諸經要集 10.49

10.49

As the *Upāsaka-śīla-sūtra* states: Giving to an animal yields a hundredfold reward; giving to a precept-breaker yields a thousandfold reward; giving to one who upholds the precepts yields a hundred-thousandfold reward; giving to an outsider who has abandoned desire yields a millionfold reward; giving to one directed toward the Path yields a hundred-billionfold reward; giving to a srotāpanna yields an immeasurable reward; giving to one directed toward the sakṛdāgāmin likewise yields an immeasurable reward; up to attaining Buddhahood, it likewise yields an immeasurable reward. I have now spoken thus for your sake in order to distinguish the various fields of merit. If one can, with an earnest mind, give birth to great compassion and give to an animal, or with focused mind and reverence give to the Buddhas, their merit is exactly equal and without difference. As for the 'hundredfold', one obtains lifespan, physical complexion, strength, ease, and eloquence as wished; the donor who gives to them will later obtain lifespan, physical complexion, ease, and eloquence, each a hundredfold; and so forth up to the immeasurable, which is likewise so. Therefore, I said in a sūtra: 'I gave to Śāriputra, and Śāriputra also gave to me; yet I obtained much, whereas Śāriputra did not obtain much merit.' Some people say: 'If the recipient does evil, the sin extends to the donor.' This principle is incorrect. Why is that? When the donor gave, it was to dispel that person's suffering, not to commit sin. Therefore, the donor should obtain good fruits; if the recipient commits evil, the sin collects upon themselves alone, and does not reach the donor. Question: If giving to sages yields much merit, why do the sūtras say that a wise person in practicing dāna does not discriminate between fields of merit? Answer: Now to explain this principle, there are multiple avenues. This clarifies that the person capable of giving has the distinction of foolish and wise, and the object of giving has the distinction of compassion and reverence. Compassion is for the poor and suffering; reverence is for the Triratna. With compassion, the field is inferior while the mind is superior; with reverence, the field is superior while the mind is inferior. If we take superiority of mind, giving to the Buddha is not as good as giving to the poor. Therefore the *Xiangfa jueyi jing* states: There are sentient beings who see others gather to perform meritorious deeds, yet seeking only renown, they exhaust their household wealth to give dāna; but when they see the impoverished, orphaned, and solitary, they scold them and drive them out, not helping by a single hair. Such sentient beings are called those who perform goodness topsy-turvy, cultivating merit in foolish madness; this is called improperly creating merit. Such people are deeply pitiable; spending much wealth, they obtain very little merit. Good sons, I once told the great assembly: If someone for an asaṃkhyeya of lifetimes were to make offerings to the Buddhas of the ten directions together with bodhisattvas and the śrāvaka assembly, it would not be as good as someone giving a single mouthful of food or drink to an animal. Their merit would surpass the former by a hundred thousand myriad times, immeasurably and boundlessly. Even down to giving to hungry dogs, ants, and the like, the field of compassion is the most supreme.