Charity in Hindu Scriptures

[shankara]

Namaste to all,

It is a general allegation that Hindu scriptures do not prescribe charity towards fellow humans. So, please site specific verses, with proper reference, from Vedas, Puranas, Itihasas and Smritis about charity. 

Thanks

 

regards
shankara

[hnbhat B.R.]

छिन्नद्वैधा यतात्मानः सर्वभूतहिते रताः ॥५- २५ भगवद्गीता

ते प्राप्नुवन्ति मामेव सर्वभूतहिते रताः ॥१२- ४॥ भगवद्गीता

शान्तः सन्तः सुशीलश्च सर्वभूतहिते रतः ।

 क्रोधं कर्तुं न जानाति स वै ब्राह्मण उच्यते ॥ (धन्वन्तरिः)

तापसं नियताहारं सर्वभूतहिते रतम । रामायणम् 

ETc. Many may be found on search.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "samskrita" group.
To post to this group, send email to sams...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to samskrita+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/samskrita?hl=en.

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R.
EFEO,
PONDICHERRY

[Vimala Sarma]

Dear Shankara mahodaya

There is only one hymn to charity – a dAnastuti. See Rgveda 1.126

Ethics for its own sake is a Western concept.  Indic traditions have tied ethics, ie  “doing good” to karma and liberation.  Even good acts need to be abandoned in the end, because it leads to re-birth.  In the idea of “good acts” the ritual acts and caste duties are included, so you are correct in saying that in general the Hindu texts do not prescribe charity to fellow humans.

Modern HindutvA advocates have re-interpreted the word “dharma” to include western ethical norms such as charity, and social justice for all.

Vimala

[C S PASRICHA]

Thanks. can we please have the english translation of these shlokas.

CS P

C.S.Pasricha

[shankara]

Bhat Sir,

Thanks for the informative reply. I did search for such scriptural passages. Still, it is not very easy to find them unless one is familiar with them thoroughly.

I found the following verses and subsequent verses in chapter 4 of Manusmriti, prescribing charity as a duty.

दानधर्मं निषेवेत नित्यमैष्टिकपौर्तिकम् ।
परितुष्टेन भावेन पात्रमासाद्य शक्तितः ॥4.227

 

regards
shankara

---

From: hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2011 10:30 AM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Charity in Hindu Scriptures

[shankara]

Vimalaji,

Thanks for the kind reply. It is very useful to me.

What you said may be true regarding Vedic period (I am not sure about it).

But Puranas and Itihasas have stories of compassion. Eg: Story of Rantideva in the Bhagavata and that of the golden mongoose in the Mahabharata. So, we cannot say conclusively that compassion and charity was not valued in Hindu culture.

I have heard this prayer of Rantideva (please correct me if I am wrong) -

न त्वहं कामये राज्यं न स्वर्गं नापुनर्भवम्।
कामये दुःखतप्तानां प्राणीनामार्तिनाशनम्॥

 

regards
shankara

---

From: Vimala Sarma <vsa...@bigpond.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2011 2:07 PM
Subject: RE: [Samskrita] Charity in Hindu Scriptures

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 3:09 PM, shankara <shanka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Vimalaji,

Thanks for the kind reply. It is very useful to me.

What you said may be true regarding Vedic period (I am not sure about it).

But Puranas and Itihasas have stories of compassion. Eg: Story of Rantideva in the Bhagavata and that of the golden mongoose in the Mahabharata. So, we cannot say conclusively that compassion and charity was not valued in Hindu culture.

I have heard this prayer of Rantideva (please correct me if I am wrong) -

न त्वहं कामये राज्यं न स्वर्गं नापुनर्भवम्।
कामये दुःखतप्तानां प्राणीनामार्तिनाशनम्॥

 

You can be wrong, if Kalidasa was right in asserting that the river चर्मण्वती was produced by the flow of blood and flesh of the butchering of the cows in sacrifice by Rantideva:

आराद्यैनं शरवणभवं देवं उल्लङ्घिताध्वा  

सिद्धद्वन्द्वैर्जलकणभयाद्वीणिभिर्मुक्तमार्गः  

व्यालम्बेथाः सुरभितनयालम्भजां मानयिष्यन् 

स्रोतोमूर्त्या भुवि परिणतां रन्तिदेवस्य कीर्तिम् । । १.४८  । ।

"यागीया प्राणिहिंसा न हिंसा"  is the defending argument of offering even human beings in याग i.e. पुरुषमेध while the श्रुति says " 'मा हिंस्यात् सर्वा भूतानि" is the general rule. This may seem to be contradiction, but it is clear in the same corpus of Vedic literature. One cannot conceal it.

