1. The Perfection of Generosity ^{[Dāna is a particularly difficult word to cover with one word. Here I have translated it as generosity, giving, gifts and offerings, as appropriate.]}

Two Kinds of Giving

The essential thing to know concerning the perfection of generosity (dāna-pāramī) is that anything which is given away or any act of giving is generosity (dāna). There are two kinds of giving:

Acts of giving out of pure faith are deeds of merit (puñña-visaya-dāna) and only such givings constitute the perfection of generosity.

But gifts given in pursuit of love or out of anger, fear, or foolishness etc. and even giving punishment, giving a sentence of death are worldly giving. They do not form part of perfection of generosity.

In connection with giving which would amount to an act of merit it is helpful to understand the differences and similarities between what is termed dāna, translated as “generosity,” and what is termed as pariccāga, translated as charity, or, renunciation through generosity.

In the Long Birth Story about the Golden Goose (Mahā-haṁsa-jātaka, Ja 534), an enumeration is given of the ten duties of a king: Generosity, morality, charity, justice, gentleness, self-control, not being angry, not being violent, forbearance, not being confrontational. We see therein that generosity and charity are listed separately.

According to the Birth Stories (Jātaka) commentary, there are ten objects which may be offered as alms: food, drink, transportation – which also includes such things as umbrellas, slippers or shoes, which are used while travelling – flowers, perfumed powder, scented unguent or ointment, beds, dwelling places, and facilities for lighting. The volition that prompts the giving of these alms constitutes generosity (dāna). The volition that accompanies the giving away of any other objects of alms is to be regarded as charity (pariccāga). Thus the differentiation here rests on the different kinds of the objects of alms.

But the sub-commentary of the Birth Stories (Jātaka), quoting the views of many teachers, says that “the giving of offerings with the prospect of enjoying good results in future lives is dāna; giving rewards to servants and service personnel, etc. in order to reap the benefits in the present life is pariccāga.”

A story that gives another illustration of the difference between generosity and charity is described in the commentary to the Basket of Conduct (Cariyā-piṭaka) and in the commentary to the Birth Stories (Ja 490). Briefly, the Bodhisatta was once a learned Brahmin by the name of Akitti. When his parents passed away, he was left with a vast accumulation of wealth. Deeply stirred by urgency, he reflected thus: “My parents and ancestors who have accumulated this great wealth have abandoned them and left, as for me, I shall gather only the substance of this accumulation and depart.” Then having obtained permission from the king, he had a drum beaten all over the country to proclaim the great gift he was going to make. For seven days, he personally gave away his riches but there still remained more.

He saw no point in presiding himself over the ceremony of distribution of his wealth, so leaving the doors of his mansion, treasure houses and granaries wide open, so that whoever wished might go and help themselves to whatever they liked, he renounced the worldly life and went away.

It may be said that in the above story, distribution of wealth personally by the Bodhisatta during the first seven days is an act of generosity (dāna), whereas abandoning of the remaining wealth after seven day’s personal distribution is an act of charity (pariccāga). The reason for such distinction is that for an offering to be an act of generosity (dāna), four conditions must be fulfilled: 1) A supporter; 2) objects to offer; 3) a recipient actually present to receive; and 4) the volition to give. The wise man Akitti’s distribution of wealth during the first seven days fulfils all these conditions. Hence, it is an [1523] act of generosity (dāna). After seven days had passed, he went away leaving his wealth before any recipient went near or arrived to actually receive the gifts. Hence, it is said that such offering should be regarded as charity.

In everyday practices which are not deeds of merit, when we give something to someone, we just say we “give;” the Pāḷi word is deti. But when we part with our property with the thought: “Let whoever wants it, take it; if no one wants it, then let it be,” it is not giving away but discarding or charity; in Pāḷi, it is not called dāna but cāga or pariccāga.

In short, when we hand over the possession of our property to another person, it is said to be given away or an act of generosity. When we relinquish the wish to possess the property which is our own, it is termed abandoning or discarding as one would cast aside anything which is of no more use.

Another method of differentiation is: Giving to noble persons is generosity (dāna); giving to persons of lower status is charity (pariccāga). Thus, when a king, in performance of the ten duties of a king, makes an offering to noble monastics, Brahmins, etc., it would be giving (dāna); when he offers alms to lowly beggars, it would be charity (pariccāga).

In this way, it should be noted how generosity (dāna) is distinguished from charity (pariccāga).

Where Giving and Charity are Similar

Although giving (dāna) and charity (pariccāga) are treated separately as in the list of the ten duties of a king, shown above, in ultimate truth, the two terms cannot be different from each other. When there is giving, there must be charity; when there is charity, there must be giving. The reason is that when an offering is made to a recipient, whether he is near or far, it is an act of giving (dāna). When the sense of ownership is banished from the mind at the time of giving, this relinquishment is charity (pariccāga). Thus, whenever someone makes a gift, it is always preceeded by the thought: “I will not make use of it any more,” which implies charity. Therefore, with deeds of merit, there is charity (pariccāga) always accompanying giving (dāna).

In the Chronicles of the Buddhas (Buddha-vaṁsa) also, in dealing with the ten perfections, the Buddha mentions only the perfection of generosity not the “perfection of charity (cāga)” because, as explained above, charity is included in an act of generosity. As the text of the Chronicles of the Buddhas deals only with the ultimate truth without considering the conventional usages, it mentions that making an offering to any recipients, whether of high, medium or low status, is generosity (dāna). It is incorrect to say that it is giving when an offering is made to a noble person and charity when the recipient is of low status.

Similarly, in the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya) and other Pāḷi texts, we find the enumeration of the seven riches of a noble person as follows: faith, morality, knowledge, charity (cāga), wisdom, conscience about doing evil, and concern about doing evil. There is only charity (cāga) in the list; there is no mention of giving (dāna) here because it is understood that generosity is included in charity (cāga).

These are even examples where dāna and cāga are mentioned without any distinction, with identical meaning.

Where Giving Is Termed Charity

Although any act of giving may generally be described as a perfection of generosity, great offerings of extraordinary nature are described in the texts as great charity (mahā-pariccāga). The great charity which consist of the five kinds of relinquishing of possessions are listed differently in different commentaries.

Commentaries on the Collection of the Long Discourses (Dīgha-nikāya), the Collection of the Middle Length Discourses (Majjhima-nikāya) and the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (Aṅguttara-nikāya) in explaining the meaning of the word Realised One (Tathāgata), list the great charities as follows:

The commentary to the Collection of the Middle Length Discourses (Majjhima-nikāya) in the exposition on the Short Discourse about the Lion’s Roar (Cūḷa-sīha-nāda-sutta, MN 11) gives a different list:

The sub-commentary to the Path of Purification (Visuddhi-magga) gives this list:

The sub-commentary to the Collection of the Long Discourses (Dīgha-nikāya), in exposition on the Long Discourse on the Traditions (Mahāpadāna-sutta, DN 14), gives this list:

The commentary to the This-Saids (Iti-vuttaka), in its exposition of the Discourse on the Complete Understanding of Delusion (Moha-pariññā-sutta, Iti 21), gives this list:

The commentary to the Chronicles of the Buddhas (Buddha-vaṁsa) gives this list:

The commentary to the Birth Story about the Great King Vessantara (Vessantara-jātaka, Ja 547) gives this list:

The same list is found in the sub-commentary to the Ornaments of the Victor (Jinālaṅkāra) but arranged in a different order.

Although each of the above lists is made up of slightly different items, it should be noted that the essentials are the same in all of them: external objects and one’s own body. Under external objects, we find material things apart from one’s own body, such as the relinquishing of wealth; relinquishing of wife and children, very dear to oneself; relinquishing of a kingdom, a most important treasure of one’s own. With regard to the relinquishing of one’s own body, it falls under two modes: One that does not endanger life, that is relinquishing of the limbs (aṅga-pariccāga), and the other endangers life, that is relinquishing of the eyes (nayana-pariccāga), or relinquishing of life (jīvita-pariccāga) and relinquishing of one’s own body (atta-pariccāga). Here, it is explained giving one’s own eyes or giving one’s own body involves the risk of losing one’s life, so these are considered to be essentially the same as giving one’s life.

The great ceremony of offering performed by King Vessantara when he gave away seven kinds of objects, 100 each in number, is described by the commentary as Great Generosity (Mahā-dāna) and not as Great Charity (Mahā-pariccāga). But one can argue that this great offering can be considered as one of the five great charities: a great relinquishing of wealth.

Miscellaneous Notes on Giving or Generosity

For the edification of those aspirants who ardently strive for attainment of perfect Self-Awakening of a Buddha, or for the Self-Awakening of a Paccekabuddha, or for the Awakening of a disciple of a Buddha, we provide herewith miscellaneous notes on different aspects of generosity, which forms a part of the conditions for obtaining Awakening. These notes are given in the form of answers to the following questions:

This form of treatment will be adhered to when dealing with the other perfections too.

1. What Things Are Called Generosity?

In brief, it should be answered that “the volition to give a suitable thing” is called generosity. The meaning will become clearer in the following passages.

2. Why Are They Called Generosity?

The volition is called generosity because it is responsible for an act of giving to take place. There can be no generosity without the volition to give; an act of generosity is possible only when there is the volition to give.

In this connection, by volition is meant:

How volition comes to be taken as synonymous with giving is based on the grammatical definition of: That which prompts giving is generosity (dīyati anenā ti dānaṁ).” Volition, here, is definitely the determining cause of generosity.

Things to be given are also called dāna from the grammatical definition: Objects which could be offered as alms (dīyatī ti dānaṁ).

Following these grammatical definitions, the texts of the canon mention two kinds of generosity: volitional generosity and material generosity. In this connection, questions have been asked why objects to be offered are called generosity, since only volition is capable of producing results and material objects are not. It is true that only volition is productive of results because volition is a mental action but as explained above, volition can be called generosity only if it arises when there exist suitable things to be given. Therefore, a material object for giving is also an important contributory factor for an act of giving to qualify as generosity (dāna).

For example, we say “rice is cooked because of the firewood.” Actually, it is the fire that cooks the rice. But there can be no fire without firewood. So fire burns because of firewood, and rice is cooked because of fire. Thus, taking into consideration these connected phenomena, it is not incorrect to say “rice is cooked because of firewood.” Similarly, we can rightly say “beneficial results are obtained because of objects of offering.”

Because things to be given away feature importantly in deeds of generosity, the canonical texts mention different types of generosity, depending on different objects to be offered. Thus, in expositions on the Vinaya, we find four kinds of generosity, since the Buddha allows four kinds of requisites to the Saṅgha, the offerings made to the Saṅgha are naturally listed under these four kinds, so there is this classification in the Vinaya expositions of four types of generosity, which is primarily based upon different kinds of objects of offering.

According to the classification in the exposition on the Abhidhamma, everything in the world comes under six categories, which correspond to the six sense objects, there are six kinds of generosity depending upon whether it is a gift of a visible object, sound, smell, taste, touch or mind-object. Here also, although there is no direct mention of the six kinds of generosity in the Abhidhamma teachings, if gifts were to be made of each of the sense objects, there would be six kinds of offering; hence this classification in the Abhidhamma expositions of six types of generosity.

