Can 'merit' Really Be Enhanced?

[ChiangMaiFun]

I would be interested in views... I have often wondered why some Buddhists feel that giving the same thing (maybe 100 THB) to a monk is more worthy of giving to... let's say an orphanage

Some have suggested that the karmic magnetic response is magnified.

To make it clear - I am not suggesting not giving to monks! I am thinking about the 'power' of two exactly the same merit making activities.

The intention... of course is paramount... let's assume the intention is the same... goodwill... in fact one could argue to give to monks in the hope of better 'return' is the lesser of the two activities.

Surely, karmically, the person who donates without the instant ''reward' of recognition (i.e. anonymously) is more worthy? I remember reading a book about Karma and seeing all the doners to the publication in the back and thinking 'hmmm they probably feel they have undertaken a merit-making deed' - and no doubt they have - but, it seems to me, to be more about 'them' than about alturistic intention.

[camerata]

I would be interested in views... I have often wondered why some Buddhists feel that giving the same thing (maybe 100 THB) to a monk is more worthy of giving to... let's say an orphanage

I can give you the facts and some extrapolation rather than my views. The Pali Canon details the karmic consequences of generosity to the Sangha but is not so specific about the rewards for specific incidences of generosity to others (although the Dana Sutta mentions "gifts" in general). People naturally have confidence in what is stated explicitly in the scriptures.

Similarly, it's specifically stated that the karmic consequences vary according to the wisdom and virtue of the monk one is supporting. The general opinion about this in Theravada Buddhism is that supporting a wise and virtuous monk or Sangha has a ripple effect of spreading the Dhamma, since only they are able to do so. Generosity in general doesn't have that effect.

The reason the karmic consequences of generosity vary according to intent is outlined by the Buddha in the Dana Sutta, ending with the words that if one gives with the thought:

'This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind' -- on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that action, that power, that status, that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. He does not come back to this world.

"This, Sariputta, is the cause, this is the reason, why a person gives a gift of a certain sort and it does not bear great fruit or great benefit, whereas another person gives a gift of the same sort and it bears great fruit and great benefit."

[ChiangMaiFun]

Good morning... so we should all sit outside the more famous Wats to donate to senior monks? what about the poor old lady who gives 10 baht to feed a hungry dog? is a rich drug dealer who gives 1m to a Wat more favourably looked upon? just a thought...

[Capealava]

A famous meeting

Bodhidharma sailed to China in 521. When he disembarked at the port city of Canton, he was received with great ceremony by a local official, Shao Ang, who immediately reported Bodhidharma’s arrival to Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty. The emperor ordered the official to accompany the monk to the capital, Chienkang (now Nanking).

Emperor Wu was a devoted Buddhist who had spent a lot of money building temples and duplicating Buddhist scriptures, and he treated Buddhist monks with great reverence. Many government officials followed suit, but they were only playing up to the emperor in the hope of being promoted.

When the Emperor Wu met Bodhidharma, there transpired a now-famous conversation between the two. The emperor spoke to the monk very politely.

“I have built many temples and translated the sutras into Chinese. I have also laid down the rules for people who want to join the ranks of monks or nuns. Furthermore, I have ruled my kingdom in accordance with the Buddha’s teachings. Do I gain any merit from all this? Will I eventually become a buddha?”

Bodhidharma looked at him calmly and replied, “Your Majesty, you have no merit at all.”

The emperor, displeased, asked him, “Why is that?”

Bodhidharma replied, “What Your Majesty has been doing belongs to the merit of Hinayana Buddhism, and you will never be truly freed from endless reincarnation.”

Emperor Wu asked again, “Then what is real merit?”

Bodhidharma answered, “True merit comes from unselfish giving, spiritual cultivation, and dedication to the Buddha and to all living creatures. If Your Majesty can do all this, you will gain true merit.”

The emperor was not happy with this reply or with the monk, and he started to doubt his true identity. In order to find out whether he was really who he claimed to be, Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma, “What is the first sacred law of Buddhism?”

Bodhidharma replied, “There is no such law in Buddhism.”

Emperor Wu asked very angrily, “Do you know who is standing before you?”

Bodhidharma replied, “No, I don’t.”

