just curious… patanjali yoga sutras does not mention this two…
are compassion and charity concepts alien to yogis?
CityMonk -
Compassion is listed in Patanjali’s sutra 1.33 -(the word in Sanskrit is karuna)- as one of the four aspects of relationships that we should cultivate in order to reduce obstacles to clarity of mind. Specifically it lists compassion as an appropriate response to suffering.
There is no specific reference for charity but he chose his words carefully and perhaps it is not needed. The practice of yoga can bring about an evolution of the body and spirit, but it is at it’s own pace. The unbinding of attachment to the material world leaves an opening for people to see others with love and compassion, and I think most practitioners who make it this far come naturally to the place where they can choose to give and assist others from the inspiration of their own heart. Charity for the sake of giving charity is not bad, but why should we be told to do it?
Also, the connotation of charity in my mind is associated with the giving of money to people or organizations, or doing work to assist some type of organization. Perhaps the term itself is what makes me stand back against it’s necessity. I can give money to a hospital, or I can sit beside someone who is dying and hold their hand. One is an act of charity, the other makes me to stand up against all of my own deepest fears in order to bring comfort to another person when all of my toiling will disappear on their dying breath. The first is definitely charity, the second encompasses giving the most of what I have, and gaining even more back… Perhaps we should ask this question using the word, ‘giving’ instead of charity. I am always drawn to the piece by Khalil Gibran, from the book, “The Prophet”. I’ll pull some quotes from it and add them below.
Then said a rich man, “Speak to us of Giving.”
And he answered:
You give but little when you give of your possessions.
It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.
[…]
And there are those who give and know not pain in giving, nor do they seek joy, nor give with mindfulness of virtue;
They give as in yonder valley the myrtle breathes its fragrance into space.
Though the hands of such as these God speaks, and from behind their eyes He smiles upon the earth.
[…[
And is there aught you would withhold?
All you have shall some day be given;
Therefore give now, that the season of giving may be yours and not your inheritors’.
You often say, "I would give, but only to the deserving."
The trees in your orchard say not so, nor the flocks in your pasture.
They give that they may live, for to withhold is to perish.
[B]Surely he who is worthy to receive his days and his nights is worthy of all else from you.
[/B]
And he who has deserved to drink from the ocean of life deserves to fill his cup from your little stream.
[…]
[B]See first that you yourself deserve to be a giver, and an instrument of giving.
For in truth it is life that gives unto life - while you, who deem yourself a giver, are but a witness.[/B]
Thanks, I will look at YS more precisely…
Interesting, was reading on kriyas in Swatmarama’s Pradipika and somhow ended up reading his description of yamas/niyamas , he actually lists charity and compassion as one separate yama…
Interesting,…seems like compassion and charity have developed and evolved closer to the 13th century;)
Great post Suryadaya. I too have a problem with charity, because it implies giving money to some organization or people. However, compassion is all encompassing, it can include giving money as well just giving ones service to who are in need of it. Even lending a compassionate ear to listening to another suffering. Charity is just one part of compassion.
[QUOTE=CityMonk;70402]just curious… patanjali yoga sutras does not mention this two…
are compassion and charity concepts alien to yogis?[/QUOTE]
The most compassionate thing one can do, is to wake up from their nightmare.
[QUOTE=Surya Deva;70438]Great post Suryadaya. I too have a problem with charity, because it implies giving money to some organization or people. However, compassion is all encompassing, it can include giving money as well just giving ones service to who are in need of it. Even lending a compassionate ear to listening to another suffering. Charity is just one part of compassion.[/QUOTE]
what is wrong with giving money???
I’d say, charity is a result of compassion…and compassion is a result of love…no doubts everyone has their own reasoning for giving…
I probably will not provide a food for the one who is starving, cause the food can be obtained, just gotta be creative… i will not provide a shelter for the same reason… I WILL to provide money for some life saving or life significant event, such as surgery or education…
DO NOT GIVE A FISH TO ONE WHO IS STARVING, TEACH THEM HOW TO CATCH IT…
[QUOTE=ray_killeen;70455]The most compassionate thing one can do, is to wake up from their nightmare.[/QUOTE]
sorry, you post reminded me of one story…
one girl in the community got burned very badly by the fire… and i launched a small campaign to raise some money to provide a surgery for her, cause her family is very poor.