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 12:16 PM, shankara <shanka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bhat Sir,

Thanks for the informative reply. I did search for such scriptural passages. Still, it is not very easy to find them unless one is familiar with them thoroughly.

I found the following verses and subsequent verses in chapter 4 of Manusmriti, prescribing charity as a duty.

दानधर्मं निषेवेत नित्यमैष्टिकपौर्तिकम् ।
परितुष्टेन भावेन पात्रमासाद्य शक्तितः ॥4.227

 

regards
shankara

Just like said in my earlier post and Vimalaji's post indicated, here too the दान and धर्म here is not similar to the western concept of charity, it here it is qualified पात्र. दान is restricted to eligible persons according to the scriptures, otherwise it would be अपात्र 

"पात्रे दत्तं परापणीयं परीक्ष्य काम्याष्टम्यां वर्तिताव्यं दशाहं;"
"पात्रे देशे च काले च साधुभ्यः प्रतिपादयेत" 32 "

"सुक्षेत्रे च सुपात्रे च ह्युप्तं दत्तं न नश्यति ॥ "

"देशे काले च पात्रे च तद्दानं सात्त्विकं स्मृतम् ॥भगवद्गीता १७- २०॥"

On the other hand, 

यत्तु प्रत्युपकारार्थं फलमुद्दिश्य वा पुनः ।

दीयते च परिक्लिष्टं तद्दानं राजसं स्मृतम् ॥१७- २१॥

अश्रद्धया हुतं दत्तं तपस्तप्तं कृतं च यत् । 

असदित्युच्यते पार्थ न च तत्प्रेत्य नो इह ॥१७-२२॥

So it is not at all identical or similar to the western concept of दान or धर्म or charity .

The same Manu says it is the ब्राह्मण who is eligible for दान and प्रतिग्रह as it is within his six obligations to the society. 

Others can do पूर्त providing water supply, reservoirs to the society and get done the sacrifices. This is the basis for the allegation, even though we can find some more similar references at at random.

[Arvind_Kolhatkar]

Dear Group,

The general allegation, as Shankara puts it in his opening posting,
that Hindu scriptures do not prescribe charity towards fellow humans,
is very easily answered by citing myriads of verses and aphorisms that
extol the virtues of dAna, Athithya, dayA, kShamA etc. These enable
us to give a facile answer that the scriptures do prescribe charity,
as indeed could not have been otherwise, since no scripture will
expressly prohibit charity. The real question to be asked is the
quality, the extent and the nature of the charity and it is here that
our scriptures seem to fall short of standards that have lately
developed in these modern days. At this point some might ask why must
we at all test the ancient scriptures against the modern standards.
My answer to it would be that these standards are called modern
because they have been increasingly emphasized in modern days but they
are really universal and not confined to a specific space or time.
Also, a re-examination of dearly-held old beliefs against new
standards is good for the Society, it may remove some cobwebs.

Judged by these standards it does appear that our ancient society did
lack compassion towards the downtrodden and the dispossessed. The
caste system and the Karma theory had such a stranglehold on the
Indian society that the woes of the lower classes, of women and of
other dispossessed classes were never noticed or were explained away
as their own कर्मविपाक, freeing the rest of the society to go about
their own pursuits without any burden of guilt. What is called in
modern Dalit literature as the ‘life beyond the village wall’, while
it undoubtedly existed, has never been noticed in our vast body of
literature. It is a rare Ekanath of Paithan who would pour water
into the mouth of an ass dying of thirst on the sandy banks of river
Godavari. Most others would just look the other way for fear of
ritual contamination.
The other thing not much seen in the ancient society was the
institutionalization of charity. Such charity as was done was at an
individual level and was entirely voluntary. It was therefore
transient, short-lived and limited in resources and did not go much
beyond feeding the hungry (that too of one’s own class) and sheltering
the indigent. It was not considered the duty of the State or of the
King or of the rich and the mighty to promote education for all, the
provide for the health of the ill and to protect the weak from the
predators in the society.