In the Dhamma classification, there are ten kinds of generosity: offerings of various kinds of food, drink, transportation, flowers, perfumed powder, scented unguent or ointment, beds, dwelling places and facilities of lighting. Here again, the actual teaching in the discourses relates only to the ten classes of objects which may be offered as alms. But when these ten objects are offered as alms, there would be then ten kinds of offering; hence this classification in the discourses is of ten types of giving.

Maintaining that the Buddha teaches only these ten objects of offering, one should not consider that these are the only gifts to be given and that other gifts are not allowable. One should understand that the Buddha merely mentions the ten things most commonly offered as alms in practice; or as any material thing can be classified as belonging to one or the other of the ten types of gifts, one should take it that by these ten objects are covered also, as is any object which is in daily use by the noble recipient.

From what has been said above, it should be well noted how a material object is an important contributory factor for the arising of volitional generosity. It will be seen that the various types of generosity which will be described henceforth include many that relate to objects of offerings.

As a resume of this chapter, it should be remembered that volition is dāna because it [1527] prompts generosity; the material thing is dāna because it is a suitable thing to give.

3. Characteristics, Functions, etc., of Generosity

4. How Many Types of Generosity are There?

The subject to be dealt with under this topic is quite vast and it entails considerable exercise of mental alertness and intelligence to study them.

Gifts in Groups of Two

1. Material Gifts and Gifts of the Teaching

There are gifts of material things (āmisa-dāna) and gifts of the teaching (Dhamma-dāna).

Offering of material things, such as alms rice, is known as material offerings (āmisa-dāna). It is also called offerings of support (paccaya-dāna) when the things offered are the requisites of monastics.

Teaching the Dhamma in the form of talks, lectures, etc. is giving the gift of Dhamma. The Buddha said that this is the noblest of all types of giving.

This classification of giving into two types is made according to the objects offered.

In relation to this division of types of giving, it is necessary to look into the question of what type of giving accrues to one who erects relic shrines (stūpa) and statues of Buddha.

There are some who maintain that although making shrines and statues of Buddha involves relinquishing a large amount of wealth, it cannot be an act of generosity (dāna) because they say for an act of giving to become dāna, three conditions must be fulfilled: 1) There must be a recipient; 2) there must be an object for offering; and 3) there must be a supporter. In making shrines and statues of Buddha, there is obviously the supporter, but who receives his gift, they ask? In the absence of anyone to receive the gift, how can it be an act of generosity (dāna)?

From their point of view, the shrines and Buddha statues are not objects to be given as an act of dāna, but rather they serve as aids to the recollection of the attributes of the Buddha. A builder of shrines and Buddha statues has no particular receiver in mind when giving them away. He builds them to help produce vivid visualization of the Buddha in the mind of the devotees so as to enable them to practise the recollection of the virtues of the Buddha. It should, therefore, be considered, they maintain, that erecting shrines and Buddha statues is related to the Recollection of the Buddha (Buddhānussati) meditation, and is not an act of generosity.

There are, again, some people who maintain that as the person who builds shrines and installs Buddha statues undertakes these works in order to honour, to make homage to, the most Arahat Buddha, his act must be considered as an act of honouring the Buddha (apacāyana), one of the ten qualities contributing to merit (puñña-kiriya-vatthu). They further say that since this kind of merit: honouring those who are worthy of honour, is a practice of morality (cāritta-sīla), it should come under the observance of morality (sīla) and not under the cultivation of the Recollection of the Buddha meditation.

But neither the merit of the Recollection of the Buddha meditation nor the merit of honouring [1528] (apacāyana) involves relinquishing of objects of offering; whereas building a relic shrine (stūpa) and installing Buddha statues requires an expenditure of a large sum of money. Hence these works of merit must be considered to come under dāna.

Here the question may be asked: “If it comes under dāna, will it still be an act of giving when there is no recipient for it?” According to the texts, whether an offering should be regarded as an act of giving may be decided by an analysis of its features, viz. characteristic, function, manifestation and proximate cause.

We have already provided above what these features are, for a true act of dāna. Now applying this test to the present problem, we find the characteristic of abandoning since the person who builds the shrines and installs the Buddha statues relinquishes a large sum of money; as for function, there is destruction of attachment to the objects of offering by the supporter; as its manifestation, the supporter senses that his act of generosity will result in the attainment of rebirth in the human or Deva realm and the attainment of great wealth; and finally, as the proximate cause, there is the object to be offered. Thus, all the four features necessary for an offering to be truly an act of generosity (dāna) are present here and we may, therefore, conclude that building shrines and installing Buddha statues is a true act of generosity (dāna).

As to the question of who receives the gift, it will not be wrong to say that all the Devas and human beings who worship at the shrines and Buddha statues in memory of the virtues of the Buddha are the recipients of the gift. At the same time, as they serve as objects of worship for the Devas and human beings in their recollection of the virtues of the Buddha, they also form the objects offered. All the various material things in the world are utilized in different ways depending on their nature; food materials are utilized for consumption; clothing materials are utilized for wearing; materials for religious devotion and adoration are utilized as objects of veneration.

If wells and tanks are dug near public highways, the general public could use them for drinking water, washing, etc. The supporter would have no particular recipient in mind when he dug the wells and tanks. When, as he intended, the wayfarers, passing by the road, make use of his gifts, no one could say that his gift is not an act of generosity (dāna); even if he did not finalize it with a libation ceremony.

Now to wind up the discussion, it is quite proper to say that a builder of shrines with Buddha statues is a supporter, the shrines and Buddha statues are objects of generosity, and Devas and human beings who pay homage to them in adoration are the recipients of the generosity.

An additional question may be asked: “Is it really proper to refer to shrines and Buddha statues as objects of generosity; may it not be sacrilegious to classify them as such?” Just as bookcases and shelves are used in the monasteries for holding canonical texts which are looked up to as sacred (Dhamma-cetiya), so also do shrines and Buddha statues form storehouses for keeping sacred relics and objects of veneration. So it may be answered that it is quite appropriate to designate them as objects of generosity (dāna).

Whether a Libation Ceremony Is Necessary

The point to consider here is: Does it constitute an act of giving (dāna) when it is not finalised with a libation ceremony. Actually there is no mention of this requirement in the texts. The practice is, however, of long-standing tradition.

In the Vinaya commentary on the Chapter about Robes (Cīvarakkhandhaka, Vin Mv 8), we find the following reference to this tradition of a libation ceremony. There was a split among the monastics of a monastery prior to the time of the offering of robes after the Rains Retreat (Vassa). When the time arrived, lay devotees came and offered robes, piled up in a heap, to one group of monastics. The devotees then went to the other group of monastics and performed the ceremony of libation, saying: “We offer to the other group of monastics.”

As to how the robes should be distributed among the Saṅgha, the great commentary says that if it was a region where the ceremony of libation is of no importance, the robes belonged to the group of monastics which had been directly offered the robes. The group which received only the libation had no claim to the robes. But if it was in a region where the libation ceremony is of importance, the group which received only the libation had a claim to the [1529] robes because the ceremony of libation was performed with them; the other group to which the robes were offered directly had also a claim on them since they had the robes already in their possession. Therefore, the two groups must divide the robes equally among themselves. This method of distribution is a practice followed by tradition in regions on the other side of the ocean.

“Regions on the other side of the ocean” from Śrī Laṅkā implies Jambudīpa or India. Therefore, it should be noted that the ceremony of libation is a practice traditionally followed by the people of India.

Considering that there are regions where they set a great store by the ceremony of libation and there are regions where they set no great store by the ceremony of libation, it cannot be said that an offering constitutes an act of generosity only when it is finalised by a ceremony of libation. The ceremony is important only for those who follow the tradition of libation; it is clear that no significance is attached to it by those who do not follow the tradition. It should be noted, therefore, that a libation ceremony is not a primary factor for the successful completion of an act of generosity.

With respect to the gift of the teaching (Dhamma-dāna), there are, nowadays, people who are unable to teach the Dhamma but who, bent on making a gift of the teaching, spend money on books, palm-leaf scripts, etc. of canonical texts and make a gift of them. Although such a donation of books is not truly a gift of the teaching, we must consider that since a reader will be benefitted by reading in the books, practices and instructions which will lead him to Nibbāna, the supporter may be regarded as one who makes a gift of the teaching.

It is like the case of one who has no medicine to give to a sick person, but only a prescription for a cure of the illness. When the medicine is prepared as prescribed and taken, the illness is removed. Although the person does not actually administer any medicine, because of his effective prescription, he is entitled to be regarded as one who has brought about the cure of the illness. Likewise, the supporter of books on Dhamma who personally cannot teach the Dhamma enables the readers of his books to attain knowledge of the Dhamma and thus is entitled to be called the supporter of the gift of Dhamma.

Now, to conclude this section, the pair of gifts mentioned above: gifts of material things (āmisa-dāna) and gifts of Dhamma (Dhamma-dāna) may also be called honouring with material things (āmisa-pūjā) and honouring with the Dhamma (Dhamma-pūjā); the terms mean the same thing.

The word pūjā means “honouring” and is generally used when a younger person makes an offering to an older person or a person of higher status. Depending on this general usage, some people have stated that gifts (dāna) should be divided into honouring (pūjā-dāna) and assisting (anuggaha-dāna).

Honouring with an offering when the gift is made by a younger person or by a person of lower status to an older person or person of higher status (pūjā-dāna); and an offering to render assistance out of kindness when a gift is given by an older person or a person of higher status to one who is younger or of lower status (anuggaha-dāna).

But as we have seen before in the chapter V on the Prophecy, the word honouring (pūjā) can be used for both the high or the low, and the word assisting (anuggaha) is likewise applicable to both cases. It is true that, generally, assisting is used when the giving is made by the high to the low or by the old to the young. But we must, however, remember the usages of amisānuggaha and Dhammānuggaha to describe the assistance rendered and support given for the progress and development of the Buddha’s teaching. Here, the word assisting is employed even though the gift is being made to the highest and the noblest teaching of the Buddha. Thus, it should be noted that the division into honouring (pūjā-dāna) and assisting (anuggaha-dāna) is not an absolute division into two aspects of giving (dāna) but rather a classification following common usage.

2. Offering One’s Self and External Property

There is an gift of one’s own person (ajjhattika-dāna) and a gift of external property (bāhira-dāna). An gift of one’s own person means the giving away of one’s own life and limbs; gifts [1530] of external property include giving any of the external material possessions of the supporter.

Even in these modern times, we read sometimes in the newspapers of an offering of one’s own limbs at the relic shrine (stūpa) or of “honouring with the gift” of burning oneself after wrapping the whole body with cloth and pouring oil on it. Some comments have been made on such kinds of giving (dāna) involving one’s limbs. According to them, such offerings of one’s life and limbs are deeds to be performed only by great Bodhisattas and are not the concern of ordinary persons. They doubt if such offerings made by ordinary persons produce any merit at all.