Surprisingly, all my “great yogis” who preach about ending suffering, universal love, compassion, etc… in public have not donated a single dollar… I’m not an organization, have no administrative, expenses, and all money went to pay the surgery and related expenses.
yes, one can say that by preaching they promote good as well…but there were a particular person who needed few k’s to survive and not to suffer.
What can be simpler?? just skip a restaurant trip and end 'permanent suffering" for particular person:) I understand that even she got that surgery and will not suffer from result of a burn…she still will suffer in some universal way… but this is another story…
There is one thing you can do without giving money, i dont give money to organisations either cause to much scammers and you dont know if the money really is helping the poor or if most gets lost on the way.
What people tend to forget is THAT you can become [U][B]blood-donor[/B][/U], that is really good as it can save lives. So if you want to do some karma yoga give some blood. AND ITS FREE dont need to pay to do it.
1.33 In relationships, the mind becomes purified by cultivating feelings of friendliness towards those who are happy, compassion for those who are suffering, goodwill towards those who are virtuous, and indifference or neutrality towards those we perceive as wicked or evil.
(maitri [B]karuna[/B] mudita upekshanam sukha duhka punya apunya vishayanam bhavanatah chitta prasadanam)
maitri = friendliness, pleasantness, lovingness
karuna = [B]compassion[/B], mercy
mudita = gladness, goodwill
upekshanam = acceptance, equanimity, indifference, disregard, neutrality
sukha = happy, comfortable, joyous
duhka = pain, misery, suffering, sorrow
punya = virtuous, meritorious, benevolent
apunya = non-virtuous, vice, bad, wicked, evil, bad, demerit, non-meritorious,
vishayanam = regarding those subjects, in relation to those objects
bhavanatah = by cultivating habits, by constant reflection, developing attitude, cultivating, impressing on oneself
chitta = mind field, consciousness
prasadanam = purified, clear, serene, pleasant, pacified, undisturbed, peaceful, calmcitymonk just because they dont give money doesnt neccesarily means they are bad people. Maybe they dont trust you, they might think you will take the money.
IF you are respected to be honest and helpful in your community then it is strange they didnt give money.
in these days people mistrust most people.
If you would come to me i wouldnt give you money nor the girls family , if they are poor they might use the money for them self and dont do surgery. This would be the case in asia but i checked your website and your from US it looks so i dont think this is the case over there.
If in ASIA and if i could help i would go to the hospital so they would do the surgery and then i would pay the doctor.
Do you see what i am meaning now? There are another perception always that has to be considered. To look at it in the other persons view.
If the yogis however have lots of money and didnt do this it means they are not yogis and in the age of kali this is not really surprising is it?
But you should not be angry with them because they didnt help and you should not start to treat them differently. Many people are ignorant and they can wake up tomorrow we all make mistakes and we all can be better. The one who is a sinner today can become saint tomorrow. Maybe they havent woken up yet.
Sometimes we forget that Patanjali has written Yoga Sutra without any mind conditioning that we unwittingly use in seeing anything. For example, ‘charity’ comes loaded with our concepts of goodness making it unquestionably a noble act.
Patanjali is extremey clinical about what is said. Charity is an act, that means it is preceded by a thought and an instinct/ desire. So, ‘desire to help’ may be good (qualitative & subjective idea) but is still a desire. It still remains true that the ultimate truth can be realized only in a desire-less state. Simply because we are not yet there, it looks paradoxical from distance.
But, Patanjali is also aware of the fact that one lives as an object surrounded by objects. It is important to create as less a dissonance with the external objects as possible to remain engaged with one’s internal domain. He recommends perception ?behavior toward physical objects based on: sympathy, tenderness, steadfast joy, and dispassion. (Sutra I.33)
? Sympathy in a very generic sense of ?live and let live? to be ble to see the life-force present at the core of all beings.
? Tenderness in relationship with the animal kingdom and toward people who suffer to really connect peacefully to the other beings.
? Steadfast joy in lauding the virtuous to rise above that influence of popular thoughts and place things in relation to the purpose of life.
? Dispassion is an unattached distance from the vicious in place of hate that still keeps one engaged.
