Tattva-viveka
Jiva-daya
Swami - March 29, 2006 4:57 pm
Jiva-daya must be practiced by everyone. This will help to soften one's heart. Sometime devotees interpret jiva-daya as kindness to others only with regard to teachign them about krsnanusilanam (Krsna conscioiusness). The following words of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura bring into question this narrow interpretation.
When Srila Prabhupada (Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura) was travelling in Orissa, one day, as he was coming back from the temple of Saksi Gopala, some people on the road begged for alms from the housholders who were accompanying Srila Prabhupada. But none of the householders were ready to give alms. Seeing this, Srila Prabhupada stopped, sat down, and started talking about the duties of housholders. In the course of his talks, he sayd, "If the householders think, 'I should not give any of my money that I consider reserved for Krishna to the poor and the destitute', then they are actually showing symptoms of miserliness, cruelty, and lack of compassion for others. They should not consider giving charity to the very poor as fruitive activities. This kind of mentality will make their hearts very hard, and they will suffer from avarice. As a result of this, they will not want to spend their money even in the devotional service of the supreme Lord, which is our ultimate goal of life. This will invite offense regarding service. To save us from this kind of deceitful and sinful concept, Sri Gaurasundara used to give money and so forth to poor people during His pastime as a householder. The money we have, we have earned only by the grace of the Lord. If we give some of this to begging poor people then that is not misuse of money, that is good use of money. To serve prasadam (food offered to the Lord) to others is the necessary duty of every Vaisnava householder. Even if those others have become poor by their karma or destiny, they are still part of the Lord's family. Therefore it is definitely the duty of well-off householders to help them."
Rama-priya - March 30, 2006 3:59 pm
For me it’s difficult to give money to begging persons. As far as I see very often these persons aren’t poor, but it is only their way for earning money or they can use the money for alcohol. But I don’t see any problem in giving food. There are many persons who can’t afford for food and they ask for something to eat. It is for me real proof that that person need help. I think that especially in the winter it is very important to help homeless persons. When we don’t help them by giving them warm food it is dangerous, they can die. I had a such situation in this winter. Two homeless persons asked me about something warm to eat. There was very cold about - 20degrees of Celcius. They were standing in the front of the bar. So I’ve decided to buy them some vegetarian meals. I wasn’t fully sure that these meals were good enough for offering, so I thought about them as parts of Krsna and I offered this charity to Krsna, not meals. I thought that by giving food to them, indirectly I offered it to Krsna. And what would be benefit if they would die in this winter. If they will live they can meet path of spiritual progress and I think that it will be better to do something in order they won’t suffer at least for one minute.
Shyam Gopal Das - March 30, 2006 5:02 pm
a week ago, i was waiting in line for checkout at the grocery store when the guy in front of me, a homeless guy, came 5 cents short of buying his two cans of beer. I gave it to him. I knew that beer was not the answer to his problems as i looked at his bewildered and estranged face, but i hoped that by showing some kindness to him he would realize that the world isn't so bad afterall... This may have been to much hope on my side, but who knows. and of course I wasn't sure what would happen if he couldn't get his beer.
Vamsidhari Dasa - March 30, 2006 5:56 pm
I also chose to never give money to countless homless people in SF because I do not want to support their drug habit. But then i thought that the point of this story is not so concrete because it says we should give selflessly. Even if I think that I am doing the right thing by not giving hand outs that kind of attitude is selfish because it serves to make me feel good and self-rightious. I understand the point that what we have is not ours to keep but should be distributed as our thankful recognition of the fact that everything we have are the reminants of the Lord's bounty.
Jaya Gauranga who in His infinite mercy gives Himself to us. Jaya Sri Guru who in his service to Sri Guru and Gauranga gives selflessly to continually nurture and inspire us.
Vamsidhari dasa 
Audarya-lila Dasa - March 30, 2006 6:34 pm
I give to homeless and destitute people even when I know they may purchase alcohol or drugs. I also prefer to buy or give food or clothing to them, but sometimes that isn't possible so I give money. I personally see their suffering and try not to judge how they are trying to relieve that suffering. It may be through drugs or alcohol that they find some temporary relief from their misery.
