In Hinduism, as per Dharmashastras, Puranas and several other scriptures, charity should only be given to brahmanas learned in Vedas and nobody else. Every other person, no matter how poor they are, are 'apatreya' (unfit for getting charity).
Does Buddhism also have such criteria for dana? Should charity only be given to monks or such?
In the Pali Suttas, there is no exclusivity regarding charity. For example, AN 5.36 says:
There are these five timely gifts. What five?
A gift to a visitor.
A gift to someone setting out on a journey.
A gift to someone who is sick.
A gift at a time of famine.
Presenting the freshly harvested grains and fruits first to those who are ethical.
DN 31 includes the teaching of the Six Directions, where various duties & literal 'gifts' are required to be given, including to wife, friends & employees/servants, in order to keep a lay disciple of the Noble Ones safe and free of peril. It follows suttas such as AN 5.148 & AN 9.20, which are directly about the subject of 'dana' ('gifts'), say when a person gives with proper attention & consideration: "their children, wives, bondservants, servants and workers want to listen to them". In other words, the Pali Suttas explain if a person wishes to have good reputation and be loved & respected by others, they must appropriately show generosity towards those relevant others.
In addition to giving for the sake of protecting one's own welfare, AN 7.49 provides the example of ordinary charity: "Or, instead... he gives a gift with the thought, 'I am well-off. These are not well-off. It would not be right for me, being well-off, not to give a gift to those who are not well-off'... on the break-up of the body, after death, he reappears in the company of the Contented Devas." Here, AN 7.49 says charitable giving to the needy leads to the status of a Contented God.
Similarly, DN 26 says it is the noble duty of a wheel-turning monarch to provide just protection and security for their court, troops, aristocrats, vassals, brahmins and householders, people of town and country, ascetics and brahmins, beasts and birds; to not let injustice prevail in the realm; and to provide money to the penniless in the realm. Therefore, DN 26 says there is a social obligation to give charity to the penniless.
The above said, AN 9.20 also provides a list of which gifts are the most beneficial. It says:
Once upon a time, householder, there was a brahmin named Velāma. He gave the following gift, a great offering. 84,000 gold bowls filled with silver.... 8,400,000,000 fine cloths of linen, cotton, silk, and wool. And who can say how much food, drink, snacks, meals, refreshments, and beverages? It seemed like an overflowing river. But at that event there was no-one worthy of a religious donation, and no-one to purify the religious donation.
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 than a hundred persons accomplished in view.
It would be more fruitful to feed one non-returner than a hundred once-returners.
It would be more fruitful to feed one perfected one than a hundred non-returners.
It would be more fruitful to feed one independent Buddha than a hundred perfected ones.
It would be more fruitful to feed one Realized One, a perfected one, a fully awakened Buddha than a hundred independent Buddhas.
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.
It would be more fruitful to build a dwelling especially for the Saṅgha of the four quarters than to feed the mendicant Saṅgha headed by the Buddha.
It would be more fruitful to go for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha with a confident heart than to build a dwelling for the Saṅgha of the four quarters.
It would be more fruitful to undertake the training rules—not to kill living creatures, steal, commit sexual misconduct, lie, or take alcoholic drinks that cause negligence—than to go for refuge to the Buddha, the teaching, and the Saṅgha with a confident heart.
It would be more fruitful to develop a heart of love—even just as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder—than to undertake the training rules.
It would be more fruitful to develop the perception of impermanence—even for as long as a finger-snap—than to do all of these things, including developing a heart of love for as long as it takes to pull a cow’s udder.
Therefore, in conclusion, although AN 9.20 gives the impression giving gifts to The Sangha is more fruitful than giving ordinary worldly charitable gifts, it is obvious the Pali Suttas strongly encourage giving ordinary worldly social gifts & charity for the protection of one self and one's society.
No such stipulation exists. The Buddha's answer was very simple and short:
King Pasenadi: “Where, lord, should a gift be given?”
Buddha: “Wherever the mind feels confidence, great king.”
SN 3.24
The suttas say the karma of giving increases, the more virtuous or Enlightened the recipient, but there's no condemnation of poor people that I've ever heard of. That mentality would breed contempt and indifference to suffering, instead of the kindness and compassion that ideally leads to generosity in the first place.
If one were to feed one arahant, that would be more fruitful than... if one were to feed 100 non-returners. [and so on] -AN 9.20
Vaccha, whoever prevents another from giving a gift creates three obstructions, three impediments. Which three? He creates an obstruction to the merit of the giver, an obstruction to the recipient's gains, and prior to that he undermines and harms his own self. ...
I tell you, Vaccha, even if a person throws the rinsings of a bowl or a cup into a village pool or pond, thinking, 'May whatever animals live here feed on this,' that would be a source of merit, to say nothing of what is given to human beings. But I do say that what is given to a virtuous person is of great fruit, and not so much what is given to an unvirtuous person. -AN 3.57