Two exmples of what may be interpreted as lack of compassion towards
the down-trodden. We have the famous Valmiki story of how the Sage
relinquished the aborigine NiShAda to a perpetual low status because
the latter had hunted down a pair of Krauncha birds engaged in amorous
activity. We extoll Valmiki as the First Poet, based on this story.
The same story, looked at from the other side of the divide, can
have a different interpretation. The same society that extolls
Valmiki had consigned the NiShAda to his life as a hunter-gatherer and
the poor NiShAda was just looking for food. Valmiki did not stop to
ponder why the NiShAda did what he did, and did not offer an
alternative life-style to the NiShAda. He only cursed him and walked
away. Showing some consideration for the NiShAda and prefering him
over the birds would have been a real act of charity.

One more contrarian example. Rama abandons Seeta because a dhobi had
doubted her chastity. (It is interesting to note that chastity has
been enjoined only upon Seeta and not upon Rama. Rama too was living
without his spouse for quite some time. But his एकपत्नीव्रत is taken
for granted!) Now Rama was fully aware that Seeta was ‘pure’ as he
had subjected her to अग्निदिव्य prior to accepting her back from
Lanka. Yet he abandons her because a dhobi suspected her of being
impure. Was it not his duty to uphold Seeta’s honour by telling his
subjects of the अग्निदिव्य? It is said about the Kshatriya
‘आर्तत्राणाय वः शस्त्रं न प्रहर्तुमनागसि’. Rama does nothing of this
sort. He expediently sacrifices the weak. If Rama, on this set of
facts, were accused of taking the path of least resistance and of
populism, would it be wrong?

The social ills of inequality and of casteism were noticed by us in
any meaningful way only from the 19th century onwards. None had
seriously applied their mind to these ills in the preceding two
millennia, despite clear evidence that they were cutting at the very
root of the system and driving away those who saw no stake in it.
Even this hemorrhaging did not wake up the ruling classes to remedy
the social ills. With this set of facts, it is difficult to say that
charity towards fellow humans was a major part of the Indian society,
myriads of verses extolling charity notwithstanding.

Arvind Kolhatkar, Toronto, May 22, 2011.

[murthy]

It should be आराध्यैनम् and not आराद्यैनम्, in the verse quoted from meghadootam.

Murthy

----- Original Message -----

From: hnbhat B.R.

To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2011 5:42 PM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Charity in Hindu Scriptures

--

[shankara]

Bhat Sir,

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Are different words used to refer to charity given to brahmins and non-brahmins? Does Daanam stand only for charity given to brahmins?

I searched Manu Smriti for info on Purtam. I could find only one verse in chapter 4. Is there any description of Purtam in any of the scriptures? 

regards
shankara

---

From: hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, 22 May 2011 5:58 PM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Charity in Hindu Scriptures

[Upendra Watwe]

Hello All,

I find it surprising that all the learned men in the group seem to have totally ignored the fact that nearly ALL brahmins were expected to survive ONLY on charity or alms given by people during the time of their brahmacharya.

Is that not charity ?

What about King Shibi - who gave away even his own body to complete his charity ?

What about King Harishchandra - he even completed the oath of charity that he promised in his dreams.

King of Anga- first son of Kunti - Karna was also known as "daanveer" .

At end of ashwamedh yagna- a king was expected to give away all his wealth to charity- what was that ?

Nearly all buddhist/ Jain / Hindu kings have left the legacy of charity in form of "dharmashalas " or "saraiys" to provide free accomodation to travellers- is that not charity ?

Maybe I am ignorant or I am confusing the indian/ hindu concept of "daan" with english concept of charity.