When I see able bodied young people who are not suffering from mental illness begging I am usually less giving and seek quite a bit more information before I give them a hand out. I believe that those who are able should be doing something constructive to better themselves and not simply sit on a street corner and beg. The hard part is not judge a person but to really try to identify with their suffering and try to help relieve it somewhat.
I really like the point that we only have something by the Grace of God and we should share what we have - that really hits home with me.
Another point is that jiva daya should be universal. Sometimes that kindness is given by encouraging a person to help themselves, but we should look deeply within if we feel disdain for anyone. In the U.S. the over reaching paradigm is based on rugged individualism. We are taught to think and believe a certain way and that influences how we view others. I think the key ingredient here is to move away from judgement and see the person and their condition. If they are suffering we should be compassionate.
I know I am conditioned by my education and experience and that due to that I tend to be less compassionate to those I judge to have created their own problem. But I believe that true compassion calls us to move beyond judgement and help another suffering being regardless of how they ended up where they are.
Panchatattva - March 30, 2006 8:16 pm
This is a wonderful topic to discuss.
For me it brings up many things. Jiva-daya is not something I hear devotees talk about much, but something that is important. When we practice jiva-daya, I think it benefits the giver sometimes even more than the reciever. When I donated to UNICEF after the tsunami or after Katrina, it made me think how sometime in my life I could be in that situation, and I could be dependent on the compassion of others. Being compassionate and thinking about the plight of others, keeps us soft-hearted and humble, remembering that all we have is by mercy and it can be all taken away. Devotees are trying so hard to stay in devotee association and avoid non-devotee association, that it can make them hard-hearted and develop a superiority mentality. This spills out into their relationships with the other devotees as well. When I stop and think about practicing jiva-daya to the homeless person, than naturally my mind thinks how much more should I be compassionate and understanding of my fellow devotees. It's something that should be talked about within devotee circles more. Fortunately, this circle of devotees is more emotionally evolved than some. I'm grateful.
Madangopal - March 31, 2006 2:01 am
I'm in the field of social work in which welfare, begging, handouts, rugged individualism, etc. and society's perceptions are continuously debated and discussed. I feel fortunate that our group and our Guru are nicely balanced in this regard.
The U.S. culture regardless of what religion you profess has been influenced tremendously by the Protestant work ethic. Since the start of the American colonies and before in England there has been a judgemental attitude in dividing who is worthy of charity and who is not. In addition, those who are deemed worthy of charity are usually kept "out of sight, out of mind." Interestingly I've found similar judgemental values coming across in my "eastern" religious experience. The preaching being prominent that if you give to a poor person it is charity in the mode of ignorance, they will use it for alcohol, you'll be participating in their karma, etc.
What I have learned in studying and practicing social work is that this view of the world is simplistic and lacks compassion and empathy. Often times the situation is much more complicated than "this person has made bad choices." A person's choice is only one factor in what has put them into their situation of poverty, homelessness, addiction, etc. In reality, the environment is very complex and we have multiple influences upon us such as prejudices, institutional racism/sexism, governmental policy, etc. The intricacies of karma are very difficult to understand... We should not judge people for their particular karma, rather we should feel compassion for people in all situations of karma. I think as we develop this compassion we start to feel "one" with our brothers and sisters in samsara and we progress with this open mindedness.
As far as practical charity goes, I know the social services system pretty well and for a particular person I can refer an agency for their needs. I would encourage devotees to have knowledge of such services for referral. Sometimes referral is the best thing you can do for someone. Also, if you feel you can karmically support a particular agency, by all means do so! Many of these agencies have a well thought out plan to deal with a particular problem.
Oh, and don't forget to give towards the highest welfare work!
Babhru Das - March 31, 2006 4:32 am
The hard part is not judge a person but to really try to identify with their suffering and try to help relieve it somewhat. . . . I think the key ingredient here is to move away from judgement and see the person and their condition. If they are suffering we should be compassionate.
I know I am conditioned by my education and experience and that due to that I tend to be less compassionate to those I judge to have created their own problem. But I believe that true compassion calls us to move beyond judgement and help another suffering being regardless of how they ended up where they are.