Another cardinal rule yogis follow is born out of deeper knowledge of and respect for the law of karma. If self-realization is the destination, pleasures and sufferings are only occurances on the path invited by the individual him/herself. Any external intervention may accentuate pleasure or reduce suffering, but will not help in self-realization. Charity thus amounts to an intervention AT THAT LEVEL. Patanjali is speaking in very absolute terms that will always appear odd to a material, conditioned mind.
[QUOTE=fakeyogis;70879]citymonk just because they dont give money doesnt neccesarily means they are bad people. Maybe they dont trust you, they might think you will take the money.
IF you are respected to be honest and helpful in your community then it is strange they didnt give money.
in these days people mistrust most people.
If you would come to me i wouldnt give you money nor the girls family , if they are poor they might use the money for them self and dont do surgery. This would be the case in asia but i checked your website and your from US it looks so i dont think this is the case over there.
If in ASIA and if i could help i would go to the hospital so they would do the surgery and then i would pay the doctor.
Do you see what i am meaning now? There are another perception always that has to be considered. To look at it in the other persons view.
If the yogis however have lots of money and didnt do this it means they are not yogis and in the age of kali this is not really surprising is it?
But you should not be angry with them because they didnt help and you should not start to treat them differently. Many people are ignorant and they can wake up tomorrow we all make mistakes and we all can be better. The one who is a sinner today can become saint tomorrow. Maybe they havent woken up yet.[/QUOTE]
no, i think they just have a lazy heart, and jealous mind, cause they know that I can fund the surgery on my own.
my anger is about hypocrisy, which I will never tolerate due to my moral values…
[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;70884]Sometimes we forget that Patanjali has written Yoga Sutra without any mind conditioning that we unwittingly use in seeing anything. For example, ‘charity’ comes loaded with our concepts of goodness making it unquestionably a noble act.
Patanjali is extremey clinical about what is said. Charity is an act, that means it is preceded by a thought and an instinct/ desire. So, ‘desire to help’ may be good (qualitative & subjective idea) but is still a desire. It still remains true that the ultimate truth can be realized only in a desire-less state. Simply because we are not yet there, it looks paradoxical from distance.
.[/QUOTE]
thank you, just what I’ve suspected:)
[QUOTE=CityMonk;71077]no, i think they just have a lazy heart, and jealous mind, cause they know that I can fund the surgery on my own.
my anger is about hypocrisy, which I will never tolerate due to my moral values…[/QUOTE]
Yes thats how it is and its normal to get angry when you walk this path and sees error , But later on you will be able to drop it and just let them act foolishly without reaction from your side. Just oberving their foolish behaviour. Maybe we function in this way so we want to continue to do right, like we are disgusted by people doing wrong, and later on we will get unaffected by it, i dont know. But it could be like that but i only have my own view and dont know how other works.
No, it is not part of yoga philosophy. Because yoga is not a philosophy. It is a science and technology towards ones enlightenment. Compassion is not a philosophy either. It is a way of being. One becomes compassionate, not because one is following any system of morality, but because ones perception has reached such a level - where you naturally see Oneness in everything. The forms may be different in the world, but everything is one one and the same nature. If one realizes this, not as an idea, but as a living experience - then to be compassionate, non-violent, is very natural. This is the problem with many of the teachings on non-violence. They are teaching non-violence as though it were a commandment to follow. Yes, in the beginning you can follow it as a principle. But that is just mechanical. Thats useful along the path, but it should not be misunderstood for true compassion. True compassion happens, when compassion becomes as natural as your own heartbeat - there is no need to follow any doctrines, rules, or commandments for this.
[QUOTE=AmirMourad;71257]No, it is not part of yoga philosophy. Because yoga is not a philosophy. It is a science and technology towards ones enlightenment. Compassion is not a philosophy either. It is a way of being. One becomes compassionate, not because one is following any system of morality, but because ones perception has reached such a level - where you naturally see Oneness in everything. The forms may be different in the world, but everything is one one and the same nature. If one realizes this, not as an idea, but as a living experience - then to be compassionate, non-violent, is very natural. This is the problem with many of the teachings on non-violence. They are teaching non-violence as though it were a commandment to follow. Yes, in the beginning you can follow it as a principle. But that is just mechanical. Thats useful along the path, but it should not be misunderstood for true compassion. True compassion happens, when compassion becomes as natural as your own heartbeat - there is no need to follow any doctrines, rules, or commandments for this.[/QUOTE]
What is wrong with nonviolence as commandment, when yama and niyama are social discipline to follow (commandments) AHIMSA.
