charity (n.) mid-12c., mid 12c., "benevolence for the poor," from old french charité "(christian) charity, mercy, compassion; alms; charitable foundation" (12c., old north french carité), from latin caritatem (nominative caritas) "costliness, esteem, affection" (in vulgate often used as translation of greek agape "love" -- especially christian love of fellow man -- perhaps to avoid the sexual suggestion of latin amor), from carus "dear, valued," from pie *karo-, from root *ka- "to like, desire" (see whore (n.)).
donation (n.) early 15c., from from old french donacion (13c.), from latin donationem (nominative donatio) "a presenting, giving," noun of action from past participle stem of donare "give as a gift," from donum "gift," from pie*donum "gift" (cf. sanskrit danam "offering, present," old church slavonic dani "tribute," lithuanian duonis "gift," irish dan "gift, endowment, talent," welsh dawn "gift"), from root "to give" (see date(n.1.)) to give. sanskrit "to give" (see date(n.1.)) to give. sanskrit dadati "gives". danam offering, old persian dadatuv "let him give".
as the above quoted etymology of english language shows , the state promoted religion has redefined what is a simple, natural act of give and take as an ecological interplay among elements. in the current usage the giving takes a new meaning, much the same as the word: science means knowledge, yet the knowledge of a scientist takes a different meaning. this splitting hair is invented for the up-man ship. the ecocentric interdependence makes no such distinction. there give and take happen as naturally as eating and shitting. one cannot hold back what becomes a spent matter beyond its purpose. there the unspendable bank account is nothing but an economic constipation.
in natural occurrence what is released becomes nourishment, like mother's milk. in the commercial world this give and take is for the profit motive, and the nonprofit organizations serve dual purpose for the donors. there is the hidden tax right-off for the donated amount. the corporate giving is a commercial promotion at the tax payers' expense, and therefore, it is not a charitable act. the very tax deduction itself is an act the greediness of the rich to impose upon the people their image as the kindly person.
look at the revenue source of the charitable foundations. most of them are the commercial conglomerates. and all of their funding is for the tax write-off. for wealthy individuals this kind of giving serves the purpose of putting them into lower tax bracket. and it has created a category of tax lawyers as well as accountants specializing in reducing on paper the taxable income.
the very purpose of the taxing, whether at city level or county, state and the national level is to generate funds for the works for the common good. it is not in the nature of the greedy person to let go, give out even if it would feel as relieving as exhaling the breath to make room in the lungs for inhaling the fresh air. but the community, too, has the needs for the public works. since the greedy persons do not freely give out, the community as the city, county or state is required to make laws for the taking, which is called levy.
levy(v.) early 13c., "act of raising or collecting," from anglo-french leve, from old french levée "act of raising," noun use of fem. past participle of lever "to raise" (see lever). originally of taxes, later of men for armies (c.1500). related: levied; levying.
levi was imposed on the populace of india by the various foreign rulers. it is a common indian word in many of its languages, both as a noun and verb. and it also rhymes with the word for giving as dena, in hindi, as lena-dena: take and give. colloquially it means the interactive course of events, fate.
the rich of the original 13 british colonies rebelled against "the taxation without the representation," and formed the u.s.a. did not disagree with the taxing, only that they did not want to pay taxes. and consequently, they continued to tax those who were slaves and the poor who did not own land, in the forms of labour and revenue. as for themselves, as the representatives of themselves, they made laws that exempted themselves generously from much of the taxing in much as the same way as they did in england.
gandhi had observed the self-nature of greed when he told the mill workers in 1943: "it is not in the interests of the rich to cooperate with the poor; it is in the interests of the poor to not cooperate with the rich." what he had personally experimented on and observed through experiencing it was the nature of fear. from early childhood he had seen the message carved in stones in the statues of budhha and shiva and indian gods and goddesses with one hand postured in the "abhaya mudra", telling not to fear. abhaya means fearlessness, in stark contrast with the judeo-christian message to fear god. unlike the jewish and christian seers, the indian ones, and especially the buddha, were not subservient to the king. even in the monarchical kingdom of siam (thailand) where the king, who had adopted the title of the hindu king rama, the monks, at least symbolically do not lower their heads to the king. like buddha, gandhi had overcome the fear that clouds the perception of the problem of most pains and suffering affecting the populace: ignorance, not knowing that it was the division of classes that was the root cause of almost all human sufferings. so buddha renounced his princely status; gandhi adopted the clothing of "the half naked fakir".
god fearing people also fear the authority in any form. and it is in the interests of the authority that the people stay frightened. since this fear is not natural, it has to be cultivated. watch a toddler. it moves fearlessly. the over protective mother teaches the first lessons in fearing by showing something to be avoided, and then pulling the infant to her bosom to protect it. then as the infant grows into childhood, the father teaches the child to not do something by punishing the child, and rewarding when doing something desired. the school teacher takes over from there, and through the technique of comparative grading introduces the notion of competition, which isolates children from one another. isolation does not in itself generates fear nor it is something to be avoided. but as the very protective mother herself is full of fear cannot but teach her child to seek safety in submission to the authority.
labor unions applied this in the idea of safety in numbers. for when the safety seeking people get larger in numbers then they frighten the authority and weaken its power to punish. so the authority sought means and methods of union busting. a second century b.c. statesman, paanini envisioned four ways to overpower the enemy: come to mutual understanding; bribe its confidantes; learn the secret of the enemy strength, and punish. and the authorities have been practicing all these everywhere.
