the great vegetarian debate

[samseva]

Yeah, if you do a good thing for bad reasons, you're still doing a good thing.

Actually, it's rather the opposite. It's not black and white, and externally the result might be positive, but if you "do a good thing" for bad reasons, then ultimately it is still unwholesome kamma.

[lyndon taylor]

Yeah, if you do a good thing for bad reasons, you're still doing a good thing.

Actually, it's rather the opposite. It's not black and white, and externally the result might be positive, but if you "do a good thing" for bad reasons, then ultimately it is still unwholesome kamma.

You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

There are plenty of peodophiles in Asia who entice poor children by buying them food etc. Is it a good thing that they're doing?

[Coëmgenu]

Yeah, if you do a good thing for bad reasons, you're still doing a good thing.

Actually, it's rather the opposite. It's not black and white, and externally the result might be positive, but if you "do a good thing" for bad reasons, then ultimately it is still unwholesome kamma.

You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

I don't claim to be an expert in Buddhadharma. But if one were you rhetorically feed starving children for the selfish purposes of gaining fame and reputation (lets say you were being filmed while doing so), the positive karma of feeding the children doesn't "cancel out" the negative mindset generated by indulging in egoistic fame-seeking. Similarly, the negative mindset generated by indulging in egoistic fame-seeking does not negate the positive karma of feeding the children. They are both generated and the result will be either positive or negative, depending on the needs of the children being fed and how self-absorbed one is in regard to one's social standing/fame. Does this seem reasonable?

[lyndon taylor]

You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

There are plenty of peodophiles in Asia who entice poor children by buying them food etc. Is it a good thing that they're doing?

That's kind of an extreme example, no ones claiming people are being vegetarian in order to molest children, are they. The point is they are doing it for their own ego, that may not be good kamma for them, but its still good kamma for the animals they don't eat.

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

The point is they are doing it for their own ego, that may not be good kamma for them, but its still good kamma for the animals they don't eat.

I think you don't understand what kamma is. That animals get slaughtered for their meat is the resultant (vipāka) of their own previous kamma.

Even vegetarians who abstain from eating meat out of compassion cannot prevent animals being slaughtered by people who do not believe in kamma.

[samseva]

You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

For the action to be good, it must first be acted upon by a wholesome intention. Yes, with a third-person perspective, having fed starving children can be considered "good", and the children will be happy to eat some food. However, if the person did this with intentions based on greed, hate or delusion, the action is unwholesome.

[lyndon taylor]

You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

For the action to be good, it must first be acted upon by a wholesome intention. Yes, with a third-person perspective, having fed starving children can be considered "good", and the children will be happy to eat some food. However, if the person did this with intentions based on greed, hate or delusion, the action is unwholesome.

You don't get it either, the action is still good for the starving children irrespective of the intention of the giver.

[davidbrainerd]

You don't get it, if I do a good thing like feed starving children for bad reasons, It is still a good thing for the starving children, likewise with not eating animals, it is still a good thing for the animals you're not eating.

For the action to be good, it must first be acted upon by a wholesome intention. Yes, with a third-person perspective, having fed starving children can be considered "good", and the children will be happy to eat some food. However, if the person did this with intentions based on greed, hate or delusion, the action is unwholesome.

This reminds me too much of Calvinists saying that if you rescue a baby from a burning building without faith in Jesus then its a sin. Especially since you included "delusion" in your list.

Ok, so a rich guy takes a kid in for the publicity, I can see why he gets no merit out of that (compare with Jesus saying those who pray on the street corner to be seen of men have their reward in full). But delusion? So if the guy isn't an arhant perfectly free of delusion then he cannot earn merit by any good deed? Sounds fishy.

However, if the person did this with intentions based on greed, hate or delusion, the action is unwholesome.

For himself only though. Its not unwholesome in the absolute. Its 'unwholesome' only in that he cheated himself out of merit he could have made if his intentions had been right.

[Cittasanto]

(i) dark with a dark result,
(ii) bright with a bright result,
(iii) dark and bright with a dark and bright result,
(iv) neither dark nor bright with a neither dark nor bright result.
MN 57

[samseva]

You don't get it either, the action is still good for the starving children irrespective of the intention of the giver.