What was going on here? Was Bodhidharma out of his mind or was his head still spinning from seasickness after travelling from India to China by boat? No, it was nothing like that. Through their conversation, Bodhidharma knew that Emperor Wu was only interested in gaining merits and attaining buddhahood, but that he had no understanding of the essence of Buddhism. In the end, Bodhidharma left the palace and went north.

[ChiangMaiFun]

A famous meeting

Bodhidharma sailed to China in 521. When he disembarked at the port city of Canton, he was received with great ceremony by a local official, Shao Ang, who immediately reported Bodhidharma's arrival to Emperor Wu of the Liang dynasty. The emperor ordered the official to accompany the monk to the capital, Chienkang (now Nanking).

Emperor Wu was a devoted Buddhist who had spent a lot of money building temples and duplicating Buddhist scriptures, and he treated Buddhist monks with great reverence. Many government officials followed suit, but they were only playing up to the emperor in the hope of being promoted.

When the Emperor Wu met Bodhidharma, there transpired a now-famous conversation between the two. The emperor spoke to the monk very politely.

"I have built many temples and translated the sutras into Chinese. I have also laid down the rules for people who want to join the ranks of monks or nuns. Furthermore, I have ruled my kingdom in accordance with the Buddha's teachings. Do I gain any merit from all this? Will I eventually become a buddha?"

Bodhidharma looked at him calmly and replied, "Your Majesty, you have no merit at all."

The emperor, displeased, asked him, "Why is that?"

Bodhidharma replied, "What Your Majesty has been doing belongs to the merit of Hinayana Buddhism, and you will never be truly freed from endless reincarnation."

Emperor Wu asked again, "Then what is real merit?"

Bodhidharma answered, "True merit comes from unselfish giving, spiritual cultivation, and dedication to the Buddha and to all living creatures. If Your Majesty can do all this, you will gain true merit."

The emperor was not happy with this reply or with the monk, and he started to doubt his true identity. In order to find out whether he was really who he claimed to be, Emperor Wu asked Bodhidharma, "What is the first sacred law of Buddhism?"

Bodhidharma replied, "There is no such law in Buddhism."

Emperor Wu asked very angrily, "Do you know who is standing before you?"

Bodhidharma replied, "No, I don't."

What was going on here? Was Bodhidharma out of his mind or was his head still spinning from seasickness after travelling from India to China by boat? No, it was nothing like that. Through their conversation, Bodhidharma knew that Emperor Wu was only interested in gaining merits and attaining buddhahood, but that he had no understanding of the essence of Buddhism. In the end, Bodhidharma left the palace and went north.

Exactly... reminds me of the story of the 'Widow's Mite' in the Christian tradition...

[camerata]

Good morning... so we should all sit outside the more famous Wats to donate to senior monks? what about the poor old lady who gives 10 baht to feed a hungry dog? is a rich drug dealer who gives 1m to a Wat more favourably looked upon? just a thought...

You asked why "some Buddhists" prefer giving to temples. I gave you the answer. No one said you or anyone else "should" do anything at all. The underlying principle - which is apparently not shared by Mahayana Buddhism - is that you gain more merit by helping potentially unlimited people attain nibbana than by helping one being with its material needs. If you engage in Wrong Livelihood by dealing drugs, you'll reap the karmic consequences of that regardless of how much money you donate. As always, it's the intent that matters.

[camerata]

Emperor Wu was a devoted Buddhist who had spent a lot of money building temples and duplicating Buddhist scriptures, and he treated Buddhist monks with great reverence. Many government officials followed suit, but they were only playing up to the emperor in the hope of being promoted.

Bodhidharma replied, “What Your Majesty has been doing belongs to the merit of Hinayana Buddhism, and you will never be truly freed from endless reincarnation.”

Typical Hinayana-bashing from the old Mahayana scriptures. Copying sutras was in fact a common Mahayana merit-making practice. At least Bodhidharma's answer was on the mark: You can't buy your way into enlightenment. Dana, or generosity, is good but it is the lowest form of practice. To attain nibbana (Theravada) or Buddhahood (Mahayana) requires serious mental cultivation that goes way beyond simple generosity.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Good morning... so we should all sit outside the more famous Wats to donate to senior monks? what about the poor old lady who gives 10 baht to feed a hungry dog? is a rich drug dealer who gives 1m to a Wat more favourably looked upon? just a thought...