I think this is at the heart of the matter. Not only is suspension of judgment and identifying with their suffering the hard part, it's the essence. Chanakya's Niti verses include one that Srila Prabhupada often cited:
matrivat para dareshu para dravyani loshtavat
atmavat sarva bhuteshu yah pasyati sa panditah
The characteristics of wisdom are to see women other than one's own wife as mother, others' property as garbage in the street, and others' suffering as one's own.
I remember that after moving from Maui back to Honolulu in 1977, my wife and I had a picnic dinner at Kapiolani Park with our older daughter, who was just a toddler. We saw a man going through a garbage can looking for something to eat. I went over to offer him something from our dinner, half expecting that he may react defensively, or be crazy or something. I was so struck by his heartfelt gratitude that I have tried to help others whenever I could. Like Audarya-lila, I generally prefer to give them food or clothing, but that's not always possible or practical, so I give some money. We also give to our food bank drives because we know that many folks here depend on the food banks for something to eat.
This is a wonderful topic.
Bhrigu - March 31, 2006 9:30 am
In Finland we have very few beggars, so encountering them in huge masses in India for example is sometimes a bewildering experience. When you've grown up with Oliver Twist and the protestant ethic in general, you don't really want to give to children. And even if you just give to adults, if you give something to one person, you'll be surrounded by a tens in the next moment, especially if you give large amounts. You can't give too little either -- I once had a rather scary experience in Navadvip when I wanted to give to a whole group of beggars. I had my pockets full of 5-rupee coins, and I gave one each to everyone, but since more people kept coming, the last ones just got one or two rupees. They were so angry! After that, I took to giving alms to beggars sitting outside temples, which is easier, since you don't get the "multiplication" factor, and you avoid the kids and other "professional" beggars.
Babhru Das - March 31, 2006 11:00 pm
I do remember the unpleasant crowds that can quickly develop when you give something to needy folks in India. And even here, there's the problem of not being able to give to everyone and feeling bad when someone approaches you when your wallet has run dry. Vaishnavas are para duhkha duhkhi: they can't bear to witness others' suffering.
Swami - April 1, 2006 12:01 am
Interestingly I've found similar judgemental values coming across in my "eastern" religious experience. The preaching being prominent that if you give to a poor person it is charity in the mode of ignorance, they will use it for alcohol, you'll be participating in their karma, etc.
Here is what the Gita actually says on charity in the mode of ignorance:
"Charity given at an impure palce and inappropriate time with contempt to someone who is udeserving is said to be in the mode of ignorance."
Various commentators have suggested giving money to prostitutes (who often stay up at ungodly hours) as an example.
It is also worth noting that intention or will is very much tied to karma. Thus lower species of life, in which free will is much less operative, are not held accountable for their actions. Our kamic implication is largely tied to the intentions motivating our actions.
I brought this topic up becasue there has been so much abuse of this Gita verse, as Madan Gopala has commented, and becasue of the wide spread misunderstadning of jiva-daya that creates a samskara for a hard heart. Many of the replies thus far are encouraging.
Madangopal - April 1, 2006 2:01 am
"Charity given at an impure palce and inappropriate time with contempt to someone who is udeserving is said to be in the mode of ignorance."
I'm amazed how I have never taken note of the emphasis on the attitude of the giver of charity which this verse seems to be commenting on. "With contempt" speaks so strongly to the givers attitude. Prabhupada's commentary says that if "a person gives charity to a suitable person but WITHOUT RESPECT and without attention, that sort of charity is also said to be in the mode of darkness."
I can't tell you how much I've had a distaste for devotees attitudes towards welfare work because of an insensitive one-sided presentation. This verse clearly emphasizes two things - suitability of receiver AND motivation/attitude of the giver.
Swami - April 1, 2006 2:48 am
I'm amazed how I have never taken note of the emphasis on the attitude of the giver of charity which this verse seems to be commenting on. "With contempt" speaks so strongly to the givers attitude. Prabhupada's commentary says that if "a person gives charity to a suitable person but WITHOUT RESPECT and without attention, that sort of charity is also said to be in the mode of darkness."