Now to consider whether such views are justified or not, it is not as if a Bodhisatta can suddenly make his appearance in this world. Only after gradually fulfilling the required perfections to the best of his ability, an individual grows in maturity and develops stage by stage to become a Bodhisatta. Ancient poets have written thus: “Only by gradual venture, one ensures continuous improvement in rebirths to come.” Therefore, we should not hastily condemn those who make offerings of parts of their body or the whole of their body. If a person, through unflinching volition and faith, very courageously makes an offering of his own body, even to the extent of abandoning his life, he is actually worthy of praise as a supporter of the gift of one’s own person (ajjhattika-dāna).

3. Offerings of Property and Granting of Safety

There is an offering of property (vatthu-dāna) and the granting of safety (abhaya-dāna). An offering of property (vatthu-dāna) is concerned with the offering of material things. The granting of safety (abhaya-dāna) means the granting of safety or security with respect to life or property. This is usually an exercise of mercy by kings.

4. Offerings Aimed at Wealth and at Nibbāna

There is an offering made in the hope of future worldly wealth and pleasures (vaṭṭa-nissita-dāna), which means suffering in the cycle of existence. There is an offering made in aspiration for Nibbāna (vivaṭṭa-nissita-dāna), which is free of the suffering of rebirth.

5. Faulty and Unfaulty Offerings

There are offerings tainted with fault (sāvajja-dāna) and offerings untainted with fault (anavajja-dāna).

An offering of meals with meat obtained from the killing of animals is an example of an offering tainted with fault. An offering of meals which do not involve killing of animals is an offering untainted with fault. The first type is an act of generosity accompanied by demeritoriousness and the second type is an act of generosity unaccompanied by demeritoriousness.

We see the case of some fishermen who, having accumulated wealth from fishing, decided to give up the business thinking: “We will abandon this demeritorious fishing work and adopt a pure mode of livelihood.” Engaging in other occupations, they find their prosperity declining and, therefore, have to revert to their old vocation, and their wealth grows again.

This is an example of giving tainted with fault (sāvajja-dāna) done in previous lives coming to fruition in the present life. Since that act of giving was associated with the act of killing, at the time of its fruition too, success is achieved only when associated with an act of killing, in this case, fishing. When not associated with an act of killing, the previous offering tainted with fault cannot come to fruition and his wealth declines.

6. Offerings Made by Hand and by Order

There are offerings made with one’s own hand (sāhatthika-dāna) and offerings made by agents on one’s behalf or made by others under one’s instruction (āṇattika-dāna).

7. Offerings Prepared Carefully and Carelessly

There are offerings made with proper and careful preparation (sakkacca-dāna) and offerings made without proper and careful preparation (asakkacca-dāna).

As an example, an offering of flowers may be cited as an example. Having gathered flowers from trees, a supporter creates garlands with them, arranges them to look as beautiful and as pleasant as possible, and makes his offering of flowers, then it is an offering made with proper and careful preparation (sakkacca-dāna). Without such careful preparations, when flowers are presented just as they have been gathered from trees, thinking that the mere gift of the flowers is sufficient in itself, then it is an offering made without proper and careful preparations (asakkacca-dāna).

Some ancient writers have translated these as meaning “offerings made with due respect” and “offerings made without due respect.” This rendering has, as often as not, misled the modern readers to think that it means paying due respect or without paying due respect to the receiver of the offering. Actually, “paying due respect” here means simply “making careful preparations” for the offering.

8. Offerings Made Wisely and Unwisely

An offering associated with wisdom (ñāṇa-sampayutta-dāna) and an offering unassociated with wisdom (ñāṇa-vippayutta-dāna).

An offering made with clear comprehension of volitional acts and the results they produce is said to be an offering associated with wisdom. When an offering is made without such comprehension and awareness, by just following the example of others making donations, it is an offering unassociated with wisdom (ñāṇa-vippayutta-dāna).

It must be mentioned that just awareness of cause and its ensuing effect (kamma-vipāka), while an offering is being made, is sufficient to make it an offering which is associated with wisdom. In this connection, an explanation is necessary with respect to some exhortations which run like this: “Whenever an offering is made, it should be accompanied by insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāṇa); in this manner I, the supporter of the gift, am impermanent (anicca), and the recipient of the gift is also impermanent. I, being impermanent, am offering an impermanent gift to an impermanent recipient. Thus, you should contemplate whenever you make an offering of gifts.”

This exhortation is made only to encourage the practice of developing insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāṇa); it should not be misunderstood that an act of generosity is not associated with wisdom if the supporter does not practise the contemplation as exhorted.

As a matter of fact, whoever wants to develop real insight knowledge (vipassanā-ñāṇa) should first of all discard the notion of “I,” “he,” “man,” “woman,” that is, the illusion of I, the illusion of self, to discern that they are merely material aggregates and mental aggregates. Then, one has to go on contemplating so as to realise that these aggregates of mind and matter are of the nature of impermanence, suffering and non-self. Without differentiation into aggregates of mind and matter, if one were to contemplate conventional concepts of “I am impermanent; the object of offering is impermanent; the recipient is impermanent,” no real insight knowledge would be possible.

9. Offerings Prompted and Unprompted

An offering made hesitatingly and only after being prompted (sasaṅkhārika-dāna) and an offering made spontaneously without being prompted (asaṅkhārika-dāna).

Here, prompting means urging or entreating someone earnestly to give when he is hesitating or reluctant to do so. Such offering is made only with prompting. But, a simple request should not be taken as being prompted. For example, a person who has not made any decision whether he will or he will not make a donation is requested to make some alms contribution and he gives willingly without any hesitation. This is a spontaneous gift in response to a simple request. Such is one made without prompting (asaṅkhārika-dāna), and should not be called one made without prompting (sasaṅkhārika-dāna) just because it is made after a request.

Another [1532] person is similarly approached and similarly requested to make a contribution, but he is reluctant at first and refuses to do so. But when the request is repeated with a prompting: “Do make a gift, don’t flinch,” and he makes a contribution, his gift made as a consequence of urging is of the one made with prompting (sasaṅkhārika-dāna) type. Even in the case where no one has made an approach to request for giving (dāna), if one first thinks of making an offering, then shrinks away from the idea, but after much self persuasion, self-inducement, finally makes the gift, his gift is one made with prompting (sasaṅkhārika) too.

10. Pleasurable and Equanimous Offerings

There is an offering made while one is in a joyful mood, with a happy frame of mind (somanassa-dāna); and an offering made with a balanced state of mind, neither joyous nor sorrowful but equipoised (upekkhā-dāna). When the act of giving is accompanied by pleasure, it is made while one is in a joyful mood (somanassa-dāna); when it is accompanied by equanimity, it is neither joyous nor sorrowful but equipoised (upekkhā-dāna).

11. Righteous and Unrighteous Offerings

There is an offering of property earned in accordance with Dhamma, by just means (Dhammiya-dāna); and an offering of property earned by immoral means, such as stealing or robbing (adhammiya-dāna).

Although earning of property by immoral means is not in accordance with Dhamma, offering as alms of such property is nevertheless an act of merit, but the good results accruing from this type of giving (dāna) cannot be as great as those obtained from the first type, an offering of property earned in accordance with Dhamma (Dhammiya-dāna). A comparison can be made of these two different results with types of plants that will grow from a good seed and from a bad seed.

12. Enslaving and Freeing Offerings

An offering made with hopes of gaining worldly pleasures is enslaving (dāsa-dāna), it is an offering that will enslave one. Being a slave to craving for sense-pleasures, one makes this kind of offering to serve one’s master, the craving to fulfil his wishes. An offering made with an aspiration for attainment of the paths and fruitions, and Nibbāna, is an offering for freedom (bhujissa-dāna), an offering made in revolt against the dictates of the master, craving.

Sentient beings in the endless round of existences desire to enjoy the delightful pleasures of the senses: visible objects, sounds, smells, tastes, touches. This desire to revel in the so-called pleasures of the senses is called craving. Every moment of their existence is devoted to satisfying that craving; fulfilling the needs of that craving, they have become its servants. Continuously striving for wealth, day and night, throughout their life is nothing but fulfilment of the wishes of the craving which demands the best of food, the best of clothing, and the most luxurious way of living.

Not content with being a slave to craving in the present life, working to fulfil its every need, we make offerings (dāna) to ensure luxurious living in the future. This type of offering accompanied by a strong wish for enjoyment of worldly pleasures continuously for lives to come is definitely enslaving (dāsa-dāna).

This type of offering, in fulfilment of the wishes of craving and which ensures servitude to craving throughout the endless round of existence, is performed thinking it to be the best, before one encounters the teachings of the Buddha. But once we are fortunate enough to hear the Dhamma, we come to understand how powerful this craving is, how insatiable it is, how much we have to suffer for fulfilling the wishes of this craving. Then resolving: “I will no longer be a servant of this terrible craving, I will no longer fulfil its wishes, I will rebel against it, I will go against it,” and in order to uproot and eradicate this evil craving, one makes offerings with an aspiration for attainment of the paths and fruitions, and Nibbāna. This offering is called dāna made for freedom (bhujissa-dāna), an offering made in revolt against the dictates of the master, craving.

13. Immovable and Moveable Offerings

There is an offering of things of a permanent, immovable nature (thāvara-dāna), such as relic shrines (stūpa), temples, [1533] monasteries, rest houses; and digging wells, tanks, etc.; and an offering of things of movable nature (athāvara-dāna) meant for temporary use, such as food and robes.

14. Offerings with and without Supplements

There is an offering made with an accompaniment of supplementary materials that usually go along with such an offering (saparivāra-dāna). For example, in offering robes as the main item of gifts, when it is accompanied by suitable and proper accessories and requisites, it is an offering made with an accompaniment of supplementary materials (saparivāra-dāna); when there are no other objects of offering besides the main item of robes, it is a gift without anything accompanying (aparivāra-dāna). The same differentiation applies to offerings made with other forms of gifts.

The special characteristic marks on the body of Bodhisattas, who have large retinues attending upon them, are the benefits that result from the offering made with an accompaniment of supplementary materials type of giving (dāna).

15. Regular and Occasional Offerings

There is an offering made constantly or regularly such as an offering of alms food to the Saṅgha everyday (nibaddha-dāna); and an offering made not constantly, not on a regular basis, but only occasionally when one is able to so, an occasional offering (anibaddha-dāna).

16. Tarnished and Untarnished Offerings

There is a tarnished offering (parāmaṭṭha-dāna) and and untarnished offering (aparāmaṭṭha-dāna). An offering which is tarnished by craving and wrong view is a tarnished offering (parāmaṭṭha-dāna). An offering which is not corrupted by craving and wrong view is an untarnished offering (aparāmaṭṭha-dāna).

According to the Abhidhamma, one is corrupted when led astray by wrong view alone; but wrong view always co-exists with craving. When wrong view corrupts and leads one astray, craving is also involved. Therefore, both craving and wrong view are mentioned above. And this is how craving and wrong view bring about corruption. Having made an offering, if one expresses an ardent, wholesome wish: “May I speedily attain the paths, fruitions and Nibbāna as a result of this act of merit,” the offering becomes one of the made in aspiration for Nibbāna (vivaṭṭa-nissita) type, ^{See type 4 above.} and it could serve as a strong sufficing condition for the attainment of the paths, fruitions and Nibbāna.

