I do know alms giving is a chance for lay people to do good deeds, however I do not see the right intention of the monk. I feel the compassion is one sided. A lay person becomes homeless not because he has compassion for the lay people, but for himself first. If his first intention is true, how can we say while receiving alms his intention has changed and now has compassion for lay people only so that he can survive, meditate and attain nibbana?
What if lay people did not exists? What would be the condition for a buddhist monk not to exist. As long as there are lay people, monks will exist too?
I feel there is a ego behind monks receving alms. It is explained that buddha wanted monks to spend more time meditating rather than cooking or growing own food.
The exchange and doubling of merits is a business minded solution. A lay person works very hard and it would not be proper to use anyone just to satisfy there own ego using a business minded approach very similar to slavery.
How different is a buddhist monk from a hindu brahman or a christian priest, where they always need an offering to satisfy there gods. May be the monks feel they have understood more, but the truth has not changed. The give and take has not stopped, the approach is same and the reason is not different either.
I feel the lay people giving alms is only satisfying the monk needs to attain nibbana. I do understand the good deed part, but out of compassion, I personally not want to receive food from someone who has taken so much effort to earn it.
Lay people are not slaves, do buddhist monks need food of lay people ?