Charity, Eight Levels of Giving - Maimonides (celebrated Jewish Sage)

[Kumar_Das]

I know this person is non-Hindu, Jewish. But I have great respect for such a person(as do many other people it seems). They spoke about charity(which is one of aspects of Dharma).

I have a question about point #8.

Charity (Tzedakah)

One of the most widely referred to sections of the Mishneh Torah is the section dealing with Tzedakah. In Hilkhot Matanot Aniyim (Laws about Giving to Poor People), Chapter 10:7–14, Maimonides lists his famous Eight Levels of Giving (where the first level is most preferable, and the eighth the least):[45]

1. Giving an interest-free loan to a person in need; forming a partnership with a person in need; giving a grant to a person in need; finding a job for a person in need; so long as that loan, grant, partnership, or job results in the person no longer living by relying upon others.
2. Giving tzedakah anonymously to an unknown recipient via a person (or public fund) which is trustworthy, wise, and can perform acts of tzedakah with your money in a most impeccable fashion.
3. Giving tzedakah anonymously to a known recipient.
4. Giving tzedakah publicly to an unknown recipient.
5. Giving tzedakah before being asked.
6. Giving adequately after being asked.
7. Giving willingly, but inadequately.
8. Giving "in sadness" (giving out of pity): It is thought that Maimonides was referring to giving because of the sad feelings one might have in seeing people in need (as opposed to giving because it is a religious obligation). Other translations say "Giving unwillingly."

They placed "giving in sadness, out of pity" as the last. And the opposed reason is that giving out of such a feeling is because it is instead of it merely being a religious obligation?

I feel it might go deeper than that?

I believe one can construe many more levels of understanding, bring up many questions and points to see if its in support or against this. In other words evaluating whether this is a correct position?

I was being somewhat "Anti-Semitic" to a Jew just now. And I noticed on his channel, on the comments of a vid, he said he wanted more "donation". Which I suspect is bollocks. But for some reason in my heart I felt bad for him. And wanted to communicate with him and devise ways of making more money...

This is absurd because more importantly I should be thinking of ways for making money for myself first! I'm not Jewish! And Jews in general know better how to make money! And I know! this guy was just asking for $
But I felt internally disturbed for this fellow and it made me feel mellow for him. It affected me, it made me feel less indifferent to him. And pity is a sign of connection. It can be positive or negative depending on how you choose to look at it. Wallowing in self-pity, or just wallowing in pity and perpetuating it is not healthy(depression). But fundamentally pity allows us to be more kind towards one another.

See now this is really interesting because prior to that the stuff I had to say about him isn't exactly lovey dovey. It was more of senseless(although my criticism I hold to be valid) humour.

So I guess the root(evolutionary/biological) significance and positive aspect of pity is kindness...

So kindness isolated from other feelings, makes it more meaningful and therefore a higher ranking form of charity I suppose?

Another thing, some people are less emotionally complex than others, some people are emotionally detached and distant. So I guess when you put a less emotionally involved act of kindness and simply giving as more important to follow, its the thing more people are likely to follow.

And pity is also circumstantial. A certain circumstance makes us feel pity for the person.

Charity is pointless(contradictory) if its a poor person giving to a rich person. So I believe he saw the underlying root. And that is need.

I would just say giving for the sake of giving, and giving to all regardless while at the same time considering how to best distribute your charity is probably the best moral position to take.

What I want to know why did this respected individual consider there to be a dichotomy between religious mandates and emotions. Its a rather exoteric approach to religion.

God says something and I do it vs my nature I do it?

But isnt my own nature how God made me? And all these things God expects out of me tied to my own nature also?

But what about doing something God expects out of me without even considering other things(such as my own nature) and listening to what God says first?

[smaranam]

Namaste

I think KRshNa is more scientific about this in Bhagavad Gita:

BG 17.20: Charity given out of duty, without expectation of return, at the proper time and place, and to a worthy person is considered to be in the mode of goodness.
BG 17.21: But charity performed with the expectation of some return, or with a desire for fruitive results, or in a grudging mood, is said to be charity in the mode of passion.
BG 17.22: And charity performed at an impure place, at an improper time, to unworthy persons, or without proper attention and respect is said to be in the mode of ignorance.