But instead of making such a wholesome wish for Nibbāna, when corrupted and led astray by craving and wrong view, one aspires to a result of this act of merit: “May I become a distinguished Deva such as Sakka, the Lord of the Tāvatiṁsa abode, or just a Deva of the durable divine realms, his giving (dāna) cannot serve as a sufficing condition for the attainment of Nibbāna and is classed as a mere tarnished offering (parāmaṭṭha-dāna), the giving of which is bereft of the sufficing condition for the attainment of Nibbāna, being tarnished by craving and wrong view. The giving which is not tarnished by craving and wrong view, but is made with the sole purpose of attaining Nibbāna, is classed as an untarnished offering (aparāmaṭṭha-dāna).

Much generosity can also be practised outside the teaching of the Buddha; but giving of the tarnished offering (parāmaṭṭha) type is only possible then. It is only within the teaching of the Buddha that giving of the untarnished offering (aparāmaṭṭha) type can be practised. So while we are blessed with the rare opportunity of meeting with the teachings of the Buddha, we should strive to our utmost to ensure that our offerings are of the untarnished offering type.

17. Inferior and Superior Offerings

There is an offering made with what is leftover, which is inferior and wretched (ucchiṭṭha-dāna); and an offering made with what is not leftover, which is not inferior and wretched (anucchiṭṭha-dāna).

Suppose, while preparations are being made for a meal, a recipient appears and one donates some of the food that has been prepared before one has eaten it; it is considered to be the highest gift (agga-dāna), and it is also an offering made with what is not leftover (anucchiṭṭha-dāna) since the offering is not the [1534] leftover of a meal. If the recipient arrives while one is eating the meal, but before eating is finished, and one makes an offering of the food taken from the meal one is eating, that is also considered to be an offering made with what is not leftover (anucchiṭṭha-dāna); it can even be said to be a noble gift.

When the offering is made of the food leftover after one has finished eating, it is a gift of the leftovers, an offering made with what is leftover (ucchiṭṭha-dāna), a wretched, inferior one. It should be noted, however, that the humble offering made by one who has nothing else to give but the leftover meal could well be called an offering made with what is not leftover (anucchiṭṭha-dāna). It is only when such an offering is made by one who can well afford to make a better gift that his gift is regarded as a wretched, inferior one (ucchiṭṭha-dāna).

18. Offerings Made While Alive and after Passing

There is an offering made while one is still alive (sājīva-dāna); and an offering which is meant to become effective after one’s death, saying: “I give such of my property to such and such a person; let him take possession of it after my death and make use of it as he wishes” (accaya-dāna).

A monastic is not permitted to make an offering which is meant to become effective after one’s death, i.e., he cannot leave his properties as gifts for others after his death. Even if he should do so, it does not constitute an act of giving (dāna); the would-be recipient also would have no right of possession to them. If a monastic gives from his properties to another monastic while he is still living, the receiver is entitled to what is given to him; or while the monastic is still alive, some monastic who is on intimate terms (vissāsa-gaha) with him can take it and come to possess it; or if he owns something jointly (dvi-santaka) with another monastic, when he dies, the surviving monastic becomes the sole owner. Unless these conditions are fulfilled: giving his property during his lifetime, taking possession of it by reason of intimacy while he is still alive, or possessing it through dual ownership, the monastic’s property becomes the property of the Saṅgha when he dies.

Therefore, if a monastic makes an offering which is meant to become effective after one’s death (accaya-dāna), saying: “I give such of my property to such and such a person when I die. Let him take possession of them,” it amounts to giving a property which by then belongs to the Saṅgha. His giving does not form an act of giving (dāna), and the would-be recipient is also not entitled to its ownership. It is only amongst the laymen that such kinds of gifts (accaya-dāna) are possible and legal.

19. Offerings Made to Individuals and to the Saṅgha

There is an offering made to one or two separate individual persons (puggalika-dāna); and an offering made to the whole Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna). Saṅgha means a group, an assemblage or community; here, the whole community of the noble disciples of the Buddha is meant. In making an offering intended for the Saṅgha, the supporter must have in his mind not the individual from the noble disciples that constitute the Saṅgha, but the community of the noble disciples as a whole. Then only will his offering be an offering made to the whole Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna).

Fourteen Kinds of Gift to Individuals

The Discourse giving an Analysis of Offerings (Dakkhiṇā-vibhaṅga-sutta, MN 142) gives an enumeration of the 14 kinds of gifts to individuals (puggalika-dāna), and the 7 kinds of gifts to the Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna). It is useful to know them, and so I will list them here.

Of these fourteen kinds of offering made to individuals, giving one full meal to an animal will bring wholesome results of long life, good looks, physical well-being, strength, and intelligence for 100 lives. Then in an ascending order, giving one full meal to a lay person of poor morality will bring these wholesome results for 1,000 lives; to a lay person of good morality at a time when the Buddha’s teaching is not in existence who has no opportunity to take refuge in the Three Treasures, for 100,000 lives; to recluses and ascetics accomplished in absorption (jhāna), for one million lives; to laymen and novitiates during a period when the teachings of Buddhas are extant, who take refuge in the Three Treasures, and up to the noble person who has attained the path of Stream-entry (Sotāpatti-magga), for an innumerable number (asaṅkhyeyya) of lives; and to persons of higher attainment up to the Buddha, for countless periods of lives.

According to the commentary, even one who only takes refuge in the Three Treasures may be considered as a person who is practising for the realisation of Stream-entry (Sotāpatti-phala).

There is no mention of monastics of loose morality in the above list of 14 kinds of recipient of offerings made to individuals. The Buddha’s enumeration of offerings made to a person devoid of morality concerns only the period when the Buddha’s teaching is not in existence. For these reasons, there is a tendency to consider that offerings made to monastics of impure morality while the Buddha’s teaching are still not in existence are blameworthy. But one should remember that anyone who has become a Buddhist, at the very least, takes refuge in the Three Treasures; and the commentary says that whoever takes refuge in the Three Treasures is a person who is practising for the realisation of Stream-entry (Sotāpatti-phala). Furthermore, when an offering made to an ordinary lay person who is devoid of morality, while the teaching of Buddha is not in existence, could be of much benefit, there is no doubt that offerings made to an ordinary lay person devoid of morality while the teaching of the Buddha is still existing would be beneficial too.

Again, in the Questions of King Milinda (Milinda-pañha), Ven. Nāgasena explains that an immoral monastic is superior to an immoral lay person in ten respects, such as reverence shown to the Buddha, reverence shown to the Dhamma, reverence shown to the Saṅgha, etc. Thus, according to Milinda’s Questions, an immoral monastic is superior to an immoral lay person; and since he is listed by the commentary as one who is practising for the realisation of Stream-entry (Sotāpatti-phala), one should not say that it is blameworthy and fruitless to make an offering to a monastic who is devoid of morality.

There is yet another point of view in connection with this matter. At a time when there is no teaching of the Buddha, immoral monastics cannot cause any harm to the teaching; but when the teaching is in existence, they can bring harm to it. For that reason, no offering should be made to monastics who are devoid of morality during the period when there is the Buddha’s teaching. But that view is shown by the Buddha to be untenable.

At the conclusion of the discourse on the seven kinds of offering to the Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna), the Buddha explains to Ānanda: [1536] “Ānanda, in times to come, there will appear vile monastics, devoid of morality, who are monastics only in name, who will wear their robes round their necks. With the intention of giving to the Saṅgha, offerings will be made to these immoral monastics. Even when offered in this manner, an offering meant for the whole Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna) I declare, will bring innumerable, inestimable benefits.”

There is still another point to take into consideration. Of the four purities of offerings (dakkhiṇā-visuddhi), the first purity is that even if the receiver is of impure morality, when the supporter is moral, the offering is pure by reason of purity of the supporter. For these reasons also, one should not say that an immoral monastic cannot be a receiver and that no benefit will accrue by making an offering to him.

It should be well noted, therefore, that it is blameworthy only when we make an offering with bad intentions of approving and encouraging an immoral monastic in his evil practices; without taking into considerations his habits, if one makes the offering with a pure mind, thinking only “one should give if someone who comes for a donation,” it is quite blameless.

Seven Kinds of Offerings to the Saṅgha

During the Buddha’s lifetime, people were generally not disposed to form attachment to, or concern themselves with, individual personalities; they had their mind bent on the Saṅgha as a whole and thus were able to make many offerings of a noble kind to the Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna). Consequently, the needs of the members of the Saṅgha were mostly met by the distributions made to the Saṅgha; they had little need to rely on laymen and laywomen [1537] supporters and, therefore, had little attachment to them as “the supporters of my monastery, the supporters of my robes, etc.” Thus, the monastic could be free of the bonds of attachments.

Here you should read the story of Ugga the householder given in chapter 45b. Of the eight wonders described by the householder Ugga, the sixth is concerned with making impartial offerings to the noble, the moral and the immoral alike. It is necessary to know how one can be impartially-minded in such circumstances. The impartial attitude can be understood to be brought about in this manner: “As I have made the invitation with intention to give to the whole Saṅgha, when I make the offering to a noble one, I will not recognise him as such; I will not consider that I am making the offering to a noble one; I will keep in mind only that I am making my offering to the Saṅgha, the noble disciples of the Buddha as a whole. And when I make the offering to an immoral person, I will not recognise him as such; I will not consider that I am making the offering to an immoral person; I will keep in mind only that I am making an offering to the Saṅgha, the noble disciples of the Buddha, as a whole. In this manner, impartiality may be maintained.”

Emulating the example set by the householder Ugga when making an offering, one should ignore the status of the recipient, keep aside personal feelings towards him, and strive to keep firmly in mind only the Saṅgha as a whole, so that one’s gift may be of the noble type made with the whole community of monastics in mind. As taught explicitly by the Buddha in the Discourse giving an Analysis of Offerings (Dakkhiṇā-vibhaṅga-sutta, MN 142) mentioned above, when an offering is made with the whole community of monastics in mind (Saṅghika-dāna), it could bring innumerable, inestimable benefits to the supporter, even if the recipient is an immoral person devoid of virtues.

An offering made with the whole community of monastics in mind (Saṅghika-dāna) is made with full reverence to the Saṅgha; but it is not always easy to do so. Suppose a person decides to make an offering made with the whole community of monastics in mind; having made the necessary preparations, he goes to a monastery and addresses the monastics: “Reverend Sirs, I wish to make an offering made with the whole community of monastics in mind; may you designate someone from amongst the Saṅgha as its representative.” Should the monastics nominate a novice whose turn it is to represent the Saṅgha, the supporter is likely to be displeased; should they choose an elderly venerable of long standing to represent them, he is likely to be overwhelmed with intense delight, exulting: “I have an elderly venerable of long standing as my recipient.” Such generosity, affected by the personality of the recipient, cannot be a perfect offering made with the whole community of monastics in mind.

Only if one can accept the representative nominated in turn by the Saṅgha without any misgiving – without concerning oneself about whether the recipient is a novice or a monastic, a young monastic or an elderly monastic, an ignorant monastic or a learned monastic – and one makes one’s offering, thinking only: “I make my offering to the Saṅgha, with full [1539] reverence to the Saṅgha,” does one make a true offering made with the whole community of monastics in mind (Saṅghika-dāna).

