Velama Sutta (AN 9:20) 

It would be more fruitful to feed one person accomplished in view than that great offering of Velāma. 

It would be more fruitful to feed one once-returner (Sotapanna) than a hundred persons accomplished in view. 

It would be more fruitful to feed one non-returner (Anagami) than a hundred once-returners(Sakadagami ). 

It would be more fruitful to feed one perfected one(Arhant) than a hundred non-returners (Anagami). 

It would be more fruitful to feed one independent Buddha (Pacceka Buddha) than a hundred perfected ones (Arhant). 

It would be more fruitful to feed one Realized One (Samma Sambuddha), a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha than a hundred independent Buddhas (Pacceka Buddha).

https://suttacentral.net/an9.20/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

From the above passage, it is obvious that the results of charity differ according to the recipients. Therefore, we witness many Buddhists clamoring to make offerings to renowned monks and nuns. Whenever there is a rumor about a particular individual being enlightened, devotees will flock to them with an earnest desire to make merits through donation.

Won’t this create problems for “non-celebrity” monks and nuns?

In the ideal situation, it should not and here is the reasons.

1. According to the monastic code, the monks and nuns should not accept more than what they need. In case they have anything in excess, they should share it with others.

Therefore, a straightforward way to assess an individual’s enlightenment status is by examining their wealth. If someone is enlightened like the Buddha or Shariputra, then they should possess no material wealth. If they do, it suggests they may retain attachments (indicating incomplete enlightenment) or may not be adhering to the path outlined by the Buddha.

2. The appropriate offerings are limited to food, clothing, and basic necessities (no money). When we offer something that the monastic does not need, they can refuse the offerings. Imagine a mendicant monk like Buddha being offered a hundred monastic robes. How is he supposed to continue wandering and staying in a cave or forest if he accepts everything?

Therefore, the opportunity to make an offering to an enlightened being can be rare. More often than not, great masters would direct their followers to offer to other people who are more needy. If the followers comply with the master’s wish, then the redirected charity becomes a common charity. It is akin to the master accepting our offering and then directing us to distribute it to others on his behalf.

It would be more fruitful to feed the mendicant Saṅgha headed by the Buddha than to feed one Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha.

This next verse is interesting because it pulled the carpet from beneath our feet. Just as we are warming up to the idea of differentiating the recipients into various categories to earn the most merits from our donation, this verse is saying that offerings made to the community of “ordinary” monks/nuns would be better than those made to a SamaSam Buddha? Suddenly, all the previous statements seem pointless?

The logic doesn’t seem to flow? Was it intentional to trigger a mental warp like a Zen Koan?

Or did some monk or nun insert this into the passage due to a lack of donation?

I am not sure about you, but I think it is fun to ponder. We’ll examine the above verse in more detail but meanwhile, if you enjoy some pondering, let’s have some fun thinking about it, and feel free to share your opinion in the comment section.

To be continued.

May all be well and hat is ippy.