therefore not effective.

We also get hung up on words and it’s so easy to misinterpret them. Look at all the arguments on this forum about self vs non self, what exactly is nibbana, and whether it is nothing or something. We argue about the minutiae of the specific meanings of words and we lose sight that the Buddha never intended those words for us 2500 years later, they were specifically directed at individuals in his time and were targeted to suit those individuals.

I get the feeling that there isn’t a single structured path to realisation. It is different for each individual. Reading the suttas may give the impression if we only do steps 1 to n (in the correct sequence) we will be enlightened. This is clearly not working, otherwise there will be hundreds and thousands of arahants.

That’s why I have chosen an independent path. No one can teach me how to be enlightened, and it can’t be found just by reading the suttas. I have to read the suttas, understand what they mean, and then use them as a reflection point on what I need to do.

Thank you for your well wishes. I am feeling a lot better, but a bit guilty that I have been neglecting my studies lately due to ill health. The important thing is moderation, I’ve now become even more convinced that the “middle” path is the key, and to avoid extremes. It is important to incorporate the world around us as we progress, the path isn’t about seclusion and asceticism as the Buddha found out the hard way. Even after enlightenment, the Buddha travelled around his world and interacted with people.

I wish you the very best in your own path and hope you will succeed. Indeed, I hope everyone will succeed.

28

Ah… Negative if the thought create action that make one go into dukkha mode. However analyzing bad thoughts and good thoughts are not.

Try to understand what dhamma vicaya (analysis of experience) or yoniso manasikara (looking to the source with attention) means. These will lead to wisdom. But if you continue to brush off and scare of analyzing the experience, well there will never be any knowledge that lead to wisdom.

See MN 19, although this sutta is very high level for one who is near unification of mind only.

Good luck.

1 Like
29

Thanks for the concern. I think you are over reading what I say - I am just commenting that one needs to have a balanced perspective - too much focus on the negatives or the positives are not desirable. Not from a Buddhist perspective, but simply from a rational thinking perspective. I don’t know whether you are aware of the “Six Thinking Hats” technique for parallel thinking, the Black Hat is powerful, but needs to be used with caution and in conjunction with the other hats.

I would also thank you for recommending what to read, but as I’ve explained I need to follow my path. I prefer not to be influenced by others, and to sort out what I need to read myself. Part of this is a desire to apply a critical thinking process to understanding the suttas - I am not accepting them at face value but adopting an open but questioning mind. It’s not about faith or doubt, it’s simply a process that the Buddha himself advocated.

I would suggest unless you really know someone else, what they know or may not know, where their mindset is, it’s best not to give advice, because the advice may be well meaning but is inappropriate. The strength of the Buddha was that he knew exactly the right thing to say that will trigger realisation. Until we ourselves are enlightened, we are not in a similar position of knowledge and insight. Part of the difficulty in trying to attain enlightenment without a Buddha is that we end up chasing red herrings and getting wrong views.

Realisation is not a structured process - if you read the accounts of those that achieved enlightenment, everyone is different. Realisation can happen in an instant, as everything clicks together in place. It is important not to treat the suttas as a structured set of teachings. They were delivered specifically to certain individuals and tailored to them. They may or may not be appropriate for someone else, and it’s important we understand that. That’s why it’s important to apply critical thinking when reading the suttas. Whilst there is a tradition of memorising or chanting them, this was originally for the purpose of preserving them, not necessarily as an educational aid.

30

Hello, “…she sad you was an old soul” yet in the buddhism of Siddartha Gautama there’s no soul. You’re an old mental body, an old sentient samsaric flux. As for the rest i feel that giving/ receiving alms with the right attitude is good for kamma.

31

Those were her words, not mine.

By the way, you are not quite correct. The Buddha said that to say there is an “atta” (self, not soul) is not correct, but at the same time to say there isn’t an “atta” is also not correct. It’s a bit more complicated, and this subject has been discussed numerous times.

This is why it is important to understand the suttas carefully - it is so easy to develop wrong views.

Also I don’t think the Buddha is called “Siddartha Gautama”. Gotama is the clan name, not the family name. Siddhattha was the given name prior to awakening, and not usually used for the Buddha post awakening. Probably best to just say “Buddha”, or if you want to be pedantic “Gotama Buddha”

32

There are different ways of naming the Buddha. As for atta and Anatta it’s not complicated at all. Atta equates to identifying to the (present) body. Whilst the understanding and integration of anatta makes the mental crystallization which is atta “melting” - which is already quite liberating in itself. Now “the soul” as the creation of a G(g)od (a divine “spark” and so on…) or as a part of that G(g)od, I think that the Buddha wouldn’t agree with such…

33

Given the many debates and discussions on this, I would not be so sure.

As I understand it, “atta” has a very specific meaning, corresponding to the Brahman notion of an “eternal self” that transcends rebirth. It doesn’t correspond to the usual translations of “self, soul, spirit” etc.