Can some of the learned folks please throw light on this ?

Upendra 

[Vimala Sarma]

Just to clarify my answer below – I was referring to ethics for its own sake (not charity to acquire merit, ie feeding brAhmins, or for leading to better births or to moksha), and also  was referring to only Vedic texts – not to puraNas or epics or stories or the dharmastrAtras which focus on caste duty, by and large.

Vimala

[hnbhat B.R.]

 Are different words used to refer to charity given to brahmins and non-brahmins? Does Daanam stand only for charity given to brahmins?
I searched Manu Smriti for info on Purtam. I could find only one verse in chapter 4. Is there any description of Purtam in any of the scriptures? 

त्रिष्वथ क्रतुकर्मेष्टं पूर्तं खातादि कर्म यत् ( २. ६. ८६७) 

Even Amarasimha, had found the word पूर्त in the vast literature, he had gone through and it is strange that you have not met the word anywhere. Anyhow, here is one more citation I found on the net:

इष्टं यागादि श्रौतं कर्म |पूर्तं वापीकूपतडागादि स्मार्तं मन्यमाना एतदेवातिशयेन पुरुषार्थसाधनं वरिष्ठं प्रधानमिति 

Manusmṛti

ManuS, 4, 226.1
śraddhayeṣṭaṃ ca pūrtaṃ ca nityaṃ kuryād atandritaḥ / 

 

Mahābhārata

MBh, 12, 334, 15.1
triguṇātigaścatuṣpañcadharaḥ pūrteṣṭayośca

ŚvetāśvUp, 2, 7.2
tatra yoniṃ kṛṇavase nahi te pūrtam akṣipat // 

iṣṭāpūrtam iti dvaṃdvasamāsaḥ // (2.0) 

iṣṭāpūrta iti dvaṃdva-samāsa
iṣṭaṃ ca pūrtaṃ ceṣṭāpūrtam tatra 

yan mantrapūrvakeṇa vidhinā dattaṃ hutaṃ stutyādiniṣpannaṃ sukṛtaṃ tad iṣṭam // (3.0) 
yad amantrapūrvakeṇaiva tat pūrtam // (4.1) 
(Pañcārthabhāṣya on PāśupSūtra, 4, 11, 4.1)

Hope the above are selective examples of pUrta. It is mostly used with इष्ट - श्रौतयागादिकर्म, तत् सुकृतम् वा.

[Vimala Sarma]

Bhat Mahodaya

Yes the word occurs in KaTho – iSTApUrte in Valli 1.8. – here it means good works.

Also Radhakrishnan’s commentary refers to Sankara’s glossing this word as iStaM yAgajam phalam: pUrtam, ArAmAdi kRyAjam phalam in the previous mention in R V X.14

Vimala

 

From: sams...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sams...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of hnbhat B.R.
Sent: Monday, 23 May 2011 11:05 AM
To: sams...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Charity in Hindu Scriptures

 

--

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 6:19 PM, murthy <murt...@gmail.com> wrote:

It should be आराध्यैनम् and not आराद्यैनम्, in the verse quoted from meghadootam.

Murthy

Thanks Murthy for the correction of typo error. Sorry I pasted as I got it from the net without taking pains of correction or proof reading.

 

[hnbhat B.R.]

There is no word daan in Sanskrit, but only दान (daana). Please quote any authority while discussing any topic on scriptures, than merely passing in guesswork.

Please note that scriptures deal with a society where 4 castes were working in complementary to each others at that time, though it became on the inflow of new air, it lost its force. We are discussing from the stand point of our time and without taking the time element and the contemporary society evaluating and judging from our stand point of view which is the main focus of this thread. Even then, I would try to give precise answers from the scriptures.

षट्कर्माणि ब्राह्मणस्य -

अध्यापनमध्यायनं याजनं यजनं तथा।
दानं प्रतिग्रहश्चैव षट् कर्माण्यग्रजन्मन:॥ 10। 75॥ 

according to Manu in the society of his time. Don't take it universal and eternal with your own guessed theories. 

Please read further verses of Manu in his Chapter. 