We have to start from the beginning anyone even a saint has to start also from there so whats wrong with it? We need rules to follow or we become like animals.
Also by reasoning we can never grasp the higher truth. Sometimes it is good but sometimes it can boost the ego to think “I” am better.
This is why we need experience cause even if you say something that is right, people need to experience it in order to believe, as blind faith is dangerous.
“What is wrong with nonviolence as commandment, when yama and niyama are social discipline to follow (commandments) AHIMSA.”
There is nothing “wrong” with them, that is why I said that they are needed in the beginning. But I also wanted to make the distinction between the mechanical following of doctrines, and compassion as a natural quality that starts blooming in one’s consciousness. Keep in mind also that as long as one is following these commandments of “non-violence”, our ideas of non-violence are going to be highly relative. The idea of non-violence for Jainism is of a totally different kind that that of a Buddhist. The Jain will make an effort not even to eat vegetables, because to eat vegetables is considered too violent. They are still living beings. So they will restrict their diet to fruits, nuts, and milk, because these are by products of living beings rather than life itself. Some Jains will even wear a mask over their face, to prevent the killing of micro-organisms, even to step accidentally on an insect is enough to accumulate negative karma. Now all of these will simply be extremist to a Buddhist, or to a Hindu. Or in Zen, the master will strike the disciple as a skillful means to bring him to a state of no-mind, it is a method to cut through the habitual patterns of thought. This can be seen as “violent”, but actions have no quality by themselves, it is the consciousness which is running beneath action which determines it’s quality.
So when you leave the idea of “non-violence” open as a mere idea, it is an idea which is as relative as relativity can be. That is fine, but again, I feel there should be a distinction between our relative ideas of “non-violence”, and the natural quality of compassion that happens out of coming to sharper and sharper states of perception and experience. The reason why many Buddhas naturally became compassionate is because it was just a side-effect of having entered deeply enough into their own being, once your consciousness is in communion with existence, it is impossible not to be compassionate.
Even if the borrowed knowledge is truth perspective is vital for application.
This quote seems applicable to this thread, so I post:
[I]That which you are, your true self, you love it, and whatever you do, you do for your own happiness. To find it, to know it, to cherish it is your basic urge. Since time immemorial you loved yourself, but never wisely. Use your body and mind wisely in the service of the self, that is all. Be true to your own self, love your self absolutely. Do not pretend that you love others as yourself. Unless you have realized them as one with yourself, you cannot love them Don’t pretend to be what you are not, don’t refuse to be what you are. Your love of others is the result of self-knowledge, not its cause. Without self-realization, no virtue is genuine. When you know beyond all doubting that the same life flows through all that is and you are that life, you will love all naturally and spontaneously. When you realize the depth and fullness of your love of yourself, you know that every living being and the entire universe are included in your affection. But when you look at anything as separate from you, you cannot love it for you are afraid of it. Alienation causes fear and fear deepens alienation. It is a vicious circle. Only self-realization can break it. Go for it resolutely.[/I][B]~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj[/B]
I like that quote : )
No, it is not part of yoga philosophy. Because yoga is not a philosophy. It is a science and technology towards ones enlightenment.
Amir,
The boundaries between science and philosophy are of human making; a result of human cognitive process that can understand anything only by dividing and then, classifying. Otherwise as a systematized knowledge pool accumulating from distilled information, both employ similar methods of inference, deduction and analogy. If philosophy becomes impractical or science invites blind faith, that’s again a human failure.
It is an evolving nature of wisdom that needs acceptance. One is so eager to be wise and ‘look’ wise that the unknown territories are either ignored or glossed over. When that is ignored science creates blind followers for whom anything labeled scientific is true. And when it is glossed over, it becomes philosophy for some people. Limitations of both are apparent when someone then writes about the ‘philosophy of sciece’. Thus, science or philosophy both address the unknown, one explores it the other builds a rationale. They become defective only in the hands of erring individuals.
Technology is another thing. It is a time, space & culture-specific derivative of either science or philosophy. It is adapted, innovated and improvised all the time.
At the micro level, technology of any mainstream science will be obviously different from the technology of yoga. But, in itself, at a macro level, yoga is both a science and a philosophy.