Donation to the Buddha vs Donation to the Sangha

General Theravada topics
1

Hello,
Which is more meritorious: donation to the Buddha or donation to the Sangha?

I found this in the commentary.

376.Evaṃme sutanti dakkhiṇāvibhaṅgasuttaṃ. Tattha mahāpajāpati gotamīti gotamīti gottaṃ. Nāmakaraṇadivase panassā laddhasakkārā brāhmaṇā lakkhaṇasampattiṃ disvā – ‘‘sace ayaṃ dhītaraṃ labhissati, cakkavattirañño aggamahesī bhavissati. Sace puttaṃ labhissati, cakkavattirājā bhavissatīti ubhayathāpi mahatīyevassā pajā bhavissatī’’ti byākariṃsu. Athassā mahāpajāpatīti nāmaṃ akaṃsu. Idha pana gottena saddhiṃ saṃsanditvā mahāpajāpatigotamīti vuttaṃ. Navanti ahataṃ. Sāmaṃ vāyitanti na sahattheneva vāyitaṃ, ekadivasaṃ pana dhātigaṇaparivutā sippikānaṃ vāyanaṭṭhānaṃ āgantvā vemakoṭiṃ gahetvā vāyanākāraṃ akāsi. Taṃ sandhāyetaṃ vuttaṃ.

Kadā pana gotamiyā bhagavato dussayugaṃ dātuṃ cittaṃ uppannanti. Abhisambodhiṃ patvā paṭhamagamanena kapilapuraṃ āgatakāle. Tadā hi piṇḍāya paviṭṭhaṃ satthāraṃ gahetvā suddhodanamahārājā sakaṃ nivesanaṃ pavesesi, atha bhagavato rūpasobhaggaṃ disvā mahāpajāpatigotamī cintesi – ‘‘sobhati vata me puttassa attabhāvo’’ti. Athassā balavasomanassaṃ uppajji. Tato cintesi – ‘‘mama puttassa ekūnatiṃsa vassāni agāramajjhe vasantassa antamaso mocaphalamattampi mayā dinnakameva ahosi, idānipissa cīvarasāṭakaṃ dassāmī’’ti. ‘‘Imasmiṃ kho pana rājagehe bahūni mahagghāni vatthāni atthi, tāni maṃ na tosenti, sahatthā katameva maṃ toseti, sahatthā katvā dassāmī’’ti cittaṃ uppādesi.

Athantarāpaṇā kappāsaṃ āharāpetvā sahattheneva pisitvā pothetvā sukhumasuttaṃ kantitvā antovatthusmiṃyeva sālaṃ kārāpetvā sippike pakkosāpetvā sippikānaṃ attano paribhogakhādanīyabhojanīyameva datvā vāyāpesi, kālānukālañca dhātigaṇaparivutā gantvā vemakoṭiṃ aggahesi. Niṭṭhitakāle sippikānaṃ mahāsakkāraṃ katvā dussayugaṃ gandhasamugge pakkhipitvā vāsaṃ gāhāpetvā – ‘‘mayhaṃ puttassa cīvarasāṭakaṃ gahetvā gamissāmī’’ti rañño ārocesi . Rājā maggaṃ paṭiyādāpesi, vīthiyo sammajjitvā puṇṇaghaṭe ṭhapetvā dhajapaṭākā ussāpetvā rājagharadvārato paṭṭhāya yāva nigrodhārāmā maggaṃ paṭiyādāpetvā pupphābhikiṇṇaṃ akaṃsu. Mahāpajāpatipi sabbālaṅkāraṃ alaṅkaritvā dhātigaṇaparivutā samuggaṃ sīse ṭhapetvā bhagavato santikaṃ gantvā idaṃ me, bhante, navaṃ dussayugantiādimāha.