There is something that happened on the other side of the ocean, in India. A rich householder, who had already donated a monastery, intended to make an offering to the Saṅgha. After making the necessary preparations, he went to the Saṅgha and addressed them: “Venerable sirs, may you designate someone to receive my offering for the Saṅgha?” It happened that it was the turn of an immoral monastic to represent the Saṅgha for alms. Although the man knew well that the designated monastic was immoral, he treated him with full respect: The seat for the monastic was prepared as for a ceremonious occasion, decorated with a canopy overhead, and scented with flowers and perfumes. He washed the feet of the monastic and anointed them with oil very reverentially as if he were attending upon the person of the Buddha himself. He then made his offering to the monastic paying full homage to the Saṅgha.

That afternoon, the immoral monastic went back to the house and standing at the doorway asked for a hoe, which he needed to make some repairs in the monastery. The supporter of the monastery did not even bother to get up from his seat; he simply pushed the hoe towards the monastic with his feet. The members of his family then asked him: “Respected sir, this morning you heaped upon this monastic so much veneration; now you have shown him not even a small part of that deference. What is the difference between the morning and the afternoon in your attitude towards the monastic?” The man replied: “My dear ones, the respect I was showing this morning was towards the Saṅgha, not to this immoral monastic.”

Offerings to Individuals and the Saṅgha

There are some people who maintain that if some person should approach one for alms and if one knew beforehand that the person was of bad morality, one should not make any offering to that person; if one should do so, it would be like watering a poisonous plant.

But it could not be said that every act of offering made knowingly to immoral persons is blameworthy. It is the volition of the giver that must be taken into account here. If the supporter should approve of the bad habits of the recipient and give with a view to give him support and encouragement for continuance of his immoral practices, then only would his gift be like watering a poisonous plant. If the supporter does not approve of the bad habits to the recipient and has no mind to encourage him to continue with his bad practices, but, emulating the example of the monastery supporter described above, if he makes his gift in such a way that it becomes a true gift made with the whole community of monastics in mind (Saṅghika-dāna), then no blame can be attached to such an offering.

Again, there are some who maintain that whether the recipient is of good moral character or bad moral character is of no concern of the supporters; it only concerns the recipient. Therefore, remaining indifferent to the character of the recipient, whether good or bad, the supporter should bear in mind: “This is a noble person, a noble one (ariya) or an Arahat.” They maintain that this act of offering is blameless and as fruitful as making an offering to an Arahat. This point of view is also untenable.

Disciples of other teachers, who are not in a position to know whether a person is a noble one (ariya) or an Arahat, wrongly believe their teachers to be noble ones, Arahats. This sort of belief, called wrong resolution (micchādhimokkha), making the wrong decision or conclusion, is demeritorious. Surely, it would be demeritorious and would be making a wrong decision if one were to bear in mind: “These are noble Arahats,” when one knew full well that they were not. It is not proper, therefore, to hold such views.

When faced with such recipients in making one’s offering, the proper attitude to bear in mind should be: “Bodhisattas, in fulfilment of the perfection of generosity, make their offering without discriminating between persons of high, medium, or low status of development. I will also emulate the examples of the Bodhisattas and make my offerings to whoever comes for them, without discrimination.” In this way, one would not be giving support or any [1540] encouragement to the practice of bad habits and would not be making wrong decisions or conclusions about the recipient’s development; the act of offering would thus be free from blame or fault.

Controversies and difficulties arise only in the case of offerings made to individuals (puggalika-dāna), because there exist various kind of individuals, good or bad. In the case of offerings made to the Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna), there exists only one kind of Saṅgha, not two, good and bad. ^{Here, the noble disciples of the Buddha are meant.} There is no distinction amongst the noble Saṅgha (Ariya-saṅgha) as high, medium, or low status of development as they are all equally noble. Therefore, as explained above, whenever a recipient appears before one, without taking into consideration his character, one should make the offering with the thought: “I make my offering to the disciples of the Buddha, the noble Saṅgha.” Then this offering is of the type made to the Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna), and the recipient is the Saṅgha; the person who appears before him to receive the offering is merely the representative of the Saṅgha. However low that person may be in his morals, the true recipient of the offering is the noble Saṅgha, and therefore this is truly a noble gift.

Some people consider that it is very difficult to put into actual practice the advice to ignore the personal character of the immoral recipient who has appeared before one and to make one’s offering with the mind directed not to him, but to the noble Saṅgha, regarding him only as a representative of the Saṅgha. The difficulty arises only because of lack of habitual practice in such matters.

In making reverential vows to the images and statues of the Buddha, regarding them as the Buddha’s representatives, one is so accustomed to the practice of projecting one’s mind from the images or statues to the person of the living Buddha that no one says it is difficult. Just as the householder Ugga during the Buddha’s time and the monastery supporter of Jambudīpa had habituated themselves to make offerings to an immoral monastic as a representative of the Saṅgha, so also Buddhists of modern times should discipline their mind to become accustomed to such an attitude.

Four Kinds of Offerings to the Saṅgha

The Basket of Discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka) for members of the Saṅgha gives a description of the four categories of offerings made intentionally for the Saṅgha. But these four categories of offerings for the Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna) do not concern the lay supporter; only the seven types of offerings for the Saṅgha mentioned above concern them. The Vinaya distinctions are made for the Saṅgha only so that they would know how to distribute the offerings amongst themselves. The four categories are:

Not being mindful of the fact that these four categories are mentioned in the Discipline to provide measures for distinction of ownership and distribution of the offerings made to the Saṅgha, some monastics make use of these Discipline provisions when lay people make offerings. To give an illustration, suppose a supporter, actuated by pious devotion to a certain monastic, builds a monastery, though not intending for him, but for the whole Saṅgha. For the libation ceremony, he invited ten monastics including the monastic to whom he has so much devotion. After recitation of the protection discourses (paritta), ^{Paritta, protection discourses; it is a Buddhist custom to recite certain discourses such as the discourses on the Blessings (Maṅgala), Treasures (Ratana), Loving-kindness (Metta), etc. to ward off evil influences.} when the time comes for the actual announcement of the offering, the monastic wants to be offered the monastery as an offering made to a particular individual (puggalika-dāna), because he feels that living in a monastery meant for the whole Saṅgha entails so many liabilities and responsibilities. But the supporter prefers to make it a gift to the whole Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna) because, he believes, such a gift (dāna) is superior and of much merit. The congregation resolves the disagreement between the supporter and his preceptor by asking the supporter to make the offering, saying: “I give this monastery to the Saṅgha who is present here and now,” which is an offering to the Saṅgha which is actually present at the time and place (sammukhī-bhūta-saṅghika). Then nine monastics of the congregation, saying to the remaining one: “We relinquish our right of possession of the monastery to your reverence,” hand over the new monastery to him and leave.

In this manner, such procedures are liable to be followed, believing that by so doing, the supporter’s wish for a gift to the whole Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna) is fulfilled and the recipient who prefers individual ownership is also happy since the nine co-owners have relinquished their right of possession of the monastery making him the sole owner.

But, in reality, such a procedure is not proper and should not be followed. The gift of a monastery is a weighty, important one; the ten monastics to whom the monastery has been offered cannot make any kind of apportionment of the offering between them; and the supporter’s gift amounts only to a gift to the ten monastics present on the occasion and not to the Saṅgha as a whole.

20. Offerings Made at a Specific Time and at any Time

There are offerings made on specific occasions (kāla-dāna) and offerings made at any time (akāla-dāna).

An offering of Cloth (Kaṭhina) at the end of the Rains Retreat (Vassa) for the duration of one month; an offering of robes at the beginning of the Rains Retreat (Vassa); an offering of dietary food to the sick; an offering of food to visiting monastics; an offering of food to monastics who are setting out on a journey are all gifts made at a specific time for a specific purpose and are called timely [1542] gifts (kāla-dāna); all other gifts made as one wishes without reference to any particular time are called offerings made at any time (akāla-dāna).

Offerings made on specific occasions (kāla-dāna) are of greater merit than the offerings made at any time (akāla-dāna) because the offering is made to meet the specific needs at a specific time. The specific occasion type of offering, at the time of its fruition, brings specific good results at the time they are needed. For example, if the supporter wishes for something special to eat, his wish is immediately fulfilled; likewise if he wishes to have some special clothes to wear, he will receive them. These are examples of special merits that accrue from offerings made at specific times to meet specific needs.

21. Offerings Witnessed and not Witnessed

Offerings made in the presence of the supporter (paccakkha-dāna) and offerings made in the absence of the supporter (apaccakkha-dāna).

The Pāḷi word paccakkha is made up of pati and akkha. Pati means towards; akkha means the five senses: eye, ear, nose, tongue, body. Although paccakkha is generally “before the eye,” its complete meaning should be “perceptible to the senses.” Thus paccakkha-dāna has a wider scope, not just the kind of offering which can be seen by the supporter but also those which can be perceived by his other senses, by sound, smell, taste and touch. In this connection, it should be noted that offerings made in the presence of the supporter (paccakkha-dāna) are not exactly the same as that made with one’s own hands (sāhatthika-dāna). Offerings made in one’s presence at one’s instance but not actually with one’s own hands are offerings made at one’s request or command (āṇattika-dāna).

22. Matched and Matchless Offerings

Offerings matched by someone else (sadisa-dāna) and offerings which cannot be matched by anyone (asadisa-dāna).

When offerings are made in a spirit of competition, supporters make efforts to excel their rivals in the scale and magnificence of generosity. In such competitions, the offerings that prove to be incomparable, inimitable, are called an unrivalled alms giving (asadisa-dāna).

According to the Dhamma Verses (Dhammapada) commentary, as explained in the story about the unrivalled alms giving in the commentary to Dhp 177 only one supporter appeared during the time of each Buddha to make an unrivalled offering.

The Unrivalled Alms Giving

The story runs as follows: At one time, the Buddha, after going on a long journey followed by 500 Arahats, arrived back at the Jetavana monastery. King Pasenadi of Kosala honoured the Buddha and his 500 disciples by inviting them to the palace and offering them alms on a magnificent scale. The king invited also the people of Sāvatthī to his offering so that they could watch and rejoice in his meritorious deed. The next day, the people of Sāvatthī, rivalling the king, organized the resources of the whole city and gave offerings which surpassed those of the king to the Buddha and his disciples. They invited the king to their ceremony to observe their deed and rejoice in it.

Catching onto the spirit of competition, the king accepted the challenge of the citizens by conducting a more magnificent offering ceremony the following day. The citizens in turn organized yet another grand ceremony of offering to outdo the efforts of the king. In this manner, the keen contest between the king and his citizens went on until both sides had made six offerings, but the contest still remained indecisive.

As the seventh round came along, the royal supporter was feeling despondent: “It will be very difficult to surpass the efforts of the citizens in this seventh round, and life would not be worth living if I, the sovereign ruler of the land, were to lose to the people over whom I rule, in this round.” To console him, Queen Mallikā thought out a plan by which the king could make a truly majestic offering which the people would find impossible to match. She had a grand pavilion built in which 500 great disciples of the Buddha, the Arahats, were to sit in the pavilion with 500 princesses fanning them and spraying perfumes and scented water in the pavilion. At the back of the 500 Arahats, there would be 500 elephants, kneeling down and holding a white [1543] umbrella over each of the great Arahats.