 षण्णां तु कर्मणामस्य त्रीणि कर्माणि जीविका।
याजनाध्यापने चैव विशुद्धाच्च प्रतिग्रहः॥10.76 ॥

Where it is clearly mentioned as the source of income in the second half. Performing sacrifice for others, teaching and accepting दान. How can you say only the alms received by him during brahmacarya should be the source of income?

10.77a-b/ त्रयो धर्मा निवर्तन्ते ब्राह्मणात् क्षत्रियं प्रति।
10.77c-d/ अध्यापनं याजनं च तृतीयश्च प्रतिग्रहः॥ C.॥

And, for your second question, the above is the clear answer of Manu (not me):

The kings are exepted from the thee, teaching and performing sacrifice for others (याजन) and प्रतिग्रह (accepting दान). In all the examples, they are kings who are legitimately entitled to give दान, अध्ययन, and यजन. The वैश्य-s are also expected to be entitled to these three as the common duties of the त्रैवर्ण्य in addition to their specific duties mentioned. रक्षण for क्षत्रिय, कृषि-वाणिज्य for वैश्य. 

10.80a  वेदाभ्यासो ब्राह्मणस्य क्षत्रियस्य च रक्षणम्।
10.80c  वार्ताकर्मैव वैश्यस्य विशिष्टानि स्वकर्मसु॥ C.॥

भगवद्गीता also specifies these वर्णdharma-s. 

The following line makes the idea of clear:

78a-b वैश्यं प्रति तथैवैते निवर्तेरन्निति स्थितिः।
10.78c-d न तौ प्रति हि तान् धर्मान् मनुराह प्रजापतिः॥ 

"Hence they are not specifically prescribed for them. "

Hope you would be satisfied with the answer above given by Manu himself. While यागादि कर्म is for all the above three, पूर्त - is common for all the four classes, serving the public providing public facilities.

वापीकूपतडागादि देवतायतनानि च।

अन्नप्रदानमारामाः पूर्तमित्यभिधीयते॥

This पूर्त is common for all the classes irrespective of their वर्ण and अश्रम धर्म-s.  Even women are entitled to do this public service and the 4th class also शूद्र. This system holds good so far as each of them are loyally discharging their duties and responsibilities to the Society in which live as laid by the contemporary rules and regulations which we are now discussing.  Hence beyond the frame work, it may not work as a good example. The above includes food and shelter and drinking water supply too for the public. What else charity do a society require if every body followed the above priciple?

[hnbhat B.R.]

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 7:06 PM, shankara <shanka...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Bhat Sir,

Thanks for the detailed reply.

Are different words used to refer to charity given to brahmins and non-brahmins? Does Daanam stand only for charity given to brahmins?

I searched Manu Smriti for info on Purtam. I could find only one verse in chapter 4. Is there any description of Purtam in any of the scriptures? 

For details of Purta and more information on it, please see the attached file containing the entry of Shabdakalpadruma.

With regards

 

[Shambhu]

The well known Upanishad statements:

shradDhayA dEyam, ashradDhayA adeyam, shriyA dEyam, hriyA dEyam, bhiyA
dEyam, samvidA dEyam – tiattirIya Upanishad, shIkShAvalli
Annam bahu kurvIta, tadvratam – taittirIya Upanishad, Bhr`guvalli
na kanchana vasatau pratyAchakSItA – taittirIya Upanishad, Bhr`guvalli
dAnam tapaH – mahAnArAyaNOpanishad
….dAnam paraman vadanti…. – mahAnArAyaNOpanishad
tEna tyaktEna BhunjIthA mA gr`DhaH kasyasvidDhanam - IshAvAsyOpanishad

Does shruti limit dAnam to one's own community? - shushrUShENyAm
manuShyEBhyaH. In the gr`hapravEsha ceremony, dAna-s are given to all
those who worked on building the house. In general, dAnam is to be
given to anyone deserving (and rarely to the rich).

This blog has some quotations from Chanakya and other sources:
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2009/07/hindu-economics-and-charity.html

Here is an article with more quotations: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0807/126.html

Along with Shibi (noted by a member), we have these purANa/itihAsa
personalities as great donors: daDhIchi, harischandra, karNa, etc.

