In Hinduism, as per Dharmashastras, Puranas and several other scriptures, charity should only be given to brahmanas learned in Vedas and nobody else. Every other person, no matter how poor they are, are 'apatreya' (unfit for getting charity). Does Buddhism also have such criteria for dana? Should charity only be given to monks or such?

I was browsing a new set of Sutta translations by a renowned translator, and happened to read the publisher wrote a special acknowledgement towards a certain charitable foundation that was established by a major corporation for the benefit of children; even though this corporation arguably produces & sell certain products that not only can harm children when consumed in excess but also generates craving in both children & adults. I found it ironic that a charitable foundation established upon financial profits from craving would be the primary sponsor of Sutta translations specifically on the subject of the cessation of craving. Do any Pali suttas refer to unwholesome gift benefactors; from which proposed charitable gifts should ideally be declined?

Reviewing topics about Dana I found this page: - [Dana -- Giving](https://buddhadust.net/dhammatalk/the_pali_line/course/gradualdana.htm) I don't understand this section: > The important things to know about kamma are: > > 1. Kamma is not a matter of 'an eye for an eye', but is greatly expanded according to the detachment of the actor, the aid to detachment of the deed and the detachment of the recipient. > > 2. The consequence of kamma accords with the intent with which it was created in terms of sensation. It is not the form which dictates the result. > > 3. The escape from kamma is found in the understanding of the consequences. Understanding here is not just a matter of intellectual knowledge, it is a matter of knowing through experience. Under-standing. To know that which underlies, stands under the intellectual knowledge. > >This allows for both the alteration of the subjective experience of the outcome of a deed and the subjective escape from kamma through the alteration of one's mental state. > >Alteration of one's mental state can be accomplished by compensatory behavior or a change in attitude or orientation or point of view concerning that which constitutes the self. Kamma which was to be experienced as bodily sensation does not reach the individual who no longer identifies with body. > > (followed by two similes) I can try to understand that text in isolation or in theory, i.e. just about kamma -- but what is it saying about Dana, how does it relate to Dana? It seems quite theoretical or general -- perhaps a "For example, in the context of Dana, ..." would help to clarify what it's saying? Or is this a question, a topic, which I could only understand from my own experience? Might you share, to help answer this question, any examples from your own experience, and relate that to the text?

Whether it is booking a flight ticket, hotel room, buying an electronic gadget etc there are so many online stores which offer so many deals, that I spend a good deal of time finding the right deal, before spending. Furthermore, where I belong its common to haggle with shopkeepers to get a good deal. And then, I occasionally donate money to some cause as Dana. That makes me think, what is the real purpose of Dana? Is it more about detachment from material possessions and sharing one's merits/ earnings with others to dissolve the ego or is it more about helping those in need? If it is the former, I might not as well worry about haggling with a shopkeeper or try finding a good deal online, and buy things at first sight, with metta to the seller considering I have donated the amount I could have bargained for to him. If it is the latter, I continue finding good deals and then donate the saved up money to those "I feel" (very subjective) are in need. So, how can Dana be explained in this context?

Say a soldier can be hired for maybe $100 a day: What would be a suitable price to offer that one would live in accordance with the Dhamma, keeping precepts based on metta for all beings, a day?

or uncertain, subject of change, a burden and not own- or control-able, not worthy to fall for? Time to answer and give it up?

I'm trying to clarify something I believe I heard a while back. I think I heard the monk instruct the lay person to say "Bhikku Sanghassa Demi" which I believe was later translated as "I give this to the community of monks" Is this correct?

Not having a quality, not seeing a quality in oneself, people get annoyed, even angry -- and use 1001 excuses to escape the first training. Now, one who is stingy and not even willing to master it, can such a person expect to be able to grow in Dhamma? Could he even understand teachings a little in right way, and open to the next step, i.e. right moral virtue? *(Note: this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertaining binding here, but for an exit for debt)*

No question that it isn't proper to let trades for world carry Dhamma, share Dhamma via market places, but what does one think in regard of receiving? Would Dhamma made avaliable by commerce take one out of this wheel? Could people, who are not willing in providing sphere out of faith fist, based on generosity, ever match even the base? Or will they simply stay bond where they wish to receive? *Question powered by...* grave defilements... 