Dutiyampi khoti ‘‘saṅghe gotami dehī’’ti vutte – ‘‘pahomahaṃ, bhante, dussakoṭṭhāgārato bhikkhusatassāpi bhikkhusahassassāpi bhikkhusatasahassassāpi cīvaradussāni dātuṃ, idaṃ pana me bhagavantaṃ uddissa sāmaṃ kantaṃ sāmaṃ vāyitaṃ, taṃ me, bhante, bhagavā paṭiggaṇhātū’’ti nimantayamānā āha. Evaṃ yāvatatiyaṃ yāci, bhagavāpi paṭikkhipiyeva.

Kasmā pana bhagavā attano diyyamānaṃ bhikkhusaṅghassa dāpetīti? Mātari anukampāya. Evaṃ kirassa ahosi – ‘‘imissā maṃ ārabbha pubbacetanā muñcacetanā paracetanāti tisso cetanā uppannā, bhikkhusaṅghampissā ārabbha uppajjantu, evamassā cha cetanā ekato hutvā dīgharattaṃ hitāya sukhāya pavattissantī’’ti. Vitaṇḍavādī panāha – ‘‘saṅghe dinnaṃ mahapphalanti tasmā evaṃ vutta’’nti. So vattabbo – ‘‘kiṃ tvaṃ satthu dinnato saṅghe dinnaṃ mahapphalataraṃ vadasī’’ti āma vadāmīti. Suttaṃ āharāti. Saṅghe gotami dehi, saṅghe te dinne ahañceva pūjito bhavissāmi saṅgho cāti. Kiṃ panassa suttassa ayameva atthoti ? Āma ayamevāti. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘tena hānanda, vighāsādānaṃ pūvaṃ dehī’’ti ca (pāci. 269) ‘‘tena hi tva, kaccāna, vighāsādānaṃ guḷaṃ dehī’’ti (mahāva. 284) ca vacanato vighāsādānaṃ dinnaṃ mahapphalatarañca bhaveyya. Evampi hi ‘‘satthā attano diyyamānaṃ dāpetī’’ti. Rājarājamahāmattādayopi attano āgataṃ paṇṇākāraṃ hatthigopakādīnaṃ dāpenti, te rājādīhi mahantatarā bhaveyyuṃ. Tasmā mā evaṃ gaṇha –

‘‘Nayimasmiṃ loke parasmiṃ vā pana,

Buddhena seṭṭho sadiso vā vijjati;

Yamāhuneyyānamaggataṃ gato,

Puññatthikānaṃ vipulaphalesina’’nti. –

Vacanato hi satthārā uttaritaro dakkhiṇeyyo nāma natthi. Evamassā cha cetanā ekato hutvā dīgharattaṃ hitāya sukhāya bhavissantīti sandhāya yāvatatiyaṃ paṭibāhitvā saṅghassa dāpesi.

“376. Thus have I heard,” begins the Dakkhiṇāvibhaṅga Sutta. In this context, Mahāpajāpati Gotamī is referred to by her clan name, Gotamī. However, on the day of her naming, the Brahmins, having seen the marks indicating her destiny, declared, “If she gives birth to a daughter, that daughter will become the chief queen of a universal monarch. If she gives birth to a son, he will become a universal monarch.” Thus, in either case, she was destined to have a great progeny. As a result, she was given the name Mahāpajāpatī (meaning “Great Matriarch”). Here, however, her clan name is used in conjunction with her title, and she is called Mahāpajāpati Gotamī.

Nava refers to something unworn or unused. Sāmaṃ vāyitaṃ means “not woven by hand,” yet, one day, Mahāpajāpati Gotamī, surrounded by her attendants, went to a weavers’ place, held the end of the loom, and participated in the weaving process. This is the meaning behind “woven by her own hand.”

When did the thought to offer a robe set arise in Gotamī’s mind? It arose during the first visit of the Buddha to Kapilavatthu after his Enlightenment. At that time, King Suddhodana had invited the Buddha to his house after seeing him on his alms round. Seeing the Buddha’s glorious appearance, Mahāpajāpati Gotamī thought to herself, “How radiant my son’s body appears!” A great joy arose in her, and she thought further, “For the twenty-nine years that my son lived in the household life, I never gave him even a mango fruit as an offering. Now, I will give him a robe.” Then she reflected, “In this royal household, there are many costly garments, but none of them satisfy me. I will weave one with my own hands and offer it to him.”

