Helping others

[ptex]

This subject interests and puzzles me.

The issue is: how can we know if by helping others we're actually helping them or harming them further?

I remember attending a seminar where it was referred that we never should try to help others because by doing so we're actually interfering in their path and thus avoiding necessary lessons these people.

My conclusions is that this is not always the case and if we all stop helping one another, the world would be an awful place to live in. There are numerous situations where we can actually be helping others providing we do it honestly and ethically (meaning no one is harmed in the process) by following our heart (intuition). Also we should pay attention if anyone's freedom of choice is jeopardized. But can this really be that simple?

Let me give an example: everyday when I go to work, I see lots of young people, who unfortunately have taken the drug path, "helping" cars to park. Of course that they are helping people to park anywhere and most of them don't really care if the place is proper for parking or not, all they want is a couple of coins in the end... (I face this daily)

Now: what would you do? Would you simply give them the money and go away (as I see more than 90% of people doing) not caring what they'll do with the money (maybe some of them should really pay attention to how these people change in time, to see if they're doing any better with their "help")? Would you choose to refuse giving them any money at all? Would you simply ignore them? What would you do?

I've been struggling with this for a long time and I have no definitive answer. At present I choose sometimes to buy them something to eat but never offer them money. Also I choose never to ignore them, I believe it can be highly offensive to them. I try talking with them and listening to them a bit, from time to time I get to know them better, I'm surprised at how they react at this: most of them show a beautiful side of themselves whom unfortunately has taken a bad turning somewhere in their lives. But I must say that even now I'm not certain if I'm helping them. Still I worry and I'd like to do something to really help them... I just don't know what...

Taking this help issue on a larger scale I read someone, don't quite remember who for the moment, saying that if developed nations really want to help poor countries they should stop trying to help them at all. This way underdeveloped nations will have to start doing their own "homework".

[Zio]

It's like in TP, but in a smaller scale... If we help them too much, they won't learn anything.
Well, large group of people have been creating organizations to help them, so maybe we can help the poor around us to go there... What is the use of having poor if no one helps them? They are poor for one reason: So that we may help them. We never know until we tried it, and correctly too. If chance doesn't exist, and everything has a purpose, then this should be one...

[Robanan]

I came to one conclusion as I have engaged in helping the poor much more than I could really afford, the great majority of the poor want to live like that because it's easier for them that way. They also pay dearly for being ignorant toward the result of their own actions like the rest of us, and their acting without taking responsibility even for the most basic things in life takes a grave toll on them.

Btw, Some poor people are not poor at all...

[Zio]

Btw, Some poor people are not poor at all...

Ohh, are you thinking what I'm thinking? "extra-terrestrial" XP! Thiaooubians (is that how we write it?) are watching us O_O

The answer is probably: Balance. help them, but not too much.

As one of my proverbs goes: Helpers are those who help when needed.

[Aisin]

This is an interesting topic, thanks for starting it, Ptex. I see that you have shed off the prejudice that many might start to possess, and discovered the beauty in even those who seem to be unpleasant people at first sight.

... if developed nations really want to help poor countries they should stop trying to help them at all.

I haven't read anybody's view on this, but that's exactly what I thought when I visited a 'relatively poor' country some time ago. 'Relatively poor', because by our capitalist stardard, they have a population below poverty line of 40%. But in many ways, they're not poor.

This way underdeveloped nations will have to start doing their own "homework".

Everybody's perception of the 'homework' to be done is very different. From developed nations' perspective, that would be to develop their country economy, be it agriculture, export, tourism, or maybe start to venture into manufacturing.

However, in my opinion, that's not the most important homework. The first chapter should be, don't start to follow in the footsteps of developed nations in terms of materialism. They have rich heritage & culture, dwell in their past, and start to regain their pride and live at their own pace. They are not suffering from starvation, everybody is well-fed, and has access to farm and fishing products. It's just the lack of material possession that categorizes them as 'below poverty line'.

Some poor people are not poor at all

Robanan, I agree with you very much. Like I've mentioned above, they are not poor. Although living in a hut that measures no more than my cubicle at office (my cubicle is kind of spacious , yet it is still a cubicle, hence how big can it be), they are surrounded by their loved ones, they have direct access to nature, they don't live stressful lives like many in the cities do, they don't work long hours and get caught in traffic congestion, they don't suffer from all those high blood pressure, allergies and other illnesses. They already have the best environment to practice spirituality, what else is there to ask for, but the realization of possessing this gift. This is exactly what many of us are striving to achieve, eg: getting rid of the noise, the pollution, squeezing more time from our tight schedule to meditate etc. They already have it all.

[bomohwkl]

Robanan, I agree with you very much. Like I've mentioned above, they are not poor. Although living in a hut that measures no more than my cubicle at office (my cubicle is kind of spacious , yet it is still a cubicle, hence how big can it be), they are surrounded by their loved ones, they have direct access to nature, they don't live stressful lives like many in the cities do, they don't work long hours and get caught in traffic congestion, they don't suffer from all those high blood pressure, allergies and other illnesses. They already have the best environment to practice spirituality, what else is there to ask for, but the realization of possessing this gift. This is exactly what many of us are striving to achieve, eg: getting rid of the noise, the pollution, squeezing more time from our tight schedule to meditate etc. They already have it all.

It is not generally true. Let's us use the defination from the world bank.

The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US$ (PPP) 1 per day, and moderate poverty as less than $2 a day.

