Is offering alcohol, drugs and smokes etc to a friend or another person, making demerits for your self?

[binocular]

I read through your "dozen or more citations" and did not find one that directly mentions giving people things they want is good.

I, too, would like to see a canonical reference for the idea that giving people things they want is good.

[Kim OHara]

I read through your "dozen or more citations" and did not find one that directly mentions giving people things they want is good.

I, too, would like to see a canonical reference for the idea that giving people things they want is good.

Hi, binocular,
A while ago you wrote -

Is offering alcohol, drugs and smokes etc to a friend or another person, making demerits for your self?

Giving things to others that you wouldn't give to yourself, and the reason for you to not give those things to yourself is because you believe they are unhealthy or otherwise problematic -- that should be a no-brainer.

You wouldn't drink poison. Why would you give poison to other people -- unless you had the intention of poisoning them?

I agreed completely at the time (although I didn't say so) and would be perfectly content to leave it at that. Perhaps I should have done.
But since I didn't, let's see if we can make sense of it all.

Sarath's OP asked, "Is offering alcohol, drugs and smokes etc to a friend or another person, making demerits for your self?"
Since then, various members have used "creating bad kamma" as an equivalent to "making demerits" or have used "virtuous behaviour" and "doing good" as the opposite of "making demerits".

If these four terms are all exactly equal or opposite in meaning, I think the sutta extracts I posted do, in fact, answer Sarath's question.

If they are not, perhaps you can explain the differences. Let's be positive, for the sale of simplicity, and stick to the differences between "doing good", "virtuous behaviour", "behaviour with good kammic cosequences" and "merit-making behaviour".


Kim

[SarathW]

A person of integrity gives a gift without adversely affecting himself or others.

Yes, it makes sense.
I used to give alcohol as gift in the past.
Now I don't do it unless the person asks for it. (it does not mean I am going to give some poison to someone if they want to kill themselves)

[chownah]

Is offering alcohol, drugs and smokes etc to a friend or another person, making demerits for your self?
This is based on the following statement by Ven Pesala in another discussion.

==========

If he offers to the Tathāgata or to his disciples what is not allowable for them, this is the fifth way that he makes much demerit.

Yampi so Tathāgataṃ vā Tathāgatasāvakaṃ vā akappiyena āsādeti, iminā pañcamena ṭhānena bahuṃ apuññaṃ pasavati.
Jivaka Sutta

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=35488&start=15#p530682

I went to the link you present but found no exact reference to the jivaka sutta in question....I found a jivaka sutta but it is not majimanikaya and is on another topic entirely.....can you find a link that has the excerpt you brought?
chownah

[Kim OHara]

http://www.palikanon.com/pali/majjhima/maj055.htm
Near the end of 55.


Kim

[chownah]

Sarathw,
With respect to smokes, some well known and highly respected monks smoked tobacco and one supposes that sometimes they are either given some by other monks or they offer some to other monks......I have never heard of any questions of negative kamma (same thing as demerit from what I can find) with respect to these transactions....I'm pretty sure that any action resulting in negative kamma would be disallowed under vinaya rules.
chownah

[Kim OHara]

...I'm pretty sure that any action resulting in negative kamma would be disallowed under vinaya rules.
chownah

And you're going to find the appropriate citation for us, of course.


Kim

[chownah]

...I'm pretty sure that any action resulting in negative kamma would be disallowed under vinaya rules.
chownah

And you're going to find the appropriate citation for us, of course.


Kim

I don't think there is anything in the pali canon which supports what I posted....but if anyone finds anything which either supports what I said or which shows it is incorrect I would be glad to see it.
chownah

[Bhikkhu Pesala]

Negative kamma can be made in the mind only with lustful, angry, or deluded thoughts. There is no offence against the Vinaya that can be committed by mind only.

[binocular]

Negative kamma can be made in the mind only with lustful, angry, or deluded thoughts.

Is it possible to knowingly, deliberately offer someone alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes, but without lustful, angry, or deluded thoughts?

[Sam Vara]

Negative kamma can be made in the mind only with lustful, angry, or deluded thoughts.

Is it possible to knowingly, deliberately offer someone alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes, but without lustful, angry, or deluded thoughts?

I think so, yes. In the informal gift economy which operates in our village, I sometimes give people a bottle of wine. I just do it for appreciation and reciprocation. I don't desire anything in doing it, I don't feel angry, and there appears to be no more delusion than when giving other gifts.

[sentinel]

As a buddhist whom understand the dhamma if to give alcohol , drugs and cigarettes although not with lustful minds and not in angers but that is considered ignorant . An ignorant person do not understand to differentiate wholesome and unwholesome and one do not have the right thinking .

[binocular]

Is it possible to knowingly, deliberately offer someone alcohol, drugs, and cigarettes, but without lustful, angry, or deluded thoughts?

I think so, yes.

How?? Can you elaborate?
We're not talking here about the stupid baby boy lying on his back from MN 78.

I agree that it is possible to act in a manner as if one is on auto-pilot, or "spontaneously", and so then one's actions appear pure (enough) to oneself because one seems to be acting without (much) intention. But then there's the question of the nature of spontaneous actions of unenlightened beings; it seems they fall into the category of delusion/ignorance by default.

In the informal gift economy which operates in our village, I sometimes give people a bottle of wine. I just do it for appreciation and reciprocation. I don't desire anything in doing it, I don't feel angry, and there appears to be no more delusion than when giving other gifts.

But you know the drawbacks of intoxicants; at least here and there, you are aware of them. Maybe it's just that at the time of giving the wine, you aren't thinking of those drawbacks.
This not-thinking about the drawbacks of intoxicants, however, it's not something one can do deliberately or take credit for. Such non-recollection is not under one's control.

If one trains oneself in contemplating the drawbacks of something, the recollection of those drawbacks will eventually pop into one's mind as one is doing that thing with drawbacks. And so the type of innocence as mentioned above will not be possible.

[Sam Vara]

How?? Can you elaborate?

Yes, the example I provided is of me giving alcohol without having lustful, angry or deluded thoughts.

But then there's the question of the nature of spontaneous actions of unenlightened beings; it seems they fall into the category of delusion/ignorance by default.

I'm not sure what is meant here by "spontaneous". But if all actions of unenlightened beings are ipso facto deluded, then the bar is set so high that I can't really comment.

This not-thinking about the drawbacks of intoxicants, however, it's not something one can do deliberately or take credit for. Such non-recollection is not under one's control.

This "not-thinking" about something is not what I take to be delusion, either, which is what I responded to. If I take credit for anything, it's for the positive mind-state that accompanies the giving.

[binocular]

But if all actions of unenlightened beings are ipso facto deluded, then the bar is set so high that I can't really comment.

Setting the bar that high is no problem, unless one wishes to use one's (presumed) innocence as leverage against others.

This "not-thinking" about something is not what I take to be delusion

Well, one has either eradicated greed, hatred, and delusion, or one hasn't. One is either enlightened, or one isn't.

In the future, it could very well happen that the next time you give someone a bottle of wine, you will remember this conversation or the drawbacks of intoxicants. I'm curious what will happen then!