She had cotton brought from the market, spun it with her own hands, and wove a fine cloth. A workshop was set up inside the palace, and, surrounded by her attendants, Gotamī oversaw the weaving process. At times, she herself would come to the loom, hold the end, and weave. When the robe set was completed, she placed it in a perfumed case and informed the king, “I am going to offer this robe set to my son.” The king prepared the path, having it swept and sprinkled with flowers, and decorated with flags and banners. Mahāpajāpati Gotamī, adorned in all her jewelry, and surrounded by her attendants, placed the perfumed case on her head and went to the Buddha.

When she arrived, she said, “Venerable Sir, this is my new robe set.”

When the Buddha instructed her, “Offer it to the Sangha, Gotamī,” she responded, “Venerable Sir, I am capable of giving robes from the royal storeroom to a hundred monks, a thousand monks, or even a hundred thousand monks. However, this robe set I have spun and woven with my own hands. I wish to offer it to you, Venerable Sir.” She repeated her request a second time, and the Buddha again declined. She asked a third time, but the Buddha still refused.

Why did the Buddha instruct her to offer the robe set to the Sangha instead of accepting it for himself? Out of compassion for his mother, the Buddha thought, “She has developed three intentions: an initial intention when preparing the gift, the intention while making the offering, and the intention directed toward another (the Sangha). Let all three intentions be fulfilled. If she offers it to the Sangha, six intentions will arise together, and they will result in her long-lasting benefit and happiness.” A critic might say, “Because offerings to the Sangha yield great fruit, the Buddha instructed her in this way.” To this, one might reply, “Do you claim that an offering made to the Buddha yields less fruit than one made to the Sangha?” They would affirm this. One might then ask, “Bring forth a sutta that supports your claim.” The critic would then cite, “Gotamī, offer it to the Sangha. When you give it to the Sangha, both I and the Sangha will be honored.” Does this sutta support your interpretation? They might affirm this. However, if this were true, the Buddha’s statement to Ānanda, “Give the leftovers to the beggars” (Vinaya Piṭaka), and his statement to Kaccāna, “Give the leftovers to the beggars” (Mahāvagga), would imply that offerings made to beggars yield more fruit. Similarly, it would mean that kings who give their gifts to servants would be inferior to the servants themselves. Therefore, this interpretation cannot be correct.

In truth, there is no one in this world or any other who is superior to the Buddha. As the supreme field of merit, the Buddha surpasses all others. It was only to ensure that six intentions would come together for Mahāpajāpati Gotamī’s long-lasting benefit and happiness that the Buddha instructed her to offer the robe set to the Sangha after refusing it three times.

Can someone confirm if this translation is accurate? I translated it using chatGPT. So, which is more meritorious: donation to the Buddha or donation to the Sangha?

2

No need to go to the commentary for this. The sutta explicitly states:

But I say that there is no way a personal offering can be more fruitful than one bestowed on a Saṅgha.

1 Like
3

Here is another translation by chatGPT. This is what the commentary says.