You asked why "some Buddhists" prefer giving to temples. I gave you the answer. No one said you or anyone else "should" do anything at all. The underlying principle - which is apparently not shared by Mahayana Buddhism - is that you gain more merit by helping potentially unlimited people attain nibbana than by helping one being with its material needs. If you engage in Wrong Livelihood by dealing drugs, you'll reap the karmic consequences of that regardless of how much money you donate. As always, it's the intent that matters.

Hang on... what I meant was why many Buddhists think it's ok to be wrongful during the week then make merit by donating money. I see it all the time... the larger point is that much of the 'wealth' of temples comes from rich donators - I'm not suggesting they are all bad (heaven forbid!) but I was challenging the simplistic view that giving to a senior monk would have any more merit than a humble person (I say this to make a point not to be disrespectful).

[camerata]

Hang on... what I meant was why many Buddhists think it's ok to be wrongful during the week then make merit by donating money. I see it all the time... the larger point is that much of the 'wealth' of temples comes from rich donators - I'm not suggesting they are all bad (heaven forbid!) but I was challenging the simplistic view that giving to a senior monk would have any more merit than a humble person (I say this to make a point not to be disrespectful).

But you didn't mention anything about being "wrongful during the week" in your OP. There certainly isn't much point in doing bad things and trying to "compensate" by donating to temples, but I guess some people do it, especially if they feel the bad things they do can't be avoided. Also, I didn't specify "senior monks" - I said monks with "wisdom and virtue" - the ones who can spread the Dhamma. Perhaps some people think that senior monks are more virtuous - and sometimes they are - but in Thailand people generally seek out those with a reputation for virtue/wisdom. This is one reason people take trips to visit famous monks and why Ajahn Maha Boowa has so many supporters. Imagine being able to make merit with an arahant!

[fabianfred]

The Thais have a saying that a person who keeps the eight precepts for a single day and night acquires more merit than by building a dozen temples.....keeping the precepts, even the five precepts, requires effort whereas giving is relatively easy.

The Buddha said that 'The gift of Dhamma is the greatest gift'

By giving money to the poor or feeding them, building schools or similar social work is only helping them with their immediate suffering...... whereas to lead them to know the truth of the dhamma can help them cope with their present condition far better by understanding the reasons for it (karma)...and ultimately relieve them from ALL present and future suffering if they achieve the escape from Samsara by the liberation of Nirvana. Donations which support the Sangha should help them continue their life of example and teaching.

[Xangsamhua]

Extract from interview with Dr Catherine Hamelin before she went to Stockholm last month to receive the Right Livelihood Award from the Swedish Government. Dr Hamelin and her husband established a Fistula Hospital in Addis Ababa 50 years ago. Before then, young women with fistula (resulting from injuries in childbirth) were returned to their parents and made to live apart because they were incontinent and smelled. The cost of repairing a fistula is less than $100.

I think it's better for all, regardless of what merit is earned by whom, if the fistulas are repaired first. The teaching of Dharma can follow.

http://getish173.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/...stula-hospital/

There must have been plenty of job opportunities back in Australia or Europe or the United States for you and your husband. Why did you choose to come here?

We came really because we felt that God wanted us to do something to help others. We didn’t plan to stay forever. We thought we would stay for three or four years and then go back.

We had no idea that we would meet fistula patients; we had no idea how to operate on them. We had to learn all this after we came. There were many famous doctors that taught us. There was a famous surgeon in Cairo who was the most fantastic fistula surgeon. And we learned from another English gynecologist who was working in India.

We read all the literature about it and we gradually improved our techniques. We came because we wanted to help and we love being here and we love the patients.

What were your first activities when you started working in the Princess Tsehay Hospital and how did you meet the fistula patients?

First of all we founded a midwifery school for nurses. We were allowed to run it for a few years and then the Ministry of Health said, “We can’t go on because if we graduate a lot of these nurses as midwives, they will want extra money. We are short of money so we want you to stop.” We closed that small school but by that time fistula patients had started to come down from the countryside.

We were very touched by their suffering, their plight and poverty and their neglect by the rest of the medical world. So, as they came we started to cure them at the Princes Tsehay Hospital. As soon as we cured them they went back and told others and more and more came down to us. Some of them traveled for months, begging all the way down.