since the very division of classes cannot happen naturally by itself, it is thought out. the rich need poor, for only in comparison they exist. and it has to be maintained by the means that are thought out. one such means is the comparative worth according to which the wages are paid. it enables the c.e.o. of company to be paid 10 to 1100 times what its lowly wage worker is paid. since the biological body of the c.e.o. is not different from that of the worker, this distinction is maintained in the ornamentation of the appearance of all that is connected with the rich, the dwelling, the food, the means of transport, the office, the furniture, the rest and recreation in the forms of the audio-visual arts, and even the after the death rituals and epitaph.
there is an ages old observation: 'the sleep sees not the broken bed, the hunger not the scavenged food; the thirst quenches with the drink from stagnant pool, and love sees not cast or creed.' remove the artificial distinctions of castes and classes, and the very cause for the fear disperses, god and the state promoted fear of god loses its impact; when the very cause for the fear disperses, god and the state promoted fear of god loses its impact; imperialized commerce ceases to be. and the distinction being absent, the learnt want of the distinctive paraphernalia loses meaning. it negates the urge to hoard and show off. nobody needs to be rich, so there would not be the need for keeping others to be in dire needs for sustenance. nobody being in culcatta's gutters, no young woman, later made "mother" teresa from macedonia would be lured to rush to bathe the dying as the front for the conniving rich. she had her doubts in the state promoted concept of god much the same as did the buddha and gandhi, but unlike their culture separating the search for truth from the dictates of the rich, hers was to appease the god who must be feared.
study the forms and structures of the not for profit organizations. the nonprofit sector itself is a commercial conglomerate that acts as the middle of the middleman, taking a generous cut for itself that enables its employees a living comparable to mid level head of any commercial enterprise. for most of these people employed in the nonprofit agencies it is a job to earn a living like a white collar employee. even the church run agencies afford nuns and monks lead a life that depict no trace of the wows of poverty. theirs is not the calling from god, but his earthly creators, the rich. mother teresa never wore a torn sari, nor did any pope or archbishop feel ashamed in wearing diamonds and precious metals albeit as the symbols of christianity. even the wooden cross on which their leader was crucified is now represented in inlaid diamonds; nor does dalai lama or a hindu religious head ever suffer the pangs of poverty.
charity, devoid of its religious connotations, as shown in the etymology of the word, is in reality an involuntary motion generated by the nature of things. like the milk forming in mother's breasts. she cannot but feed the infant whose fodder it is. and it stops when the teeth begin to form in infants mouth. mother cannot be the mother forever, unless the child is kept from growing. that would happen when the woman is afraid of her role as the provider and seeks to retain her identity even when her breasts are sagging with old age. the taught to believe in anything populace closes eyes in front of the alter or the image of god, so it does not see the old woman with the sagging breasts, which is covered with all the symbolic ornamentations invented to hide the hollowness within.
the big donors that the business created foundations are, give big to the institutions that have already amassed sums beyond their needs. and not accidently, but in all likelihood as a strategy on parts of the both, the recipient institution then invests its unspendable monies into the for profit business. thus in effect, the money is transferred from one pocket of the rich to his other pocket. since elections are won by the funding provided by the rich, it is unlikely that the congress can envision passing a law to prohibit such giving and receiving monies that are not put to the immediate use for the needy poor, requiring charity supported institutions to have a cap of income and not be allowed to invest in for profit business. but if the congress does not do such thing, the people can, by boycotting such institutions and business.
two of the biggest such recipients of the funds are the educational institutions and the church. when a university expands its course offering, or when religion expands its mission, spacious buildings and churches, temples and mosques are erected at the fabulous sums. and it helps only those who are not in need for help. the architects, engineers, contractors and all the rest of the suppliers and decorators. they are all make a handsome living created by the for profit way of life. all the rest of the suppliers and decorators. they all make a handsome living created by the for profit way of life.
the word: budhha < budh means to wake. open eyes, and not shut, and see who the god is other than the notion of authority governing all the programmed motions of life.
do you fear god? do you give as in charity out of a learnt trait or share with others as you would with the member of the family, cognizing all things and beings as the members of the cosmic family of elements? do you perceive the question as the first step in the motion of quest? and then, when knowing something that is starkly different from what all the people you know say they know, do you summon your gut feelings to give you strength when deserted by your fellow beings in organized search, as buddha was deserted, or being thrown out of train like gandhi, like mandela to spend many years in prison or like jesus and many like him to be hanged till death?
does the turtle shop for a new shell
or bear for fur-spray to groom well?
do birds invite bids to build them the nest
or fish for an aquarium to swim and rest?
does the fox hunt fowls only to hold
in deep freeze for other foxes until sold;
or the tiger going for the deer-round-up
to sell to other tigers the deer-meat ground-up?
do birds in a flock race
as commuters do to avoid the face
of the fellow worker, for the fear
that it extends the time of the suit they wear?
do creatures seek god and pray
for a juicy prey or to make their rivals sway
or for a good hunting ground they never found,
offering a fish or fowl to the almighty hound?
the answer to all that, we do know, is: no.
what we don't, is where else may we go
to live as it comes, here and now,
without the plethora of guides telling us how.