As the arrangements were being made according to the above plan, they found they had one tame elephant short of 500; so they had a wild, unruly elephant, which was notorious for its savagery, placed at the back of Ven. Aṅgulimāla and made it hold a white umbrella like other elephants. People were amazed to find this savage beast taking part in the ceremony and holding an umbrella over the head of Ven. Aṅgulimāla in a docile manner.

After the meal had been offered to the congregation, the king declared: “I made an offering of all the things in this pavilion, allowable things as well as unallowable things. On this declaration, the people had to admit defeat in the contest because they had no princesses, no white umbrellas and no elephants.

Thus the supporter of the unrivalled alms giving (dāna) at the time of the supreme being of the three worlds, the Buddha Gotama, was King Pasenadi of Kosala. It should be noted that each of the other Buddhas also had a supporter who presented him with an incomparable, unrivalled alms giving (dāna).

Gifts in Groups of Threes

The Birth Story about the Succession of the Almsfood

This story is described in the introduction to the Birth Story about the Succession of the Almsfood (Bhikkhā-parampara-jātaka, Ja 496): The Buddha was residing in the Jetavana monastery in Sāvatthī, and at that time, a rich householder who had faith in the teaching thought to himself thus: “I have had opportunities to honour the Buddha and his Saṅgha constantly with offerings of food, robes, etc. But I have never honoured the Dhamma by making offerings to it. It is now time that I should do so.” With this thought, he approached the Buddha and asked him how to do it.

The Buddha replied: “If you wish to honour the Dhamma, you should give food, robes, etc. to the monastic who is well cultivated in the Dhamma, but with the clear intention of honouring the Dhamma which he has realized.”

When the householder asked him which monastic would be appropriate to receive such an offering, the Buddha told him to ask the Saṅgha. The Saṅgha directed him to give his offerings to Ven. Ānanda. So he invited Ven. Ānanda and made a generous offering of food, robes, etc. to him, keeping in mind that he was honouring the Dhamma which Ven. Ānanda had realized.

According to the story, the householder is the supporter; food, robes, etc. are material objects [1545] of offering, and the body of the Dhamma which lies embedded in the person of Ven. Ānanda is the recipient of the gift.

King Asoka

This householder was not the only one who made such offerings at the time of the Buddha, keeping in mind the Dhamma as the recipient of offering. The text clearly mentions that the great ruler, Siri Dhammāsoka or King Asoka, with much pious reverence for the Dhamma, built 84,000 monasteries in all, one in honour of each of the 84,000 groups of Dhamma (Dhammakkhandha) which form the complete teaching of the Buddha.

The significance of these gifts of Dhamma (Dhamma-dāna) may be appreciated when one remembers the importance of the Dhamma. The great commentator, Ven. Mahā Buddhaghosa concluded his work, the Abundance of Meaning (Aṭṭha-sālinī, DsA), the commentary to the Enumeration of Phenonema (Dhamma-saṅgaṇī), the first book of the Abhidhamma, with the wish: “May the true Dhamma endure long. May all beings show reverence to the Dhamma (ciraṁ tiṭṭhatu Saddhammo, Dhamme hontu sagāravā, sabbe pi sattā). He made this wish because he was fully aware of the important role of the Dhamma. He realised that as long as the Dhamma endures, the teachings of the Buddha cannot decline, and everyone who honours the Dhamma will show reverence to the teachings and follow them. And the Buddha said: “Only those who see the Dhamma see me.” And nearing the end of his life, the Buddha had said that: “The Dhamma will be your teacher after I am gone (so vo mamaccayena satthā).” Therefore, one should strive to cultivate this third type of gift of Dhamma which plays such an important role.

A Gift Difficult to Give

An example of the first type, a gift difficult to be given (dukkara-dāna), may be found in the story of the gifts given by Dārubhaṇḍaka to Ven. Tissa. This story is given in the commentary to the Collection of the Numerical Discourses (AA, PTS 2.60).

The Story of the Gifts Given by Dārubhaṇḍaka

There was a poor man who lived in Mahāgāma of Śrī Laṅkā who earned his living by selling firewood. His name was Tissa, but because his livelihood was selling firewood, he was known as Dārubhaṇḍaka Tissa, “Tissa who has only firewood as property.”

One day, he spoke with his wife: “Our life is so humble, wretched and lowly. Although the Buddha had taught the benefits of the observance of the duty of regular giving (nibaddha-dāna), we cannot afford to cultivate the practice. But we could do one thing; we could start giving alms food regularly, twice a month, and when we can afford more, we will try for the higher offering of food by tickets ^{According to I.B. Horner in the Book of the Discipline (2.313), food tickets were issued at times when food was scarce. But the story of Dārubhaṇḍaka suggests that the same was adopted also when food was abundant as a higher form of alms giving (dāna).} (salāka-bhatta).” His wife was agreeable to his proposal, and they started giving whatever they could afford as alms food the next morning.

That was a very prosperous time for the monastics, who were receiving plenty of good food. Certain young monastics and novices accepted the poor alms food offered by the Dārubhaṇḍaka’s family but threw it away in their presence. The housewife reported to her husband: “They threw away our alms food,” but she didn’t have an unpleasant thought over [1546] the incident.

Then Dārubhaṇḍaka had a discussion with his wife: “We are so poor; we cannot offer alms food that would please the noble ones. What should we do to satisfy them?” His wife said: “Those who have children are not poor,” and in order to give him solace and encouragement she advised him to hire out the services of their daughter to a household and, with the money so acquired, to buy a milch cow. Dārubhaṇḍaka accepted his wife’s advice. He obtained twelve pieces of money, with which he bought a cow. Because of the purity of their wholesome volition, the cow yielded large quantities of milk.

The milk they got in the evening was made into cheese and butter. The milk they got in the morning was used by the wife in the preparation of milk porridge, which together with the cheese and butter they offered to the Saṅgha. In this manner, they were able to make offerings of alms food which were well accepted by the Saṅgha. From that time onwards, the ticket food (salāka-bhatta) of Dārubhaṇḍaka was available only to the noble ones of high attainments.

One day, Dārubhaṇḍaka said to his wife: “Thanks to our daughter, we are saved from humiliation. We have reached a position in which the noble ones accept our alms food with great satisfaction. Now, do not miss out on the regular duty of offering alms food during my absence. I shall find some kind of employment and I shall come back after redeeming our daughter from her bondage.” Then he went to work for six months in a sugar mill where he managed to save twelve pieces of money with which to redeem his daughter.

Setting out for home early one morning, he saw ahead of him Ven. Tissa on his way to worship at the relic shrine (stūpa) at Mahāgāma. This monastic was one who cultivated the austere practice of partaking only of alms food which is offered to him when going on alms round. Dārubhaṇḍaka walked fast to catch up with the monastic and strolled along with him, listening to his Dhamma talk. Approaching a village, Dārubhaṇḍaka saw a man coming out with a packet of cooked rice in his hand. He offered the man one piece of money to sell him the meal-packet.

The man, realising that there must be some special reason for offering one piece of money for the food packet when it was not worth the sixteenth part of it, refused to sell it for one piece of money. Dārubhaṇḍaka increased his offer to two, then three pieces of money and so on until he had offered all the money he possessed. But the man still declined the offer thinking Dārubhaṇḍaka had still more money with him.

Finally, Dārubhaṇḍaka explained to the man: “I have no money with me other than these twelve pieces. I would have given you more if I had. I am buying this meal packet not for myself, but, wishing to offer alms food, I have requested a monastic to wait for me under the shade of a tree. The food is to be offered to that monastic. Do sell me the packet of food for these twelve pieces of money. You will also gain merit by doing so.”

The man finally agreed to sell his food-packet and Dārubhaṇḍaka took it with great happiness to the waiting monastic. Taking the bowl from the monastic, Dārubhaṇḍaka put the cooked rice from the packet into it. But Ven. Tissa accepted only half of the meal. Dārubhaṇḍaka made an earnest request to the monastic: “Venerable sir, this meal is sufficient for only one person. I will not eat any of it. I bought the food intending it only for you. Out of compassion for me, may the venerable one accept the food.” Upon this, Ven. Tissa permitted him to offer all the food in the packet.

After Ven. Tissa had finished the meal, they continued the journey together, and he asked Dārubhaṇḍaka about himself. Dārubhaṇḍaka told everything about himself to Ven. Tissa. The venerable was struck with awe by the intense piety of Dārubhaṇḍaka, and he thought to himself: “This man has made a gift which is difficult to be given (dukkara-dāna). Having partaken of the meal offered by him, under difficult circumstances, I am greatly indebted to him, and I should show my gratitude in return. If I can find a suitable place, I shall strive hard to become an Arahat in one sitting. Let all my skin, flesh and blood dry up, I will not stir from this position until I attain the goal.” As they reached Mahāgāma, they went on their separate ways.

On arriving at the Tissa Mahā Vihāra monastery, Ven. Tissa was allotted a room [1547] for himself, where he made his great effort, determined not to leave the place until he had eradicated all defilements and become an Arahat. Not even getting up to go on alms round, he steadfastly worked on until at the dawn of the seventh day, he became an Arahat fully accomplished in the four branches of analytical knowledge (paṭisambhidā). Then he thought to himself thus: “My body is greatly enfeebled. I wonder whether I could live longer.” He realised, through exercise of his psychic powers, that the mind and matter (nāma-rūpa) which constituted his living body would not continue much longer. Putting everything in order in his dwelling place and taking his bowl and double robe, he went to the Assembly Hall at the centre of the monastery and sounded the drum to assemble all the monastics.

When all the monastics had gathered together, the head monk enquired who had called for the assembly. Ven. Tissa, who had cultivated the austere practice of taking only alms food, replied: “I have sounded the drum, venerable sir.” – “And why have you done so?” – “I have no other purpose, but if any member of the Saṅgha has doubts about the attainments of the paths and fruitions, I wish them to ask me about them.”

The head venerable told him there were no questions. He then asked Ven. Tissa why he had persevered so arduously, sacrificing even his life for the attainment. He related all that had happened and informed him that he would pass away the same day. Then he said: “May the bier on which my corpse is supported remain immoveable until my alms food supporter, Dārubhaṇḍaka, comes and lifts it with his own hands.” And he passed away that very day.

Then King Kākavaṇṇa Tissa came and ordered his men to put the body on the bier and take it to the funeral pyre at the cremating grounds, but they were not able to move it. Finding out the reason for this, the king sent for Dārubhaṇḍaka, had him dressed in fine clothes and asked him to lift up the bier.

The text gives an elaborate account of how Dārubhaṇḍaka lifted the bier with the body on it easily over his head and how, as he did so, the bier rose in the air and travelled by itself to the funeral pyre.

Dārubhaṇḍaka’s gift involved the ungrudging sacrifice of twelve pieces of money which were needed for redeeming his own daughter from servitude and which had taken six whole months to earn, and it is indeed a very difficult one to give, and thus it is known as a gift difficult to give (dukkara-dāna).