There is no action without a doer; there is no such thing as an action that floats in the air of which is considered "good". There has to be an intention from an individual, and if that intention is unwholesome, then that is unwholesome kamma. No matter if the children are happy to eat food, or some onlooker tells him or herself "Oh, how good of him to have done that", it's still unwholesome kamma (if the action was rooted in greed, hate or delusion).

[samseva]

This reminds me too much of Calvinists saying that if you rescue a baby from a burning building without faith in Jesus then its a sin. Especially since you included "delusion" in your list.

Ok, so a rich guy takes a kid in for the publicity, I can see why he gets no merit out of that (compare with Jesus saying those who pray on the street corner to be seen of men have their reward in full). But delusion? So if the guy isn't an arhant perfectly free of delusion then he cannot earn merit by any good deed? Sounds fishy.

However, if the person did this with intentions based on greed, hate or delusion, the action is unwholesome.

For himself only though. Its not unwholesome in the absolute. Its 'unwholesome' only in that he cheated himself out of merit he could have made if his intentions had been right.

You very much misinterpreted what I said.

It's basic teachings on kamma. What determines the quality of an action is the intention. And it's not because someone isn't Enlightened that this person is deluded 24 hours a day.

[Coëmgenu]

This reminds me too much of Calvinists saying that if you rescue a baby from a burning building without faith in Jesus then its a sin. Especially since you included "delusion" in your list.

Ok, so a rich guy takes a kid in for the publicity, I can see why he gets no merit out of that (compare with Jesus saying those who pray on the street corner to be seen of men have their reward in full). But delusion? So if the guy isn't an arhant perfectly free of delusion then he cannot earn merit by any good deed? Sounds fishy.

However, if the person did this with intentions based on greed, hate or delusion, the action is unwholesome.

For himself only though. Its not unwholesome in the absolute. Its 'unwholesome' only in that he cheated himself out of merit he could have made if his intentions had been right.

You very much misinterpreted what I said.

It's basic teachings on kamma. What determines the quality of an action is the intention. And it's not because someone isn't Enlightened that this person is deluded 24 hours a day.

Saying that it's "basic teaching" is not skillful. I recently argued with davidbrainerd, on the subject of Christian theology, not Buddhadharma, and appealed to authority by saying that it was "basic/elementary theology", and in hindsight, it was not skillful. Saying something is "basic/elementary" is not skillful, IMHO, and I don't claim to be an expert on Buddhadharma. Instead, I try to calmly present the relevant information in question and make them available, without condemnation. I won't pretend that my attachment to tradition, and my attachment to "Buddhism" doesn't cloud my judgement, but that is what I think is the best method. Not condemnation of someone as failing to understand "basic" (i.e. simple) teaching.

[lyndon taylor]

You don't get it either, the action is still good for the starving children irrespective of the intention of the giver.

There is no action without a doer; there is no such thing as an action that floats in the air of which is considered "good". There has to be an intention from an individual, and if that intention is unwholesome, then that is unwholesome kamma. No matter if the children are happy to eat food, or some onlooker tells him or herself "Oh, how good of him to have done that", it's still unwholesome kamma (if the action was rooted in greed, hate or delusion).

You seem to be under the illusion that actions only effect the doer and are of no consequence to the persons acted upon, the children eating that where starving will consider it a good deed no matter what the kamma of the doer.

[chownah]

You don't get it either, the action is still good for the starving children irrespective of the intention of the giver.

There is no action without a doer; there is no such thing as an action that floats in the air of which is considered "good". There has to be an intention from an individual, and if that intention is unwholesome, then that is unwholesome kamma. No matter if the children are happy to eat food, or some onlooker tells him or herself "Oh, how good of him to have done that", it's still unwholesome kamma (if the action was rooted in greed, hate or delusion).

You seem to be under the illusion that actions only effect the doer and are of no consequence to the persons acted upon, the children eating that where starving will consider it a good deed no matter what the kamma of the doer.

So are you saying that if a pedophile gives a child some candy (or maybe some pizza if you want to get nit pickey about what constitutes food) with the idea that the result will be a sexual encounter then there could be wholesome kamma coming from it?
chownah