Kasmā pana bhagavā attano diyyamānaṃ bhikkhusaṅghassa dāpetīti? Mātari anukampāya. Evaṃ kirassa ahosi – ‘‘imissā maṃ ārabbha pubbacetanā muñcacetanā paracetanāti tisso cetanā uppannā, bhikkhusaṅghampissā ārabbha uppajjantu, evamassā cha cetanā ekato hutvā dīgharattaṃ hitāya sukhāya pavattissantī’’ti. Vitaṇḍavādī panāha – ‘‘saṅghe dinnaṃ mahapphalanti tasmā evaṃ vutta’’nti. So vattabbo – ‘‘kiṃ tvaṃ satthu dinnato saṅghe dinnaṃ mahapphalataraṃ vadasī’’ti āma vadāmīti. Suttaṃ āharāti. Saṅghe gotami dehi, saṅghe te dinne ahañceva pūjito bhavissāmi saṅgho cāti. Kiṃ panassa suttassa ayameva atthoti ? Āma ayamevāti. Yadi evaṃ ‘‘tena hānanda, vighāsādānaṃ pūvaṃ dehī’’ti ca (pāci. 269) ‘‘tena hi tva, kaccāna, vighāsādānaṃ guḷaṃ dehī’’ti (mahāva. 284) ca vacanato vighāsādānaṃ dinnaṃ mahapphalatarañca bhaveyya. Evampi hi ‘‘satthā attano diyyamānaṃ dāpetī’’ti. Rājarājamahāmattādayopi attano āgataṃ paṇṇākāraṃ hatthigopakādīnaṃ dāpenti, te rājādīhi mahantatarā bhaveyyuṃ. Tasmā mā evaṃ gaṇha –

‘‘Nayimasmiṃ loke parasmiṃ vā pana,

Buddhena seṭṭho sadiso vā vijjati;

Yamāhuneyyānamaggataṃ gato,

Puññatthikānaṃ vipulaphalesina’’nti. –

Vacanato hi satthārā uttaritaro dakkhiṇeyyo nāma natthi. Evamassā cha cetanā ekato hutvā dīgharattaṃ hitāya sukhāya bhavissantīti sandhāya yāvatatiyaṃ paṭibāhitvā saṅghassa dāpesi.

Pacchimāya janatāya saṅghe cittīkārajananatthaṃ cāpi evamāha. Evaṃ kirassa ahosi – ‘‘ahaṃ na ciraṭṭhitiko, mayhaṃ pana sāsanaṃ bhikkhusaṅghe patiṭṭhahissati, pacchimā janatā saṅghe cittīkāraṃ janetū’’ti yāvatatiyaṃ paṭibāhitvā saṅghassa dāpesi. Evañhi sati – ‘‘satthā attano diyyamānampi saṅghassa dāpesi, saṅgho nāma dakkhiṇeyyo’’ti pacchimā janatā saṅghe cittīkāraṃ uppādetvā cattāro paccaye dātabbe maññissati, saṅgho catūhi paccayehi akilamanto buddhavacanaṃ uggahetvā samaṇadhammaṃ karissati. Evaṃ mama sāsanaṃ pañca vassasahassāni ṭhassatīti. ‘‘Paṭiggaṇhātu, bhante, bhagavā’’ti vacanatopi cetaṃ veditabbaṃ ‘‘satthārā uttaritaro dakkhiṇeyyo nāma natthī’’ti. Na hi ānandattherassa mahāpajāpatiyā āghāto vā veraṃ vā atthi. Na thero – ‘‘tassā dakkhiṇā mā mahapphalā ahosī’’ti icchati. Paṇḍito hi thero bahussuto sekkhapaṭisambhidāpatto , so satthu dinnassa mahapphalabhāve sampassamānova paṭiggaṇhātu, bhante, bhagavāti gahaṇatthaṃ yāci.

Puna vitaṇḍavādī āha – ‘‘saṅghe te dinne ahañceva pūjito bhavissāmi saṅgho cā’’ti vacanato satthā saṅghapariyāpanno vāti. So vattabbo – ‘‘jānāsi pana tvaṃ kati saraṇāni, kati aveccappasādā’’ti jānanto tīṇīti vakkhati, tato vattabbo – tava laddhiyā satthu saṅghapariyāpannattā dveyeva honti. Evaṃ sante ca – ‘‘anujānāmi, bhikkhave, imehi tīhi saraṇagamanehi pabbajjaṃ upasampada’’nti (mahāva. 34) evaṃ anuññātā pabbajjāpi upasampadāpi na ruhati. Tato tvaṃ neva pabbajito asi, na gihi. Sammāsambuddhe ca gandhakuṭiyaṃ nisinne bhikkhū uposathampi pavāraṇampi saṅghakammānipi karonti, tāni satthu saṅghapariyāpannattā kuppāni bhaveyyuṃ, na ca honti. Tasmā na vattabbametaṃ ‘‘satthā saṅghapariyāpanno’’ti.

