AW: sad-acharity and ISKCON

[Guest guest]

> > 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,

 

This point is excellent.

 

> > - 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.

 

There is difference between the incindental help which doesn't cost any

extra endeavor or money and a big organized programm of such help where the

endeavors are made mostly to benefit the people's bodies and no attempt is

made to benefit them from point of view of the real self interest. So to me

we're discussing about putting the proper balanced understadning of engaging

in charity or any other activity that is by itself purely material.

 

Seems that everybody agreed that we have to utilize the principle of

yukta-vairagya (not just vairagya) to the pious activities, rejecting at the

same time the impious. However yukta-vairagya means that a devotee by power

of his devotion and purity turns any material activity into pure devotional

service, whereas I've got an impression that someone was overly emphasizing

the role of altruistic activity taken by itself. The altruistic activities

are never the tools or indicators for us becoming pure and softhearted

devotees.

 

Also I strongly disagree with presenting Srila Prabhupada as being

compassionate on a bodily level and as following rejecting/disbelieving

those statements that he's made about the material wellfare activities.

 

Someone was stating that Srila Prabhuada was crying seeing people in certain

situations but they fail to see how he was crying about the situation of

every living being conditioned in the material world.

 

"The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a

learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater

[outcaste]." BG 5.12

 

The next wave of arguments that were given is devotee's rather being pious

than impious. So seems to me that someone equates the devotee's endeavors

directed towards spiritual activities and having no time for combining

spiritual activities with altruistic activities as impiety and

hard-heartedness. Again "straw man" - I didn't argue about devotee's being

rather impious than pious. The devotee may incidentally help others on a

bodily level but the higher is his spiritual level the less time, taste or

expediency he has to engage in or even combine the altruistic and devotional

activities.

 

As an example you may take Srila Prabhupada's life and see how much of his

time was spend in wellfare work other than preaching and translating

(highest welfare work).

 

Your servant

Visista dasa