I can't tell you how much I've had a distaste for devotees attitudes towards welfare work because of an insensitive one-sided presentation. This verse clearly emphasizes two things - suitability of receiver AND motivation/attitude of the giver.
Commentators have somtimes divided this into four: improper time, impure place, lack of qualification of the recipient, and a contemptuous attitude with which charity is given. I mean to say that some of the commetators seem to say that any of these renders one's charity tamasic. However, attitude is everything. There is no getting around this. A heart of compassion can render the act of giving pure, even if the other three undesireable things mentioend above are in palce. Conversely, if everything else is correct—time, place, etc.—yet the attitude is wrong, the giving is tamasic, as Srila Prabhupada and other commentators have pointed out.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 2, 2006 3:59 pm
Commentators have somtimes divided this into four: improper time, impure place, lack of qualification of the recipient, and a contemptuous attitude with which charity is given.
Is it possible that "qualification of the recipient" implies giving alms only to sanyasis doing madhukari or to Maths and Ashrams?
Babhru Das - April 2, 2006 9:57 pm
Is it possible that "qualification of the recipient" implies giving alms only to sanyasis doing madhukari or to Maths and Ashrams?
Maybe there's a continuum, a spectrum of qualification. I know that when I gave food, or even a little money, to some homeless people, I felt purified because their gratitude was genuine and clearly and sincerely expressed.
In Bg. 18.5, Krishna says,
"Acts of sacrifice, charity, and austerityare not to be given up. Indeed, they should be performed, for sacrifice, charity, and austerity purify even those who are wise."
Then Krishna explains his final opinion on the matter of charity, austerity, and sacrifice: we shoudl perform them in a spirit of detachment from their results. Our Swami explains this in his commentary: "Sridhara Swami comments that sacrifice, charity, and austerity shoud be performed as acts of worship of the Lord. The whould be performed without attachment to enjoying the results for oneself, without attachment to the activitiy itself, and without identifying oneself as the performer of these acts."
Swami - April 3, 2006 12:58 am
In the Vedic context of the Gita those qualified to beg are brahmanas, sannyasis, and vanaprasthas. Therefore in this sense it is they who are qualified recipients and it is these person that the Gita speaks of when it says charity given to suitable persons as a matter of duty without expectation of anything in return and in due consideration of time and place is sattvik.
However, this is not the last word on who is a qualifed recipient of charity because is speaks in one sense only of a particualr context. Then again the Gita is universal in its application, and in this light a qualified or unqualifed person is something that needs to be dertermined dynamically in consideration of many factors. Still in every instance it is ture that the best act of charity is charity given to spiritually qualified persons, who will share the result of accepting the charity with others simply becasue their life is dedicated to giving others the highest good.
In his commentary on this verse Srila Prabhupada follows the lead of Sridhara Swami. However, he also writes that "Sometimes out of compassion one also gives to the poor, but that if the so called poor person is not qualifed, there will be no spiritual benefit." However, we saw that he sometimes gave to beggars.
Here is an interesting tranaltion of the same verse by Bhakti Pradip Tirtha Maharaja, a senior disciple of Srila Bhaktisiddhanta: "A gift bestowed upon one who has not done any good but is bestowed only in consideration of proper place, proper time, and proper person is called a sattvika gift." Seems like a questionable translation.
Karnamrita Das - April 3, 2006 12:52 pm
Pranams to all, and much thanks to Guru Maharaja for starting this thread which is a very important discussion for all devotees.
As Swami said attitude is everything. Most people feel put off when "confronted" by a beggar, as if to say "how dare you bother me, and take up my valuable time". Beyond the act of whether to give or not--or whether the person is worthy or not etc-- what is our attitude on seeing such a person, or being asked for money? Due we feel compassion for this person, or any person we see or meet? How much are we into ego judgment, which tends to put our self above others? Is our heart soft and compassionate, even to a person we think may be lazy, or a fake etc?
My wife used to work in downtown Baltimore and sometimes she would be accosted by some homeless person who sometimes scared her. That adds another dimension to the discussion. She didn't want to stop out of concern that this person might steal her money or be violent----there are today many mentally challenged persons who are also homeless. Being in a woman’s body in a situation like that can put them at risk in being charitable.