Why is it difficult for fistula patients to live with their families? And what hardships do they face because of their injuries?

We became very involved with the work and we became very touched by the stories they told, the suffering they went through. They were abandoned by the society.

Husbands would run away, especially after the first baby, not from cruelty, not because they didn’t love the woman, but because they couldn’t have a woman leaking urine and smelling all day long in a small house. So they would often say to their husbands, “Look, I can’t cook for you, I can’t have more children, I can’t live with you any longer.”

He would give her back to her parents. They would love her because she was their daughter, but they would have to put her way from the rest of the family because their social life would be jeopardized if they have somebody smelling in their house.

She would be ostracized from everything that makes her happy. Imagine her looking forward to her first baby and she gets into obstructed labor.

What is the major cause of fistula and why do we have so many cases of fistula in Ethiopia?

Obstructed labor (one of the causes of fistula) occurs in five percent of all women in the world. This has nothing to do with Ethiopia, nothing to do with Africa. Five percent in America or Europe or Australia, my country, could get help if the baby doesn’t come out normally by caesarean section, or some other skilled intervention.

So, it is not the fault of the woman in any way. She might have a small pelvis or the baby might be in a bad position and this would cause the obstruction. It is usually women who live far away in the countryside who get these injuries. It is common in most developing countries where there are not enough facilities, not enough doctors, not enough midwives to help women in labor.

And difficulty of travel in Ethiopia is very great because it is a large country and has so many mountains, so many rivers, and so many deserts. That is why we get so many fistulas in this country.

Will you describe how a girl with fistula may suffer?

A girl may be married to a farmer boy who is completely ignorant of what has happened to his wife and why the house smells of urine. And she is ashamed. She creeps out at night to fetch water and to wash her clothes. She is frightened to mix with her friends in the village. So she lives a life of misery shut up in a little room. One girl came to us with her knees drawn up to her chin because that was how she sat for months on the floor. She was so contracted that her knees and hips became stiff and she couldn’t walk. Ten percent of the girls need physiotherapy before they can’t walk, because they have been curled up in bed thinking perhaps if they kept their legs together, the urine would stop coming out. But it wouldn’t.

My heart is broken to see women that should have a normal life reduced to such abject misery, poverty and lack of any hope in the world. We are making new lives for them.

Edited December 11, 2009 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

Extract from interview with Dr Catherine Hamelin before she went to Stockholm last month to receive the Right Livelihood Award from the Swedish Government. Dr Hamelin and her husband established a Fistula Hospital in Addis Ababa 50 years ago. Before then, young women with fistula (resulting from injuries in childbirth) were returned to their parents and made to live apart because they were incontinent and smelled. The cost of repairing a fistula is less than $100.

I think it's better for all, regardless of what merit is earned by whom, if the fistulas are repaired first. The teaching of Dharma can follow.

Very insightful. Whilst still anchored to the ego, it helps to have ones physical & psychological needs in some kind of balance.

Living in debilitating circumstances can be overwhelming & take ones focus off the path.

Edited December 11, 2009 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

In fact many people who donate to all manner of good causes, whether selfishly or unselfishly, do not understand the essence of Buddhism.

In my reading of this story, the main message has nothing to do with comparing one kind of dana with another. It's talking about intention (ie making merit for spiritual advancement is selfish), and it's also pushing no-self, as is clear from the latter passage:

"What is the first sacred law of Buddhism?"

Bodhidharma replied, "There is no such law in Buddhism."

Emperor Wu asked very angrily, "Do you know who is standing before you?"

Bodhidharma replied, "No, I don't."

In the story, Bodhidharma states

True merit comes from unselfish giving, spiritual cultivation, and dedication to the Buddha and to all living creatures. If Your Majesty can do all this, you will gain true merit.

If this is true, than it would apply to temple-building as well as feeding a hungry dog.

Furthermore the logic put forth by this Zen story would apply equally to the latter act. If done for selfish reasons, ie, to put one's 'self' further along the spiritual ladder, then the merit means less (but not 'nothing', because according to the Tripitaka good deeds performed with bad intentions do produce at least some kusala vipaka) than if done without selfish intent.

As with all action, if performed with kusala citta, then the outcome will be kusala kamma. The causes you choose to fund are a personal decision. One person may decide that helping with an immediate health or social need is the right thing, while another might want to donate to a monk for further propagation of the dhamma.

