Reviewing topics about Dana I found this page:
I don't understand this section:
The important things to know about kamma are:
Kamma is not a matter of 'an eye for an eye', but is greatly expanded according to the detachment of the actor, the aid to detachment of the deed and the detachment of the recipient.
The consequence of kamma accords with the intent with which it was created in terms of sensation. It is not the form which dictates the result.
The escape from kamma is found in the understanding of the consequences. Understanding here is not just a matter of intellectual knowledge, it is a matter of knowing through experience. Under-standing. To know that which underlies, stands under the intellectual knowledge.
This allows for both the alteration of the subjective experience of the outcome of a deed and the subjective escape from kamma through the alteration of one's mental state.
Alteration of one's mental state can be accomplished by compensatory behavior or a change in attitude or orientation or point of view concerning that which constitutes the self. Kamma which was to be experienced as bodily sensation does not reach the individual who no longer identifies with body.
(followed by two similes)
I can try to understand that text in isolation or in theory, i.e. just about kamma -- but what is it saying about Dana, how does it relate to Dana?
It seems quite theoretical or general -- perhaps a "For example, in the context of Dana, ..." would help to clarify what it's saying?
Or is this a question, a topic, which I could only understand from my own experience?
Might you share, to help answer this question, any examples from your own experience, and relate that to the text?