Dear Nina and John,

it is quite interesting to see your different interpretations. To my view, the key is how we understand the word "gift". Is the gift badly/well expounded Dhamma or that which is given by upasaka after listening to it?

At the beginning I was taking the first meaning, but after Nina's comment it seems to me that the other one has more sense. Nina, could you please clarify that reference S. II.200. Which sutta is that in Chattha Sangayana Tipitaka?

Metta
Branko


John Kelly <palistudent@...> wrote: Dear Nina,
Thanks for the commentary information. The explanation doesn't seem to
fit the original sutta text - unless I'm misunderstanding it. My
interpretation was that one who gives thinking about how much they
have given (e.g. look at me, aren't I wonderful!) is not practicing
according to Dhamma. Whereas one who gives without thinking about the
measure, and where the recipient knows (i.e. it has an impact), is
doing so.
What do you think?
With metta,
John

--- In Pali@yahoogroups.com, Nina van Gorkom <vangorko@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Branislav and John,
> The PTS transl in the footnote refers to the commentary: < In
> perverted systems of teaching the giver should know how much he has
> to give. But in this true Dhamma the almsman must be contented if he
> gets little, and if he gets in excess he must use only what is
> necessary.>
> There is reference to S. II, 200, about giving and receiving. Someone
> who is not worthy to get alms from the families wants the others to
> give plenty and is vexed if they give not. But someone who is worthy
> is contented, also when they give not.
> Nina.
>
> Op 27-feb-2008, om 8:20 heeft Branislav Kovacevic het volgende
> geschreven:
>
> > 314. Bhikkhus, with a badly expounded Dhamma and discipline, the
> > measure of a gift should be known by the giver, not by the recipient.
> > For what reason? Because of the badly expounded nature of this Dhamma.
> > 315. Bhikkhus, with a well expounded Dhamma and discipline, the
> > measure of a gift should be known by the recipient, not by the giver.
> > For what reason? Because of the well-expounded nature of this Dhamma.
> >
> > Here is the full Pali too (since you left some out):
> > 314. Durakkhaate, bhikkhave, dhammavinaye daayakena mattaa
> > jaanitabbaa, no pa.tiggaahakena. Ta.m kissa hetu? Durakkhaatattaa,
> > bhikkhave, dhammassaa ti.
> > 315. Svaakkhaate, bhikkhave, dhammavinaye pa.tiggaahakena mattaa
> > jaanitabbaa, no daayakena. Ta.m kissa hetu? Svaakkhaatattaa,
> > bhikkhave, dhammassaa ti.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>






---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]