The Buddha specifically rejected the Brahman notion of atta, but he does not reject the idea of a “self” entirely. He merely stated that it is a wrong view to say that atta exists, but there are also wrong views to say atta does not exist, or that atta exists AND not exist, or atta neither exists nor not exist.

From this therefore one cannot say there is no atta, since that is one of the statements the Buddha say is a wrong view.

The Buddha also says the “self” that we normally associate with ourselves, based on the five aggregates, is not the “atta” as it is impermanent. This is crucial as it means that no aspect of our personality or consciousness survives past a rebirth.

To many people, they can’t think of a notion of a “self” that excludes their personality, thoughts, memories and therefore conclude there must be no self.

But the Buddha does not explicitly exclude that there may be a notion of self that does transcend rebirth. He just doesn’t explain what it is. Indeed, one can postulate that there needs to be a “container” for holding kamma, otherwise there is nothing to link successive lives to the same entity. However, we do not know anything about this “container” other than it cannot be “personal” in the sense that we normally perceive a “self”

Anyway, enough rambling. I don’t think one will truly resolve this issue until one attains nibbana. I actually suspect the concepts of atta and nibbana are somehow linked, and we will understand the relationship upon awakening.

1 Like
34

“But the Buddha does not explicitly…perceive a self.”

Yes,very good. There are much many commonalities than it seems at a first sight in our respective ramblings.
P.S. some Sri Lanka buddhists translate atta and anatta differently from the most common translations.

35

I am not sure this is an accurate representation of what I said. If you are trying to quote the whole paragraph, maybe say so explicitly, because the dotted elision seems to create a phrase that is the opposite of what I said.

Anyway, I would strongly recommend studying the suttas in Pali, and avoid any potential misunderstandings. Even the best translations miss out on the nuances and the context of the original words.

36

Right, I think the Buddha uses words like dispassion, the uninclined, emptiness, signless, unconditioned to refer to this dimension. This has nothing to do with our personal inclinations, habits, disposition, tendencies. Now i leave this, because we get off topic.

37

If I understand you correctly, I think you are thinking along similar lines to me when I said the notion of a self may be linked to the concept of nibbana. But as far as I know, the Buddha never used these words to describe a “self” - he has only described a self in terms of what it is not.

I think both a concept of self and a concept of nibbana are essentially undescribable, because there is not a frame of reference for us to understand - like describing colours to a blind person.

Best wishes to your journey - I have been reading some of your posts in other threads with interest.

1 Like
38

Thanks Christie, wish you a good journey too.

I think the crux of the idea of self is that we always seek a nice home for ourselves. We want to make a peaceful mind as our home, or an open mind, an empty mind, a sorrowless mind, a happy mind, a joyful mind, a bright mind etc. We want to be in this home forever, or at least as long as possible.
But all these homes are constructed and liable to cease. Also the homes of Buddha teachers was like that. Nice, but still a home in decay.

I believe Buddha understood and felt that a real home cannot be a constructed home. He gave up this search for a constructed home. He realised, i believe, that whatever one makes ones home, or self (me, mine, myself), that becomes the base for suffering. Real home is like being homeless, also mentally.
In no fixed state of mind.

If one makes peace ones home, that will become a cause of suffering. If one makes emptiness ones home the same. Whatever one makes ones home, will turn out as suffering.
The clue seems to be that whatever one makes ones (fixed) home that makes one also inflexible, rigid.

1 Like
39

I agree with you.

Essentially the desire for self is a desire for permanence, and self-preservation, which is a craving. It’s the fundamental driving force for all living things. We will not progress until we learn to let go.

Unfortunately, many of us (including me) say the words, but deep inside we still crave and desire. I still crave for happiness, and beauty, and ultimately life. Again, I think following the middle road is important. I can’t deny these cravings, but I can recognise them for what they are - just cravings.

Some Buddhists seem to think the solution is to reject everything that is pleasant and focus on the unpleasant. I think this is a wrong view. We are born as humans so that we have the opportunity to experience both the pleasant and the unpleasant and realise the truth that neither are permanent.

3 Likes
40

Here is the whole paragraph. Which i find correct.

Since the Pali Canon began to be compiled approximately 300 years after the Buddha’s death, until then his teachings had been transmitted orally, which already presupposes interpretations and the like, the only “certainty” we can have is, for example, that its content is certainly more authentic than the “Lotus Sutra” vis-a- vis of what the Buddha actually wanted to convey. Therefore, in conclusion, postulating that only those who know Pali are able to better understand the Buddha’s work is elitism and therefore egotism.

In terms of written support, the best up-to-date translations, are more than enough. Plus intuition (for this is also a matter of kamma), right faith and dedication.

Some other indispensable instruments for understanding the Buddha’s work are the daily practice and study of the noble eightfold path, the 4 noble truths, Tilakkhana’s contemplation, “Mindfulness” according to Satipatanna Sutta and the practice of meditative absorption (jhana).

Summing up a lot…