25 Aug 2020
[Shri Bhagat asked: Jai Guru Datta! Gurudeva, You said God approaches us in the way that we approach Him. So, since all foreigners are donating money to God, will God give them money in next birth with compound interest or will He give knowledge to them as there is a bond of debt ṛṇānubandha?]
Swami replied: O Learned and Devoted Servants of God! The Veda says that the donation of money to God alone proves the devotee’s real love towards God (Dhanena tyāgena ekena...). The Gītā further polished this concept by saying that God is pleased, not by the mere donation of money, but by the donation of the devotee’s hard-earned money. This is because, one’s bond with one’s hard-earned money is stronger than the bond with one’s ancestral money (Dhyānāt karma phala tyāgaḥ...—Gītā). All the worldly bonds are based on money alone (Dhana mūlamidaṃ jagat...). This concept is practically proved in the world. The real colour of one’s love comes out only in the context of sacrificing one’s money. All the love expressed without sacrificing money, is only theoretical and it may be true or false. But the love expressed by sacrificing money for the loved one is certainly true. Parents pass on all their money to their children only because their bond with their children is the truest love among worldly bonds.
There is a misunderstanding in this context. People think that the magnitude of the money sacrificed is important. In reality, what matters is the share or the percentage of money sacrificed out of the total money possessed. You may think that the person giving you 100 rupees loves you more than the person giving you just 1 rupee. But estimating love on the basis of the magnitude of the money sacrificed is not correct. If the person giving you 100 rupees owns 1 lakh rupees, his donation or sacrifice of money to you is a very small share of his total wealth. Yet, you feel that by donating 100 rupees to you, he has proved that he has a very high level of love for you. The second person who gave only 1 rupee to you, totally had only 1 rupee with him. He sacrificed his entire wealth of 1 rupee to you. Yet, you feel that his love for you is of a much lower level. But the real analysis proves that the second person had the maximum love for you, due to which he willingly sacrificed his entire wealth of 1 rupee for you. The first donor’s sacrifice was just 1% of his entire wealth, whereas, the donation the second donor’s sacrifice was a 100% sacrifice. Yet, if the receiver praises only the first donor, it means that the receiver is certainly not interested in love. He is just a money-minded businessman. On the other hand, if the receiver praises the second donor, the receiver is certainly not a money-minded businessman. He clearly recognizes real love. This is well-proven by the fact that Jesus praised the beggar who donated just 1 coin to God in the church, while He did not even mention the names of the rich people who donated hundreds of coins.
God is infinitely rich and He does not need even a single coin from anybody. But He still asks you for guru dakṣiṇā (divine offering) to test the reality of the love in your heart for Him. In fact, God is the only real donor. He is the one who has given all the wealth possessed by you. It is only to test your real love for Him, that God enacts this drama. God has kept His donation of all the wealth possessed by you as a topmost secret. So, when He asks for some money from you, you are totally unaware about the fact that it is the divine beggar who has given you everything possessed by you. If you come to know that the beggar is actually the donor of all the money possessed by you, you will donate to Him even more, due to your gratefulness. But that donation will not be due to your real love for God. Since God has kept His donation to you as a secret, you think that the real donor of your wealth is your own luck or your effort. You give all your money to your issues due to your real love for them and not because of any gratefulness towards them because they have not given anything to you.
God gives value to the extent of sacrifice, which means the share of the donated money out of the total money possessed by you and not to the magnitude of the sacrificed money. If God were greedy, He would have given value to the magnitude of the donated money, just like a worldly businessman. The businessman gives you a more precious item, if you give him a larger amount of money. He is interested only in the magnitude of the sacrifice and not to the percentage of the sacrifice out of the total money possessed by you.