Why does the Blessed One give the offering intended for himself to the community of monks?

Out of compassion for his mother. This was his thought: “In relation to me, she has developed three types of intentions – prior intention, intention during giving, and subsequent intention. Let her develop three more types of intention in relation to the community of monks. Thus, these six intentions together will work for her welfare and happiness for a long time.”

However, a disputant might say, “It was said that an offering made to the community yields great fruit, and that is why it was given.” To that disputant, one should ask: ‘Do you say that an offering given to the community yields greater merit than one given to the Teacher?’ To which they would respond, ‘Yes, I say so.’ Then bring forth a Sutta as evidence. The Sutta says, ‘Gotami, give to the community, and by giving to the community, both I and the community will be honored.’"

Is this the only meaning of the Sutta? Yes, this is the only meaning. If that were the case, then based on other statements, such as, ‘Ānanda, give the leftovers of the cakes,’ or, ‘Kaccāna, give the leftovers of the molasses,’ we would have to say that offering leftovers to unworthy recipients yields greater merit, which is not reasonable.

Similarly, when the Blessed One gives what is intended for himself to the community, it is not for the sake of personal gain. Even kings and high officials, when they receive gifts, give them to the elephant keepers and others; are these attendants greater than the kings? Therefore, do not interpret it in that way.

For, as it says, “In this world or another, there is no one comparable to the Buddha, the supreme one, who is the foremost of the worthy, the one who has reached the ultimate goal. For those who seek merit, the one who has reached the highest is of great fruit.”

Thus, the Blessed One, having reflected that the six intentions would work together for her welfare, gave the offering to the community.

He also said this to inspire future generations to show respect to the community. His thought was, “I will not remain for long, but my teaching will be established in the community of monks. Let future generations develop respect for the community.” Therefore, he gave the offering to the community.

In this way, future generations will think, “The teacher himself gave his offerings to the community, and the community is indeed worthy of offerings.” This will inspire respect for the community and ensure the giving of the four requisites, enabling the community to study the words of the Buddha and practice the holy life, thus ensuring the continuation of my teaching for five thousand years.

From the statement, “Reverend sir, let the Blessed One accept,” it should be understood that there is no one worthier than the Blessed One.

Venerable Ānanda and Mahāpajāpati had no ill-will or hatred toward each other. Nor did Ānanda wish to prevent her offering from yielding great fruit. As a wise elder and learned scholar who had attained insight, he simply saw that an offering given to the teacher would yield great fruit and therefore asked the teacher to accept it.

4

But there are, Ānanda, seven religious donations bestowed on a Saṅgha. What seven? One gives a gift to the communities of both monks and nuns headed by the Buddha. This is the first religious donation bestowed on a Saṅgha. One gives a gift to the communities of both monks and nuns after the Buddha has finally become quenched. This is the second religious donation bestowed on a Saṅgha. One gives a gift to the Saṅgha of monks. This is the third religious donation bestowed on a Saṅgha. One gives a gift to the Saṅgha of nuns. This is the fourth religious donation bestowed on a Saṅgha. One gives a gift, thinking: ‘Appoint this many monks and nuns for me from the Saṅgha.’ This is the fifth religious donation bestowed on a Saṅgha. One gives a gift, thinking: ‘Appoint this many monks for me from the Saṅgha.’ This is the sixth religious donation bestowed on a Saṅgha. One gives a gift, thinking: ‘Appoint this many nuns for me from the Saṅgha.’ This is the seventh religious donation bestowed on a Saṅgha.

