Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Generosity (Dana)
upekka
Veteran
One gives (dana) thinking others would think one is a miser if one does not or in order to show off or to gain publicity
one gives thinking that would help him in future to gain more wealth or that would help him to have a birth in heaven
are there any differences in these two situations
if any
what are they?
thanks
one gives thinking that would help him in future to gain more wealth or that would help him to have a birth in heaven
are there any differences in these two situations
if any
what are they?
thanks
0
Comments
why?
Both are equally self-centered.
Neither is dana.
but
are they equal? don't you think that giving is 'dana' because one let go of what one has
My teacher once pointed out that if we waited until we could give without ego, most sanghas would be bankrupt!
No. Dana is dana, giving with a selfish motive or an agenda, is giving, with a selfish motive or agenda.
BY VEN. THUBTEN CHODRON
http://buddha-inside.blogspot.com/2008/04/meaning-of-dana-generosity.html
"Dana is a Sanskrit and Pali word that means "generosity" or "giving." It refers specifically to taking delight in giving -- that is, getting in touch with the natural generosity and wish to share inside of us. The mind of generosity is a joyful mind; it does not suffer from regret or a feeling of poverty. Rather, the act of giving itself is pleasurable and seeing others’ using our offering is an extra bonus."
Wonder if it's dana.
I think I was just being decent.
Probly best not to think about it :P.
The first one can be done out of several reasons. One I can think of is fear of being the outcast. This won't really help the person a lot, sadly. In a way it still will, but it's less obvious.
The second is wishing oneself a better life, which is a good act. So I would encourage this. Yes, do go and give things while wishing yourself a happy future. That's a great dana gift, one of the best you can do!
Some Buddhists sadly often forget that helping yourself is equally important to helping others. And it is often, if not always, both at the same time.
Sabre :vimp:
Investing in your karma is a great thing to do. That's what it's all there for. All those ceromonies, dana, bowing, etc. It's all the same thing. If you can notice this karmatic effects that's even better because then you can really see how it all works and you can even know beforehand what you have to do to improve your karma. Of course, if you have the wrong view on karma, it doesn't work that well, but it still does in a way. The least thing it can do is making the one realize that giving dana this way doesn't work.
Giving away things is never a bad thing, in whatever state of mind you do it.
Sabre :vimp:
When giving something to others, you don't only give them something, you also give a piece of yourself away. By doing this you thereby decrease your sense of a self. And that gives you happiness, gives you spiritual wealth. If you can notice that inside, that's a wonderful thing to focus on. And you deserve that wealth, because you did a great thing by giving dana. Next time you might like to try and find that feeling if you give something to another.
You can have an opinion on karma, but that won't change it
Dana =
"Giving, liberality; offering, alms. Specifically, giving of any of the four requisites to the monastic order. More generally, the inclination to give, without expecting any form of repayment from the recipient.
Dana is the first theme in the Buddha's system of gradual training (see anupubbi-katha), the first of the ten paramis, one of the seven treasures (see dhana), and the first of the three grounds for meritorious action (see sila and bhavana)"
Karma is not the recipient of dana.
Dear mister karma, please accept this bowl of rice.
But you can't fight nature. Giving something without attaining something yourself is impossible. You may not notice it, but it's happening anyway. Not wanting to notice it is, I think, not very wise.
Or do you think dana is just there to feed the monks? And it has nothing to do with your own spiritual practice? That would make it a selfish thing invented by the Buddha just to take advantage of the lay people... But luckily it's not, because it's a training, it is quoted right there.
Sabre :vimp:
If you can't agree with me on that, fine. But at the very least, you'll have to agree the intentions in both statements are -though self-centered- clearly different. And as you stated it's not about the act, it's about the motive. So this difference in motive or intention already clearly shows that both acts are totally different, mentally. Only the physical act is the same.
Sabre :vimp:
There can be a mixture of non-grasping and fixation. Thats why its an exercise to give a little more than feels comfortable.
because if we know how 'giving' works we know 'how to give' in optimum way
just think on the line:
bad kamma
bad and good kamma
good kamma
neither good nor bad kamma
So why care about whether these two mistaken concepts are equal...?
They are equally incorrect.
That's why I suggested it didn't matter.
It doesn't matter about those two concepts.
You've also had definitions and reference to genuine dana.
so care about that instead.
'Giving' works by giving without thought of benefit to self, and with all thought of benefit to others.
That's what you should care about.
Forget kamma even.
Just do what is right.
But it is funny to think about the differences and how it affects the mind.
I just get the impression that your concept of dana is too mechanistic. Once a person practices enough to cultivate dana, it arises as a form of compassion. It's really just that simple.
I would suggest that you listen to Gil Fronsdal's podcast on Generosity.