[Shambhu]

What do ‘ethics for its own sake’ as a Western concept and then
looking for it in the Vedas mean (Vimala ji’s comment)? How is it
connected to Shankara mahOdaya's question, unless the allegation is
from the perspective of Christian ethics? If so, the allegation is
valid. But, as Bhat ji seems to suggest, the Vedas have a very
different frame of ethics.

Western ethics (i.e., Christian ethics) stems from the notion of
inherent sinfulness of human life, and one has to atone through love,
grace, and mercy. This is really good if one’s life is really sinful.
But is life sinful? Is creation sinful? This is not at all true for
the Vedic Rishis. Therefore such an ethics is not in the Vedas
(“shruNvanthu vishvE amr`tasya putrAH”). Even to the newborn the
father whispers (during jAtakarma), “You are Brahman.” Nor there is
evil in the creation unless we mean it to be the mAyA of the advaita.
Whatever is there simply exists - neither good, nor evil, all
impermanent yet (in) the One permanent, as only the mAyA and (in) the
Brahman.

Sin and evil are not in the Buddhist thoughts either where ethics may
be understood in terms of the pancha shIlA and the eightfold path
towards nirvana. Engaging in dAnam is advised because doing so causes
a great joy (same as being God), dAnam paramam vadanti, i.e., it is a
way to mOksha. So is Dharma, tapas, satyam, damaH, shamaH, prajananam,
agnihOtram, yajnam, or mAnasam (this narration is in the
mahAnArAyaNOpanishad). We do experience this joy of the paratatvam
firsthand when we engage in any of these acts without seeking anything
in return. Veda’s charity or dAnam is not driven by the Western notion
of ethics (to redeem sin) at all because there is no sin in the
creation.

On May 22, 9:45 pm, "hnbhat B.R." <hnbha...@gmail.com> wrote:

[shankara]

Namaste to all,

I found the following slokas from Bhagavata and Vishnu Purana that emphasize the greatness of charity, especially for householders.

vidya danam tapah satyam
dharmasyeti padani ca
asramams ca yatha-sankhyam
asrjat saha vrttibhih Bhagavata 3.12.41

vidya: education; danam: charity; tapah: penance; satyam: truth; dharmasya: of religion; iti: thus; padani: four legs; ca: also; asraman: orders of life; ca: also; yatha: as they are; sankhyam: in number; asrjat: created; saha: along with; vrttibhih: by vocations.

TRANSLATION
Education, charity, penance and truth are said to be the four legs of religion, and to learn this there are four orders of life with different classifications of castes according to vocation. Brahma created all these in systematic order.

अतिथिर्यस्य भग्नाशो गृहात्प्रतिनिवर्तते।
स तस्मै दुष्कृतं दत्वा पुण्यमादाय गच्छति॥ वि. पु. ३.११.६६
 

regards
shankara

---

From: hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, 23 May 2011 9:25 AM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Charity in Hindu Scriptures

[Upendra Watwe]

Bhat Sir,

Thank you for bringing to my notice some incorrect usage of words which might have made my queries offensive/ brash.

I apologise for my reactionary query.

I was just trying to get the answers to questions that came in my mind based on my limited knowledge and observations.

Thank you all again.

Upendra

[shankara]

Bhat Sir,

Thanks a lot for the detailed info on 'Purtam'.

I also thank all the others who took part in this discussion. I had posted this query in another forum also and have not got sufficient number of scriptural quotes to prove that our scriptures had considered "charity to the poor" as an obligatory duty for all the 4 varnas.

I can post all these quotes if anyone is interested in them. Please let me know.

