Giving of alms and charity go
hand in hand and are believed to be equally beneficial. In parlance of
spirituality, these are conferrer of supreme benefits like entry into heaven (Swarg
or Bahisht) the ultimate deliverance from worldly bondage (mukti),
acquisition of para-normal powers (siddhi), bestowal of divine
grace, capability to perform miracles and the like; whereas colloquially Daan-Punya
are said to be promoter of all-round progress, success in life and are also
harbinger of superiority in all walks of life. The practice of Giving alms
signifies that giving is an act of virtue, whereas Taking i.e. depriving
one of rights is sin. The outcome of sin in this world and in the world beyond
life is physical and moral decadence. In parlance of spirituality, this itself
is metaphorically known as Narak (Hell or Dozakh). Man has been
given full freedom by God to choose his own activities, which may either be
related to virtue or to sin. It is true that at times the milieu exerts
pressure against this choice, yet what transpires ultimately depends on where
the power of will of the person converges as Sankalp (a firm resolve for
action with unshakable conviction in its propriety). The foregoing hypothesis
is amply substantiated by the life-events of well known historical
personalities like Harishchandra, Karn, Bali, Dadhichi and Bhamashah.
However, those aspiring for the highest goal of entry into Heaven or Absolute
Salvation are required to make even greater surrender of personal interests.
Devotion to God has only one expression i.e. homogenisation of one's desires
and aspirations with those of the deity being worshipped. This is how an
insignificant mass of fuel acquires the brilliance of a raging fire. God is
known to be affectionately disposed towards the devotee. He readily entrusts
his power to the totally -surrendering - devotee and acts according to Tatter's
wishes. It is exemplified in events like personification of incarnate Shri
Krishna as a dancing partner of Meera and as the faithful servant
guiding the blind saint Soordas by holding his stick. Sudama, Chaitanya,
Hanuman and Arjun belonged to that category of devotees, who
liberally sowed the seeds of everything they had acquired by endeavours of
their body and mind, in the field of god and in return filled and stocked their
granaries with a million times more grants of divine gifts.
The elites amongst the noble are revered
by the masses as Dev Manav (divine men or angels). Entire creation of
God remains indebted to such persons for their unusual contribution to mankind.
All super persons have found only one way for promotion of excellence in
this world. They took a pledge and persevered to pay back a million times more
to the humanity than what they gained from this world. Had they been obsessed
with miserliness, irrespective of their riches, they would have been counted
amongst the class of avaricious persons, who like ghosts and spirits are
incapable of doing anything except disturbing others.
Absolute truths and ideals are eternal and
self-sustaining. At times, one may find it difficult to adhere to them.
Nevertheless, they continue to be dependable guides at all times, like the
lighthouses in troubled sea. All human interactions are governed by an
established law, according to which whatever is given is commensurately
reciprocated. Attempts to befool others by pretentious displays beget only
ridicule in return. There are persons who shirk from giving anything and in
return of ostentations, expect to receive a multitude of benefits. However big
castle in the air they build for quick returns of their conceited actions, what
they actually get is only frustration, exhaustion and irritation.
Transactions in this world are governed by
pragmatism. The supermarkets of this world are full of shelves decorated with
things of beauty and joy, but none of them is available free. Those at tempting
to acquire them surreptitiously either meet the fate of a shoplifter or are
spurned for their naiveté.
It has been eternally established that
contributions of any kind are reciprocated in one way or the other. Social
recognition and cooperation are reserved exclusively for those who remain
satisfied with minimal return for maximum contributions. On the other hand,
there are those braggarts, hypocrites and swindlers who believe in having
maximum returns for their minimal efforts. As a matter of fact, there is only
one process of transactions prevailing in this world and the world beyond since
time immemorial and in that, contribution always precedes the benefits of
acquisition. Only cheats and dacoits follow the practice of first acquiring and
then giving away a fraction as alms to satisfy their conscience, though even
such persons are not always successful in their misadventure.
Unless one takes pleasure in building
castles in the air or is prone to daydreaming, a pragmatic approach for solid
achievements would necessarily require emulation of the practice being followed
by the large-hearted benevolent supermen of yore, which brought them the double
benefit of self- contentment on one hand and credit in the society on the
other. It is this broad-mindedness and dedication to humanity which has
provided saints, reformists, martyrs and social workers, profound advantages
from this world as well as from God. Who in this world has ever got the gifts
of celestial boons and paranormal powers without imbibitions of asceticism in
life? Does one accumulate wealth without making any investment? Now and then
one keeps on borrowing something or the other from people and nature. But do we
care to keep an account of what has been paid back? Whenever some loan is taken
for any business, it has to be returned with interest. Though this is also an
eternal law of nature, paradoxically, everyone wants to be totally exempted
from it. Here, in this world, everyone is always found looking for an
opportunity to take something from just anyone. On the other hand, whenever one
is asked- to make some contribution, the general tendency is either to exhibit
a disinclination or polite helplessness.