In times to come there will be lambs of the flock wearing a scrap of ocher cloth, unethical and of bad character. People will give gifts to those unethical people in the name of the Saṅgha. Even then, I say, a religious donation bestowed on the Saṅgha is incalculable and immeasurable. But I say that there is no way a personal offering can be more fruitful than one bestowed on a Saṅgha.

Satta kho panimānanda, saṅghagatā dakkhiṇā.
Katamā satta? Buddhappamukhe ubhatosaṅghe dānaṁ deti— ayaṁ paṭhamā saṅghagatā dakkhiṇā.
Tathāgate parinibbute ubhatosaṅghe dānaṁ deti—
ayaṁ dutiyā saṅghagatā dakkhiṇā.One gives a gift to the Saṅgha of monks.Bhikkhusaṅghe dānaṁ deti—
Bhikkhunisaṅghe dānaṁ deti—
ayaṁ catutthī saṅghagatā dakkhiṇā.
Ettakā me bhikkhū ca bhikkhuniyo ca saṅghato uddissathā’ti dānaṁ deti—
ayaṁ pañcamī saṅghagatā dakkhiṇā.
‘Ettakā me bhikkhū saṅghato uddissathā’ti dānaṁ deti—
ayaṁ chaṭṭhī saṅghagatā dakkhiṇā.
‘Ettakā me bhikkhuniyo saṅghato uddissathā’ti dānaṁ deti—
ayaṁ sattamī saṅghagatā dakkhiṇā.
Bhavissanti kho panānanda, anāgatamaddhānaṁ gotrabhuno kāsāvakaṇṭhā dussīlā pāpadhammā.
Tesu dussīlesu saṅghaṁ uddissa dānaṁ dassanti.
Tadāpāhaṁ, ānanda, saṅghagataṁ dakkhiṇaṁ asaṅkheyyaṁ appameyyaṁ vadāmi.
Na tvevāhaṁ, ānanda, kenaci pariyāyena saṅghagatāya dakkhiṇāya pāṭipuggalikaṁ dānaṁ mahapphalataraṁ vadāmi.

The commentary explains this sentence in the following way.

Na tvevāhaṃ, ānanda, kenaci pariyāyena saṅghagatāya dakkhiṇāyāti ettha atthi buddhappamukho saṅgho, atthi etarahi saṅgho, atthi anāgate kāsāvakaṇṭhasaṅgho. Buddhappamukho saṅgho etarahi saṅghena na upanetabbo, etarahi saṅgho anāgate kāsāvakaṇṭhasaṅghena saddhiṃ na upanetabbo. Tena teneva samayena kathetabbaṃ. Saṅghato uddisitvā gahitasamaṇaputhujjano hi pāṭipuggaliko sotāpanno, saṅghe cittīkāraṃ kātuṃ sakkontassa puthujjanasamaṇe dinnaṃ mahapphalataraṃ. Uddisitvā gahito sotāpanno pāṭipuggaliko sakadāgāmītiādīsupi eseva nayo. Saṅghe cittīkāraṃ kātuṃ sakkontassa hi khīṇāsave dinnadānato uddisitvā gahite dussīlepi dinnaṃ mahapphalatarameva . Yaṃ pana vuttaṃ ‘‘sīlavato kho, mahārāja, dinnaṃ mahapphalaṃ, no tathā dussīle’’ti, taṃ imaṃ nayaṃ pahāya ‘‘catasso kho imānanda, dakkhiṇā visuddhiyo’’ti imasmiṃ catukke daṭṭhabbaṃ.

However, Ānanda, by no means do I say that a donation given to the Saṅgha can be treated in the same way in all cases. There is the Saṅgha led by the Buddha, there is the present-day Saṅgha, and there is the future kāsāvakaṇṭha Saṅgha (those wearing the saffron robe in name only). The Saṅgha led by the Buddha should not be equated with the present-day Saṅgha, and the present-day Saṅgha should not be equated with the future kāsāvakaṇṭha Saṅgha. Each must be spoken of in its own context.

When a donor gives to the Saṅgha and receives a novice or an ordinary monk in return, if they are able to maintain reverence for the Saṅgha, even if they have given the donation to an ordinary monk, the merit is far greater than offering to an individual Stream-enterer. The same principle applies if the monk received is a Stream-enterer, Once-returner, or beyond. For one capable of esteeming the Saṅgha, the merit of a donation given to even a morally corrupt monk is greater than giving to an Arahant, because the donation was intended for the Saṅgha.

However, when it is said, ‘Great King, a gift given to a virtuous person bears much greater fruit than one given to an immoral person,’ that statement must be understood within the framework of the four types of purification of donations, as I previously explained to you, Ānanda.

I’m not sure about the translation for this though.

5

I think the best thing to do is to make offerings to both the Buddha and the Sangha. That kind of offering will yield the most immeasurable and incalculable results

Can one give offerings to the Sangha with the Buddha at the forefront after the Buddha has passed away? Yes, it is possible. How is this done? An image of the Buddha, made of proper materials and placed on a seat, can be used as a representative. After making a ceremonial water offering (dakkhiṇodaka), the offering should first be made to the Buddha, and then it should be given to both divisions of the Sangha (the community of monks and the community of nuns). In this way, it is considered as giving to the Sangha with the Buddha at the forefront.

What should be done with the offering given to the Buddha? The offering should be given to a monk who is disciplined and devoted to attending to the Buddha. It is similar to how an inheritance from a father would be passed down to the son. Additionally, the offering can also be given to the Sangha. Items such as oil and butter should be used to light lamps, and cloth should be used to raise flags. In this case, the Sangha refers to the community of monks, which is not limited in number. The same rule applies to the community of nuns.

What is meant by “gotrabhū”? The term “gotrabhū” refers to those who only inherit the name of a monk (i.e., monks in name only). The term “kāsāvakaṇṭha” (those with saffron robes) refers to monks who wear a piece of saffron-colored cloth around their neck or arm. Even though their external appearance may suggest that they are monks, their families might still be engaged in normal occupations such as farming or trading. If offerings are made to the Sangha, even if there are some corrupt monks among them, it should be understood that the Sangha as a whole remains pure. The Buddha has taught that an offering made to the Sangha, with the Buddha at the forefront, brings immeasurable merit.

How should an offering to the Sangha be made? If someone wishes to make an offering to the Sangha but only receives a novice monk or a monk of questionable conduct, they might be disappointed and feel that the offering was not effective. However, if someone receives any monk from the Sangha, whether young or old, wise or inexperienced, and makes the offering with respect to the entire Sangha, it is considered a proper offering. This means that even if the individual monk receiving the offering is corrupt, the merit from the offering made to the Sangha is still great. This practice is observed by those living across the seas (referring to other countries).

How is this done in practice? There is an example where a layman made an offering to the Sangha by inviting a corrupt monk. Despite this, the layman treated the monk with great respect, as though the monk were the Buddha himself, and made the offering with the intention of giving it to the Sangha. Later, when the same monk came to the layman’s house for a different purpose, the layman treated him with indifference, explaining to others that the respect earlier was directed towards the Sangha, not the individual monk.

Kiṃ pana tathāgate parinibbute buddhappamukhassa ubhatosaṅghassa dānaṃ dātuṃ sakkāti? Sakkā. Kathaṃ? Ubhatosaṅghassa hi pamukhe sadhātukaṃ paṭimaṃ āsane ṭhapetvā ādhārakaṃ ṭhapetvā dakkhiṇodakaṃ ādiṃ katvā sabbaṃ satthu paṭhamaṃ datvā ubhatosaṅghassa dātabbaṃ, evaṃ buddhappamukhassa ubhatosaṅghassa dānaṃ dinnaṃ nāma hoti. Tattha yaṃ satthu dinnaṃ, taṃ kiṃ kātabbanti? Yo satthāraṃ paṭijaggati vattasampanno bhikkhu, tassa dātabbaṃ. Pitusantakañhi puttassa pāpuṇāti, bhikkhusaṅghassa dātumpi vaṭṭati, sappitelāni pana gahetvā dīpā jalitabbā, sāṭakaṃ gahetvā paṭākā āropetabbāti. Bhikkhusaṅgheti aparicchinnakamahābhikkhusaṅghe. Bhikkhunisaṅghepi eseva nayo.