I tried to empathize with her, and I advised that even though she might not think it appropriate to give to such a person, she should at least mentally have no ill will to them, and not be hard hearted. We can always extend compassion and good will to anyone at least internally (and perhaps afterwards), and pray for their spiritual upliftment. That is a test we are constantly given in our daily interactions with others—including devotees we don’t agree with, which can sometimes we even more of a challenge!!
Another interesting point was shared with me by Malati devi (GBC). She was with Prabhupada and his disciples at Kumbha mela, and either there was no prasad, or it had all been distributed. Prabhupada gave her some rupes (money) to distribute, and told her that, anything given to others by a devotee is actually prasad for the recipient. In that spirit she set up a coop run by devotees that distributes items of vegys and fruits etc
Swami - April 3, 2006 4:15 pm
Srimad Bhagavatam says danda-nyasah param danam, "Giving up aggression toward others is the highest charity."
Syamasundara - April 3, 2006 11:35 pm
This is all very instructive and enlivening, and I love it when you say our Swami. 
Maybe there's a continuum, a spectrum of qualification. I know that when I gave food, or even a little money, to some homeless people, I felt purified because their gratitude was genuine and clearly and sincerely expressed.
In Bg. 18.5, Krishna says,
yajna-dana-tapah-karmana tyajyam karyam eva tatyajno danam tapas caivapavanani manisinam
"Acts of sacrifice, charity, and austerityare not to be given up. Indeed, they should be performed, for sacrifice, charity, and austerity purify even those who are wise."
Then Krishna explains his final opinion on the matter of charity, austerity, and sacrifice: we shoudl perform them in a spirit of detachment from their results. Our Swami explains this in his commentary: "Sridhara Swami comments that sacrifice, charity, and austerity shoud be performed as acts of worship of the Lord. The whould be performed without attachment to enjoying the results for oneself, without attachment to the activitiy itself, and without identifying oneself as the performer of these acts."
Syamasundara - April 4, 2006 12:27 am
Very nice thread. It appears that we stepped down to discuss the world of good or bad, but the reality is that most of us are swimming in the ocean of goods and bads, so it's very helpful to analyze what is most close to our experience in the company of a sadhu who helps us allign the transcendental reality with the material one through philosophy and theory. Otherwise all these verses and topics remain far away concepts.
Myself, I was so comfortably shielded behind the karma excuse, but now I need to reassess things.
I noticed how indeed my heart was hard or hardened; I do so many things every day that deeply entangle me in the karmic network and I don't particularly care, or at least I hope that one day I'll get purified, yet, when someone begs from me, I am quick to think that if he spends that money on something nasty I'll get part of the repercussions. I was just reflecting the other day on Forrest's housemate, who just shares with us whatever food she buys, kind of like a hippy commune. She has no ideology or anything, she just doesn't care. It reminded me of how GM says that as sublime and elevated as Mahaprabhu's message can be, sometimes any average materialist ends up being more generous and compassionate than us, obsessed with thoughts of karma and theocentrism. The instance of the devotee who picks up the money somebody just dropped and instead of returning it he keeps it because he will use it in seva comes to mind.
At the same time I have seen all kinds of things here in the West, and I don't agree on all those statements so far about our Prabhupadas and others giving charity to Indians being extended to our times and culture.
Indian beggars bring whatever alms they receive to their heads, without being sadhus or anyhting; begging is a different thing there, and although there are malicious people, opportunists, people who complain if you didn't give them enough (only if you are a foreigner) it doesn't compare to certain scenarios I've seen in Ireland or Madrid. In Madrid there was a guy with a sign that said he needed the money to buy pot, but at least he had to be commended for being sincere, because many say they beg for food, but then....
There are gipsy women going around and begging in the cold winter with this baby tied around their bosoms, who is usually borrowed or stolen, but people give more money when babies are involved.
In Ireland there are beggars who can be old bums or guys just like me who squat on a bridge and extend their hand, the other one holds a cigarette and around them there are a few bottles of beer.