A grandfather bought a packet of biscuits for his grandson and gave that packet to the mother of his grandson, requesting her to keep the matter secret. The mother gave a biscuit to her son and son thought that his mother was the real donor. Now, the grandfather begged his grandson for a little piece of the biscuit that the grandson was eating! This was the test of the real love of the grandson conducted by the grandfather, who was not at all in any need of the biscuit. Similarly, when God asks the devotee to offer money to Him, it is an opportunity given by God for the devotee to prove his or her real love for God. God Rāma did not really need the help of anybody to construct the bridge over the sea. But He appeared to be in need of help. It was only an opportunity given to the angels who had been born on earth as monkeys to prove their real love for God Rāma. As a result of their sincere service to God, they were blessed with the divine grace of God. Just see the example of Sudāma, who was suffering from poverty and starvation. He brought some parched rice on loan to present to Krishna, even though his own little kids were starving for several days! If we express His donation to God as a percentage out of the total wealth possessed by him, it becomes infinite. The amount he donated, even if very small was divided by his total wealth, which was zero. So, his sacrifice was some amount divided by zero, which is infinite! Hence, God returned him infinite wealth. A person may, at the most, donate the total amount possessed by him. But this donation of Sudāma is mind-boggling! He donated borrowed rice, knowing that there was hardly any possibility of clearing his debt in the future!
This concept of the percentage of sacrifice of one’s money standing as the proof of the extent of one’s true love is very crucial and critical to understand in plain lines. This concept is found to be practically valid in the world, even if you replace God by any worldly relationship. People unnecessarily make a lot of noise when the receiver happens to be God. The same people fully and clearly recognize this concept in the ground-reality of the world. If they accuse God of being money-monger, then they should also equally accuse their own children of being money-mongers! The sacrifice of money is well-accepted and well-proven in the world, as the real acid test or the fire-test of the reality of love. Hence, the same concept is extended to the case of proving one’s love for God.
God Krishna stole butter from the houses of the Gopikās. It was the practical test of their real love for God, which they had to prove by their willingness in sacrificing their wealth for Krishna. Butter was the final form of the wealth of the cowherd ladies, which they had to sacrifice to Krishna. This test continued for 11 years—from Krishna’s 5th year to His 16th year of age. Dancing with the Gopikās was done only for 2 years—from Krishna’s 16th to His 18th year of age. This dancing with the Gopikās, was a much lighter test, in which they had to sacrifice their love for their life-partners (dāreṣaṇā). Comparatively, stealing butter was a very severe test and it was doubly strong because, in that test, the Gopikās had to overcome not only their love for their wealth, but also their love for their issues. The stored butter was meant for their children and when Krishna would steal it, He would also be competing directly with their children. By stealing the butter, their love for Krishna was tested against their bonds with their wealth and issues jointly. In spite of the fact that there was a lot of butter in His own house, Krishna would steal butter from others’ houses. This makes the test three times as strong because it does not even leave any room for sympathy, which would have been the case, if Krishna had been poor. In other words, if Krishna had been poor, the Gopikās might have tolerated His stealing of the butter meant for their children out of sympathy. But that was not the case either.
Greedy people who are overattached to money, criticize Krishna’s stealing of butter in order to escape having to practically prove the reality of their love for God. They want to do business with God in which they get practical boons from God, in exchange for their theoretical love. This is quite absurd, even as per the basic principles of business ethics. These greedy people expect God to express His love practically in the form of granting practical boons in exchange for their mere theoretical expression of love. If this were justified, why does it never apply in practical life, in the context of worldly relations?
The Gītā says that God will respond to you in the same way in which you have approached Him (Ye yathā mām…). For the theoretical love expressed by devotees in the form of analyzing of spiritual knowledge, singing devotional songs etc., God grants theoretical fruits like improving their intelligence, giving them greater talent in singing divine songs etc. Similarly, for the practical expression of love in terms of the sacrifice of wealth done by devotees like Sudāma, God grants practical fruits. Theoretical love must be followed by practical love, as far as possible, without any hesitation, if the devotion is true. As said by the Veda, asambhūti upāsanā (theoretical love) and sambhūti upāsanā (practical love) must go together to prove the truth of one’s theoretical love. This entire concept is very well-observed and experienced in practical worldly life. When Śaṅkara came begging for food, to a poor lady’s house, she searched the entire house and finally found a small fruit, which she donated to Śaṅkara. Śaṅkara prayed to God for her sake and a heavy rain of golden fruits fell before her house. The same was the case of Sudāma. Such devotees proved that their love for God was totally true and hence, God granted the most pleasant materialistic life to them here and also the topmost spiritual life hereafter. They purchased such unimaginable divine fruits with the help of the little parched rice and a single small fruit, respectively! Does anybody still say that God is in need of money or that He is greedy for money?