In line with my understanding of the teachings, I have been letting go of many possessions that have been accumulating in my life. I realized they really are unnecessary, they mostly just add stress to my life, and I can possibly use them to do good for myself and others by turning them into gifts/dana. I decided to clear out my parents garage of most of the things they are storing from my childhood. Initially, I quickly came up with the plan to sell all the valuables donating their proceeds to the Sangha, and donate anything else to Goodwill or a similar non-profit thrift store. However, as I thought about it, I began to consider the Buddha's teachings about right livelihood and the five trades he specifically discouraged as well as his teachings to the actor, Talaputa. My understanding of this teaching regarding livelihood is that the Buddha discourages participating in trade where you will be harmed or encourage others to be harmed through the breaking of the precepts, or in arousing passions, aversion or delusion. As I thought about this, I have started wondering: is it right to sell my old valuables, or even give away possessions that may cause this kind of harm to their recipients? Would it be better to just throw these things away? I would like to keep the question general, as perhaps others will have this same dilemma but have different possessions; but in my case, there are a few notable examples that have me perplexed, including: Things that could be classified as weapons like fishing poles, fishing tackle. Fishing/camping/bushcraft knives. Things that have fed my passion for sensuality (and still do even as I have firmly decided to part with them). Like my trading card game collections of Magic the Gathering and Pokemon. And my collection of retro video games. Even things like kids toys, stuffed animals, action figures, nerf guns all seem like they will excite passion, aversion and delusion in their ultimate recipients. So I am having this dilemma, because some of the things are valuable and could become support for the Sangha through the donation of the proceeds. But, the vast majority of the items are now questionable to me as to whether they cause harm. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how to part with these possessions skillfully?

Please limit the benefits to the here and now, because an ingenious youth hearing the benefit of future rebirths and also hearing hard to grasp concepts of karma might surely say “what’s in it for me *now*? what do I care what happens in the future?”. In other words, one who is a beginner and who lack virtues will say “Ooh this karmic concept you teach is like borrowing money from someone I don't know and I don't have to pay right *now* so why should I care?” By saying the above I’m not trying to open a discussion about Karma / Self etc… a virtue done because of idea of self as proposed by other religions where you get tormented in the future for action done here is a phony virtue, its like being temperate toward your wife for fear of losing her.

The Buddha said a gift given as an ornament for the mind will lead the giver to the company of Brahma's Retinue. Then, having exhausted that sovereignty, he is a non-returner. So the benefit to the giver when done right is incomparably great, but what is the effect to the mind of the recipient?

Charging money for teaching time seems like it goes against the spirit of the dharma. I’m asking because I was looking for a teacher and came across one that did charge money.

What is the source of the following quote (rightly or wrongly) attributed to the historical Buddha (easily found online): > Generosity brings happiness at every stage of its expression. We > experience joy in forming the intention to be generous. We experience > joy in the actual act of giving something. And we experience joy in > remembering the fact that we have given.

I was reading these two suttas and at the the end of both the monks seem to leave although Citta has offered to care for them. Is this a rejection of his Dana? Did Ven. Mahaka do something wrong by his display of concentration?

I wonder what people, groups and projects one can support? Both monastic and lay fields are on topic.

One may know, recognize or have ideas about the "fist [proper kind/season of giving](http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.036.than_en.html) " which leads to a better and is trained by those devoted to the Gems, and probably like to share such. How can "giving to one arriving (new)" be very practical and in many situations be done? Mental, verbal (signs) and physical? At which point it might leave it's good and lead to increase bonds and debts? Feel invited to share for theoretical up to very self investigated ways of merits around it. *(Note: this question is not given for trade, exchange, stacks and entertainment here, but as a tiny door into another direction)*

Just a practical question on attachment to trifling material things. I struggle to put it in words but from my younger age, I have a habit of being angry when someone takes a minor item without asking. He/she could be my best friend but still, the feeling is there. I don't think it been stingy because been asked or not even asked I would give the same person or even a stranger x100 times the value of the item but when taken without my consent it is all a different matter. My question is how do I get read of it? A thinker once told me: if you claim to not-care for these things then when someone takes these items and you feel the anger go burn two more of the items to show that you're in control... this method did help me to quench the anger, but the character still lingers? Many Thanks.

If people, maintaining a Buddhist identity, are good, they do whatever sacrifices of which they expect benefit or where they feel touched. Now, when a person gives outside the Savaka-Sangha, outside the Noble Ones, can he/she be called either, faith-, dhamma-follower or even Sotapanna? Would he/she be regarded as being ready and worthy to be taught by wise? *(Note, this is not given for exchange, trade, stacks or entertainment for bounds but to escape dry lands and go beyond)*

Please someone clarify: 1. Does Buddhism believe in rebirth? 2. There is an general belief in almost all religions that our good and bad will be carry forwarded to next and next to next generation and all, what does Buddhism say about that? 3. Almost all religions says give a part of money to god and that will be honoured after death. What is Buddhism's stand on that? 4. In many religions, if the leaders (monk, sadhu or what ever may be.. ) do something wrong other monks says that they will be punished after death by god,but they keep on doing it. If god punished him instantly many will be saved. But this is not happening. How does Buddhism look at this?