How do you practise dana?

[camerata]

Many years ago on another forum there was a question about whether direct or indirect giving resulted in more merit. For example, giving alms directly to a monk or donating online to a temple. I think the consensus was that the merit was the same in both cases but giving directly was more satisfying.

So how do you practise dana (generosity)? And why that particular way of doing it?

I remember one of the participants in the above discussion said that he always carried around a couple of small umbrellas and would give them to strangers caught in a sudden rain storm. (If a strange guy offered to give me an umbrella I think I'd probably wonder what scam he was trying to pull!)

Lately I've been buying food for a stray cat and its kittens that have taken up residence near where I live. Other people are leaving food too, but it is mostly rice and lacking the vitamins and milk that the kittens in particular need to be healthy. A big bag of Whiskas doesn't cost much and there is the added benefit of seeing the kittens grow up healthy. I also give to various organisations that help stray or abused animals, but I do it on an ad hoc basis.

[VincentRJ]

Camerata,

If you were in Australia, giving food to stray cats would definitely not be recommended, unless you took them in and cloistered them in your home to never escape.

Feral cats (escaped domestic cats) have cause the extinction of many indigenous species in Australia. It's a huge problem. The following link describes the problem.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/feral-cats-re-write-the-australian-story/5802204

I see giving, or acts of generosity, simply because it makes one feel good, or because one imagines one gains merit in some afterlife, as problematical. It encourages dependence. The 'giving' should always be a part of a pratical and effective process or program to help people to become independent so they don't have to rely upon charity.

Some time ago, I got rather excited when I discovered the existence of a breakaway Buddhist group called Santi Asoke. I understood from my reading of articles on the internet, that this group produced its own food and refused all donations offered by visitors to their communities. They strived to be independent and sold their own organic food in the local market in order to raise the funds they needed to support themselves.

The group also ordained women as full monks with the status of monks, so I imagined a situation where monks and nuns would be working together in the fields, tending to their organically-grown crops.

Some months ago I decided to visit such a community located near Ubon Ratchathani. Wow! Did I get a surprise! I could see no nuns or monks working in the fields, just local people.

When I finally met a monk, exiting his hut in the forest, and started a conversation, I was dismayed to learn that the monks and nuns do not do any work in the fields, because they might kill a few worms, which is not allowed.

[camerata]

Well, I am not in Australia. In Thailand, stray cats will mostly just die or have a miserable existence if someone doesn't help them. Perhaps dana is to some extent situation-dependent.

The 'giving' should always be a part of a pratical and effective process or program to help people to become independent so they don't have to rely upon charity.

An admirable sentiment and preferable to just handing out money, but that is not Dhamma. According to the Buddha, intention is everything. If you give to anyone with good intentions, you still accrue merit.

[VincentRJ]

Well, I am not in Australia. In Thailand, stray cats will mostly just die or have a miserable existence if someone doesn't help them. Perhaps dana is to some extent situation-dependent.

The 'giving' should always be a part of a pratical and effective process or program to help people to become independent so they don't have to rely upon charity.

An admirable sentiment and preferable to just handing out money, but that is not Dhamma. According to the Buddha, intention is everything. If you give to anyone with good intentions, you still accrue merit.

Fine! But the question then arises, how do you define a good intention, and what levels and degrees of good intentions are there? Furthermore, certain 'apparent' good intentions might have disastrous consequences for others, such as feeding a stray cat in Australia, or perhaps giving money to certain beggars on the streets of Bangkok when such beggars, particularly women with deformed babies, are controlled by gangsters who pocket most of the day's collections.

[camerata]

"Any thoughts, speech or actions that are rooted in greed, hatred and delusion and thus lead us away from Nirvana are bad and any thoughts, speech or actions that are rooted in giving, love and wisdom and thus help clear the way to Nirvana are good."

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda04.htm

I've never seen any explanation by the Buddha as to what happens if an action done with pure intentions has a bad consequence. If we don't know the consequence, it's difficult to see how we are to blame. I mean, suppose I give a desperate beggar a small amount of money for food, but unknown to me he later uses that to buy cheap whisky, gets drunk and kills someone - I can't see my merit suddenly switching to demerit. If I subsequently found out about it, I'm sure I'd feel bad, but not as bad as if I knew my intention had been unwholesome.

[VincentRJ]

"Any thoughts, speech or actions that are rooted in greed, hatred and delusion and thus lead us away from Nirvana are bad and any thoughts, speech or actions that are rooted in giving, love and wisdom and thus help clear the way to Nirvana are good."

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda04.htm

I've never seen any explanation by the Buddha as to what happens if an action done with pure intentions has a bad consequence. If we don't know the consequence, it's difficult to see how we are to blame. I mean, suppose I give a desperate beggar a small amount of money for food, but unknown to me he later uses that to buy cheap whisky, gets drunk and kills someone - I can't see my merit suddenly switching to demerit. If I subsequently found out about it, I'm sure I'd feel bad, but not as bad as if I knew my intention had been unwholesome.

You raise some interesting philosophical problems, Camerata. First, it's understood that any thoughts, speech or actions rooted in greed, hatred and delusion etc, are bad by definition, and that the opposite is also true by definition.