And ok, as said before, you don't just give because it helps the monks. You also clearly get pleasure in return as you already quoted. Because being generous is nice! Giving generous without any WORDLY expectations is the goal of the training, but not anybody can do that because they haven't perfected the training. Recognizing the nice feeling you get when you give something advances the training faster than if you shut yourself of this feeling.
Have you once doubted to give someone something you actually wanted to keep for your own and in the end DID give it? This can be something physical, but also some of your spare time. The feeling of relief you get at that moment when you decide to give it away is the pleasurable feeling I'm talking about. If you don't know the feeling try giving something away that's out of your comfort zone.
So far can you agree?
upekka asked if there is any difference. That's where I came in. Because with the two motivations as described above that is clearly the case. They have to cultivate their generosity because they obviously can't give without wanting anything back yet. That's ok. Perfectly normal.
So I sort of exaggerated by interpreting wealth as spiritual wealth to clarify my point. Because just saying is this dana: YES or NO without any clarification won't make anything clear to upekka and doesn't fully answer his question. So I decided to tell something about the underlying reasons why it is a training and how it works, as I see it.
"Once a person practices enough to cultivate dana, it arises as a form of compassion. It's really just that simple. "
Indeed.
Sabre :vimp:
When one trains in exercising dana, one trains in arriving at a state in which there is no present or future reward, and no material or karmic reward.
Dana is giving without expectation of reward, something as natural and spontaneous as helping up a toddler who has fallen down.
dana involves no self-interest.
But are there differences in the situations? Yes, clearly.
Imagine two persons. They both want to be home, but are coming from work. One drives home by bike, the other goes by car. Is there any difference?
You might say, no they are both the same, because they aren't at home.
I say they are different, because one rides a bike, the other drives a car. And of course, a car is much faster.
The home is an analogy for dana. Most people are somewhere on the road (8-fold path) and therefore aren't at home. So they need a means of transport. Those can be fast, like the car, or terribly slow or even standing still.
Sabre :vimp:
Wanting a birth in heaven isn't an issue in Buddhism.
going to heaven for a Christian doesn't depend on wealth. Because it's apparently easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven. So he'd best give it all away. yes but as it doesn't apply to Buddhist concepts they're irrelevant.
Regardless of the intention giving is a good thing because some one will benefit from the gift. Unless your intention is evil eg Giving donations to a monastery so that you can gain the trust of the monks and then you can steal money from them. Or giving poisonous food to kill the monks. Most people who give donation do it to gain fame or gain good karma.
I avoid crimes because I am afraid to go to jail, is that a good or bad thing?
Giving, liberality; offering, alms. Specifically, giving of any of the four requisites to the monastic order. More generally, the inclination to give, without expecting any form of repayment from the recipient. Dana is the first theme in the Buddha's system of gradual training (see anupubbi-katha), the first of the ten paramis, one of the seven treasures (see dhana), and the first of the three grounds for meritorious action (see sila and bhavana).
"are there any differences in these two situations?"
Dana is even placed between brackets to clarify that it is not the main point.
Sabre :vimp:
If so, the OP uses the term dana just as mistakenly.
So if it's to be interpreted the way you say, it's a straw-man question and not about dana. It's a "how-many-dakinis-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin?" question.
That funny thing is mudita, or the sharing of joy.
When we successfully make someone happy through an unselfish act of giving, that fact makes us happy too.
It’s a strange type of economy.
When we give something away it gives double joy; to the person who receives it and (via mudita) to the person who gave it away.
It’s the easiest way of adding value.
Both givings benefit the less fortunate and ought to be complimented
:thumbsup:
Blessings & Wisdom Beyond Compare
“Subhåti, if there were heaps of the seven precious gems equal in amount to all the Sumerus, Kings of Mountains, in three thousand great thousand world systems, and someone gave them as a gift, and if someone else were to take from this Praj¤à Pàramità Såtra as few as four lines of verse, and receive, hold, read, recite, and speak them for others, his blessings and virtue would surpass the previous ones by more hundreds of thousands of millions of billions of times than either calculation or analogy could express.Ÿ Sumeru is a Sanskrit word which means “wonderfully high.Ÿ Within three thousand great thousand worlds there are many, many “wonderfully highŸ mountains. How many of the seven precious gems would it take to match the size of all those Mt. Sumerus? And yet, if someone else were to take even so few as four lines of verse from the Praj¤à Pàramità Såtra, the Såtra of wisdom arriving at the other shore, receive them in his heart, hold them with his body, read them from the book, recite them from memory, and explain them for others, how would his merit compare with the merit derived from the previous gift of gems? The blessings and virtue obtained by a person who speaks a four-line gàthà from the Vajra Såtra for others surpasses the previous blessings and virtue by more than a hundred, thousand, million, billion times. The merit and virtue of this great dharma cannot be reckoned in numbers or alluded to by analogy. :thumbsup: