Kathavatthu - Of the Buddha and the Fruit of Giving; the Sanctification of the Gift

Points of Controversy
OR
Subjects of Discourse
BEING A TRANSLATION OF THE KATHAVATTHU
FROM THE ABHIDHAMMA-PITAKA
BY
SHWE ZAN AUNG, B.A
AND
MRS. RHYS DAVIDS, M.A

10. Of the Buddha and the Fruit of Giving.
Controverted Point—That it should not be said that
'Anything given to the Buddha brings great reward.'
From the Commentary.—From the same source comes the theory
that because the Exalted Buddha did not really enjoy anything, but
only seemed to be doing so out of conformity to life here below, nothing
given him was really helpful to him.
[1] Th.—Now was not the Exalted One of all two-footed
creatures the highest and best and foremost and uttermost,
supreme, unequalled, unrivalled, peerless, incomparable,
unique ? How then could a gift to Him fail to bring great
reward ? [2] Are there any equal to Him in virtue, in
will, in intellect ?
[3] And was it not said by the Exalted One: 'Neither
in this world nor in any other is any to be found better than,
or equal to the Buddha who has reached the summit of them
who are worthy of offerings, who are desirous of merit, who
seek abundant fruit'?3
Hence surely anything given to the Buddha brings great
reward.

11. Of the Sanctification of the Gift.
Controverted Point— That a gift is sanctified by the giver
only, not by the recipient.
From the Commentary.—-Some, like the Uttarapathakas, hold this
view for this reason : If a gift were sanctified by the recipient, it
would become a great blessing. Now if the donor gives and the donee

3
Not traced.


produces the result, this would mean that the former causing the latter
to act for him, his own happiness or misery would be wrought by
another. In other words, one would sow, another reap. [This is
heresy.]1
[1] Th.—Now are not some who receive gifts 'worthy of
offerings, attentions, gifts, salutations, the world's supreme
field of merit' ? [2] And did not the Exalted One pronounce
the four pairs of men, the eight kinds of individuals to be
worthy of gifts ? [3] And are there not those who, having
offered a gift to a Stream-Winner, Once-Returner, Never-
Returner or Arahant, make the gift effective ? How then
can you maintain your proposition ?
[4] U.—But if a gift may be sanctified by the recipient,
does not he become the agent for quite a different person?2
Does not one person work the happiness or the misery of
another ? Does not one sow, another reap ?
Th.—Now was it not said by the Exalted One: ' There
are four ways, Ananda, of sanctifying a gift. Which are the
four? A gift may he sanctified by the giver, not by the re-
cipient ; a gift may be sanctified by the recipient, not by the
giver; or it may be sanctified by both;, or, again, by neither' ?3
Hence it is surely wrong to say: 'A gift is sanctified
only by the giver, not by the recipient.'

1
See above, I. 1 (p. 48 f.); XYI. 1-5 ; a perverse application of the
doctrine of individual becoming and individual karma to two distinct
contemporaneous individuals. Of . Buddhism, London, 1912, p. 134.
2
Anno annassa karako. This question would be reasonable
if the opponent had meant that the donor's will is moved to act
(literally, be done) by the donee. But he meant that the donor's will is
sanctified, purified, in the sense of great fructification depending upon
the person of the donee. Hence the question is to no purpose.—
Comy.
3 Majjhima-Nik., iii. 256; cf. Digha-Nik., iii. 231; Anguttara-Nik.,
ii. 80 f. (order of third and fourth alternatives reversed in all three).