AW: sad-acharity and ISKCON

[Guest guest]

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

> >extra endeavor or money and a big organized program 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.

>

> With due respect, your last statement is begging a question.

>

> If you admit that there is a way to spiritually benefit people without

> them even knowing that they are dealing with devotees, why do you see an

> organized endeavor to spiritually benefit them as beneficial to merely

> their bodies?

 

I'm not seeing either personal or organized endeavor to actually

spiritually benefit people as "as beneficial to merely their bodies".

 

I'm saying that there might be the wrong mood of program conducted by the

devotees who're confused about what they are actually doing: helping the

body or the soul or helping both, or helping both with the different degree

of benefit for the one or for the another.

 

Also I'm not speaking about liberated devotees who have no time for

calculated analysis of how to behave with other people and who spiritually

benefit the living beings whether they help their bodies or directly the

soul.

 

> >So to me

> >we're discussing about putting the proper balanced understanding of

> >engaging in charity or any other activity that is by itself purely

> >material.

>

> If proper behavior and compassion to other people and living entities

> purifies ourselves of our complacence as "already liberated devotees" --

> even if this in itself were the only end result of this activity, how can

> we call such it "purely material"?

>

 

We may call the whole yoga ladder to be spiritual however most activities

within the karma-yoga aren't by themselves spiritual but the MOOD in which

they are employed makes them spiritualized.

 

Regarding "proper behavior and compassion to other people and living

entities purifying us of our complacence as already liberated devotees"", I

either did not speak ONLY about self-complacent "liberated" devotees (but

about all devotees) nor I said the proper behavior and compassion are wrong.

To me the compassion is not = to altruism because the altruism is another

form of cruelty where instead of genuine help a person gets cheated with

temporary relief and again engages in the sense gratification. If we're

somehow able to help people or even ourselves spiritually through the

altruism then that's very good! Why not?!

 

> In other words, how can a purely material activity possibly bring about

> our spiritual emancipation? (Which "dana", or charity does bring about,

> according to Lord Krsna in BG 18.5.)

 

It's not the dana brings the liberation but the way it's done. If you keep

the material consciousness doing dana you get the according result.

 

> >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.

>

> This is an artificial dichotomy. The following excerpt clearly shows that

> Srila Prabhupada's compassion for people's bodily condition did not

> exculde, but was indeed combined and caused by his concern for their

> spiritual well-being:

 

I'm aware of this excerpt but my point wasn't about whether spiritual

compassion includes all other levels of compassion but about Srila

Prabhupada's having been only, or let say more concerned about those whose

life standard is below the average than about everybody else. In other words

Srila Prabhupada's discriminating on the bodily level who needs more

spiritual help.

 

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

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

[outcaste]."

 

> Srila Prabhupada and His Disciples in Germany - Vedavyasa dasa, Chapter 20

>

> And if it was true for him -- why it should not be true for his followers?

 

The same is true for his followers.

 

> >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.

>

> Again an artificial dichotomy.

>

> As we could just discern from Srila Prabhupada's own example, the higher

> one gets spiritually, the less time, taste and expedience he has for

> calculated analysis of how to behave with other people -- exactly because

> his behavior and emotionals become the highest altruistic principle in

> themselves and spontaneously flow towards their welfare.

 

Well said about "the higher one gets spiritually, the less time, taste and

expedience he has for calculated analysis of how to behave with other

people". I fully agree with this.

 

Still I'm not clear about why do you call an artificial dichotomy: "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". I'm not

trying to artificially calculate here but just stating the general and

natural way of things for sadhaka-devotees.

 

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

> >his time was spend in welfare work other than preaching and translating

> >(highest welfare work).

>

> Right.

>

> And this is why he did what he did and wrote what he wrote on so many

> occasions in so many purports and letters and to so many people regarding

> the utter importance of mass prasadam distribution and an ideal behavior

> of devotees as a most important way to spiritually uplift of people in

> general, right?

 

Right. Srila Prabhupada was ONLY FOR the highest welfare work.

 

BTW why anyone should object against the mass prasadam distribution and an

ideal behavior of devotees in order to spiritually benefit general mass of

people?

 

Your servant

Visista dasa