giftskarma produced by positive deeds, for their generosity that can benefit
them in a future life. They received greater merit if the monk or nun to
whom they give is a virtuous paragon, a practice that places pressure on
monks and nuns to conform to the highest standards for the monastic life.
Within Mahāyāna Buddhism, giving is a perfection that a bodhisattva
must cultivate and is closely associated with compassion (karuÏā) and
loving kindness (maitrī). In all branches of Buddhism, it is not unusual
to find a tension between merit that is based on Buddhist teachings and
merit that is socially based and associated with social prestige grounded
in a person’s family lineage, wealth, and political power.
The Hindu religious tradition makes a distinction between a gift called
daksinā, an exchange for ritual services rendered by Brahmin priests,
and another type termed dan, a giving vital to village life because the
donor gets rid of danger, various kinds of afflictions, and evil or sin. The
merit associated with a daksinā type of gift is tied to the mental attitude
of the giver, the manner in which the gift is acquired, the worthiness of
the giver and recipient, and the humble way in which it is given to another.
In comparison to daksinā, the dan type of gift involves more of an obliga-
tion to accept than any right to claim a gift. From the perspective of
Brahmins, there is a poison in the gift because it embodies the sin and evil
of the donor and therefore is associated with inauspiciousness. By giving,
the donor has an opportunity to transfer inauspiciousness to the donee
and create a successful outcome for him/herself.
There is a long history in India of gifts having political consequences
because generous kings could assert their control over others by means
of their patronage, using gifts as a political tool to achieve their ends. The
generosity of kings creates a dilemma for Brahmin priests because
accepting any royal gift involves accepting social superiority by a mon-
arch and political inferiority compared to the king.
Several theories have been advanced to grasp the concept of the gift. In
1924 Marcel Mauss, a French anthropologist, publishes his major work on
the subject in the L’Année sociologique (republished by the Presses
Universitaires de France in 1950 as simply The Gift). Mauss’s theory of
the gift concentrates more on circulation and consumption rather than on
productive consumption and consumptive production as with Marxian
theory. According to Mauss, the giving of something to another person is
not a voluntary action because any gift involves obligation and economic
self-interest. A person gives to another person because one is obligated to
act in this way. The person receiving a gift is then involuntarily obligated
to reciprocate with another gift, a scenario that is imposed upon both par-
ties or social groups. Mauss identifies a threefold sequence of obligation:
to give, to receive, and to reciprocate. The obligatory nature of the gift