Gotrabhunoti gottamattakameva anubhavamānā, nāmamattasamaṇāti attho. Kāsāvakaṇṭhāti kāsāvakaṇṭhanāmakā. Te kira ekaṃ kāsāvakhaṇḍaṃ hatthe vā gīvāya vā bandhitvā vicarissanti . Gharadvāraṃ pana tesaṃ puttabhariyā kasivaṇijjādikammāni ca pākatikāneva bhavissanti. Tesu dussīlesu saṅghaṃ uddissa dānaṃ dassantīti ettha dussīlasaṅghanti na vuttaṃ. Saṅgho hi dussīlo nāma natthi. Dussīlā pana upāsakā tesu dussīlesu bhikkhusaṅghaṃ uddissa saṅghassa demāti dānaṃ dassanti. Iti bhagavatā buddhappamukhe saṅghe dinnadakkhiṇāpi guṇasaṅkhāya asaṅkhyeyyāti vuttaṃ. Kāsāvakaṇṭhasaṅghe dinnadakkhiṇāpi guṇasaṅkhāyeva asaṅkhyeyyāti vuttā. Saṅghagatā dakkhiṇā hi saṅghe cittīkāraṃ kātuṃ sakkontassa hoti, saṅghe pana cittīkāro dukkaro hoti.

Yo hi saṅghagataṃ dakkhiṇaṃ dassāmīti deyyadhammaṃ paṭiyādetvā vihāraṃ gantvā, – ‘‘bhante, saṅghaṃ uddissa ekaṃ theraṃ dethā’’ti vadati, atha saṅghato sāmaṇeraṃ labhitvā ‘‘sāmaṇero me laddho’’ti aññathattaṃ āpajjati, tassa dakkhiṇā saṅghagatā na hoti. Mahātheraṃ labhitvāpi ‘‘mahāthero me laddho’’ti somanassaṃ uppādentassāpi na hotiyeva. Yo pana sāmaṇeraṃ vā upasampannaṃ vā daharaṃ vā theraṃ vā bālaṃ vā paṇḍitaṃ vā yaṃkiñci saṅghato labhitvā nibbematiko hutvā saṅghassa demīti saṅghe cittīkāraṃ kātuṃ sakkoti, tassa dakkhiṇā saṅghagatā nāma hoti. Parasamuddavāsino kira evaṃ karonti.

Tattha hi eko vihārasāmi kuṭumbiko ‘‘saṅghagataṃ dakkhiṇaṃ dassāmī’’ti saṅghato uddisitvā ekaṃ bhikkhuṃ dethāti yāci. So ekaṃ dussīlabhikkhuṃ labhitvā nisinnaṭṭhānaṃ opuñjāpetvā āsanaṃ paññāpetvā upari vitānaṃ bandhitvā gandhadhūmapupphehi pūjetvā pāde dhovitvā telena makkhetvā buddhassa nipaccakāraṃ karonto viya saṅghe cittīkārena deyyadhammaṃ adāsi. So bhikkhu pacchābhattaṃ vihārajagganatthāya kudālakaṃ dethāti gharadvāraṃ āgato, upāsako nisinnova kudālaṃ pādena khipitvā ‘‘gaṇhā’’ti adāsi. Tamenaṃ manussā āhaṃsu – ‘‘tumhehi pātova etassa katasakkāro vattuṃ na sakkā, idāni upacāramattakampi natthi, kiṃ nāmeta’’nti. Upāsako – ‘‘saṅghassa so ayyā cittīkāro, na etassā’’ti āha.