So, in point 8 above (OP), if the second translation - "giving unwillingly" is considered, that 8th point seems close to tAmasic daan .
, or in the best case, tAmasic with a tinge of rAjasic.

The first translation/interpretation (for pt. 8) seems to say that the pity factor makes it lower in merit?
If instead, it was given with love and compassion, but also knowing that the receiver deserves it, values it and will not blow it up on alcohol for instance (kupAtri, ayogya vyakti - bad candidate), then only it will qualify as sattvic daan.

A positive version of pity is compassion and negative version of compassion could be pity. Maybe. Pity can involve ahaMkAr (ego) of the giver.

In case of sAttvic daan (charity in mode of goodness) however, the right candidate need not always imply the most needy or poorest as it depends on what is being given/done, how many are going to be impacted, how, etc.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[Kumar_Das]

Namaste

I think KRshNa is more scientific about this in Bhagavad Gita:

BG 17.20: Charity given out of duty, without expectation of return, at the proper time and place, and to a worthy person is considered to be in the mode of goodness.
BG 17.21: But charity performed with the expectation of some return, or with a desire for fruitive results, or in a grudging mood, is said to be charity in the mode of passion.
BG 17.22: And charity performed at an impure place, at an improper time, to unworthy persons, or without proper attention and respect is said to be in the mode of ignorance.


So, in point 8 above (OP), if the second translation - "giving unwillingly" is considered, that 8th point seems close to tAmasic daan .
, or in the best case, tAmasic with a tinge of rAjasic.

The first translation/interpretation (for pt. 8) seems to say that the pity factor makes it lower in merit?
If instead, it was given with love and compassion, but also knowing that the receiver deserves it, values it and will not blow it up on alcohol for instance (kupAtri, ayogya vyakti - bad candidate), then only it will qualify as sattvic daan.

A positive version of pity is compassion and negative version of compassion could be pity. Maybe. Pity can involve ahaMkAr (ego) of the giver.

In case of sAttvic daan (charity in mode of goodness) however, the right candidate need not always imply the most needy or poorest as it depends on what is being given/done, how many are going to be impacted, how, etc.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

Dear smaranam, thank you for your enlightening post.

I would like to inform/alert all genuine Hindus here.

You will notice usually how any post of mine usually receives some quick answers from several posters. Like as though I'm being tailed. Especially when I'm discussing something spectacular. They always will seem to have something to say in response...

But in this case, its been almost 5 full days. And not a squek. You guys might want to realize perhaps this is a hint?

* You guys might also want to note, how the member count dramatically soared and this forum became much more active after my registration.

This forum has recieved heavy infiltration. Whom are they? What is their purpose?

Time for people to wake up.

[Kumar_Das]

This is how I see it. I see myself as a responsible and active Hindu. To me my religion is my duty. It is the one thing I consider superior to all else about me and all things I know. It is the highest pursuit to me.

If anyone is coming here to cause a disturbance and make themselves a source of annoyance.(in the long run even) Then they are waging a religious strife with me. Then they are undoubtedly enemies to my(our) religion.

You guys might want to ask yourselves these two questions

- this topic pertains to them
- this topic does not pertain them
- this topic is of interest to them they can speak about it, or they have nothing actually to say about it, or they don't want to say anything about it

we know normal Hindus might find this interesting but might have nothing to offer, or they find this off-topic or they have something to add.(smaranam is the latter)

if they(non-Hindus) don't want to... why?

- because if they do they are afraid of giving themselves up?

1. it will show who they are and/or 2. or just because satay has discouraged all types of topics regarding non-Dharmic religions

The usual suspects have carefully chosen to avoid this topic. Thats the main point here. Usually they are happily talking about a hundred and one things.(many of which are either simply nonsensical or they are somewhat constructive - only to appear knowledgeable or blend in or because they are fishing for somethings or they want to expand their knowledge -as non-Hindus who are wanting to interfere)

[Kumar_Das]

This forum is like a temple.

- we gather here
- we communicate to each other about religion
- we adore the Lord

It is a sacred place to us that cannot just be desecrated.

Who are these outsiders who have no business here?

[Kumar_Das]

About 2 guests reading this topic right now. And I calculated about 8 or so spiders.(highest number at this moment on this topic alone at that)