God does not aspire for money from any soul and hence, the point of ṛṇānubandha or the clearance of past debts does not arise at all, in His case. Such clearance of past debts only exists between two souls. The money given to God is the proof of the reality of the real love of the devotee for God. In it, there is no aspiration for any fruit in return in the mind of the devotee. If money is given to God expecting some fruit in return, it is no more true devotion. It is only ordinary worldly business, which will certainly have ṛṇānubandha. Hence, the point of ṛṇānubandha depends on the type of devotion i.e., whether the devotion is the business-type or the pure nivṛtti-type of devotion. If the devotion is pure nivṛtti, God gives the spiritual knowledge, which will uplift the soul forever. If the devotion is of the business-type, the desire of the devotee may be fulfilled, if it is justified. But the justified desire will be fulfilled by God, even without offering money to Him as a bribe! Money is only helpful in testing the true colour of the devotion of the devotee and with it, one cannot achieve anything, on the lines of business. You will get more clarity, if you read the Kṛṣṇāṣṭamī message on August 11, 2020.
Shri Hrushikesh asked: Dear Swami! No words to express or reciprocate Your love towards all of us! The knowledge that You shower on us brings continuous bliss to us. I have heard in one of the pravachans by a scholar that, as per the Manusmṛti, 1/4th of a person’s earnings should be used for the service of society, treating it to be service to God. In the Biblical religions also, this point about donation is also very much stressed. We see that it is strictly followed by Christians and Muslims. However, we hardly see this being followed in Hinduism. You have also discussed this point earlier in Your discourse.
My question is that despite the Manusmṛti stressing that 1/4th should be donated, why is it not being propagated very well or stressed in Hinduism? Also, why does the Manusmṛti stress this point of 1/4th of the income being donated? Is there any reason why it stresses on this number 1/4th? I request You to kindly enlighten us. Praṇām to Your Lotus feet. Hrushikesh.
Swami replied: Even though there is a general system of sacrificing a certain percentage of the fruit of one’s work (money), fixing any such formula is not very correct. The amount to be sacrificed should depend on the full willingness of one’s own inner consciousness, which should be convinced and charged with real love for God. A devotee should never be cheated by anybody in order to get money. A priest too, should never aspire for money from anybody for conducting the worship to God. The priest should accept whatever is given by the devotee because the devotee is giving by the will of God alone. Even if the devotee does not pay anything, the priest should bless him and return. God is aware of everything and will take the proper steps in proper time. The Veda says that the priest should perform rituals in such a way that the spiritual knowledge and devotion of the devotee, increases day by day (Akāmahatasya…). Even if nothing is paid to the priest by the devotee, the priest should come back after thanking the devotee for giving an opportunity to participate in the worship of God. The priest should always believe God to be the real paymaster. In fact, the priest should not even expect God to pay him. God is omniscient and if the priest prays to God for money, it becomes an insult to the omniscient God. It means that the priest considered God to be just an ignorant human being, who must be asked for help. If you aspire for something and perform the worship, your behavior will appear cheap in the eyes of God. This is also true in worldly life. One can ask a human being for the payment for one’s work, if the work is worldly and not divine. The above policy is confined only to the context of service to God and it should not be extended to the service done to a human being. The word karma mentioned in the Gītā only means the work related to God, which is to be done without the aspiration for any fruit. That desireless attitude should not be extended to worldly work done for human beings, especially when those human beings are capable of paying for the service.
Keywords:
| Shri Datta Swami | Donating Money To God |
★ ★ ★ ★ ★