It is an established law that for any
significant gain in any field of human endeavour one has to make a commensurate
contribution. There is absolutely no doubt that this law of nature covers all
dimensions of time and space and sensory and extra- sensory transactions. This
unwritten law of nature can be felt and seen working in all aspects of life. "Give
and take", "Contribute and receive", "Sow and reap" and
your bag will never be empty. Since time immemorial many miserly persons have
attempted to circumvent this law, but they have failed miserably.
That brings us to another problem in this
world abounding with "have nots". How does one receive something from
those who have nothing to give? Would it not be childish to expect such people
to follow the ideal of contributing for others and perform other virtuous
benevolent acts which necessarily involve expenditure? Here, one aspect of the
word "contribution" needs clarification. Generally, by "Giving"
one means contributing monetarily by partaking one's personal resources.
Unfortunately, the modern society measures acts of benevolence on scales of
money or related resources and those persons who give away large amount of
donation in cash or kind, earn name and fame are appreciated for their
generosity. Being a current practice no doubt it has also been accepted as a
norm. Persons having faith in the magic of greasing palms and clandestine
gifts, claim that even God can be made favorable by making appropriate
oblations of material things or by prayers and flattery. They believe that
while bestowing favors, God hardly ever considers the ethics or propriety of
the purpose of request.
Under these circumstances, one should not
be surprised if philanthropy is understood merely as an act of donating money,
property or articles for some socially useful purpose; or providing means of
subsistence to needy persons. It is not surprising that today money being
squandered for personal entertainment and egoistic displays is also being
listed under the head of philanthropic expenditure. During the Middle Ages, one
of the religious rituals accepted by the society was sacrifice of animals (Balidan).
According to another custom prevalent in those days, the working-class (Harijans)
were being given only leftover meals. This, they later rightly came to
regard as a disgraceful practice and refused to accept such food. There was a
time when the clothes discarded by sick persons were gladly accepted by the
poor, a practice which today even the poorest self-respecting pauper would
spurn. Now-a-days the concept of "Dan" (donation) has been
very much misunderstood and exploited by the "merchants of religion".
In the extravagance of a Hindu marriage, it has found various names like, Kanyadan
and Vagdan. There is yet another common practice of giving Dan by
donating money to some government - approved institution for the purpose of
income tax relief. The do nor feels happy in the double advantage of, on the
one hand savings in tax and on the other, social recognition as a
philanthropist. Today, succumbing to pressure from person seeking donations;
monetarily obliging family members and relations and going for a picnic on the
pretext of pilgrimage are also considered as religious, virtuous or
philanthropic acts. Some derive consolation in building places of entertainment
such as gardens, parks and swimming pools, which they consider utilities of
social welfare. With such a concept of donation, giving bribe should also be
considered a kind of donation since it is given generously to benefit someone.
Man has become so much conceited that drinks and drugs are also being
considered consecrated after having been oblated to some deity (e.g. Bhang
is offered to the deity Shiva). Exhibition of one's generosity by
cash donations to an institution is also regarded as a virtuous act. That the
personal image so built is encashed in some other way appears irrelevant to the
donor. In a way in its present practice, giving donation may more appropriately
be termed as a business transaction.
There can be only one criterion for
considering donation as an act of virtue. The donation made must be made use of
by a creditable agency for some noble purpose. On the contrary, any amount
spent in the name of donation, which directly or indirectly promotes
conservatism, hypocrisy, showmanship, addictions, dogmatism or superstitions,
is likely to produce adverse reactions for the donor as well. Only when an activity
results in promotion of excellence, it forms the basis for virtues which bring
in multifarious benefits to the donor. On the other hand if donations tend to
patronize vicious persons or evil designs, irrespective of the spirit behind
giving, they are likely to produce a variety of disastrous consequences for the
donor, the receiver and others.
An unduly given donation also produces
many other problems. By making the recipient habitually dependent on the
unearned money, the donor opens avenues of decadence for the former, who
becomes prone to inaction. There is no harm in helping a class of persons in
times of crisis, but making them habitually dependent on other's help, is like
making a healthy person a paralytic recluse. There are no two opinions that in
order to qualify as an act of virtue, the donation must accrue from one's
honest earnings. Then there exists the problem of finding sufficient quantity
of honestly earned money and resources in this vast majority of " have
nots", which could be appropriately utilized for commendable welfare
activities as virtuous donations. As a matter of fact, donations made
generously by affluent persons are generally meant to redeem their own sins
i.e. through an act of donation, they intend to lighten the burden of misdeeds
on their conscience.
Propriety implores each man to follow the
living standard of an average citizen of his country. "Simple living and
high thinking" must be the motto of life. One should feel contented with
hard-earned money earned through honest means. Deceit and oppression should
never form means of earning. Savings, if any, must be, without procrastination
utilized for counteracting disorderliness and undesirable elements of society.
The nursery of excellence and progressiveness is dying today because of lack of
arrangements for augmentation of virtuous traits in the society. One has;
therefore, to do whatever one can to save it. It has been a tradition during
the past golden era (Satyug). It is as much relevant for modern times.