I have seen statistics that there is a correlation between poverty and corruption. The corruption index is surprising high among developing, emerging and poor countries but less so in developed country.

It might not be true that being poor means u will live next to nature. You will be surprised to find out that they may be living in a fifty surrouding where diseases can erupted easily or in a very polluted environment.

If there is little stress in life, it would be difficult to mediate. You need a right balance of streess to go deeper into meditation.

Traffic jams are usually the consequences of the government policy and the attitude of people. Oxford has one of the best public transport in UK thanks to the intelligent policy while in Malaysia, the road is big and plenty in contrast with UK but also the cars are very plenty but not so in UK. People are aware of the consequence of using cars for the environment but believe me if no one would care much in Malaysia. The government obtained lots of money from selling cars by taxation. By proving good wide network of road and poor public transport, people would prefer to buy cars. Since cars are rather expensive, people would usually buy polluted cars. Oppss, it seems that I am out of topic.

The best way is to help people evolve.

[Aisin]

It is not generally true.

The World Bank defines extreme poverty as living on less than US$ (PPP) 1 per day, and moderate poverty as less than $2 a day.

It might not be true that being poor means u will live next to nature. You will be surprised to find out that they may be living in a fifty surrouding where diseases can erupted easily or in a very polluted environment.

I don't dispute any of the above, it may be true for certain countries. However I was referring to the particular country I visited. It is also true that 40% of the people may live on less than US$1 per day, but they feed on the abundant farm and fishing products which they plant / catch themselves, the land is free, everything is free, density is low. everyone is living like Tom at Mt Best.

If there is little stress in life, it would be difficult to mediate. You need a right balance of streess to go deeper into meditation.

I beg to differ. If there is little stress for me, then I go into meditative state very easily & naturally, without even trying.

The best way is to help people evolve.

This is exactly my point, especially the sentence in italic font in my previous post.

[Lena]

Aisin, what country did you visit? (if you don't mind me asking)

it is difficult to help the poor in general because every person is an individual and to give all poor the same treatment would be ignoring that fact. but how are you supposed to know? I don't know. some people don't want help anyway. ptex, what you're doing sounds good for now. who knows, maybe if you get to know one of the kids well enough you could mention TP and they might be interested.

[Aisin]

Cambodia.

it is difficult to help the poor in general because every person is an individual and to give all poor the same treatment would be ignoring that fact.

I agree with you very much. For some other 'poor' countries, the situation would be totally different, where availability of natural resources is a great limitation, then the struggle to improve the quality of life is even more pronounced.

[dloheb]

the path is laced with human interaction, to avoid helping others is the most ludicrious idea i have ever heard... well, it's up there at least

If a person does a job, you pay them, what they do is not in your control and none of your buisness, I think.

Further, and I am not sure of this, but it seems to me that even if a good deed ended up having disasterous results, you were right in doing it. After all, life is complex and the purpose of things cannot be calculated. Those disasterous results you observe may only appear disasterous to yourself... and how often has the moment oppressed you, only to find that a few seconds/days/weeks/months/years later it didn't matter anymore?

[Lena]

If a person does a job, you pay them, what they do is not in your control and none of your buisness, I think.

are you saying it's okay to buy from, say, a company that pollutes the enviroment and treats it's workers poorly as long as you get what you need and turn a blind eye?

[dloheb]

That's not even the same thing... do you propose you STEAL it from them?

Maybe you should reconsider what I said and its context..

[Lena]

I was trying to say that if you can, you shouldn't do business with someone who will use the money you pay them in a destructive way.

[ptex]

A very good point has been raised!
How conscious and wise are our everyday decisions?

For example: are we careful when selecting companies, products or services which have the right approach regarding human beings, the environment and ecology? It would be interesting if someone compiled this kind of information about companies and published the results wouldn't it? (somehow I can foresee a lot of lobbying going on regarding companies wanting be "published" there)

On another level regarding an interesting episode I remember from the times when I was a Quan Yin meditation practitioner:
Master Ching Hai when going on the streets of a big city sees a poor which drawing from his skinny look must have been terrible hungry. She turned to one of her followers and asked to go and buy him a hot dog (the only possible food close by)... the acolyte turned to the Master eyes bugged with astonishment and incredulity and humbly asked: "But Master a hot dog contain meat..." to which the Master replied: "yes, but first things first... for this man is more important that we feed him immediately than to address him regarding the spiritual benefit of being vegetarian...".

Please notice that the above is a recreation based on what I remember, the actual story may be different in the details but the meaning should be the same. My apologies for any mistake.

[Zio]

In any case, even if you did good, the future disastrous consequences that you DIDN'T know it would happen would NOT be your fault, since you did not do it purposely. I also have a story that could explain this...

It was thanksgiving, and a business man's boss gave everyone a turkey. The business man's coworkers played a joke on him: they replace the real turkey for a fake one. Then the business man went home with his fake turkey. In his way home on the bus, a poor family asked if they can have something to eat. Since the business man didn't know how to cook a turkey, and since he's a business man, he sold his turkey for a very low price to the very poor family. The business man was happy that he did a good action and got rid of something he didn't want, plus having some money. Of course, the poor family didn't appreciated their turkey... and they thought the business man was a evil, cruel and heartless man. When the business man realised that it was a fake, he tried to find the poor family, without success...

The important point is that you HAVE to THINK that you did a good action without any trace of bad thoughts. If you knew that there were bad consequences, then you did bad. It is both relative and absolute for everyone... relative because it depends on the person's ethics, and absolute because you have to THINK that there were no bad consequences.