 

regards
shankara

---

From: hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: sams...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, 23 May 2011 1:20 PM

Subject: Re: [Samskrita] Charity in Hindu Scriptures

[Vimala Sarma]

Shambu Mahodaya
What I meant - "ethics for its own sake" refers to doing good and showing kindness towards because of empathy (or because of understanding, sympathy, or love of) with fellow humans. Not because of any other motive where one would get some gain, - be it spiritual, religious, or otherwise, or because of "duty" or because it is prescribed behaviour, or be relieved of sin. In the Western framework this would be regarded as humanism and not necessarily associated with belief in God or any religion.
Vimala

--

[Vidya R]

namaste!

ishopaniShad |   verse 1:

इशावास्यमिदं सर्वं यत्किञ्चित् जगत्यां जगत् ।

तेन त्यक्तेन भुञ्जीथा मा गृधः कस्य स्विद् धनम् ॥

... Do not go after what is not yours ....

This prescribes against hoarding ...  This, I believe, is superior to hoarding, and then meting out 'charity'.  

When one takes only what is needed, there is plenty left for others, and a smaller of chance of "existence of the poor".  We (humanity) has broken these rules, we have extracted from Nature more than what is used, we waste a lot, .... and so, we hoarders (some of whom can give in charity) and and we have 'poor people'.

....

Vidya

---

From: shankara <shanka...@yahoo.com>
To: "sams...@googlegroups.com" <sams...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Mon, May 23, 2011 8:03:44 AM

[Shambhu]

Shankara mahOdaya’s original issue was charity in the Hindu scriptures
but the thread is wandering off to social issues. My few cents on
both:

Precise citations are too many. Some areas to look:

Charity to fellow humans: two of the five daily yajnas prescribed to
every dwija householder.

Many ritual vidhis (in the samskaaras, etc.) stipulate dAnam to the
deserving, given as “na mama.”

kanyA dAnam is the only exception where the donor does not relinquish
what is given. A daughter remains the daughter of the donor even after
marriage.

The entire sanyAsa Ashrama is a vrata serving all of the fellow humans
and all the creatures. Almost all of our matAdhipatis and some sadhus
follow this ethos of total service.

Uta dEvA sUktam (rik) – uta dEvA avahitam dEvA unnayathA punaH…
sanyAsa sUktam (yajus) – tyAgEnaikE amr`tatvamAnashuH
abhyudaya niHshrEyasa sa sidDhiH sa DharmaH – vaishEshika sUtra
shanti mantrAH – tachChanyOrA vr`NImahE, idA dEvahUH, etc.

smr`ti-purANas countless times extol serving the humanity and all of
creation (some members have already quoted some). Our daily prayer is
sarvE bhavanti sukhinaH,… etc. Action can only follow by the mind
engaged in such or similar prayer.

As for India’s social turmoil, the exploitations have been mostly by
the rich and the politically powerful, irrespective of the vEda,
shAstras, caste, or creed. A. Raja is no brAhmaNa. The same
communities are also well known for charity through the door of
Bhagawan (here too the DMK is an exception). We only need to look at
the numerous temples administered by these communities engaging in
daily anna daanam or providing free education for the poor. Many Hindu
religious, cultural, and social institutions are deeply involved in
charity, education, and health programs. Sree Satya Sai Baba’s work
has been in the news a lot, but in general, such works largely go
unnoticed because it is not the trend to report them. Most of the
social reformers over the last 1,000 or so years have been from the
brAhmaNa community. An example: A while ago in Maharashtra a major
fund drive was taken up for Dalit cause. Almost all donors had last
names suggesting there were from brAhmaNa families. If you are into
real service, you know many such episodes.

In Hindu scriptures as well as in the Hindu society, charity or
service is not lacking. Only its publicity is not pursued because
there is no motive to seek anything in return. Hindus are not after
harvesting the souls. Certainly we must do lot more to our own, as
such, coming out of colonial bleeding and now blindly aping the cut-
throat capitalism as if it is nirvana.

By the way, was Kalidasa an authority on Dharma shAstras? If so, can
today's science fiction (or some English drama of Shakespeare) be a
justification for a case in science?

On May 22, 1:43 pm, Upendra Watwe <upendra.wa...@gmail.com> wrote:

[kamalesh pathak]

in the extreme SUKSHMA ( thinest layer of ) charity or DAAN can we refer maharshi Patanjali's Yoga's eight steps.
learned persons are requested to highlight in this regard please.
kamalesh pathak
somanath