To top it all off I am oftern in search of a job or very broke, so even if I wanted, it is always tough for me to give charity.
Now I live in Portland, OR, that reminds me very much of those post-nuclear landscapes in futuristic Hollywood movies: men and women walking with short, rigid steps, eyes in the void, holding a tall cup of some junk drink or other; some of them are smelly, some are behaving weird due to drug abuse, so much ugliness, if I ever went to New York I'd freak out. The other night I was waiting for the bus and a guy with a trolley asked us sitting there if we spared 55 cents to buy I forgot what for the kid, also it would help if we had a rubber band to keep the kid's wollen hat on his head. While he was talking I was unconfortable, as I am living on Forrest's money, so no question of giving in charity, whereas the other guy just gave him a handful of dollar bills.
That guy was probably sort of worth giving something to, but I am afraid that even if I had been in a better financial standing, I probably wouldn't have given anything and that saddens me.
Heck, I don't even donate to Iskcon devotees because I think I should donate to my guru.
I'll see what I can do these days to soften my heart at the first occasion.
Swami - April 4, 2006 12:37 am
At one point Srila Prabhupada was a homeless person in NY. In the overall scheme of things, imagine the fortune of one with the tendency to give who may have given to him. Keep giving and you will strike it rich.
Syamasundara - April 4, 2006 12:47 am
Yes, this touches home a lot as it is similar to the concept of atithi narayana (treat any unscheduled guest as God, 'cause you never know, he or she may very well be), and hindu hospitality resonates a lot with me.
I also like the idea that tending to guests is part of deity seva. When she who later became Sraddha devi knocked on the door in Eugene I was the only one in the house and was offering Gaura arati, but I stopped and got the door all proud to be doing the right thing. She turned out to be a special and sincere soul who had a lot of questions and made me feel alive and enlivened while answering them. Tava kathamritam tapta jivanam... but that's somewhat off the topic now.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - April 4, 2006 12:48 am
I’m not sure Prabhupada was begging in NY, was he?
Guru-nistha Das - April 4, 2006 1:25 am
I’m not sure Prabhupada was begging in NY, was he?
Hm... Maybe not for money but he was begging people to chant
Swami - April 4, 2006 1:45 am
Not begging, but homeless at one point.
Gauravani Dasa - April 4, 2006 4:03 pm
At one point Srila Prabhupada was a homeless person in NY. In the overall scheme of things, imagine the fortune of one with the tendency to give who may have given to him. Keep giving and you will strike it rich.
This reminds of your advice on one's attitude when going out on book distribution: think that you are looking for someone that will help you in your spiritual life. Seems like this attitude can be applied when giving something other than spiritual books.
Swami - April 4, 2006 11:47 pm
I think the words of BSST that this thread started out with say to us "Don't be hard hearted." We should feel compassion for others' suffering even when we know that they are causing it, perpetuating it by what they are doing, or refusing to remedy their suffering when they have the means to so.
It is important to develop a samskara for giving and being compassionate. If we find that we feel little or no compassion for others' suffering becasue we reason that they cause their own suffering, we may be out of balance. We should be able to understand the reason behind their suffering—their ignorance—yet at the same time feel compasionate toward them. When Srila Prabhupada was told by one of his disciples that he sometimes felt compassion for the destitute, Srila Prabhupada replied, "Why only sometimes." Sri Krsna says in the Gita that the highest yogis feel the suffeing of others as if it were their own.
At the same time we cannot enitrely overlook the qualification of the recipient of charity, nor does comapssion always mandate that we give in charity to anyone who asks. While one who has no tendency to give will be benefited by giving in any form, and such giving will help one more than it will harm one if his or her charity is given to a person who will misuse it, this is not neccessarily the case with those who have already developed a tendency to give and who thus have more knowledge. We have to use our intelligence also, especially intermediate devotees or those cultivating the intermediate stage--uttama kanisthas. If we know our charity will be misused but give anyway, we may have to digest the abuse our charity will foster.
The advancing devotee has to discriminate. But the importatnt thing here is that more than disciminating who to give to, he or she has to use the discriminatng faculty in introspection and determine the extent to which his or her heart is softening and adjust accordingly.
