Ru-Yi Meditation Center
Aṅguttara Nikāya · Discourse 4.78

A Religious Donation

Dakkhiṇasutta — Apaṇṇakavagga — the eighth chapter of the Fours

Setting
None stated; the Apaṇṇakavagga gives no location for this discourse, and it is addressed to the mendicants directly
Speakers
The Buddha alone, addressing the mendicants
Form
A two-by-two grid, each cell defined by the ethics of the two parties
Length
~1 minute to read
Northern parallel
The purification of offerings is analyzed across the Chinese Āgamas and at MN 142; this reading guide does not assert a specific matching sutra number
Difficulty
★★☆☆☆ — a clean grid whose implications are larger than its length

Why this discourse

Four ways a gift can be purified: by the giver alone, by the recipient alone, by neither, by both. The variable in each case is ethical conduct, and the grid is the same shape as AN 4.53’s four marriages. What it establishes is that a gift is not one thing with one value — it is a transaction between two people, and either of them can carry it.

Reading guide

The teaching in one sentence

A gift is purified by whichever party to it is ethical, and there are four possible combinations.

The grid

Giver ethical, recipient not: purified by the giver. Recipient ethical, giver not: purified by the recipient. Neither: purified by neither. Both: purified by both.

It is a plain two-by-two and the definitions add nothing beyond restating each cell. The whole content is in the structure.

That structure is the same as AN 4.53 and AN 4.54, which sorted marriages by the ethics of each partner independently, and the two discourses illuminate each other. Both refuse to treat a relation between two people as having a single moral character.

The important cells are the mixed ones

The first and third cells are the ones with consequences.

That a gift can be purified by the giver alone means a donor is not defeated by an unworthy recipient. This is a real reassurance and the collection provides it deliberately: a person who gives well to someone who turns out badly has not wasted the act.

That a gift can be purified by the recipient alone is the more surprising direction. It says the practice of a genuine recipient does something to a gift that its giver did not put there. The whole logic of AN 4.51 — where the donor’s merit is limitless when the mendicant enters a limitless immersion while using the gift — is a fuller version of this cell.

Together the two mixed cells say that a gift has two independent sources of value. Neither party controls the whole of it, and neither can spoil it single-handed.

What ‘purified’ means

Visujjhati, is purified or made clean. The term is not defined here and the canon is not entirely consistent about what a purified gift produces.

MN 142, the fullest treatment, works through fourteen kinds of recipient and the same four purifications, and describes the result in terms of the fruitfulness of the offering. That is the natural reading here too: a purified gift is one that bears its proper fruit.

What should not be read into the word is anything about the gift’s usefulness to the recipient. An unethical monk still gets fed. The purification concerns what the transaction amounts to, not whether the food arrives.

Against a common misreading

The grid is sometimes taken to license careful screening of recipients — give only to the demonstrably worthy, since an unworthy one degrades the gift.

The discourse says the opposite in the first cell. A giver who is ethical purifies the gift regardless of the recipient. Screening improves the outcome by adding the second source of value, but its absence does not remove the first.

The Puññābhisandavagga’s repeated conditions on recipients — AN 4.51, 4.57, 4.58, 4.60 — should be read alongside this. Those describe what makes a gift most fruitful. This describes what happens when the conditions are not met, and the answer is not nothing.

Where it sits

The Apaṇṇakavagga is a miscellany and this discourse has no obvious connection to the ones around it. What it does share with AN 4.79, immediately following, is a subject: both concern giving to ascetics and brahmins and what follows from it.

Read as a pair they are complementary. This one analyzes the transaction; AN 4.79 traces a consequence across lives. A reader interested in the collection’s account of giving should take AN 4.51, AN 4.61, this, and AN 4.79 together — they are the four places in the Fours where the mechanism is actually described rather than assumed.

Key terms

dakkhiṇā — “religious donation” — a gift given with religious intent, distinguished in this literature from ordinary giving.
visujjhati — “is purified” — not defined here; on the MN 142 model, a purified gift is one that bears its proper fruit.
dāyaka — “giver” — one of the two parties, either of whom can purify the gift alone.
paṭiggāhaka — “recipient” — the other party; that a recipient can purify a gift alone is the more surprising direction.
sīlavā dussīlo — “ethical” and “unethical” — the single variable assessed for each party, exactly as in AN 4.53.

The text

The discourse in full: the four ways, each defined. The gaps are the Pāli’s own abbreviation. Translation: Bhikkhu Sujato (CC0, SuttaCentral).

Four ways of purifying a donation

§1“Mendicants, there are these four ways of purifying a religious donation. What four? There’s a religious donation that’s purified by the giver, not the recipient. There’s a religious donation that’s purified by the recipient, not the giver. There’s a religious donation that’s purified by neither the giver nor the recipient. There’s a religious donation that’s purified by both the giver and the recipient.

By the giver, not the recipient

§2And how is a religious donation purified by the giver, not the recipient? It’s when the giver is ethical, of good character, but the recipient is unethical, of bad character.

By the recipient, not the giver

§3And how is a religious donation purified by the recipient, not the giver? It’s when the giver is unethical, of bad character, but the recipient is ethical, of good character.

By neither

§4And how is a religious donation purified by neither the giver nor the recipient? It’s when both the giver and the recipient are unethical, of bad character.

By both

§5And how is a religious donation purified by both the giver and the recipient? It’s when both the giver and the recipient are ethical, of good character. These are the four ways of purifying a religious donation.”

· · ·

Self-check quiz

Ten questions. Click an answer to see immediate feedback. No score is recorded — this is for your own checking.

Question 1 of 10
What are the four ways a donation is purified?
Correct: B. A plain two-by-two grid.
Question 2 of 10
What is the single variable assessed?
Correct: B. Exactly as in AN 4.53.
Question 3 of 10
Which earlier discourses share this structure?
Correct: B. Both refuse to treat a relation between two people as having a single moral character.
Question 4 of 10
What does the first cell establish?
Correct: B. A reassurance the collection provides deliberately.
Question 5 of 10
Why is the second cell more surprising?
Correct: B. AN 4.51 is a fuller version of this cell.
Question 6 of 10
What do the two mixed cells say together?
Correct: B. The whole content is in the structure.
Question 7 of 10
What does the guide say ‘purified’ most plausibly means?
Correct: B. The term is not defined here.
Question 8 of 10
What should not be read into the word?
Correct: B. The purification concerns what the transaction amounts to, not whether the food arrives.
Question 9 of 10
What misreading does the guide warn against?
Correct: B. Screening adds the second source of value; its absence does not remove the first.
Question 10 of 10
Which four discourses does the guide group as describing the mechanism of giving?
Correct: A. The four places in the Fours where the mechanism is described rather than assumed.
Answered 0 of 10 · Correct 0

Further reading

← PreviousAN 4.77 · Unthinkable