The word 'delusion' is perhaps the key to understanding the 'merit' consequences of giving money to a beggar who buys whisky, gets drunk and kills someone, or the merit consequences of keeping alive a stray cat in Australia which is having difficulty in finding sufficient natural wildlife in its area to sustain itself.

We often tend to think in dualities of either/or. That is, something is either hot or cold, and an action is either rooted in delusion or it's not. In reality, I would suggest that there are many levels and degrees of delusion.

The nature of delusion is that it represents some truth or reality we are not aware of. If I give money to a poor, dejected woman sitting by the roadside, perhaps holding in her arms a young child in a pitiful state, a child that has been thrust into her arms by the gangster that controls her, then in effect I am donating money to the gangster and supporting the gangster's evil activities.

Whilst my action in giving money to the beggar is partially rooted in 'giving' and 'love', which gains at least some merit, it is also partially rooted in delusion if I'm not aware of the gangster connections. Also such action could definitely not be described as rooted in 'wisdom'.

According to this logic, the merit attributed to Giving and Love would be at least partially cancelled by the aspects of Delusion and lack of Wisdom involved in that particular act of giving.

That is how I see it.

[camerata]

The nature of delusion is that it represents some truth or reality we are not aware of. If I give money to a poor, dejected woman sitting by the roadside, perhaps holding in her arms a young child in a pitiful state, a child that has been thrust into her arms by the gangster that controls her, then in effect I am donating money to the gangster and supporting the gangster's evil activities.

Whilst my action in giving money to the beggar is partially rooted in 'giving' and 'love', which gains at least some merit, it is also partially rooted in delusion if I'm not aware of the gangster connections. Also such action could definitely not be described as rooted in 'wisdom'.

I think we have to be careful not to use the word "delusion" here in its normal English sense. In Pali it is moha or avijja, one of the "three roots of evil," and basically means "not understanding the Four Noble Truths!" The problem with your example is that on the one hand you have no evidence of the gangster connections (you would deny the beggar a handout based on hearsay) and on the other I can't see how an action can be morally wrong just because I am ignorant of potential knock-on effects.

[Brucenkhamen]

In the west we are generous when we see someone in need, for example in response to a natural disaster, so we give to relieve suffering to me this is an example of good intention.

In Thailand giving is more automatic, from what I've seen it's usually not proportionate to need. So a famous monk might receive far more dana than he would ever need but I don't see so much evidence of dana for those who are in need or suffering.

If I were to guess the intention behind that probably some think they can buy their way to heaven, and for probably most it's automatic, being lazy in not thinking through how they can best help others with their generosity.

[VincentRJ]

The nature of delusion is that it represents some truth or reality we are not aware of. If I give money to a poor, dejected woman sitting by the roadside, perhaps holding in her arms a young child in a pitiful state, a child that has been thrust into her arms by the gangster that controls her, then in effect I am donating money to the gangster and supporting the gangster's evil activities.

Whilst my action in giving money to the beggar is partially rooted in 'giving' and 'love', which gains at least some merit, it is also partially rooted in delusion if I'm not aware of the gangster connections. Also such action could definitely not be described as rooted in 'wisdom'.

I think we have to be careful not to use the word "delusion" here in its normal English sense. In Pali it is moha or avijja, one of the "three roots of evil," and basically means "not understanding the Four Noble Truths!" The problem with your example is that on the one hand you have no evidence of the gangster connections (you would deny the beggar a handout based on hearsay) and on the other I can't see how an action can be morally wrong just because I am ignorant of potential knock-on effects.

The problem I see with your defence on this issue, is in understanding how it is possible for an enlightened individual to be ignorant of such basic matters of human behaviour that result in his being duped or tricked into supporting evil activities. Surely such a person would not gain as much merit as another person who gives with a similar feeling of love and compassion but in a manner that involves wisdom and understanding, and which ensures good outcomes.

Another way of describing such differences would be to compare someone who willy-nilly gives money indiscriminately to various charities in order to feel good but without any knowledge of the effectiveness of his donations, with someone who devotes his own time and energy to charitable work to ensure good outcomes.

Which of these people is likely to gain more merit?

[camerata]

I haven't said that you get equal merit with different intentions. As I posted in another thread, this isn't the case. But you said that, "giving should always be a part of a practical and effective process..." and would presumably not give if it wasn't. I disagree with this. Even with a lazy beggar dependent on charity, you'll still get some merit.

For those of us who feel that the most significant fruit of kamma is the effect on our mental states, I think an unknown outcome would not have any adverse effect, whereas a known outcome could have an additional beneficial or adverse effect.

As for enlightened individuals, they have no new kamma and AFAIK are not all-knowing.

[VincentRJ]

But you said that, "giving should always be a part of a practical and effective process..." and would presumably not give if it wasn't.

That's correct. Of course, I would have to have some reason, some knowledge and some awareness of the particular circumstances, for not giving on the basis it would likely not be practical and effective in relation to good outcomes.

Also, I haven't said that being tricked into giving, in circumstances which in reality produce bad outcomes on balance, must result in a complete cancellation of any merit, or even result in a degree of demerit. How could I possibly know! How could one possibly calculate such matters!

One principle taught in Buddhism, again as I understand it, is that everything is connected, resulting in a myriad of cause and effect relationships which are always subject to change. Such a concept resonates with modern science.