On the other end of the specturm is the uttama adhikari. It is his or her giving that can make everything auspicious. Such a devottee's intention has the power to not only outweigh but to right the wrong of an unqualified repient.
Gopisvara Dasa - April 6, 2006 11:02 pm
Srimad Bhagavatam says danda-nyasah param danam, "Giving up aggression toward others is the highest charity.(QUOTE)
Sweet,profound and essential. This is a wonderful thread!
Krsangi Dasi - April 12, 2006 11:28 am
This thread has really made me take a critical look at my own attitudes to charity and helping others in general. Kamalaksa and I regularly donate money to several charity organizations, try to help our friends whenever possible with their work and school problems, and invite people to eat at our place as often as possible. But if I'm completely honest I'm actually a bit scared of beggars, and never give money to them.
So I'm wondering now if my way of helping people is a bit too convenient for myself, allowing me to "give" inside the walls of my comfortable home, never having to actually meet scary poor people. Is this kind of "charity light" going to change and soften my heart, or should I challenge myself and step outside the house?
But the Finnish society is also different than the American: no one really has to die of cold and hunger in Finland even though there are poor people here. I think that paying my taxes and working politically for better shelters for the homeless and rehab for drug/alcohol addicts benefits these people more than just giving some money to someone on the street who probably will just use it for alcohol.
Maybe one solution would be doing volontary work for the Salvation Army or Red Cross, but at the moment I don't have time, so I donate money instead... and we're back in square one, safe and cozy at home in front of the computer.
Any thoughts?
Madangopal - April 12, 2006 12:14 pm
I think that paying my taxes and working politically for better shelters for the homeless and rehab for drug/alcohol addicts benefits these people more than just giving some money to someone on the street who probably will just use it for alcohol.
Maybe one solution would be doing volontary work for the Salvation Army or Red Cross, but at the moment I don't have time, so I donate money instead... and we're back in square one, safe and cozy at home in front of the computer.
I think the substance of giving is in the attitude and motivation you have. I don't think it is necessary to be in direct contact or that your charity from inside your "safe" environment is less beneficial. It just depends upon how conscious you are of what you are doing. The only advantage I tend to think about direct contact with suffering people is that it helps you to remember the situation of this world and to develop empathy. If we are spiritual philosophers, this will promote our higher consciousness about giving.
Babhru Das - April 12, 2006 7:01 pm
I think the substance of giving is in the attitude and motivation you have. I don't think it is necessary to be in direct contact or that your charity from inside your "safe" environment is less beneficial. It just depends upon how conscious you are of what you are doing. The only advantage I tend to think about direct contact with suffering people is that it helps you to remember the situation of this world and to develop empathy. If we are spiritual philosophers, this will promote our higher consciousness about giving.
I like this analysis. However, I'd probably characterize empathy as the chief advantage of direct contact, rather than the only advantage. When I was young and a new devotee, our main service, at least in Honolulu was going out on street sankirtan (nowadays referred to as Harinama sankirtan). We spent anywhere from six to ten hours each day on the streets, chanting congregationally and taking turns distributing literature. In 1971, Turiya das, Siddhasvarupananda, and I initiated a door-to-door program that was also quite successful in many ways. On the streets, we met more people than we can count, and going door to door, we met them on their turf, in the comfort of their homes. Many folks invited us in and had protracted, often quite profound, conversations with us. We visited some of the nicest homes in the islands like this. One thing that was clear to most of us brahmacharis was that these people worked hard to accumulate a lot of stuff. Their homes were full of all kinds of mostly useless stuff. Another thing that was clear was that the poorest folks were often among the more pious in society. When we went to poor neighborhoods, folks were very open and generous. Sometimes neighborhood kids would form kirtan parties that would follow a team of devotees around during the afternoon. My point is that the main benefit was perhaps the extra empathy we gained through such personal contact, but I think there may very likely have been other benefits that may be harder to identify easily. The same may be true of other volunteer work that requires personal contact. People's hearts are moved when they see us working elbow to elbow with others as an expression of our concern.
This was one thought that crossed my mind as I read Krishangi's and Madan-Gopal's comments.