Sukha the Novice

Another example of such gifts is found in the story of the novice Sukha, given in the commentary to the Dhamma Verses (Dhammapada, Dhp 145). Before he became a novice, he was a poor villager who wanted to eat the sumptuous meal of a rich man. The rich man Gandha told him that he would have to work for three years to earn such a meal. Accordingly, he worked for three years and obtained the meal he so earnestly longed for. When he was about to enjoy it, a Paccekabuddha happened to come by. Without any hesitation, he offered the Paccekabuddha the meal, which he had so cherished and which had taken him three years to earn.

A Poor Girl

Another example is provided by the Birth Story about the Wealthy Man’s Daughter Ummādantī (Ummādantī-jātaka, Ja 527), which gives the story of a poor girl who worked for three years to get printed clothes, which she wanted to adorn herself with. When she was about to dress herself in the clothes, which she had so yearned for, a disciple of Buddha Kassapa came by who was covered only with leaves because he had been robbed of his robes by thieves. The giving away of clothes, which she so cherished and for which she had to work for three years, is also a gift difficult to give (dukkara).

Great Offerings

Awe-inspiring offerings of great magnificence are called great offerings (mahā-dāna). The great Siri Dhammāsoka’s offering of 84,000 monasteries in honour of the 84,000 passages of the canon are great offerings of this type. On this account, Ven. Mahā Moggaliputta Tissa said: “In the Dispensation of the Buddha, or even in the lifetime of the Buddha, there is no one equal to you as a supporter of the four requisites. Your offering is the greatest.”

Although Ven. Mahā Moggaliputta Tissa said so, the gifts of Asoka were made on [1548] his own initiative, without anyone to compete with and, therefore, there is no need to classify them as a matched (sadisa) or matchless (asadisa) type of offering. King Pasenadi Kosala’s gifts were made in competition with those of the citizens of Sāvatthī and are, therefore, properly termed matchless offerings (asadisa-dāna).

Common Offerings

All other gifts of an ordinary nature which are neither difficult to make nor of great magnitude are just common gifts (sāmañña-dāna).

In addition to these, there is another classification of three gifts of Dhamma (Dhamma-dāna) described in the Vinaya Summary (Parivāra) and its commentary:

These are called righteous gifts (Dhammika-dāna), gifts offered in connection with the Dhamma. Further details of these types of gifts will be found below, in accordance with the nine kinds of unrighteous gifts (adhammika-dāna).

Gifts in Groups of Fours

The texts do not mention any type of gifts by fours. But the Vinaya lists four kinds of requisites which may be offered as gifts. They are:

Gifts may also be classified into four types depending on the purity of the supporter and the receiver:

Gifts in Groups of Fives

The Discourse on the Timely Gift (Kāla-dāna-sutta, AN 5.36) mentions the following five types of gifts which are to be given at an appropriate time:

The fifth type has direct reference to farmers and cultivators, but it should be understood that it also includes the first fruits of labour of anyone who offers them as gifts (dāna) before using them for oneself.

Five Kinds of Gifts to Men of No Virtue

There are five kinds of gifts made by men of no virtue (asappurisa-dāna):

Five Kinds of Gifts to Men of Virtue

There are five kinds of gifts made by men of virtue (sappurisa-dāna), these two groups of five kinds of gifts are described in the Discourse about Gifts given by Inferior People (Asappurisa-dāna-sutta, AN 5.147):

Another Five Kinds of Gifts

This classification of five kinds of gifts (dāna) is found in the [1550] Discourse about Gifts given by Superior People (Sappurisa-dāna-sutta, AN 5.148).

All of these five kinds of gifts give rise to great wealth, riches and prosperity. In addition, gifts made with faith (saddhā-dāna) result in a fair, handsome appearance. As a result of gifts made after preperation (sakkacca-dāna), one’s followers and attendants are attentive and obedient. Resulting from being given at the right time (kāla-dāna) are benefits that come at the right time and in abundance. As a result of gifts offering assistance (anuggaha-dāna), one is well disposed to enjoy the fruits of one’s good deeds and is able to do so in full. As a result of gifts that do no harm (anupaghāta-dāna), one’s property is fully protected against the five destructive elements of water, fire, kings, thieves and unloved heirs.

The opposites of these five kinds of gifts are not mentioned in the texts, but it may be assumed that the five corresponding gifts made by people with no virtues would be as follows:

In view of the gifts at the appropriate time (kāla-dāna) and the gifts at the inappropriate time (akāla-dāna) mentioned above, it should be well noted that it is improper to make offerings, even with the best of intentions, of light to the Buddha during the day when there is light, or of food when it is afternoon.

Five Kinds of Immoral Gifts

The Summary (Parivāra) of the Basket of Discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka) mentions five kinds of giving which are commonly and conventionally called by people deeds of merit, but which are nothing but harmful, demeritorious forms of offering. They are:

The Buddha described these forms of offering as immoral, demeritorious gifts because they cannot be accompanied by good intentions or wholesome volitions. Some people think that by providing opium to an addicted person who is nearing death because of withdrawal from the drug, they are doing a meritorious deed of giving life (jīvita-dāna). As a matter of fact, this does not constitute an act of merit because it is an unwholesome consciousness that motivates one to offer opium which is not suitable for consumption. The same consideration holds good in the case of offering intoxicants.

The commentary to the Birth Stories (Jātaka) mentions the inclusion of intoxicating drinks in the display of materials to be given away by the Bodhisatta King Vessantara as a great offering (mahā-dāna).

Some people try to explain this inclusion of intoxicants as materials for offering by King Vessantara by saying that the king had no intention of providing liquor to the drunkards, that it is only the volition that determines the merits of an offering; as King Vessantara did not want anyone to drink the intoxicants, there is no wrong intention involved. He merely wanted to avoid being criticised by those who would say that the king’s great gifts (dāna) has no offerings of intoxicants.

But such rationalizations are untenable. Great persons, like King Vessantara, do not worry about criticism levelled at them by others, especially when the criticism is unjustified. The fact of the matter is that it is only in drinking that the guilt lies; using it as a lotion or for [1551] medicinal preparations in a proper manner is not demeritorious. We should take it, therefore, that it is for such purposes that King Vessantara included intoxicants as materials for offering in his great gifts (mahā-dāna).

Five Kinds of Great Offerings

In the Discourse on the Streams of Merit (Abhisanda-sutta, AN 8.39), comprehensive expositions are given of the five precepts, beginning with the words: Pañcimāni bhikkhave dānāni, mahā-dānāni, describing “the five precepts as the five kinds of great gifts (mahā-dāna).” But it should not be thought that virtue (sīla) is generosity (dāna) just because the five precepts are described as the five great gifts in the text mentioned above. The Buddha does not mean to say that morality (sīla) is not different from giving (dāna) or that the two are exactly the same. Morality (sīla) is proper restraint of one’s physical and verbal actions, and giving (dāna) is the offering of a gift, and the two should not be taken as identical.

When a virtuous person observes the precept of non-killing and abstains from taking the life of other beings, that virtuous person is actually giving them the gift of harmlessness (abhaya-dāna). The same consideration applies to the remaining precepts. Thus, when all the five precepts are well observed by a moral person, he is, by his restraint, offering all beings gifts of freedom from harm, danger, worries, anxiety, etc. It is in this sense that the Buddha teaches here that observance of the five precepts constitutes offering of the five great gifts (mahā-dāna).

Gifts in Groups of Sixes

Just as the texts do not mention any list of gifts in groups of fours as such, so there is no direct mention of types of gifts in groups of six either. But the Abundance of Meaning (Aṭṭha-sālinī, DsA), the commentary to the Enumeration of Phenonema (Dhamma-saṅgaṇī), gives an exposition of six types of gifts in which the six sense objects provide materials for offerings: the gift of colour, sound, odour, taste, objects of touch, and mind-objects.

Gifts in Groups of Sevens

Similarly, there is no mention of types of gifts in groups of sevens as such, but the seven kinds of gifts to the Saṅgha (Saṅghika-dāna) described above under the heading Gifts in Pairs and Gifts to the Saṅgha may be taken to represent this type of gift (dāna).

Gifts in Groups of Eights

The Buddha teaches a group of eight types of gifts (dāna) in the First Discourse on Gifts (Paṭhama-dāna-sutta, AN 8.31). The eight gifts are:

Of the eight kinds of gifts, the last one is the best and the noblest. The reason is that this [1552] last type of gift is unique, one which promotes joy and delight in one who is practising concentration and insight meditation, and renders great assistance to his endeavours in meditation.

The first seven modes of giving do not arouse and encourage the mind in the work of concentration and insight meditation but of them, the first and the fifth are superior ones (paṇīta). The seventh type is an inferior one (hīna), while numbers 2, 3, 4 and 6 are of medium status.

The eight categories of gifts may be divided into two groups: gifts which belong to the sphere of meritorious giving (puñña-visaya-dāna) and gifts which belong to the sphere of worldly gifts (loka-visaya-dāna). The first, the fifth and the eighth are gifts which belong to the sphere of meritorious giving and the remaining five belong to the gifts which belong to the sphere of worldly gifts.

Again, the Discourse on the Bases for Gifts (Dāna-vatthu-sutta, AN 8.33) provides another list of eight gifts.

Of these eight categories of gifts also, only the eighth kind is the noblest; the sixth and the seventh are gifts which belong to the sphere of meritorious giving. The remaining five are of inferior status belonging to the gifts which belong to the sphere of worldly gifts.

Again, in the Discourse on Rebirths following Gifts (Dānūpapatti-sutta, AN 8.35), the Buddha had taught comprehensively on the subject of gaining a good rebirth as a result of giving alms (dānūpapatti). According to the eight kinds of destination to be gained as future births, the gifts are divided into eight categories:

It should not be concluded from the above statements that the giving of alms alone is a sure guarantee for a happy life in the Brahma world. As stated under the eighth type, in the above two categories, it is only by making the mind pliable and gentle through offering of alms and through development of concentration up to the absorption (jhāna) stage, by practising meditation on the four immeasurables: loving-kindness (mettā), compassion (karuṇā), sympathetic joy (muditā) and equanimity (upekkhā) that one can gain rebirth in the Brahma world.

Again, in the Discourse on the Gifts of a Good Person (Sappurisa-dāna-sutta, AN 8.37) there is the following list of eight gifts (dāna) given by a moral person (sappurisa-dāna):

A separate list of eight types of gifts made by persons of immoral conduct (asappurisa-dāna) is not given as such in the texts, but one could surmise that they would be as follows:

Gifts by Groups of Nines

The Vinaya Summary (Parivāra) mentions the nine types of giving which were taught by the Buddha as not valid as a deed of offering (adhammika-dāna). The commentary on the text explains these nine types of gifts as follows: [1554]

Causing the gift which was intended by the supporter for a certain group of the Saṅgha:

Causing the gift which was intended by the supporter for a certain shrine:

Causing the gift which was intended by the supporter for a certain individual:

Here the gift which has been intended by the supporter means the four requisites of robes, food, dwelling places and medicines and other small items of necessities which the supporter has already committed verbally to give to the Saṅgha, or to a shrine, or an individual.

