Guest guest Posted May 2, 2005 Report Share Posted May 2, 2005 > But if "yes" -- then how else are we to call, define and describe that > behavioral pattern other than "charity" or "sad-acar"? Maybe, > "sad-acharity", if you allow me a bit of a frivolous linguistics... > > In other words, there is (or should be) a way to deal with people, which: > > - benefits them even without them being conscious of who they deal with, > > - does not cost any extra endeavor or money, > > - incidentally happens to be the way cultured humans are supposed to deal > with one another anyway, that is to selflessly help one another, come to > one another's rescue, and share food and other basic necessities with one > another in time of dire need, and > > - incidentally happens to be the way an ideal Vaisnava/Vaisnavi is > supposed to behave even when no one knows who he or she is. > > And what if one day we happen to realize that it is exactly due to the > lack or absence of such behavior on the part of ISKCON devotees, > individually of collectively, that people at large are having such a hard > time taking us not only for exalted saints but even for proper humans and > thus cannot care less about what we propose to proclaim to them about the > highest purpose of human life -- whose fault would that be? Their or our? A good point and strongly made! Your servant apd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.