July 29, 2010 Newsletter Sign Up Subscribe
                           
CONTRIBUTE BLOGS
Catalysts
04/02/2009 18:22
When in Britain last week at
the Skoll World Forum, I was
referred to a recent article
in The Observer written by
Joss Garman, the 24-year-...
Comments 0
Catalysts
03/02/2009 22:35
As the recent copyright woes
of Obama poster artist Shepard
Fairey show, there's a war
raging over what some now are
calling a new art form in ...
Comments 0
Catalysts
02/16/2009 07:24
I just finished reading an
advance copy of "The Blue
Sweater: Bridging the Gap
Between Rich and Poor in an
Interconnected World,&qu...
Comments 0

 

Perspectives

THE ALTRUIST

Sharing reconsidered as part of a natural cycle
A HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR CAME TO THE ASHRAM where I was studying and asked my teacher, “What is Love?” He was a successful Israeli doctor but seemed clawed inside by his experience.

My teacher, instead of answering him directly, called her students and sat silently with us over the next two and a half hours as we tried to answer the doctor’s question. We offered him every scriptural, philosophical, and, finally, popular definition of love that we knew, East and West. None satisfied him. Still, by the time we were through, his face had softened and whatever burning need had brought him there seemed quelled.

When he had gone, our teacher asked us if we’d answered the doctor’s question. We shook our heads. She thought for a moment, then said: “Why didn’t you tell him, ‘Love is...sacrifice?’ After his experiences, that’s something he might have understood.”

Up until then, I had thought very little about the subject of sacrifice, and for good reason. The word, “sacrifice” can have painful associations. Who among us aspires to a life of sacrifice? Then again, I was well aware that every real achievement in life—a scholastic degree, victory on the playing fields, a thriving business or family, and excellence in any form is almost always the result of a tremendous sacrifice in terms of time, focus, energy, and money.

Sacrifice, I realized, is the quality that makes love real, that saves love from being another four-letter word. Where there is love, we give of ourselves and of our substance—willingly.

This concept of sacrifice is at the core of a world view reflected in many of our religious traditions, from which our philanthropic ones descend. Sacrifice is at the heart of Christianity and is the sacred imperative behind the Old Testament’s “burnt offerings.” What the Bible leaves unsaid is that while a portion of the ritual sacrifice was devoted to Yahweh and his priests, the rest of the now-sanctified goods or animals was often distributed among the community, including the poor.

The Indian scriptures enunciate this same world view, though in different terms, declaring: “Everything in this universe is food and food eater.” This claim, exotic as it may sound, is simply an archaic formulation of the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy cannot be created nor destroyed— only stored, transferred, or transformed.



What does this have to do with philanthropy? Surprisingly, everything. Philanthropy—in terms of physics—is the transfer of energy from one system to another, from one with a surfeit of power to one with a deficit.

When we send a planeload of food to a devastated area, the core biological purpose of our assistance is to transfer the energy in that food to the food eaters, whose bodies transform it into prana—life energy—which they can use to heal, to bury their dead, and to remake their lives, their homes, and their communities.

But where does food come from? There’s no food without rain. The Indian Bhagavad Gita, one of the seminal texts of yoga, explains the cycle of sacrifice thusly: From food comes forth living beings, and from rain food is produced; from sacrifice arises rain, and sacrifice is born of work. Thus rain is sacrificed to food, and food to the digestive fire in our stomach. From the energy we get from food, we’re able to perform our work and to reap the treasures of the earth.

When a part of these treasures is offered back, the gods become pleased and send their blessings in the form of rain. Thus the circle of sacrifice is completed. This is the ancient paradigm.

Note the vital importance of wealth. The earning and accumulation of wealth is not regarded with disdain. Indeed, it’s just the opposite. Because energy cannot be created, sacrifice or philanthropy demands an existing pool of resources that can be “sacrificed” to those in need. Thus, in the ancient Jewish tradition, sacrifices were made from domestic animals, not wild ones, because wild animals do not belong to anyone.

In fact, one might say that the ultimate purpose of rain, food, and work is the creation of wealth and value—but with one essential caveat: that this money be used righteously and unselfishly, and that a portion of it be returned to its source and plowed back into the community. Thus, the cycle of sacrifice is completed, and a new one can begin. The study of this subject over the years has altered my own attitude toward money. I’d often been told that money was “the root of all evil.” But the original Latin adage reads Radix malorum est cupiditas—“Greed is the root of all evil,” not money.

What is greed? We often envision it as a rapacious desire for more. But just as often, greed wears a more pedestrian face and takes the form of simply not giving.

Today, as we cast about for better ways to make our giving count, ways “that integrate social, ethical, and environmental principles,” as the author and environmentalist Paul Hawken puts it, we could do worse than to reexamine this old model, or cycle of life.

However we view it, the Circle of Sacrifice positions philanthropy within a larger context. Philanthropy here is more than a “random act of kindness.” It is an integral, regular, regenerative link in the circle of community and life. According to this ancient viewpoint, without giving, without philanthropy, the wheel of life would stop.

Of course, you may be wondering how relevant this perspective can be today when many of us don’t believe in a quid pro quo between the pleasing of supernatural powers and the fall of life-giving rain. But the gods of antiquity were closely identified with the classical elements: Fire, Air, Earth, and Water, and can be viewed just as truly as the forces of nature.

Given the many streams that come together in philanthropy—and the present state of our biosphere—a broad and integrated approach like this one feels overdue.

Peter Hayes is a New York writer and consultant whose short fiction
has appeared in The Atlantic Monthly. He is the author of
The Supreme Adventure, a book about personal growth.
Comments? Send an e-mail to editors@ contributemedia.com.
Illustration by Celia Johnson

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
The Contribute Poll

Not available!

 
 
Home|Advertise|Privacy Policy|Terms|Reprints|Contact Us
Copyright © 2007, Contribute Magazine Inc. All Rights Reserved.