Some people might do both. It's not necessarily an either/or question.

As for the Theravada/Mahayana distinction, if Mahayana Buddhists didn't make merit by building temples and donating to monks, there would be no Mahayana temples or Mahayana monks.

I can't understand being prescriptive about it unless you know the intention of the donor. One might better ask one's self, 'What have I done to improve the lot of others?' or 'How can I best support the dhamma?'

[rockyysdt]

I can't understand being prescriptive about it unless you know the intention of the donor. One might better ask one's self, 'What have I done to improve the lot of others?' or 'How can I best support the dhamma?'

I'm thinking, whichever way we view it, in our current state we all have selfish intent to varying degree.

It is in our current nature as beings attached to our ego.

If we truthfully analyse the intention of any action we take, including following the dhamma, l think it will be difficult to find non selfish intent amongst us.

Edited December 11, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

If we truthfully analyse the intention of any action we take, including following the dhamma, l think it will be difficult to find non selfish intent amongst us.

As I've mentioned before, there is wholesome desire (dhammachanda) and unwholesome desire (kammachanda). So, no problem.

An interesting story touching on this is A Tale of Two Similies.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Hang on... what I meant was why many Buddhists think it's ok to be wrongful during the week then make merit by donating money. I see it all the time... the larger point is that much of the 'wealth' of temples comes from rich donators - I'm not suggesting they are all bad (heaven forbid!) but I was challenging the simplistic view that giving to a senior monk would have any more merit than a humble person (I say this to make a point not to be disrespectful).

But you didn't mention anything about being "wrongful during the week" in your OP. There certainly isn't much point in doing bad things and trying to "compensate" by donating to temples, but I guess some people do it, especially if they feel the bad things they do can't be avoided. Also, I didn't specify "senior monks" - I said monks with "wisdom and virtue" - the ones who can spread the Dhamma. Perhaps some people think that senior monks are more virtuous - and sometimes they are - but in Thailand people generally seek out those with a reputation for virtue/wisdom. This is one reason people take trips to visit famous monks and why Ajahn Maha Boowa has so many supporters. Imagine being able to make merit with an arahant!

Fair points... mea culpa

[ChiangMaiFun]

I can't understand being prescriptive about it unless you know the intention of the donor. One might better ask one's self, 'What have I done to improve the lot of others?' or 'How can I best support the dhamma?'

I'm thinking, whichever way we view it, in our current state we all have selfish intent to varying degree.

It is in our current nature as beings attached to our ego.

If we truthfully analyse the intention of any action we take, including following the dhamma, l think it will be difficult to find non selfish intent amongst us.

That is so true... but there must be some instances? seeing a child drown... jumping in? (assuming it's not our child)? very difficult I agree but the obvious putting one's name on the temple wall (although practical to rasie money) doesn't seem to 'fit'?

[Xangsamhua]

That is so true... but there must be some instances? seeing a child drown... jumping in? (assuming it's not our child)? very difficult I agree but the obvious putting one's name on the temple wall (although practical to rasie money) doesn't seem to 'fit'?

Fits all right with historical research. Much has been learned from inscriptions of donors on ancient temple and synagogue walls , about the sociology of the community supporting the temple/synagogue, etc. and, by inference, other facets of the social context.

(Sorry, off-topic and facetious.)

[rockyysdt]

If we truthfully analyse the intention of any action we take, including following the dhamma, l think it will be difficult to find non selfish intent amongst us.

As I've mentioned before, there is wholesome desire (dhammachanda) and unwholesome desire (kammachanda). So, no problem.

An interesting story touching on this is A Tale of Two Similies.

Chanda: a sincere wish, wholesome desire or zeal – a mental factor that does not involve unwholesome greed lobha.

Then is self interest, or something in it for me, OK as long as it's not "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others".

For example, I want to be liberated from suffering, l want to be enlightened, l want to experience Nibbana so l will do merit to gain these things. Are these wholesome desires?

Sorry, l know "l" features prominently, but l think, where self interest exists you will find "l".

Edited December 12, 2009 by rockyysdt

[ChiangMaiFun]

That is so true... but there must be some instances? seeing a child drown... jumping in? (assuming it's not our child)? very difficult I agree but the obvious putting one's name on the temple wall (although practical to rasie money) doesn't seem to 'fit'?