The story of why the Buddha taught these nine types of unrighteous gifts is given in the Expulsion (Pārājika) and Confession (Pācittiya) texts of the Basket of Discipline (Vinaya-piṭaka).

At one time the Buddha was residing at the Jetavana monastery in Sāvatthī. Then a certain group of people decided to make offerings of food and robes to the Saṅgha. Accordingly, they made the necessary preparations and had the robes and food ready for the offering. A group of immoral monastics went to the would-be supporters and forcibly urged them to make the offering of robes to them instead. Being thus forced to give away the robes to the immoral monastics, the people had only food left to offer to the Saṅgha. Hearing of this, the modest monastics denounced the immoral monastics and reported what had happened to the Buddha. It was then that the Buddha laid down the rule: “Whatever monastic should knowingly appropriate for himself the gift which has been declared to be intended for the Saṅgha, there is an offence of expiation involving forfeiture (Vinaya Np 30).”

In the explanation that accompanies the rule, the Buddha explains: “If the gift that is already committed by word of mouth to be given to the Saṅgha is appropriated for oneself, there is the offence of expiation involving forfeiture (nissaggiya-pācittiya-āpatti); if it is caused to be given to the Saṅgha other than the intended one or to a shrine, there is an offence of wrong-doing (dukkaṭa-āpatti). Knowing the gift is intended for a certain shrine, if it is made to be given to another shrine or to the Saṅgha or to an individual, there is an offence of wrong-doing. Knowing the gift is intended to be given to a certain individual, if it is caused to be given to another individual, or to the Saṅgha, or to a shrine, there is an offence of wrong-doing.

The above story is given to illustrate how one’s well-intentioned deeds of merit could become vitiated through intervention and interference of undesirable intermediaries and how, due to their intervention, it could be turned into an unrighteous gift (adhammika-dāna). The Buddha also explained the nine unrighteous acceptances (adhammika-paṭiggaha) of the nine unrighteous gifts and the nine righteous uses (dhammika-paribhoga) of righteously offered requisites.

It should be noted, however, that not every transfer of gifts from the recipient originally intended by the supporter to another results in an unrighteous gift. The supporter himself may change his original intention for some good reason or may be persuaded by a well-wisher to transfer the gift for acquiring more merit.

An illustration of such a transfer of gifts is found in the story of Mahā Pajāpatī who had made a new robe intending it to be offered to the Buddha. The Buddha advised her to offer the robe to the Saṅgha instead. If it were an offence, the Buddha would not have given the advice. As a matter of fact, the Buddha knew that Mahā Pajāpatī would gain much greater merit by offering the robe to the Saṅgha headed by himself. [1555]

In another instance, the Buddha persuaded King Pasenadi of Kosala to change his mind about permitting a monastery for ascetics of another faith to be built close by the Jetavana monastery. The king had been bribed by the ascetics into granting land to build their monastery. Foreseeing endless disputes that would later arise, the Buddha first sent Ven. Ānanda and other monastics and later the two chief disciples, Ven. Sāriputta and Ven. Mahā Moggallāna, to dissuade the king from taking the bribe and granting the land to the ascetics. The king gave some excuse to avoid seeing the great disciples. Consequently, the Buddha himself had to go to the king and told him the story of King Bharu, mentioned in the Birth Story about the King of Bharu (Bharu-jātaka, Ja 213), who, in a similar situation, had caused much suffering through taking bribes. Fully convinced of his wrong doing, King Pasenadi made amends by withdrawing the grant of land and appropriating the building materials gathered in it by the ascetics. The king then had a monastery built with those materials on the very site and donated it to the Buddha.

As stated above, there is no offence when a supporter changes his first intention for a good reason and makes the offer to another person. This has direct reference to one of the attributes of the noble Saṅgha (Ariya-saṅgha). If a supporter prepares gifts for monastics who would be visiting him, but then in the meantime, monastics who are well-established in the higher phenomena and who are members of the noble Saṅgha arrive, he may change his mind and offer the gifts to the newcomers to his better advantage. And they may also accept such gifts. They may also make use of the gifts so received. Being worthy of accepting such gifts originally intended for visitors is an attribute of the noble Saṅgha (pāhuneyya).

Gifts in Groups of Tens and Fourteens

As in the case of gifts in groups of fours, sixes, or sevens there is no direct mention of types of gifts in groups of tens in the texts. But the commentaries provide a list of ten material things which may be offered as gifts.

Likewise, the Discourse on the Analysis of Offerings (Dakkhiṇā-vibhaṅga-sutta, MN 142) gives a list of gifts (dāna) which come under the category of the fourteen kinds of gifts by individuals. ^{See item 19 of the types of alms giving (dāna) in the groups of twos above.}

5-6. What Strengthens and Weakens the Beneficial Results

The Discourse on the Gifts with Six Factors (Chaḷaṅga-dāna-sutta, AN 6.37) explains the elements that strengthen the beneficial results of gifts and those that weaken them.

At one time, the Buddha was residing at the Jetavana monastery in Sāvatthī. At that time, he saw, by his supernormal psychic power of divine sight, that a certain female follower of his teaching by the name of Nandamātā was making an offering to the two chief disciples and the Saṅgha, in the distant town of Velukantakī.

He said to the monastics: “Monastics, Nandamātā of Velukantakī is right now making a great offering to the Saṅgha headed by Sāriputta and Moggallāna. Her offering has the distinguished feature of the supporter possessing three special qualities of volitional purity: feeling happy before the act of offering; having a clear, pure mind while making the offering; and rejoicing after having made the offering, and of the recipients possessing three special qualities of mental purity: being free of attachment (rāga) or practising to be liberated from it; being free of ill-will (dosa) or practising to be liberated from it; being free of delusion (moha) or practising to be liberated from it.

Monastics, just as the water in the ocean is immeasurable, the benefit that will accrue from an offering distinguished by those six features is also immeasurable. [1556] You speak of the water in the ocean as an immeasurably huge mass of water, likewise you speak of such an offering, which is unique with these six features, as one that will bring an immeasurably huge accumulation of merit.”

According to this text, it may be seen that the three qualities possessed by the supporter and the three qualities possessed by the recipients form the elements that strengthen the beneficial results of gifts. It follows from it that, to the extent that the supporter and the recipients are lacking in their respective qualities, to that extent will the act of giving (dāna) falls short of the full possible beneficial results.

Again, in the ninth Birth Story of the Long Birth Story about Dhammapāla (Mahā-Dhammapāla-jātaka, Ja 447), it is mentioned that King Suddhodana was a Brahmin in a past life. The great teacher of Takkasilā, to whom he had entrusted his son for education, asked him why members of his clan did not die young but lived to a ripe old age. He replied in verse:

Pubbeva dānā sumanā bhavāma,
dadam-pi ve attamanā bhavāma,
datvā pi ve nānutappāma pacchā,
tasmā hi amhaṁ daharā na mīyare.

We feel very happy before we make an offering, we are delighted and satisfied while making the offering, and we rejoice after having made the offering, never feeling remorseful. For these three reasons, people never die young in our clan.

From this story, one can surmise that when an offering is made with fulfilment of these three volitional conditions, the benefit that accrues from it is enjoyment of long life in the present existence.

Again, in the Abundance of Meaning (Aṭṭha-sālinī, DsA) and the Dhamma Verses (Dhammapada) commentary are mentioned four conditions that bring beneficial results in the present life from an act of offering:

Offerings of this kind, which bring beneficial results in the present life, were made by people such as Puṇṇa, Kākavaliya and the flower girl Sumanā, who reaped great benefits from their gifts which met these four conditions completely.

In the Abundance of Meaning (Aṭṭha-sālinī, DsA), these four conditions for a gift are termed “the four purities of gifts (dakkhiṇā-visuddhi);” in the Dhamma Verses (Dhammapada) commentary, they are called “the four accomplishments (sampadā).”

Again, there is a list of four kinds of purity (dakkhiṇā-visuddhi) connected with an act of giving (dāna) in the Discourse on the Analysis of Offerings (Dakkhiṇā-vibhaṅga-sutta, MN 142). They are:

The third type, of course, is not concerned with purity at all, but it is mentioned to include all the cases involved. To summarise all that we have considered, there are five elements that strengthen the beneficial results of gifts:

These five elements should accompany the gift so that it will be of greatest purity and benefit; to the extent they are lacking when offerings are made, to that extent will the gift be deficient in beneficial results.

Some Remarks on Faith

It is important to understand clearly the complete meaning of the fifth element: “faith in the law of cause and effect.” Here, faith is the rendering of the Pāḷi word saddhā. Grammatically, it would mean “that which holds and keeps well.”

Just as clear water in which all sediment and impurities have settled down to the bottom can hold the image of the moon and of the sun and keep it well, so also faith, which is devoid of mental defilements, can firmly hold the virtues and attributes of the Buddha to serve as an object for contemplation.

To give another illustration: If a man is not equipped with hands, he would not be able to help himself to jewels lying around him although he sees them. If he does not possess wealth, he would not be able to provide himself with a variety of goods and materials.

Without seeds, there would be neither crops nor grains. Similarly, without faith, we cannot acquire the jewels of generosity, morality and the development of concentration and insight, and there can be no enjoyment of the pleasures of the human or Deva realm or the bliss of Nibbāna. Hence, the Buddha in his teaching compared faith to possessing hands, wealth or seeds.

In the Questions of King Milinda (Milinda-pañha) and Abundance of Meaning (Aṭṭha-sālinī, DsA) commentary, faith is compared to the crown jewel, the ruby, of a Universal Monarch, which has the property of instantly purifying and clearing the water into which it is put, no matter how dirty the water is. In a similar manner, faith dispels instantly all that is defiling the mind and makes it pure and clear at once. If the mind is filled with faith, there is no room in it for defilements, such as grief, worry, etc.

How difficult it is to keep the mind steadfastly contemplating the attributes of the Buddha is within the experience of all good Buddhists. In other words, it is not a simple matter to keep the mind only filled with faith, devoid of all defilements. But with practice, one can maintain a pure, clear mind through faith for short periods until, with steadfast effort, one can do so continuously for long periods. [1558]

As regards having faith in the law of cause and effect mentioned above, we should reflect thus: “I will have spent a certain amount of my wealth by offering this gift (dāna), but it will not be spent in vain. Through this act of giving (dāna) I will have developed volitions which are much more precious than the wealth I will have spent. My wealth is liable to be destroyed by the five kinds of enemies, but this mental volition is indestructible and will follow me through the rounds of existence till I attain Nibbāna. Ability to keep the mind clear and pure in this manner is having faith in the law of cause and effect, the mental volition.”

And considering the results that would accrue from the mental action, we will come to a very clear, definite conclusion: “Because of this mental volition, I will reap beneficial results throughout the rounds of existence, there is no doubt about it.” Reflecting thus and experiencing the exhilarating purity of the mind is having faith in the law of cause and effect.

Thus, it is important to develop faith, through reflecting on the law of cause and effect, which is conducive to purity of mind, for it is the fifth element that strengthens the beneficial results of giving (dāna).