Fits all right with historical research. Much has been learned from inscriptions of donors on ancient temple and synagogue walls , about the sociology of the community supporting the temple/synagogue, etc. and, by inference, other facets of the social context.

(Sorry, off-topic and facetious.)

I know... that you know... that I know... you are joking... but there is a serious (ish) point here - isn't the 'reward' almost taken already by having one's name for all to see? forget about the 'pride' thing for a moment... isn't the 'recognition' that such an inscription brings it's own reward and as such (useful though such a donation may be) the actual 'merit' earned for the individual would be minimal?

[camerata]

Then is self interest, or something in it for me, OK as long as it's not "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others".

For example, I want to be liberated from suffering, l want to be enlightened, l want to experience Nibbana so l will do merit to gain these things. Are these wholesome desires?

The desire for nibbana is always wholesome. That pretty much defines the word "wholesome" as far as Theravada Buddhism is concerned. Basically, to desire to rid your self of desire is fine. Intellectual arguments against this come from the frightened ego which has a different agenda altogether.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Then is self interest, or something in it for me, OK as long as it's not "devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others".

For example, I want to be liberated from suffering, l want to be enlightened, l want to experience Nibbana so l will do merit to gain these things. Are these wholesome desires?

The desire for nibbana is always wholesome. That pretty much defines the word "wholesome" as far as Theravada Buddhism is concerned. Basically, to desire to rid your self of desire is fine. Intellectual arguments against this come from the frightened ego which has a different agenda altogether.

Can we seperate the term 'desire' from 'intention'? do you mean it is fine to intend to rid ones self of desire? it is not merely semantics as I'm not sure it's the same outcome... if I give something I always try (and fail often) to give without telling anyone (as revealing that I have helped or given brings it's own 'reward')...

...but even saying that reveals that I am thinking about possible merit - which in itself is unwholesome... not easy...

[camerata]

Can we seperate the term 'desire' from 'intention'? do you mean it is fine to intend to rid ones self of desire? it is not merely semantics as I'm not sure it's the same outcome...

I was just clarifying what appears to some people to be a logical paradox: that Buddhists are supposed to be getting rid of desire, yet they need desire to stay on the path to nibbana. Obviously, you need the desire or intent to attain nibbana, or you'll never get there, but this is not considered unwholesome. It's a wholesome intention rather than an unwholesome craving.

if I give something I always try (and fail often) to give without telling anyone (as revealing that I have helped or given brings it's own 'reward')...

...but even saying that reveals that I am thinking about possible merit - which in itself is unwholesome... not easy...

I often think of the proverb, "Virtue is its own reward." Also, the Buddha's expression, "This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind," which presumably means it makes the mind purer.

[bankei]

one point of view is that it is better to give to the 'good' person rather than the 'bad' person. Good people will do further good with the gift and bad people will do further bad.

Many Buddhists think that the sangha is full of good people, fields of merit, so giving to the sangha gains more merit. It also helps purpetual the sasana. This view is also endorsed by the monks.

My view is that it is better to help those that are in most need. I would rather help a poor person than a rich monk. Besides monks do not need anything, they get everything they need.

Also I have yet to find a good member of the sangha, execpt for one Burmese monk living in Sydney.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Can we seperate the term 'desire' from 'intention'? do you mean it is fine to intend to rid ones self of desire? it is not merely semantics as I'm not sure it's the same outcome...

I was just clarifying what appears to some people to be a logical paradox: that Buddhists are supposed to be getting rid of desire, yet they need desire to stay on the path to nibbana. Obviously, you need the desire or intent to attain nibbana, or you'll never get there, but this is not considered unwholesome. It's a wholesome intention rather than an unwholesome craving.

if I give something I always try (and fail often) to give without telling anyone (as revealing that I have helped or given brings it's own 'reward')...

...but even saying that reveals that I am thinking about possible merit - which in itself is unwholesome... not easy...

I often think of the proverb, "Virtue is its own reward." Also, the Buddha's expression, "This is an ornament for the mind, a support for the mind," which presumably means it makes the mind purer.

It is... and it is always better to do 'good' than 'bad' even if the motive is selfish - sometimes the end justify's the means